Plenary, 10 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, November 10, 2005

Official Report 699KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

I ask members to give a warm welcome to His Excellency Josep Borrell Fontelles, who is in the Presiding Officer's gallery. Mr Borrell is the President of the European Parliament. [Applause.]

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1907)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again reasonably soon.

Whoever he may be. I refer the First Minister to the Prime Minister's defeat yesterday on the Terrorism Bill, which many people believe was down to his arrogance and point-blank refusal to listen to reason. Is the First Minister concerned that the Lord Advocate was not consulted in advance on the proposed 90-day detention period?

Our officials and officials of the Home Office and other departments in the United Kingdom Government were in regular contact in recent months on that and related matters, just as we are in regular contact about the fight against terrorism and the precautions that it is necessary to take in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. I believe strongly that the jobs of Scottish members of Parliament, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Advocate General for Scotland—the law officer in the UK Parliament who makes recommendations and gives advice to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary—are important. I know that the Scottish National Party would like to abolish all those jobs, but they are important roles that people should be elected or appointed to carry out, just as we in this Parliament are elected to carry out our duties.

May I remind the First Minister that I asked him specifically about the Lord Advocate? Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, confirmed that the Lord Advocate was not consulted and did not express a view. I refer the First Minister to the agreement between the Executive and the Home Office, which makes it clear that whenever the exercise of a reserved power impacts on devolved responsibilities, there should be consultation in advance.

Surely the First Minister concedes that the provisions in the Terrorism Bill have huge implications for the separate Scottish legal system, the police, the Crown Office, the judiciary and Scottish citizens. In light of that, is it not the case that if the First Minister had been doing his job properly, he would have insisted that the Lord Advocate, like the Attorney General in England, was consulted formally and in detail before the proposals were brought forward?

There have been considerable discussions about the detail, as I just tried to explain to Ms Sturgeon, although she may wish to ignore that fact. The Lord Advocate, supported by other ministers, has taken the principled position that the laws relating to terrorism—in particular those relating to the investigation of terrorist suspects—should be the same throughout the United Kingdom.

If Ms Sturgeon wishes to have a different set of laws in Scotland, which would perhaps make life for a potential terrorist a little bit more attractive in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, she should think carefully about that position. I believe, as do ministers, the Lord Advocate and, I hope, anybody who is serious about the issue, that the position should be the same throughout the United Kingdom. There should not be different laws in different parts of the UK. That is the best way for us to stand united and ensure that we are properly prepared for any potential terrorist attack.

We all want to tackle terrorism, but we have a duty to resist proposals that will hinder, not help, the fight against it. I remind the First Minister that in Scotland we have a separate legal system, and that laws, even if they apply throughout the United Kingdom, have specific implications for that separate legal system. Is it not therefore beyond argument that with such a serious matter affecting devolved responsibilities, not only should the Lord Advocate have been consulted, but the First Minister should have made clear the Executive's position? Will the First Minister admit that the reason why he did not do so is that there were deep divisions in the Executive and that it was not unanimous in its support of 90-day detention? Rather than tell the Prime Minister that and be clear about it, the First Minister chose to abdicate responsibility and stay silent.

It is not exactly rocket science to work out that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have different positions on the issue, but at least ours are positions of principle on which both parties have been consistent for many years. We may disagree, but at least we believe in what we say. To reduce discussion of the issue to a debate about the powers of, or the extent of discussion between, the two Administrations is to belittle its importance.

There are serious questions for us to ask in this country, not just about the laws that should be adopted—although, unlike Ms Sturgeon, I believe that the laws should be consistent throughout the UK—but about why young Asian British citizens choose to take up the bomb against their counterparts and fellow British citizens; about multicultural relations in the country; and about how we turn round the situation and legislate to deal with the threat that it poses. Those questions require serious attention by serious people, not debates about constitutional powers or about who sent which letter to whom. We need discussions that address the issues and might eventually help to solve the problem.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

We come to question 2. I call Miss Annabel Goldie. [Applause.]

I thank members for that reaction, which was distinctively different from one that I have received in recent times. It is welcome; may it set a precedent.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1908)

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

What happened yesterday in another place was instructive for the First Minister—it was a salutary lesson from the Prime Minister on what happens when a leader pushes his back benchers down a road that they do not want to go down. I hope that the First Minister will regard the recent experiences and defeat of his colleague Tony Blair as instructive in that regard, because, this week in this Parliament of ours, at the instigation of my Conservative colleague Margaret Mitchell, the Justice 1 Committee decided to lengthen the proposed time limits in relation to quickie divorces. Will the First Minister heed the lesson of Tony Blair's experience and accept the proposals that the amendments to the Family Law (Scotland) Bill have created?

We might not discuss the issue at next week's Cabinet meeting, but we discussed it at yesterday's meeting. Through that committee decision, members of different parties have expressed a view that requires our attention. We have four or five weeks before the stage 3 debate on the bill in which to come to a view on whether to accept the committee's decision. We will give the matter serious consideration and we will announce our intention to the Parliament in the appropriate way.

I thank the First Minister for what I accept as a serious response but, when a committee of the Parliament that is part of a structure that was created to be a virtue of the institution expresses a clear view about an issue that is important to many communities in Scotland, we are all entitled to greater clarity than that which the First Minister has just provided. If the Executive is not willing to accept the sensible amendments that have been made to the bill, will the First Minister at least grant a free vote on the matter at stage 3?

It is important to respond to the answer, rather than read out a pre-prepared question. My point was a serious one. The committee has made a clear decision and it is incumbent on ministers to reflect on it, come to a measured decision of our own and return to the Parliament with that view. The original recommendation came from an independent report of the Scottish Law Commission on the reform of the law in Scotland; it did not come from ministers or a party manifesto. We put the recommendation to the Parliament in the bill, following at least three consultations which, in general, reflected support for the measure, although the support was never comprehensive or unanimous. We realised that the subject would be up for debate in the Parliament and the committee. The committee has now spoken on the issue and we will reflect on its decision, which we take seriously.

I wonder whether Miss Goldie is suggesting that, under her leadership of the Conservative party, the Conservatives in the Parliament will accept and vote for every decision of every committee. That will not be the case for the Conservatives and it will not be the case for the Executive either.

---

Council Tax Bills

To ask the First Minister whether it is still the Scottish Executive's position that council tax bills need not rise by more than 2.5 per cent next year. (S2F-1919)

Yes.

I thank the First Minister for that concise answer and hope that I get two equally concise answers in response to my next two questions. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities does not have much time for the First Minister's figures; indeed, some of his own ministers do not agree with the figures. COSLA believes that the average rise will be around double the First Minister's estimate, and that is before the much-needed equal-pay deals agreed by local authorities are taken into account. Is it not the case that council tax bills have risen by 101 per cent in the past decade and that the burden of that unfair Tory tax falls heaviest on those who are least able to afford it?

First, I need to make it crystal clear that it would be entirely wrong of any Government simply to accept in-year estimates from local authorities of their increases next year and to say that those figures are acceptable, regardless of the levels. Given the funding settlement that has been agreed for local government next year, unless local authorities decide to increase their expenditure through decisions of their own free will, there is no need for them to increase council tax by more than 2.5 per cent next year. That consistent position is proven by the facts and figures. As I have said before in the chamber, and as I remind Mr Fox now, in every year since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, not only have council tax increases in Scotland been less than council tax increases in the rest of the United Kingdom, but they have been less than the increases in every one of the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. That is a record that shows not only that there has been a decent level of investment in local services by the Executive but that local authorities have been mindful of the cost to local taxpayers, have taken that seriously and, by and large, have kept their increases to a minimum.

The chamber will have noticed that that answer was nowhere near as concise as the first one. It is clear that the First Minister is completely wedded to the council tax. Is it not the case that he does not give a damn how high the council tax rises because it is not he or his ministers who will suffer hardship in paying it but others who have to shoulder that burden? It is time to scrap the council tax.

Mr Fox, is there a question?

There is indeed.

Well, I would like it now please.

Will the minister support the progressive alternative, which is to scrap the council tax and replace it with a tax that is based on income?

First, of course we care about council tax increases. That is precisely why by next year we will have increased Government funding for local authorities in Scotland by more than 50 per cent. That is a sizeable increase, which has helped to fund improvements in local services from central Government resources, rather than relying on the council tax.

When Mr Fox talks about abolishing the council tax, he never points out to the chamber the implications of the policy that he would wish us to adopt. Although he is not willing to stand up and spell it out, we all know that households of people with fairly moderate incomes, where two people are living together and both are working, would pay significantly more under his proposals. We also know that, under the proposals of Colin Fox and the Scottish Socialist Party, we would have a national tax policy for local government in Scotland, rather than the opportunity for local authorities to make decisions based on the elections. Local people in every part of Scotland would have no say whatever over local taxation; if they were unhappy about the level, they could not vote their councillors out of office. That might happen in the kind of state that the SSP wants to create, but it will not happen in Scotland.

Because of the obvious inequalities and unfairness in the council tax system and the serious flaws in the service tax that the First Minister has outlined, surely the only option for the future is the introduction of a local income tax.

I am looking forward to that debate at the 2007 election.

---

Speed Cameras

To ask the First Minister what research has been carried out into the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing motor accidents and saving lives. (S2F-1913)

A wide range of research studies confirms that speed cameras reduce accidents and casualties at camera sites. Those studies include the UK safety camera programme independent report and the Transport Research Laboratory report.

Does the First Minister accept that the first three months of operation of the SPECS system on a 46km stretch of the A77 has resulted in significant reductions in speeds and accidents and that the remainder of the A77 in my constituency continues to be used for speeding? Will he consider extending the SPECS pilot on the A77 to cover it up to the M77 and thereby further reduce speeds and accidents on the road?

I am not sure what the national and local decision-making breakdown is on that issue, but if Margaret Jamieson makes the point that she has just made to me to the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, he will give a response that is within his power to give.

Margaret Jamieson's example shows how speed cameras are working effectively on a dangerous stretch of road. I am not convinced that there should be compulsory speed cameras everywhere and that they should be along the full length of every stretch of road—I hope that that is not being suggested. However, speed cameras have a role to play.

In 2004, more than 3,000 people were killed or seriously injured on Scotland's roads as a result of road accidents. We have a duty to take action to reduce the number of accidents and to ensure that fewer people are killed or seriously injured on Scotland's roads. Speed cameras have a role to play in that respect. This week, people have claimed that speed cameras cause more damage than they prevent. They are wildly wrong, and it is hard to believe that they are being taken at all seriously.

I am pleased that the First Minister supports the work of safety camera partnerships. Does he agree that it is perfectly reasonable that members of safety camera partnerships must make up any shortfall when a partnership fails to bring in enough money to cover its budget, but that it is entirely unreasonable for the Treasury to take money when a partnership is in surplus? Does he therefore agree that any surplus money that is generated—the total was £1.2 million in 2003-04—should be retained by the safety camera partnerships and ploughed back into additional road safety measures? There would be no additional cost, as the money would come from surplus funds. Will he commit himself to taking up that issue with the Treasury and to fighting for the retention of that additional source of funds? Will he commit himself to fighting so that that money is used to cut road deaths and injuries in Scotland rather than being lost to the Treasury?

That sounds reasonable, but we should tell the full story—Stewart Maxwell does not want the full story to be told. The money that goes back to the Treasury goes into the United Kingdom Government's finances, and Scotland gets back far more per head of population from those finances than it would receive if the money was kept in Scotland. The SNP wants to give all of that money back to England and Wales and not to keep it in Scotland. It would prefer Scotland to be disadvantaged, to have fewer services, poorer roads and less access to public transport simply because of the political principle that Scotland should not receive cross-subsidies from across the United Kingdom. I do not agree with those who say that there should not be such a pooled resource in the UK, or that we should not benefit from it. The SNP should admit that its solutions would cost Scotland money. We do not agree with the SNP, because we put Scotland first.

Is the First Minister aware that research that has been done for the UK Department for Transport has found that enforcing speed limits could reduce pollution from vehicles by as much as 10 per cent? Does he therefore recognise that properly enforcing the law benefits us not only by reducing the horrific number of accidents, injuries and deaths, which the First Minister mentioned, but by improving the wider environment?

I welcome the extremely helpful and constructive point that Mark Ballard makes. He has provided an additional argument in favour of speed controls on our roads. I am talking not only about speed cameras in specific locations but about 20mph limits and other restrictions that we have introduced in recent years, which are making a difference to the number of accidents that occur and to excessive fumes.

Given the increase in the number of speed cameras, is the First Minister satisfied that sufficient action is being taken to ensure that there are still patrol cars monitoring traffic to catch motorists who are driving erratically and who might be under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs?

That is an important part of the duties of our police forces. They must balance their resources between the pursuit of dangerous or potentially dangerous motorists with their other duties in the community, where they need to tackle antisocial behaviour and serious crime. There is a balance to be struck in our police forces. That is why operational responsibility for the allocation of police officers—whose number is currently at record level—lies with the chief constables and their staff.

---

Police Forces (Extended Powers)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Home Office in respect of extended powers for Scottish police forces as a result of the Terrorism Bill. (S2F-1915)

Both Scottish Executive and Crown Office officials have been involved with United Kingdom Government officials in discussions about the Terrorism Bill. From an early stage in the bill's development, Executive and Crown Office officials have provided technical advice to ensure that the bill takes account of Scots law.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and for making clear earlier the different positions of our two parties on the Terrorism Bill. I give my support to those who have welcomed the defeat of the Government's illiberal proposal for three-month detention without charge. I hope that the Government will now reconsider its position on the issue of the glorification of terrorism.

Does the First Minister agree with me that the Terrorism Bill could have a significant impact on the Scottish police and prosecution services, and that it is the duty of the Scottish Executive to ensure that the bill's consequences are known and made clear? Will he therefore ensure that the Executive and the Lord Advocate are fully consulted as we go forward from here, whether we are dealing with 90-day or 28-day detention, or indeed with any other reserved matters that impinge on our justice system?

Although the policy responsibility clearly lies with the UK Government and Cabinet, it is of course right that we are involved in the discussions on the implementation and impact of the proposals on Scots law and on the operations of the Scottish police forces.

In response to Margaret Smith's comments, while recognising that our parties hold different views on the matter, I believe that, when the Scottish chief constables make representations to the UK Government to change the law on terrorism, it is important that we listen to what they say. However, we should not always accept everything that they say—there are times when we have to challenge their views and the way in which they allocate the operational resources that we were discussing earlier.

This is a very serious issue, and the police are dealing with very serious crimes and the potential of a serious threat in the future. I hope that, following last night's vote in the House of Commons, it will be possible for all of us, in every part of the United Kingdom, to move on from the debate that has now taken place and to work a bit more closely, and on a cross-party basis, with the police and other authorities that have made representations on the matter, so that there might be more agreement in the future on the measures that are taken, and so that Britain can be a safer place.

May I urge the First Minister to move on from the advice that has been given by the Nickys-come-lately to this issue and to remember that a number of us have raised with him our concerns about the choices that he spoke of when he talked about the allocation of police resources for operational purposes? Those resources are being stretched because of the heightened level of awareness of terrorism and the measures that must be taken to combat it. Local police have very little or no control over those measures. Does the First Minister agree that it makes sense to use what we can learn from this episode to determine how our police forces should be funded in future and to ensure that they do not have to choose between patrol cars on dangerous roads and resourcing the requirements that are connected with the heightened awareness of terrorism?

As a starting point for answering that question, it is important to reiterate that, in Scotland today, our police forces and the associated agencies receive record levels of resources and have a record number of police officers. That ensures that the clear-up rate of crime is at a record level and that the police have the most modern equipment that they have ever had. I believe that, post-devolution, they also have one of the best and closest relationships with government that there has ever been when it comes to exchanging advice and working together.

I believe that it is important that we continue to monitor those resources and their allocation to individual forces. The one thing that I would say about the debate that has taken place this week in the House of Commons is that the initial proposal came in part from the police forces of the UK, including the Scottish chief constables. They made representations in favour of a 90-day detention period based on their current resources. Although there is an issue to do with resources, which need monitoring and assessment, it is important that the forces take that into account in the representations that they make to government at all levels.

---

Free Personal Care (Funding)

To ask the First Minister whether free personal care for the elderly is adequately funded. (S2F-1917)

On the basis of estimates of the cost of free personal care that were provided by the expert care development group, ministers have provided the agreed funding, following discussion and agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

According to COSLA,

"free personal care policy will fail quite publicly and quite spectacularly",

with councils being forced to put up council taxes or face cutbacks in personal care. Will the First Minister clarify whether councils are being funded adequately or whether they are diverting funding into other departments, which is leading to the shortfall?

The important point is that different organisations, including elected local authorities, will make representations to the Parliament, to Government and to individual MSPs of all parties for additional resources all the time. We have a choice in that situation. We could simply accept what they say and give them the money, which might be the Tory position, although I doubt that it has been historically and I hope that that will not change—I am sure that Miss Goldie will be tight on the public purse. The reality is that we need to ensure that we make a proper judgment of such bids for resources. Local authorities or any other bodies bidding for Government resources have to justify their bid and get to agreed levels of funding. In this case, we have an agreed level of funding, which was based on the estimates that were provided to us when the policy was introduced. We continue to provide that agreed level of funding to the penny.

Is the First Minister aware that cuts in the supporting people fund are causing extensive cuts in warden cover in sheltered accommodation such as Glenfield Court in Galashiels, where residents who are much frailer than they were a decade ago have less cover than they did 10 years ago? Will he meet sheltered accommodation providers who have serious concerns about the cuts in supporting people funding impacting on warden cover?

There has been considerable discussion about the supporting people fund, with local authorities in particular. The budgets for the fund were escalating and were, rightly, subject to new controls by the Treasury. We decided that the level was not sufficient so we provided additional resources over and above those provided by the Treasury, which we allocated to Scottish local authorities. I am not aware of the local circumstances that Christine Grahame has reported, but I am happy to ensure that she gets a ministerial reply if she writes to me about them.

Does the First Minister agree that affordability is about not just resources but costs? Does he therefore agree that the costs of regulation and inspection must be kept within reasonable bounds?

Absolutely. I believe that national agencies in particular, which are largely self-financing through charges for inspections and the other charges that they impose, must run their operations as efficiently as possible. We have made that point consistently to national bodies in this area. We expect them to keep their charges at a reasonable level and to run an efficient ship and not have a grossly inflated headquarters operation that adds unnecessary costs on to local authorities or anybody else.

Does the First Minister agree that the funding of free personal and nursing care for the individual, which is set at £210 a week, was set in 2002 and that if it was linked to inflation, it would be £250 week by 2007? There are no proposals to increase the funding. Will the First Minister consider doing so?

I suspect that that might be a matter of a lot of discussion in the chamber in the next few months and years. We have an agreed level of funding, which we should stick to for the moment.

The First Minister will be aware that there is a waiting list for free personal care in South Ayrshire. What advice can he give South Ayrshire Council on how to reduce that list, given that it tells me that it has inadequate funding to meet the demand?

Local authorities should manage their budgets as effectively as the local population would expect them to. Local authorities should also implement the policy, in principle and in practice, in the way that the Parliament intended. The absolute objective of the work that is currently being undertaken by the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care with the local authorities is to ensure that the policy is applied consistently throughout the country. That applies as much in John Scott's constituency as it does anywhere else.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—