Plenary, 09 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, November 9, 2000

Official Report 645KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

We now move to First Minister's questions. Before we begin, I take this opportunity, on behalf of Parliament, to congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on their appointment by Her Majesty to membership of the Privy Council, which I am sure we all welcome. [Applause.]

---

Scottish Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's main priorities currently are. (S1F-637)

The Executive's priorities were set out clearly in "Making It Work Together: A Programme for Government", which was published last September. The Executive will be updating its priorities for future action in the light of the substantial progress that has already been made in making a difference for the people of Scotland.

I am sure that the Executive's priorities will be informed by the pre-budget report that was announced yesterday. The report contains many things that can be welcomed, some of which the SNP has been calling for for a considerable time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised yesterday that the Labour Government had failed pensioners, and agreed an increase of £5 a week for single pensioners. Does the First Minister recognise that the Scottish Executive is also failing pensioners? The single pension may be increasing by £5, but somebody who has to pay for personal care may have to pay 17 times as much as that for their care. Will the First Minister give Parliament a commitment that the Executive will pay for the personal care costs of the elderly?

John Swinney started off by saying that the SNP could welcome many of the proposals in yesterday's pre-budget statement. We all welcome the commitments, because they provide a substantial package to the pensioners of Scotland. Almost 900,000 people over the ages of 60 and 65 will be affected. A budget that will help 185,000 pensioners with the minimum income guarantee and will give 840,000 pensioners a pension above basic inflation—[Interruption.] There is no point in SNP members welcoming something and then not being willing to listen to find out what it is that they were applauding. I am making a vital point about how the budget will affect pensioners. Around 700,000 pensioner households will get another £50 as part of their winter fuel payment. That is a truly substantial package for Scottish pensioner households and we welcome it.

When I took over as First Minister, I was listening to what people in Scotland were saying about the Sutherland report and about care for our older people. I have already made it quite clear, in this chamber and in many interviews, that we are currently reviewing those matters as part of the review of policies that I have introduced. We have a clear commitment to older people in Scotland, which we take very seriously indeed. We already have in place a substantial package of measures covering domiciliary care and residential care. We are looking for—[Interruption.] Sir David, I wish that the SNP would stop this orchestrated and childish behaviour and listen to me. [Members: "Answer the question."] We are talking about the future of 900,000 pensioners in this country and all that we get from the SNP is persistent grubbing around at the margins.

We will not let our pensioners down. We will work in partnership to ensure that, with the excellent pre-budget statement, we continue to forge ahead. People will have to await the outcome of the review that is under way.

I hope that I misheard the First Minister. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he said that the issues that I was raising today were grubbing around at the margins. If that is what the First Minister said, I think that he had better correct the Official Report, because what I am doing today is seeking clarity.

The Minister for Health and Community Care has said that it would not be right to pay for personal care. The First Minister has said:

"Is what we have as a policy the right thing to do?"

I am asking him to clarify not whether there will be a review—we know that there will be a review—but whether the Executive is going to pay for the personal care costs of the elderly. Yes or no?

This has to be one of the defining lines between a party that will always be in opposition and a Government that has to take its responsibilities seriously. I think that many members will agree that I have gone a significant way along the road in saying that this is an issue of major importance to Scotland and to this Parliament and that I have agreed that it should be part of the review. That review's outcomes will be given not only to this Parliament but to the country. I think that that is a reasonable contribution to make at this stage.

I notice that the First Minister never corrected my assertion about what he said on the record. He had better remember the point that he made.

At the weekend, the First Minister said that

"every medical group, every local authority, the Sutherland people themselves, the PLP, the Liberal group, the opposition [are all agreed] . . . sometimes you just have to say to yourselves: ‘Well, look. There is a firm body of opinion. Is what we have as a policy the right thing to do?'"

If paying the personal care costs of the elderly is the right thing to do, does the First Minister accept that it is the right thing to do now? Will he do more than commit himself to a review at the end of an 18-month period of consultation? Will he tell Parliament when he will come to his conclusions and whether we will have to wait until the publication of the Labour party's next election manifesto for a policy commitment capable of being implemented, or will he indicate right now that the Executive will pay the personal care costs of the elderly?

I can understand why John Swinney is interested in the Labour party's campaign material for the next election, because what the nationalists produce will never be to the benefit of Scotland.

We have honoured a commitment to examine this issue seriously. No one would expect us to go further than that at this stage. I am convinced that John Swinney is not listening to a very positive story for Scotland and for the 900,000 pensioners about whom Gordon Brown was talking. Let us not take away the gloss from a very substantial package of measures that was announced yesterday at Westminster. When I said that the SNP grubbed around at the margins, I meant that this week John Swinney has been in Europe speaking to a half-empty room, talking down Scotland and discussing a Scottish pound. We are dealing with substantial policy issues in Scotland. We are not concerned with the symbolism of the nationalists.

Please stick to the subject matter of the question.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-643)

The Cabinet will next meet on 14 November, when we will discuss matters of significance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.

It seems to me that the Cabinet has been busy disowning what the First Minister described recently as a rich legacy. I read with great interest on Sunday that the First Minister intends to base his new policies on a philosophy called progressive pragmatism, which he stole from his political hero, an American called Cuomo—I did not realise that Perry had such influence. Could the First Minister take a few magic moments to tell us what he means by progressive pragmatism? Is it a vision that he shares with Dennis Canavan?

I hope that it is a vision that is not shared by the Conservative party. Let us return for a minute to the pre-budget statement, which meant so much for Scotland. It dealt with motorists, farmers, hauliers, families and, of course, pensioners. That is about pragmatism. More than that, it is about the important issues that face every family and household in Scotland. The Tories would have put all of that at risk, and they know it. Today I want them to explain to this chamber—

Grow up.

Get another idea.

They may not like it, but I want to find out where the £16 billion of cuts proposed by the Conservatives will come from. Why do they want to get rid of the winter fuel allowance, the free television licence for over-75s and the Christmas bonus? The whole of Scotland wants to know the answers to those questions. We will not take any lectures from the Tories about pragmatism. We believe that our links with the people of Scotland are vital and we want to strengthen them.

It is interesting that, in this Parliament, the First Minister cannot explain the profound philosophy that he claims as his own in one sentence. That shows that this is part of the same charade, with all the accompanying spin and flannel, that we are used to getting from new Labour. What about all the inconsistencies that the First Minister did not mention? He talks about dropping workplace parking taxes, but city entry tolls are still in place. He talks about spending more money on health, but NHS money is siphoned off to fund housing in Glasgow. The Executive hints that it will implement the main Sutherland recommendation, but not for another four years. Is not the truth of the matter that progressive pragmatism is not a philosophy but, as the First Minister put it only last week, more

"a ragbag of issues that are thought up on the back of an envelope"—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol 8, c 1346.]?

It sometimes seems that the Conservatives do not understand that things can only get better for them. We are dealing with policies; we make no apologies for that. On the one hand, we have an attempt to talk about policies through pragmatism; on the other, at least the SNP has put forward Sutherland. Let us remember that we have moved quickly to address some of the issues that this Parliament should be talking about.

When we talk about pragmatism, we also talk about being progressive. That is why the Executive, particularly Jack McConnell, are making progress in relation to the Scottish Qualifications Authority. That is why we are introducing a multi-million pound fund for local authority transport initiatives, why we will end workplace parking charges, why we are providing record funding for sport and why we are tackling the issue of confidence in the Scottish Tourist Board.

I make no apologies for coming to the dispatch box and saying that those are the policies that Scotland wants to see. I am afraid that Scotland is going to get more of them. We will lead from the front, despite the indifference and cynicism of the Conservatives.

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, will the First Minister raise the issue of the potential crisis that faces Scotland's fishing industry, given that cod stocks—which are vital for the Scottish fleet—may be at dangerously low levels? The European Union fisheries commissioner, Franz Fischler, visited Parliament today and spoke to MSPs. He indicated that the European funding programmes could be amended to allow compensation to be paid to the Scottish fishing fleet, should fishermen have to cease fishing for cod. Will the First Minister support that amendment? Will he make the necessary matching funding available to protect the viability of Scotland's coastal communities?

I acknowledge the importance of the issues that have been identified. Mr Fischler has visited the Parliament; Rhona Brankin and Ross Finnie have been in discussions with him. The major problem affecting cod stocks in the north Atlantic is a serious concern for our fishermen. There will be a meeting with the Commission on 17 November, which Rhona Brankin will attend to represent our interests along with those of the United Kingdom. Scientists have confirmed that there are major problems of depletion of stocks. Several options are being considered. We want to provide the best return for our fishermen in the difficult period ahead.

---

Floods

To ask the First Minister what measures are already in place to prevent flood damage in Scotland this winter and what further action it intends to take in this respect. (S1F-644)

The Executive's priorities were set out—forgive me, we are on question 3.

Local authorities have already constructed more than 50 flood prevention schemes. Additional resources were made available from the spending review to allow councils to take forward further flood defence measures. Given the disastrous consequences of flooding, I am sure that councils will be urgently reviewing what action they can take to reduce the risk of flooding.

I ask the First Minister to give assurances on two points. First, will he examine the planning system to ensure that no more residential developments are foolishly sited on low ground that is liable to flood? Secondly, will he—along the lines that he mentioned—agree a programme of priorities with local authorities to deal with flooding and fund that adequately? Given the choice between doing something more immediate—such as repairing a school—or dealing with potential floods, councils will naturally deal with the more immediate issue.

That question gives me the opportunity to make further remarks about the flooding. We were all grateful that we did not experience some of the difficulties that we saw in the south—especially in Yorkshire and the south-east.

I say to Donald Gorrie that we intend to take matters further. Local authorities and landowners have the first responsibilities, but Sam Galbraith is working hard to examine how best we can improve the situation.

Climate change will have consequences for Scotland and the United Kingdom over the next few years. In relation to the intensity and frequency of serious flooding, we can look forward—if that is the appropriate phrase—to an increase of between 5 and 15 per cent of such intense rainfall over the next 40 years. We therefore take this matter very seriously.

In addition to urging local authorities to consider their schemes and prepare new defences against flooding, we want to improve flood warnings. If a flood warning is given, the public should have the confidence to be able to react to it and get the necessary help much quicker. That is being considered. A meeting will soon be held with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, at which Sam Galbraith will examine new measures to be taken. We want to improve emergency communication measures.

Funding will be made available. Over the past few years, £4 million has been used each year for such activities. Over the next three years, that figure will rise to £8.5 million, £9 million and £10 million. There will be consequentials, as a result of the situation in England and Wales, from the £50 million that was announced by John Prescott at the weekend.

We intend to move rapidly to ensure that public confidence is inherent in the system. The environment is a crucial issue in Scotland and what we are doing now will help to allay fears and, more important, tackle what will be serious problems in the future if we do not reinforce our procedures.

Is the First Minister aware that the gaps in the banks of the Water of Leith are urgently in need of reinforcement and that other flood-prevention measures are required? Will he give sturdy advice and guidance to local authorities to put flood prevention measures effectively in place well in advance of flooding occurring—especially in such places as the Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association's old folk's home in Stockbridge, which Sam Galbraith and I visited a few days ago?

I am happy to give those assurances. We have a fairly settled pattern of difficulties in Scotland, as we have seen over the past few days. The local authorities must ensure that their defences are strengthened, and Sam Galbraith has asked them to do that. Other parts of Scotland will be affected over the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, so that advice is not just for the local authorities that are experiencing difficulties, but to ensure that other areas of Scotland, which might be affected and have scientific evidence to confirm that, will take the necessary steps so that public life and property are protected.

Will the First Minister assure my constituents and East Ayrshire Council that he will give due consideration to speeding up the process of agreeing flood prevention applications, thereby alleviating the persistent problems of the flooding of homes and businesses?

Again, I am happy to give that assurance. This situation demands strategic operations and getting the logistics right. Resources are available and I urge local authorities to ensure that they have done what Sam Galbraith has suggested—to review procedures. Whether in Kilmarnock or in other parts of Scotland, we are very willing to help, and I think that the local authorities will respond.

I am sure that the minister is aware that many embankment schemes simply push problems further downstream or upstream. Will the Executive take seriously the concepts that are being developed by groups such as the Forth Estuary Forum for managed retreat and for increasing the number of water meadows as part of the flood control measures?

The Executive is preparing a number of reports and is considering the science that is coming from global organisations for use in the future. We are also examining the quality of flood defence procedures and structures. We will seek to take advantage of the best available science to inform us of what is happening.

The point is well made about planning authorities and building—that is a commonsense issue. We hope that this issue will impact a bit more on some planning decisions than it has done in the past. However, we are keen not just to push problems further down the system. We must recognise that any steps that are taken may have a knock-on adverse effect on lives and property.

---

Budget (Devolved Matters)

To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Executive has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of the green budget regarding issues which impact on devolved matters. (S1F-641)

I am in regular contact with the chancellor to promote Scotland's interests in budget issues. His excellent financial stewardship, delivering sound public finances and a strong economy, benefited Scotland's budget in the spending review.

I am tempted to ask the First Minister whether he can name a petrol station in central Fife that sells low-sulphur fuel.

What did the First Minister say in his representations to the chancellor to defend the funding of Scottish public services? Did he mention that Scotland—the highest-taxed region of the United Kingdom—is sending a surplus of £3 billion of revenue over expenditure to the Treasury this year alone? According to the chancellor's statement yesterday, next year, the oil revenues will be worth more than £7,000 million—£1,400 per person in Scotland. Given the strength of Scotland's position, why will spending on health and education increase faster in the rest of the UK, as a result of the chancellor's policies, than in Scotland?

It is the same tired old story. However, despite the daily improvements that are being made for the future of Scotland and its people through the chancellor's pre-budget statement and our excellent spending commitments over the next three years, we find the SNP still clutching at political straws on every occasion. At the moment, there is a well-known television programme called "The Weakest Link"—the SNP is Scotland's weakest link.

In welcoming the chancellor's pre-budget statement, the First Minister might be aware that fewer than 15 petrol stations in Scotland offer low-sulphur diesel and petrol. In light of that fact, how practical is a pragmatism that offers tax cuts on products that no one can buy?

If Ben Wallace had been listening closely to the chancellor's statement, he would know about the coincidence of two factors: Scotland will be provided with low-sulphur petrol and diesel in April 2001, which is the date from which the new measures that he outlined will apply. As the chancellor has spelled out that point, there should be no controversy over or difficulty with it. Of course, the major oil companies will ensure that those measures are applied.

Will the First Minister comment on the billions of pounds of extra public spending in Scotland as a result of the chancellor's stewardship of the economy? Would those funds have been available if we had followed Andrew Wilson's economic programme for the SNP? If the funds were available in those circumstances, would they be better spent on embassies and armed forces than on health and education?

I notice that one of Andrew Wilson's latest press releases was sent out from Valencia—that visit obviously coincided with his colleague's visit to Brussels.

I agree with Hugh Henry. [Members: "Oh."] I am quite happy to say it again: I agree with Hugh Henry. We are talking about real investment from both Westminster and Edinburgh that will benefit the Scottish people.

I will finish on a topical note to show what we get from the SNP. Yesterday, Jackie Baillie—

That is not an answer.

The question is about policies, investment, equality and equal opportunities. That is important to us.

Yesterday, Fiona Hyslop had a great quote—perhaps I should start a competition. She said that Jackie Baillie's equality strategy was

"self-congratulatory, navel-gazing mince, which will mean hee-haw"—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 8, c 1426.]

to people in Scotland. That sums up the differences between us. The Executive is taking the politics and the people of Scotland seriously; the SNP still means "Still No Policies" and it is still playing games.

That brings us to the end of question time. We now move to the debate—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, I have been approached by committee members from three parties who are as concerned as I am at plans for an SNP debate on community care next week. That will happen only a matter of days before the publication of a committee report on which members from all parties have been working for 10 months. Committee members, including party spokespeople, will be in danger of revealing the content of a private report. In light of that fact, I seek your guidance on this matter and ask you to use your influence to delay the debate until after the report's publication so that all members can benefit from it.

That is not really a matter for me; no doubt the Parliamentary Bureau will consider the situation at its meeting next Tuesday. However, in the interests of harmony in the chamber, I urge members to discuss the matter informally among themselves and see whether they can reach agreement on how to handle it.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You will have noticed that, despite the fact that you ran three minutes over the allocated time, we reached only question 4 in the business bulletin. One of the major problems was the First Minister's misunderstanding of what First Minister's questions are. He did not really answer any questions; indeed, at one stage, he was even asking questions. Could you perhaps advise the First Minister on how to answer questions?

As I have said many times, ministerial answers are not a matter for the chair.