Plenary, 10 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, February 10, 2005

Official Report 712KB 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-1430)

First of all, I hope that all members will want to join me in congratulating His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles on the announcement of their wedding in April. [Applause.] We certainly look forward to continuing our work with them both, as the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, when they are in Scotland in the years to come.

At the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet, we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland.

I echo the First Minister's comments and I congratulate the Scottish band Franz Ferdinand on its stunning success last night. [Applause.]

Today, people all over Scotland will find out how much more they will be hit for in council tax next year. Is the First Minister concerned that the average increase will be more than double the rate of inflation?

Given that local government in Scotland has received a 5.5 per cent increase in resources from central Government for the coming financial year on top of the substantial resource increase of about 40 per cent in the five years since devolution, I believe that local authorities should be able to get closer to the rate of inflation than many of them have been predicting, and I think that today's figures might show that that is, indeed, the case.

Is the First Minister aware that councils, most of which are run by his party, say that council tax hikes—and they will be hikes—are his fault? That view has been echoed by one of his own back benchers, Kate Maclean, who has demanded that the Government explain why it has set such a low level of budget settlement this year.

Is not it the case that, two months ago, English councils got an extra £1 billion to keep council tax down and that Scotland has had its share of that money? The straight question for the First Minister is why he has not handed that cash over to Scottish councils to let them keep council tax down here in Scotland.

That is not true. The additional resources that were allocated to English local authorities in November totalled about £120 million and we in Scotland received £12 million for that. As I have said before in the chamber, council tax increases in Scotland have been and will continue to be consistently lower than those in England. That is a good thing for local authority management in Scotland, as are the resources that have been received from the devolved Government.

There has been an increase of 40 per cent in the past five years and there will be an increase for next year of 5.5 per cent, which is well above the rate of inflation. Therefore, local authorities should be able to get their increases closer to the rate of inflation than many of them have been predicting. I notice one or two particularly high increases from councils with which Ms Sturgeon might want to be associated.

The hard fact is that action has been taken to help English council tax payers, but the First Minister has not lifted a finger to help council tax payers here in Scotland. I invite him to come down from his ivory tower and to see the matter from the point of view of real people all over Scotland. What is the reality for them? It is eight consecutive council tax rises—under Labour; a rise this year of more than double the rate of inflation—under Labour; and an overall increase since 1997 of 55 per cent—under Labour. Does the First Minister not realise that because of the council tax, pensioners and hard-working families are struggling to make ends meet under Labour? Is it not time for him to do something about that and to axe the unfair council tax?

A few weeks ago in the chamber, in relation to the council tax, Ms Sturgeon proposed that we should cut £450 million from local authority budgets during the next few years. That would have a devastating impact on the poorest sections of Scottish society, in particular on Scottish pensioners. The local authority services that are provided in Scotland remain of the highest importance to us. At the same time, they are properly funded by the devolved Government. A 5.5 per cent increase has been allocated to Scottish local government next year, and there has been a 40 per cent increase in resources during the past five years.

There is a responsibility on Scottish local authorities to have efficient, properly managed budgets, to deliver the improvements in services that we are funding and, at the same time, to keep council tax rises to a minimum. That goes as much for places such as Angus and Falkirk as it does for anywhere else.

Today, council tax rises will be more than double the rate of inflation. If the First Minister had listened, he would know that I have argued that money that the Executive has already cut out of local council budgets should be used to help council tax payers, and that the help given to council tax payers in England should now be given to Scottish council tax payers. Is it not the case that the First Minister has consistently failed to answer the question of what he is prepared to do to ease the burden on council tax payers, whose bills have gone up by 55 per cent under Labour?

Ms Sturgeon recently mentioned her legal degree in the chamber; I sometimes find it a pity that she does not have a maths degree. The 5.5 per cent increase in local authority resources in Scotland is more than three times the rate of inflation. There is absolutely no need for local authorities to make excessive council tax increases. In any case, I point out to Ms Sturgeon that the 5.5 per cent increase in the resources available to local authorities is just that: it is an increase, not a cut. It will fund improved services in our schools and nurseries and will improve services in social work, transport, the police and a range of other areas. At the same time, councils have a responsibility to manage their budgets efficiently, to keep rises to a minimum and to ensure that the substantial resources that they receive from this devolved Government are used properly to the benefit of the people in their areas.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I associate the Conservative party with the remarks made by the First Minister and Ms Sturgeon about the forthcoming marriage of the His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay and Mrs Parker Bowles.

The First Minister, in his response to—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry. I beg your pardon. I have to ask the question.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1431)

I have no plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.

In his response to Ms Sturgeon, the First Minister alluded to his degree in mathematics. I want to set out for him an appalling equation that is coming to light today. A court decision made today means that prisoners in our jails will be set for multimillion-pound compensation payments over slopping out as a result of disastrous political decisions taken by the First Minister and his deputy back in 1999. As we have heard, the very same day, people will hear the announcement of higher council tax bills. Is not that an appalling equation of more taxes on the one hand and more wasted money on the other?

I am happy to give Mr McLetchie an example of both. As far as the council tax is concerned, we all know that in every single year since devolution in Scotland council tax increases have been less than they were in each of the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. As a result, I will take no lectures on council tax increases from him.

As for wasting public money and the lack of investment in public infrastructure, I point out that we are only now getting close to ending slopping out in Scottish prisons—which, after all, was stopped in English prisons a considerable time ago—because, when the Conservative Government was in power, it refused to invest in new prisons in Scotland or in changes that would have ended the practice. The court case that has been before us over the past few months is a direct result of the Conservatives' decisions back in the mid-1990s to invest only in English prisons, not in Scottish prisons, and to leave Scottish prisoners to slop out.

People in Scotland are not interested in the higher council tax bills that they received from Labour councils in 1995; they are interested in the higher bills that they will receive from Labour councils in 2005. The First Minister should get up to date with the issues that concern people.

As for the First Minister's claim in relation to slopping out, I point out that the judgment of Lord Bonomy in the first instance made it absolutely clear that the decisions on budget allocations and to stop the completion of the prison estate improvement programme—a programme initiated by the Conservatives—that the Scottish Executive took in 1999 are what led to the compensation claims and to a situation in which at least £160 million will be wasted. Will the First Minister apologise for that appalling waste of public money?

I fail to see how not spending money is an appalling waste of public money. That seems a strange equation to use.

I say, yet again, that the fact that there has still been slopping out in Scottish prisons in recent years is a direct result of the decision of the previous Conservative Government to invest in ending slopping out in English prisons but not to make the same investment in Scotland. At the time, the Conservatives were probably trying to pay for a botched reorganisation of Scottish local government with resources that could have been used elsewhere. It is to the credit of those who have invested national public resources in local services that, in recent years, we have seen consistently lower council tax increases in Scotland than south of the border, and consistently lower council tax increases in Scotland than there had been for several years.

However, increases must be as reasonable as possible. That is why, with an increase of 5.5 per cent in council budgets for next year—from this Government's coffers—and with a 40 per cent increase in council resources over the past five years, councils have a duty and a responsibility to have the most efficient budgets possible and the lowest council tax increases possible. I hope that all of them will take heed of that message today.

The First Minister has a responsibility to ensure that all the millions of pounds of savings that he says he will make through his efficiency drive are, in part, returned to the council tax payers of Scotland, who are having to shell out fortunes to have local services provided by their councils.

I want to return to the points about slopping out and the money. In the judgment of the court, Lord Bonomy said that the situation arose because the Scottish Executive

"took a deliberate decision not to address"

cell conditions

"when they both had the resources and the capacity to do so".

That was the judgment of the court; why will the First Minister not accept that judgment?

The judgment was subject to appeal and may yet be subject to further appeals, despite today's news. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the judgment in detail in this chamber—as I am sure Mr McLetchie, with his background, knows.

It is appropriate to point out that the sum of money that Mr McLetchie quotes would not even have paid for the recent extension to the prison here in Edinburgh. Directly equating the sum of money to the ending of slopping out in Scottish prisons is simply not accurate.

I return to my previous point. The fact that, in the late 1990s and early 21st century, we have still had slopping out in Scotland's prisons when it does not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom is a direct result of the investment decisions of the previous Conservative Government. It is only now that we have proper decisions on investment in capital infrastructure for Scotland's prisons—as well as in our roads, schools, hospitals and other important areas of public life in Scotland—that we are making the difference that brings Scotland into the 21st century.

---

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-1449)

I do not have a formal meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow, but I intend to see him tomorrow. We will discuss how to ensure that, in the aftermath of any United Kingdom election that might be held this year, Scotland and the rest of Britain continue to go forwards and not backwards.

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming the first environment week in the Parliament, which is currently under way and was organised by Scottish Environment LINK. At last night's Scottish Environment LINK reception, the First Minister accepted—very honestly and clearly—that some of Scotland's environmental record has been pretty poor. However, he made another important point on the G8 and climate change. He said:

"the single most damaging decision made by any government in the last ten years was the United States decision not to sign up to Kyoto."

Will the First Minister confirm that statement today and commit to ensuring that George Bush and Tony Blair hear the point when the G8 comes to Scotland in July? Perhaps he could do that through his meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The British Prime Minister has perhaps not used such specific language, but he has made a similar point in calling on the American Government to sign the Kyoto protocol. It is essential that we maintain the pressure on the United States of America to recognise its responsibilities not just to present and future generations of its own citizens, but to the citizens of the rest of the world. The USA creates far too much of the world's pollution. It has a duty and a responsibility to help to alleviate the world's pollution and to ensure that, in years to come, the environment is much better than it is today.

I warmly thank the First Minister for that answer. I am sure that he will agree that it is important that, when the G8 comes here, there is no embarrassment about Scotland's contribution to climate change. According to research by the national environmental technology centre, between 1990 and 2002, emissions for the United Kingdom as a whole fell by 14.9 per cent, those for England fell by 18 per cent and those for Wales fell by 8.6 per cent but, over the same period, Scotland's emissions fell by only 5 per cent. In other words, our emissions are not falling as quickly as those of other parts of the UK. Does the First Minister agree that it is important that, before July this year, we are able to show clearly and convincingly how we will catch up with England and Wales on reducing CO2 emissions?

I do not have the specific figures in front of me, but I believe that we need to update and refresh our strategy for tackling climate change in Scotland. That is precisely why we have embarked on a review of the policy. I hope that members of all parties will contribute to that review, because I believe that the issue should—at least at times—cross party boundaries. In the spirit of this week's environment week and of the great work that Scottish Environment LINK does to publicise environmental issues throughout the year, I hope that we can move forward not only by influencing in our own way what happens at the G8 summit, but by ensuring that we have in place the right policies to reduce pollution and to help with climate change here in Scotland.

Members will want to join me in welcoming Philippe Auberger, the president of the France-UK friendship group, and a delegation of members from the National Assembly. [Applause.]

---

Fresh Talent Initiative

To ask the First Minister how the United Kingdom Government's reform of the immigration and asylum system will assist the fresh talent initiative. (S2F-1439)

The Home Office five-year strategy for asylum and immigration acknowledges the specific challenges that face Scotland due to our falling population and emphasises the importance of having flexibilities within the UK system. It puts us in a stronger position to attract fresh talent to Scotland, by using the new graduate student leave to remain scheme and other initiatives.

Does the First Minister share my dismay at the Conservative party's call for fixed quotas, the disparaging remarks that a Conservative spokesperson made this week about Scotland as a place to settle and the call that the Scottish National Party leader made on Monday for there to be two different immigration policies within the UK? Under that proposal, I presume that Alex Salmond would have to have a visa check when he went to work each week. Are any of those developments offside distracting the First Minister from getting on with attracting new Scots through the fresh talent initiative?

Not only does the nonsense that we hear from the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party not distract me from that important initiative, but it encourages me to speed up and to make further progress with it.

Dominic Grieve of the Conservatives said:

"Scotland is not a very attractive place for people to come and settle."

Frankly, he should come and enjoy the benefits of living in Scotland for a month or so. If he did, he might not make such a statement again. By the same token, for the nationalist party to claim that the best way to attract more people to Scotland is to erect more borders and barriers on the outskirts of the country is for it to engage in fantasy-land politics. We need to have not only a strong UK immigration system but, crucially, specific measures here in Scotland that promote our country as a great place to visit and in which to live, study and work and which allow people who want to come here to contribute to our economy and the future of our communities.

I will leave aside the problems that the fresh talent initiative is experiencing from without and address some of the flaws that it is experiencing from within. I refer the First Minister to a letter in The Herald today from Professor Anthony Cohen, the principal of Queen Margaret University College in Edinburgh. Although he praises the scheme, he indicates that, on a trip to Singapore and India from which he has just returned, he was dismayed to learn from British Council representatives that

"they have been instructed not to advertise Fresh Talent further, not least because they have been unable to elicit any further guidance about it from the Scottish Executive."

If the Executive cannot get its act together, how can the people of Scotland have any faith in it?

I do not want to question the letter or its writer—I do not know the gentleman concerned and do not want to question his personal credibility—but by raising that point, Kenny MacAskill is making a disgraceful slur on the British Council, which has been one of the best supporters of the fresh talent initiative. At its events—including one in Edinburgh just before Christmas, which SNP members attended, at which the British Council promoted our fresh talent initiative to its representatives from all over the globe and encouraged them to work with the embassies and consulates around the world to promote the initiative—the British Council has been a great supporter of the initiative, and to criticise it for a lack of support is wrong. It is helping to deliver the initiative rather than talking Scotland down like the SNP does.

Does the First Minister realise that a woman came into my surgery the other day—[Interruption.] Do members mind? This is a serious question. That woman has a PhD in statistics, but her visa runs out at the end of February and she graduates early in the summer. She is from Cameroon and, if she graduated later in the year, she could take advantage of the fresh talent initiative, but because her graduation date falls before the scheme starts, she will have to return to Africa and apply to come back to the UK. Will the First Minister consider extending the initiative back to 1 January 2005 to allow all of this year's graduates to take up the scheme?

To allow the new scheme—which is to Scotland's direct benefit and is supported by the UK Government and the Home Office—to operate properly, all the right regulations and procedures must be in place, and it cannot start until they are.

---

European Development Funding

To ask the First Minister how infrastructure development in the Highlands and Islands will be affected by the European Commission's audit of European regional development fund projects. (S2F-1447)

I do not expect infrastructure development in the Highlands and Islands to be adversely affected by the European Commission's audit of European regional development fund projects.

It is hard to see whose interest was served by leaks to the BBC of the draft interim European Commission audit documents on objective 1 projects. The Scottish Executive's silence on its responsibilities, as highlighted in the audit, which is confirmed today, is deafening. Will the First Minister guarantee that no programmes in the Highlands and Islands will suffer as a result of the audit and that proper procedures for monitoring European spending in Scotland are in place? Will he detail what action he is taking in Brussels to support the Highlands' claim for future European Union structural funding? Independent analysis shows that too many areas in my region have a lower gross domestic product than do parts of recent accession states in eastern Europe.

Of course, we will fight extremely hard to ensure that the maximum resources are available to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and I am convinced that, should Tony Blair and Gordon Brown be re-elected to the positions of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer following any election that might take place this year, they will deliver for the Highlands and Islands in the same way as they did in the previous negotiations in 1999.

I will comment on the general issue of the audit procedures that the Executive is currently challenging. Mr Gibson has perhaps missed it, but Allan Wilson has never been off the television and the radio, commenting on the matter and explaining the Executive's position. In doing so, he has been talking accurately and truthfully about the issue, unlike the member for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, from whom we have heard inaccurate rubbish. This week, he said that the audit, which relates to the years 1994 to 1999 was

"the most devastating example of financial mismanagement since devolution."

I believe that the Parliament was created in 1999. The situation has nothing to do with devolution.

By properly challenging the situation, by providing the facts and by ensuring that the current audit is properly completed, we hope to ensure that the Highlands and Islands are properly protected.

Does the First Minister agree that European structural funds have helped to improve life and work in the Highlands greatly? Does the First Minister agree that the £200 million of transitional funding, which was secured five years ago by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is being properly and sensibly spent? Incidentally, that £200 million was once described by the SNP as a disaster for the Highlands and Islands. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the cretinous remarks of SNP members, who have done nothing but undermine decent, hard-working public servants in local authorities in the Highlands and Islands and throughout the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network?

It would be wise of me not to comment on the audit until it is complete. We believe that, with the proper information, the issues will be properly dealt with once the audit is complete. I endorse the member's remarks about the importance of European funding to the Highlands and Islands over the years. The investment in infrastructure has made a real difference. It is through the negotiating power of Great Britain, alongside the actions of the Scottish devolved Government, that the best representations will be made for the Highlands and Islands in the years to come.

I would have thought that the Scottish Executive would have learned a lesson after its mathematical incompetence caused the Highlands and Islands to lose objective 1 status and millions of pounds of grants.

Allan Wilson has denied that £21 million might have to be repaid to the European Union. Will the First Minister give the Parliament an assurance on the issue, given that all the 14 projects that were inspected failed the auditors' initial inspection test and that a second inspection by the European Commission is due shortly? Is this yet another appalling equation produced by the Executive's financial mismanagement?

Highlands and Islands politicians would serve their constituents better if they backed up the projects that have received the funding and argued that they should retain the money. The sort of comments that we hear from Jamie McGrigor, Fergus Ewing and Rob Gibson encourage the European Commission to take back the money from such projects, and they are very unwise to make them. The current audit is part of the way through—it is not yet complete—and the proper representations have been made to the Commission. If any resources were ever taken back, they would come from the projects themselves—from the businesses and local public projects in the Highlands and Islands that have been financed. However, that is something that we are doing all that we can to avoid, rather than to encourage, as the Opposition parties seem to be doing.

It is interesting to note that Audit Scotland, which has audited Highlands and Islands Enterprise, reports no concerns to the Scottish Parliament's Audit Committee about how Highlands and Islands Enterprise implements the various programmes concerned. Will the First Minister assure us that everything possible will be done to ensure that this matter is drawn to a conclusion quickly and that we win our fair share of funding during the negotiations leading up to 2006, during which so many members seem determined to ensure that we damn ourselves and lose the investment that is badly needed in the Highlands and Islands?

Absolutely. I have absolute confidence in the truthfulness, accuracy and credibility of the people in the Highlands and Islands, in both the public and private sectors, who have used European money well over the past few years. I do not accept that they should be condemned either by the Commission auditors or by the Opposition parties in the Parliament. We will continue to defend them before the European auditors. We will argue their case to retain the money that they were right to spend on their projects. Thereby, we will ensure that the credibility of European programmes in Scotland remains intact.

---

Economic Success

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive measures economic success. (S2F-1433)

Our top priority as a devolved Government is to help to achieve a sustainable increase in Scotland's long-term growth rate. I would measure economic success in a number of ways, but employment and unemployment levels are central to that.

The First Minister might be aware of the publication this week of the Federation of Small Businesses index of success, written not by a Conservative economist but by John McLaren, former adviser to the First Minister's predecessors. Does the First Minister agree that the fact that the report ranks Scotland last out of 10 nations with populations of less than 9 million puts into perspective the First Minister's oft-repeated claim that Scotland is the best small country in the world? Furthermore, will the First Minister acknowledge that as Scotland has, according to the report, fallen four places in the rankings since 1990, here is conclusive proof, from a Labour economist, that we were better off under the Tories?

Let us take some of the indicators that I mentioned earlier. What were the figures for unemployment in Scotland back in the days to which Murdo Fraser wants us to return? Just 10 years ago, unemployment in Scotland was more than double what it is today. If we go back 20 years, to the very heart of the Conservative Government to which Murdo Fraser wants us to return, unemployment in Scotland was nearly four times what it is today. I do not want to return to those days; I would rather be where we are today here in Scotland, with the second-highest employment levels in the European Union and the lowest unemployment that we have had in the whole of my adult life.

Frankly, the Conservatives have taken a survey that I would strongly dispute. Scotland is not the worst small country in the world, and it is nonsense to suggest that that is the case, much as the Conservatives might enjoy doing that. However, the Federation of Small Businesses says in its survey that we in Scotland need to do more about health improvement, and I agree with that absolutely, so I challenge the Conservatives to put their votes where their mouths are, to vote for the smoking ban in the Parliament later this year, and to ensure that that health improvement comes about.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—