Plenary, 11 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 11, 2004

Official Report 788KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

It is 12 noon and time for questions to the First Minister.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Unless it is absolutely essential, may I take your point of order at the end of First Minister's question time, Mr McNulty?

It is to do with the rights of members, but I am happy to leave it until the end of First Minister's question time.

Thank you. That is helpful.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-707)

When I next speak to the Prime Minister, I am sure that we will discuss this morning's events in Madrid, where more than 100 people have died and more than 400 have been injured as a result of a series of bombs on trains. I am sure that the whole Parliament will join me in expressing our utter condemnation, our anger and our disgust at that despicable act by whatever group is responsible.

I spoke with the consul general of Spain this morning. I have expressed our anger and disgust, but also our sympathy and our condolences for the victims, for their families and for the people of Spain, who have managed in 30 years to go from fascism to democracy and who do not deserve that kind of mindless terrorism. [Applause.]

I associate the Scottish National Party unreservedly with the comments made by the First Minister in relation to the incidents in Madrid this morning, and I express our sympathy with the people of Spain and the families of those who have been killed or injured in that atrocity.

Given that the First Minister will appoint the chairman of the forthcoming review of local government finance, that he will appoint the members of that review and that he will establish its remit, is it not the case that the First Minister's remarks on Friday, dismissing out of hand the concept of a local income tax, have prejudiced that independent review before it has even started?

I am sad that Mr Swinney does not enjoy robust political debate. I am happy to have that debate on systems of local government finance. I am also happy to criticise what I think are badly thought-out proposals, not because they are an alternative system but because I do not believe that the calculations have been done properly or that they take full account of the costs. I think that the proposals are flawed in an attempt to be populist, and I hope that they have failed.

The First Minister knows from our long experience of debating together that I, too, am all for robust debate. However, the First Minister told me a fortnight ago in the Parliament:

"If an independent review of local government finance is established, I have a duty as First Minister not to prejudice its outcome and I have no intention of doing so."—[Official Report, 26 February 2004; c 6079.]

I had asked the First Minister to express his view on the council tax—the system that he supports—and on whether he would argue for that system in the review of local government finance. He told me that he was not in a position to argue for that, because he could not prejudice the outcome of the review. On Friday, when we announced our proposals for a local income tax, the First Minister and his ministers were falling over themselves to rubbish the proposals that we made and to undermine the commitment that the First Minister made to the Parliament not to prejudice the review.

Will the First Minister tell us who will chair the review of local government finance, what its remit will be, and when it will start, in order to guarantee to the Parliament that the review will be truly independent and not just another political fix?

I am awful sorry that I upset Mr Swinney so much. However, to publish proposals that are portrayed as an alternative system of local government finance, but which do not take into account the increase in water charges that would result from the transfer of administration to Scottish Water, and which do not take into account properly the current situation with council tax benefit, was a deeply flawed response to the debate on local government finance systems.

I have made clear previously in the chamber, and I make it clear again today, my personal view that there is a role for property taxation in any democracy that wants progressive taxation systems. That view is not shared by all parties in the chamber, but it is, I hope, a view that is honestly expressed. Mr Swinney's party published proposals last Friday that do not stand the test of scrutiny. I am disappointed that Mr Swinney does not even want them to be subject to robust debate.

In the answers that he has just given to the Parliament, the First Minister has neatly contradicted himself. He told me a fortnight ago that he could not comment on the council tax because he would prejudice the review. He has just argued for the council tax, which undermines what he said a fortnight ago. He says that he cannot comment on other schemes because to do so would prejudice the review. Is it not the case that we now know that the independent review of local government finance will not be an independent process? The First Minister cannot tell us who will be on the review or when it will start. The review has been in the making for more than 10 months and its outcome has been prejudged. Is it not the case that the review is not independent? It is simply a political fix to allow the Liberal Democrats to dump their principles and Labour to dump the agenda of fairness in Scotland.

Dear, oh dear. There will be an independent review of local government finance. It will take place within the four years of this parliamentary session. It is right that that should be the case. The review will be established properly, with an independent chair and a proper remit.

When?

When the Executive is ready.

The independent review will not be prejudged. It will consider all the systems on offer. I look forward to the debate that will take place around its discussions.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I echo the sympathies and condolences that have been expressed by the First Minister and Mr Swinney about the terrorist outrages in Madrid. I thank the First Minister for the communication that he has sent, through the consul general, to the Government and the people of Spain. It is entirely appropriate.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-719)

The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement.

I hope that the Cabinet will discuss the current industrial action affecting nursery schools. Does the First Minister agree that parents of children in our nursery and special schools will be bemused that, while local pay settlements have been reached in Aberdeen, East Renfrewshire, Falkirk, Highland and five other councils, there is an on-going strike elsewhere, which is disrupting the care and education of thousands of children throughout Scotland? Does he further agree that, if settlements that are satisfactory to councils and their nursery nurse employees can be reached in nine council areas, there is no reason why they cannot be reached elsewhere? Will the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Executive will not intervene to impose a national deal, which would undermine the settlements that have already been reached?

I have said previously in the chamber at First Minister's question time, and ministers have said in the chamber on other occasions, that we believe that the resolution to the dispute lies between the employers and the nursery nurses. The Executive believes strongly that nursery nurses in Scotland deserve better pay and that they do an excellent job. It believes, however, that it is for employers and trade unions to negotiate a proper settlement and for the nursery nurses to receive the pay settlement that is agreed. That should be the case. The Executive again urges those who are responsible to negotiate round the table and to ensure that there is a resolution to the dispute as quickly as possible.

I agree with the First Minister that it is important that, for the sake of the children and families who are caught up in the crossfire of the dispute, councils and nursery nurses and their representatives reach agreement as soon as possible.

Does the First Minister accept that undermining the principle of local pay bargaining by imposing a national deal would be not only wrong in principle, but unfair to tens of thousands of other council employees, such as classroom assistants, auxiliaries and secretaries, whose pay is negotiated in the same manner?

The arrangements between local authorities in Scotland and their employees, who are represented by the trade unions, are a matter for those local authorities and trade unions. It would be entirely wrong for the Scottish Executive to seek at this stage to impose on nursery nurses, on any other group, or on local authorities, an alternative method of determining pay settlements. That is at the core of the issue. The local authorities and the unions that represent the nursery nurses need to negotiate a settlement that is fair to the nursery nurses and within their agreed procedures.

Mr McLetchie may ask a quick third question.

The First Minister said that to impose alternative methods would be inappropriate "at this stage". Does that mean that he envisages that there could be a stage at which the Executive would intervene in the on-going negotiations?

No, not in this instance, but I did not want to rule out for ever any possibility that we would intervene in any dispute in Scotland, for public safety reasons or any other reasons. There has been one example in the life of the Parliament in which such a threat was made by the Executive—that was in the negotiations around teachers' pay in 2000, when we said clearly that if the negotiations could not reach an appropriate settlement, we would be forced to legislate to impose one.

There is one immediate constituency issue.

I know that the First Minister is aware of the statements that were made yesterday by divisional commander Tom Buchan of N division of Strathclyde police, but is he aware of the comments of community police officers and other senior officers in N division on the need for additional powers to tackle antisocial behaviour? In particular, is he aware of the comments of former superintendent John McKelvie of ND division, which covers Bellshill? He said that, in 30 years as a police officer, he often felt that he had a screwdriver to deal with the issue and that he would much rather have had a toolbox, which is what the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will give police officers.

Yesterday's comments by the named police officer, who is also responsible for policing in my constituency, which is an important part of Scotland, were regrettable, and I think that he is wrong. It is vital that the police in that area, as well as in other parts of Scotland, reinforce confidence in their actions in local communities. The best way to do that is to deal with antisocial behaviour rather than to stand against the powers that local people want him and his officers to have.

Will the First Minister condemn the actions of Dundee City Council's Labour and Lib Dem Administration, which, in its comments to parents of children with special needs, encouraged them to go to the press to criticise nursery nurses who are in dispute? Does the First Minister believe that such action will lead to the dispute being cut short, or does he believe, as I do, that it will prolong the dispute and make it last longer than it needs to?

I have no intention of inflaming a dispute that has already gone on for far too long by commenting on either an individual council or the actions of the trade unions that are involved, although I think that the trade unions and the local authorities need to realise that there are parents and children out there who deserve the best possible quality of service. I have no intention of commenting on Dundee City Council and anything that it might have said, on any Unison branch and anything that it might have said, or, for that matter, on SNP local authorities, who are reaching local settlements outwith the demands of the union for a national settlement.

I remind members that this slot is for back benchers, in particular, to raise matters of an immediate constituency interest, and that it should be so used.

---

Genetically Modified Maize

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has approved the commercial planting of genetically modified maize in Scotland. (S2F-731)

The commercial planting of GM maize in Scotland is not simply a matter for the Scottish Executive. Part C consent for the release of a genetically modified organism is a collective decision of European Union member states, which is based on an assessment of the risk to human health and the environment. Chardon LL received that consent six years ago.

However, Scots are uneasy about GM crops and there is little support for their early commercialisation, so we will take action to protect the interests of Scottish consumers and to ensure consumer choice. We believe that a statutory co-existence measure should exist to prevent cross-contamination. Compensation that is funded by the GM industry will be provided for any cross-contamination that occurs in Scotland. In areas where GM maize could be grown, we wish to establish GM-free zones.

Does the First Minister agree that all that could be preparing the ground for GM crops? Everyone in Scotland knows that the Labour-Lib GM Executive has caved in to Westminster and that it has consented in principle to GM maize commercialisation throughout the United Kingdom. Is the Executive engaged in a public sedation exercise, by introducing a set of measures that is based on a dubious co-existence proposition and unworkable voluntary GM-free zones, to prepare the ground for GM commercialisation in Scotland?

No. The proof is in the statement that I just made. Chardon LL has received European Union approval and the scientific evidence shows not only that it does not harm the environment, but that it improves biodiversity rather than adversely affecting it. We have taken the appropriate steps with our decisions to ensure that our regime is robust and can protect Scottish consumers.

A statutory co-existence regime will be created and a regime will be established for penalising GM companies should any cross-contamination occur. If we can work closely with farmers in the relevant areas, there will be voluntary GM-free zones so that Scottish consumers who are not at all convinced about the products are protected. Consumers will be able to make the choices that they want to make when the new labelling regime that we have been at the forefront of advocating is adopted in April.

Does the First Minister recognise that half the Parliament remains sceptical, that the Lib Dems should be uncomfortable, that the Westminster Environmental Audit Committee thinks that his decision is irresponsible and that the public do not want GM? Does he reject or support the seeking of an independent legal opinion on whether he has fully used the powers that are available to him?

We are always careful to ensure that we have legal opinions on the decisions that we take. My response to Robin Harper is that I believe that almost all members of the Parliament are sceptical about GM crops. I am sceptical about GM crops. That scepticism is why we insisted on putting in place the regime that I described, why we take the precautionary approach and why we ensured that the two crops that showed harm to the environment were rejected.

We will continue to take that sceptical stance not only in our debates and decisions in Scotland, but in our discussions at the UK level, in which we will push that case, and at the European level, where the decisions that led to today's position were made—some of those decisions were made back in 1990.

Does the First Minister agree that every attempt by a member state or devolved Administration to impose a blanket ban on GM has been unsuccessful? Does he agree that, faced with the same scientific evidence and advice, it is not surprising that the Scottish Executive and the other devolved Administrations reached the same conclusion as the UK Parliament did? Does he further agree that through action here and supportive action in Europe we should prioritise measures to ensure and protect consumers' ability to make an informed choice?

Of course I agree with that. I emphasise that when the UK Government and the Scottish Executive reach a consistent position, it is not always the UK Government that has persuaded the Executive of its position. More often than not, the situation is the other way round. In this case, we were clear about our position. We wanted to ensure that a clear precautionary principle was at the heart of our decisions and that, despite the scientific evidence and the legal position, as restrictive a regime as possible was put in place to protect Scottish consumers. Not only did we achieve that in Scotland, but we persuaded the UK Government to introduce the same regime across the Scottish-English border. We should be congratulated on that, not castigated.

I will give the First Minister a further opportunity to answer the question that has been asked repeatedly over the past couple of days. Will he confirm that the agreement on GM maize was a collective decision by Westminster and the devolved authorities? Is it not the case that if the Scottish Executive had said no, it would be talking today not about so-called voluntary agreements but about a total ban on the commercialisation of GM maize in Scotland—yes or no?

The decision to approve Chardon LL maize was taken six years ago at European level. That is the context within which we are operating. As I explained to Nora Radcliffe—I will try to explain again—we managed to convince our colleagues in the UK Government to take the line that was announced this week. The arrangement that has been announced is the most restrictive that we could have put in place. We made that decision because we understand that people in Scotland are sceptical about GM crops. However, we are not prepared to defy completely the science, the evidence, or the law as it applies in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe.

---

Racially Motivated Attacks

To ask the First Minister what action can be taken to help reduce the number of racially motivated attacks in disadvantaged communities, particularly against refugees and asylum seekers. (S2F-722)

As all of us have made clear in the chamber on a number of occasions, Scotland is not prepared to tolerate racist attacks or harassment. To tackle those who might carry out such attacks, we need to encourage cultural and behavioural change and to support the increased efforts of Scottish police forces to respond effectively to attacks when they occur.

I am sure that we all support tough action against all those who are convicted of carrying out racially motivated attacks and harassment.

The First Minister will be aware of a deeply disturbing report that was published earlier this week by Positive Action in Housing, which revealed a rise of 75 per cent in the number of complaints about racial harassment in the year to the end of March 2004. That harassment is carried out by a despicable minority, but their actions can be devastating. Does the First Minister agree that there are some excellent examples in Glasgow from which we can learn of community policing and joint working with other agencies, including Glasgow City Council, to create the inclusive communities that we all seek, in which asylum seekers and refugees can all be made welcome?

We have supported the admirable work that has been done in recent years in Glasgow to improve community relations and to ensure that those who seek asylum and are granted refugee status in Glasgow are welcomed into the community and can make a contribution. Such people make a massive positive contribution to local schools and communities.

Key individuals have been involved in that work. I am particularly delighted by the discovery that I made on Monday night at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan. The police officer who was at the heart of the rebuilding of the community at Sighthill in Glasgow, and who was responsible for the community festival that I attended two years ago, is giving training to police recruits and other police officers from throughout Scotland to ensure that they learn positive lessons from that experience. That is the right way for the Scottish police forces to respond and we should support their efforts.

Everyone agrees that racist attacks are a particularly repugnant form of criminal activity. The First Minister referred to our Scottish police forces. Is he satisfied that there are enough community policemen on the ground to deter such vile activity? It is not disputed that at any one time only 140 police officers are in our communities, on the streets. Is the First Minister satisfied that that is an adequate safeguard?

The member cites a silly statistic that we have debated in the chamber in the past. In reality, there are now significantly more police officers on the street in Scotland than was the case last year or the year before that, and there will continue to be more because of the reforms that we are pursuing.

I note the Conservative party's opposition to some of the reforms that are proposed for our courts and I hope that it will review its position. We want to see police officers on the beat carrying out the duties that they signed up to carry out, instead of wasting time sitting in courtrooms dealing with cases that have been delayed unnecessarily.

---

Budget

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to respond to the issues raised in the report by Professor Arthur Midwinter and the Scottish Parliament information centre, "Key Trends in the Scottish Budget 1999-2003". (S2F-713)

Professor Midwinter says that his report is

"a background paper with limited information at the beginning of a comprehensive budget review exercise rather than a fully developed assessment of recent performance".

However, I found his report very interesting.

So did I.

Did the First Minister note Professor Midwinter's comments on health? Is the First Minister satisfied with the Scottish Executive's stewardship of the NHS when, according to Professor Midwinter, the NHS received 15 per cent extra funding between 1999 and 2003, yet it gained only a 5.3 per cent increase in staffing? Does the First Minister believe that that represents good value for money, given that we have more people waiting for treatment and fewer people being treated in the NHS and that we therefore desperately require more staff to tackle those problems?

That is the third different position that the SNP has taken on the subject in the past week.

Consistently during the past year, we have heard perfectly understandable calls from the Scottish nationalist party for increased wages in the national health service for nurses, doctors, consultants, allied health professionals and everybody who works in the health service. Then we heard from Fergus Ewing last Sunday, after the publication of Professor Midwinter's report, that the SNP's finance spokesperson thinks that the way in which the Executive puts together its budget, together with a point that Professor Midwinter made about increased wage costs in the public sector in Scotland, shows that we are spending money on the wrong things. The SNP's finance spokesperson does not agree with the calls for increased wages.

Today, we hear from the health spokesperson that we should not be spending in the way that we are in the health service. The situation is getting absolutely ridiculous. I do not mind if the SNP calls consistently for increased spending and justifies that by advocating increased taxes. However, doing that at the same time as calling for increased spending and lower taxes—or saying, as the finance spokesperson did, that he is in favour of cutting public sector budgets rather than using the tax-and-spend approach, as detailed in Holyrood magazine yesterday—throws the whole SNP policy into tatters. The SNP needs to review its policy.

Will the First Minister consider augmenting future versions of Professor Midwinter's report by adding comprehensive reporting of outcomes for all public functions—for example, clear statements of measurable and tangible public good that has been achieved from Government spending, as suggested by Nicholas Crafts of the London School of Economics in his exceedingly well-received lecture this week?

I am keen that we are not only clear about what we want to spend money on, but that we measure how effective that spending is and we will continue to do that.

---

Higher Education (Review)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's response is to the phase 3 report of its review of higher education. (S2F-723)

We are currently considering the report and intend to publish our initial response shortly.

The First Minister said in reply to a question about the publication of the review:

"we will act quickly thereafter to outline our plans for the years ahead".—[Official Report, 15 January 2004; c 4875.]

We look forward to that with interest.

If I were a school pupil today, looking at my university options, should I be worried about the prospect of paying a higher fee, tax contribution or endowment at a Scottish university? Or will the First Minister take this opportunity to rule out any such increases?

We have already ruled out fees and we are now looking at the conclusions of the phase 3 report so that we make the right decisions to ensure that such a student will have as high quality a university education in Scotland as they would have anywhere else in the UK.