Plenary, 11 Sep 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, September 11, 2008

Official Report 757KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-984)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

I am sure that all members will join me in celebrating a week of Scottish sporting success: the victories of our Paralympians in Beijing; Andy Murray's progress to the US open final; and of course the victory of George Burley's team in Reykjavik last night. I know that Cathy Jamieson will join me in ensuring that this is not the last world cup competition in which a Scottish international team competes, regardless of pressure from anywhere else.

I would just note that last night's successful Scotland team was led by manager George Burley, a good Cumnock boy.

On a serious matter, I will quote from a letter sent to the First Minister by the daughter of Scottish National Party Councillor Hanif, who has been exposed in the media for encouraging his children to fire a Kalashnikov assault rifle. She said:

"My siblings and I were put in an environment where people were pointing loaded AK-47 guns at each other. I cannot believe you have taken it so lightly."

Has the First Minister replied to that letter yet?

I have not replied as yet. I have seen the letter in the press, but I have not read the actual letter. I will certainly reply to the letter when I receive it.

I do not accept that the matter has been taken lightly by the SNP. Suspension from a political party is a serious matter. Councillor Hanif's actions have been condemned by the party as extremely unwise. I do not accept the interpretation that the matter has been taken lightly in any shape or form.

I will draw members' attention to the comments of the First Minister's colleague John Mason, who believes that SNP Councillor Hanif has been harshly treated by being suspended for a mere two months, describing that as "a bit severe"—

Ms Jamieson, I find that this is a matter of party rather than political interest.

I appreciate that this is a party matter, but I think that it is also something that the people of Scotland are concerned about.

I believe that this is a matter of party interest, but I will do my best to keep my answer within first ministerial responsibilities.

In terms of the general interest in such matters, perhaps the Labour Party would now like to join the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in taking action against the guns that are available in Scotland and to support our claim in Westminster that this Parliament should have the right to restrict air-gun access throughout Scotland.

I have no difficulty in working with any party that wants to reduce violent crime across Scotland. It is incumbent on politicians to set an example in that regard.

Does the First Minister agree with his colleague John Mason, who has branded critics of the SNP councillor as "racist"? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. Does the First Minister believe that the editor of the Evening Times, the MP for Glasgow Central, Mohammed Sarwar, and the Conservative justice spokesperson, Bill Aitken, are racist?

No.

I am pleased to hear that response from the First Minister. Councillor Shaukat Butt, a senior and respected member of Glasgow's Asian community, said:

"John Mason's comments are ridiculous. It is wrong to suggest reports of Councillor Hanif's"—

Ms Jamieson, can I be assured that the question that you are going to put falls under first ministerial responsibility?

I believe that it does, Presiding Officer.

Councillor Butt said:

"John Mason's comments are ridiculous. It is wrong to suggest reports of Councillor Hanif's actions have anything to do with race."

This is a serious matter. I believe that most ordinary, decent families will agree with Councillor Butt that John Mason's comments are disgraceful. Will the First Minister apologise for his colleague's comments?

Not for a second does John Mason accuse the range of people to whom Cathy Jamieson referred—or somebody else commenting on what John Mason said—of being racist.

I looked at one of the blogs on the matter and saw comments—not from any of the people whom Cathy Jamieson mentioned—that could be described only as totally unacceptable, about who was and who was not a real Scot. I believe—[Interruption.] They were not on SNP blogs; they were on the blog of the Glasgow Evening Times, commenting on the story.

I believe that everyone in this country is a real Scot and that we should approach these matters without any tinge—as there was on that blog—of racist comment. The whole chamber should unite in deploring and deprecating racism in Scottish society, wherever it emerges. That point of unity should not be lost in an attempt to say what somebody might have said about somebody else and to gain party advantage.

Finally, I say to Cathy Jamieson—I wish her good luck on Saturday—that there is a whole range of issues across Scottish society for which I, as First Minister, have responsibility, and I would like this Parliament to have many more responsibilities. If she is successful in her competition on Saturday, perhaps in the future she might choose one from that array of subjects and not ask about internal party matters.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-985)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, although according to some of the reports in the newspapers I had better be quick or there might not be a Secretary of State for Scotland to meet.

There will be after the next election.

Last week, I asked Nicola Sturgeon a simple question to which she had no answer. Let me repeat the question to the First Minister: by how much could we cut everyone's council tax bills if the £281 million subsidy that he says he can find for his Scottish national income tax were used to cut council tax instead? As I am ever ready to help the First Minister, I can give him the answer. With that money, the Scottish Conservatives would cut the council tax bill of every single household in Scotland—there are 2 million of them—by £150. In every year in which he can find that money, we can cut the tax for those 2 million households. Whatever their bill is, we will cut it by £150.

In these rough economic times, real help is needed as soon as possible. When will the First Minister find this money so that we can pass it on to those 2 million households?

It is precisely because real help is necessary that this Administration has frozen the council tax over the course of this parliamentary session.

The news that Annabel Goldie's party would restore the post of Secretary of State for Scotland, if it is abolished, must be considered good news for Mr David Mundell given that, if he survives the election, he would appear to be a strong candidate for such a post.

I draw attention to the fact that many people in Scotland, particularly pensioners who suffer under the burden of the oppressive council tax more than any other group, tend to support the abolition of the council tax rather than its modification.

The only thing that matters is that the First Minister finds the £281 million, because in every year in which he can find that money we can cut the tax for 2 million households. Whatever their bill is, we can cut it by £150. The sooner he finds that money, the sooner we can start.

Last week, the Deputy First Minister said:

"the vast majority of people in Scotland would be better off under a local income tax than they are under the council tax."—[Official Report, 4 September 2008; c 10509.]

Quite simply, that is no longer correct, because the majority of people in the 21 examples that the Scottish Government cherry picked for its website would now be better off under Scottish Conservative plans. When will the First Minister find even some of that £281 million, so that we can make a start in cutting the council tax bills for 2 million Scottish households?

I think that the council tax freeze—something that was never achieved by the Conservative party, which introduced the council tax and then increased it year after year—represents an extremely good start in cutting the bills that families across Scotland face.

In comparing our proposal for the local income tax, and all the fairness and equity that it will bring, with the Conservative proposals, we face one key problem: every time Annabel Goldie tells us what her proposals are, they change. Only a matter of months ago, the change to the council tax that she proposed was to halve the bills of pensioners. Now she has come forward with a different proposal across the range. I repeat that the vast majority of people in Scotland support the abolition of the oppressive tax that was introduced by the Conservative party and increased by the Labour Party, not merely its modification.

I will allow Miss Goldie a very brief final question.

I just want to clarify that my party's commitment to cutting the bills of older pensioners remains, so they would receive a double benefit if the First Minister would kindly even consider the good sense of what I am advising him to do.

So that is in addition to the member's proposal for the £281 million.

I am delighted that Annabel Goldie led her party to support the council tax freeze in the budget that came to Parliament earlier this year. Who knows? With a bit of persuasion, and if the Conservatives carry out some further analysis of their plans, they might be won round to the idea that a fair and equitable tax that is based on income is a better idea than a tax that is based on property and which has little relationship with ability to pay.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-986)

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

The First Minister's Government has been big on talking about fuel poverty. Following today's announcement, what new investment will he be making to cut the fuel bills of people in Scotland? Does he have a new programme of action to cut fuel bills ready to go?

Yes, we do. We have made extensive preparations for our programme. We have carried out an analysis of the carbon emissions reduction target scheme from its initiation in 2002 until 2005. The figures tend to indicate that there was a 22 per cent shortfall in the Scottish pro rata allocation under the scheme. That is extraordinary, when we consider that fuel poverty in Scotland is three times higher than it is elsewhere in Britain.

We have done two things. First, we have set up the energy advice centres, which are being rolled out across Scotland. They will help to fill the gap in applications under the scheme. Secondly, just this week, we have received an undertaking from the power companies that, as a minimum, Scotland should have a pro rata share of the new CERT scheme. I am sure that Tavish Scott will agree that, whatever the reasons for the scandalous position in the past, our proposals represent substantial progress in attacking fuel poverty in Scotland.

Does the First Minister accept that those people who have significant fears about fuel prices are not that interested in arguments between Governments? If Scotland does not get its fair share from the United Kingdom Government, the First Minister will have our support in getting that money. Advice is good, but action is rather better. People know that the First Minister already has real powers at his disposal. He has had plenty of warning of the crisis that people face. What levers will he use this year to get money into people's pockets? He knows that more people than ever are feeling the pain of high energy costs. For many this winter, the decision will be, "Boiler on or boiler off?" Will the First Minister give a guarantee that he will rise to that challenge and that his action will benefit more families and pensioners than ever before?

The CERT scheme is not implemented by the UK Government. It is financed by the power companies and implemented by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. My argument is just a reality. We are taking firm action to close the gap and to ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of energy efficiency investment. I do not know why that is a matter of controversy in the chamber.

Today's initiative is not enough. People need help and support with fuel bills now, as well as energy investment in the future. I have made a number of comments and indications about how that could be done, which I think are in common at least with what I have seen from Liberal Democrat spokesmen south of the border. In the next three years, under the new figures, the UK Government plans to spend £874 million on fuel poverty. The Scottish Government plans to spend £135 million, which is pro rata almost 50 per cent more than what is proposed by the UK Government.

However, I am disturbed by the early indication that, for all the announcements today, there are no Barnett direct consequentials of revenue coming into the Scottish Government. I will not make a definitive statement on that until there can be further analysis. The argument seems to be that the warm deal money is merely restoring a cut in the England and Wales scheme that had been administered previously. That is disturbing news. It will be analysed further, and I will report back to members if that turns out to be the case.

On helping families, there are few bills that are not rocketing amid the food and energy bill crisis that we face throughout Scotland. However, people can look at their council tax bills and see some stability in comparison with all their other household expenses, which are going sky-high at present.

---

Scottish Digital Channel

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports the establishment of a Scottish digital channel alongside the new Gaelic digital channel, as recommended by the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. (S3F-1000)

Yes. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission's recommendation for a new public service Scottish digital network is of enormous importance and represents a major opportunity to develop the broadcasting industry in Scotland. The commission's report and the launch this month of the new Gaelic channel, BBC Alba, mark a significant and exciting time for broadcasting in Scotland. The Scottish Government will respond positively to the report, within our powers to do so, later this year. We look to the United Kingdom Government and the broadcasting authorities themselves to respond in the same constructive spirit to that independent report from the commission, which enjoyed cross-party membership and at least a degree of support.

Will the First Minister join me in giving MG Alba best wishes for its launch next week? On broadcasting more generally, does he believe that network broadcasters need to move quickly to increase their revenue share to 8.6 per cent to allow Scotland to experience the kind of television service to which it is entitled and which most other countries take for granted?

Yes, I do. That is part of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission recommendations. There cannot be a shadow of doubt, given the analysis and the evidence submitted to the commission, that Scotland has been underprovided for in its share of public service broadcasting revenue. The sale of the new digital spectrum—which, it is argued, will raise billions of pounds for the UK Exchequer—is another ready source of revenue that should be allocated to Scottish public service broadcasting.

As far as giving good wishes to the Gaelic channel is concerned, I have recorded mine already. One of the great arguments for having that wonderful new channel is that I am appearing on it on its first day of broadcasting. I am sure that the nation is suitably reassured. As a fluent Gaelic speaker, Alasdair Allan will be delighted to know that I expressed deagh dhùrachdan—the Gaelic for best wishes. I am sure that the Gaelic community will join members in saying that everybody loves a trier.

Yes, a trier certainly.

There is much in the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's report with which we can all agree. I hope that the First Minister will agree to the holding of an early debate in the chamber on the report, so that we can explore further some of the very good ideas in it—some of which reflect very closely the views that I expressed to the commission when I gave evidence.

A key aspect of the report concerns developing the skills base in Scotland—

Come to a question, please.

I am just coming on to that—because of the importance of having the skills, if we are to have a Scottish broadcasting channel and if we are to increase the commissioning in Scotland—

Would you come to the question quickly please?

Does the First Minister agree that there is a need for clarification in the landscape? The commission clearly identifies that there is a lack of clarity as to who has the lead for developing skills in the broadcasting industry in Scotland in terms of economic development. Will the Government act quickly to—

No, you must stop now Mr Smith.

Skills and opportunities will be crucial to the future of broadcasting.

As Iain Smith has asked a question, I would like to take the opportunity to say a word of appreciation about the late Ray Michie, who served on the Scottish Broadcasting Commission despite her full knowledge of the severity of her illness. She believed passionately in many of the issues that the commission was putting forward, and she was determined to serve. I deeply appreciate that. I know that the whole chamber will want to take this opportunity to send our best wishes to Ray's family. Ray was a wonderful Scot and a passionate supporter of the Gaelic language. [Applause.]

I say to the whole chamber that I am always keen to take supplementary questions, but they really must be brief.

Will the First Minister tell us whether he agrees with the commission's recommendation that the proposed new Scottish digital channel should be funded on a not-for-profit basis, or does he see a role for the private sector, perhaps including local commercial television companies?

The essence of the channel should that of a public service broadcasting operation, and that should be the essence of the funding. I have already pointed out the lack of return from the licence fee that viewers in Scotland receive in terms of our broadcasting contribution.

Ted Brocklebank has knowledge of these matters, and I am sure that he would agree that the sale of the digital spectrum is an entirely appropriate identified source of revenue. The channel may choose to earn additional revenue, in the same way that BBC World and a number of other BBC services do at the moment, and I see no great objection to that. However, the channel should be at the core of public service broadcasting in Scotland.

Does the First Minister agree with paragraph 51 of the executive summary of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's excellent report? It says:

"We do not believe, at the present time, that broadcasting should be devolved."

Does the First Minister, like me, welcome calls for more accountability through the controller of BBC Scotland being made a member of the BBC executive board, and through Scottish representation on the main board of Ofcom?

I agree with the very next paragraph of the report, which sets out a range of powers that should be devolved from the Scotland Office to this Government and this Parliament. With the imminent demise of the Scotland Office, that becomes very urgent indeed.

The key part of David Whitton's quote is "at the present time". I welcome his acknowledgement of the report, which I hope is made on behalf of the whole Labour Party, as it contrasts markedly with the tone of the evidence that people in the Scotland Office submitted to the commission. The commission was established precisely to generate a consensus, and the people who went on to the commission did so with that in mind—so that we could make an immediate advance for broadcasting and culture in Scotland, as well as having this party and this Government's aim of having the normal powers of a normal country.

---

Creative Scotland

To ask the First Minister what opportunity the Parliament will have to influence the remit and funding of creative Scotland. (S3F-993)

In June, Parliament unanimously supported the principle and functions of creative Scotland. Parliament and its committees will get another opportunity to consider both the costs of setting up the new organisation and the funding available to it to support arts and culture as part of the proper scrutiny of the public services reform bill.

Does the First Minister accept that Parliament supports the establishment of creative Scotland but has legitimate questions about its funding and remit? Why, therefore, have he and the minister for culture refused to answer such legitimate questions over the past two weeks, and why are they postponing parliamentary decisions until an indefinite time next year, after the establishment of creative Scotland in April? As the First Minister will no doubt blame us for voting down the financial memorandum—[Interruption.]

Order.

—I remind him that, if he had followed the advice that we gave him at decision time on 18 June, he could have reintroduced the Creative Scotland Bill right now.

As I recollect, there was a lot of conflicting advice from the Labour Party. What Malcolm Chisholm says is a bit rich, given that the chaos and confusion and the destructive behaviour of Labour Party members—admittedly, at the end of term, when they were looking forward to their holidays—were entirely responsible for the delay in setting up an organisation that could carry unanimous, cross-party support in Scotland.

---

Alcohol (Off-sales)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government remains committed to its proposal to ban under-21-year-olds from purchasing alcohol in off-sales. (S3F-1005)

Our consultation paper "Changing Scotland's relationship with alcohol: a discussion paper on our strategic approach" makes clear that we consider that there is a case to be made for raising the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21 for off-sales as part of a package of measures to tackle alcohol abuse. We have invited views on that and on our other proposals, and we will consider those further in light of the consultation, which closed on 9 September.

The First Minister will be aware that the Government referred this week to the experiment that was carried out in Larbert and Stenhousemuir, which revealed reductions in crime rates. Based on that evidence, the Government has reached the conclusion that 18 to 21-year-olds are the cause of the problem and must therefore be banned permanently from off-sales premises. However, for that conclusion to stand up to scrutiny, can the First Minister confirm that, in the corresponding period, 40 per cent of antisocial behaviour offences were committed by 18 to 21-year-olds, as well as 40 per cent of breaches of the peace, 30 per cent of minor assaults and 60 per cent of serious assaults? Because—

Briefly, please.

If the First Minister is unable to confirm that position, it is fallacious for him to assert that barring 18 to 21-year-olds will result in an equivalent reduction in crime rates.

The problem with Ross Finnie's percentages is that he seems to forget the substantial decline in antisocial behaviour in police reports that occurred not only in the Stenhousemuir experiment but across all three areas—Armadale, Stenhousemuir and Cupar. In Stenhousemuir, calls to the police about antisocial behaviour were down—and here is a percentage—40 per cent on the previous year, from 113 to 67. That happened with no additional police resource in the area.

All that I say to Ross Finnie, other Liberal Democrat members and anyone else who wants to dismiss the proposal out of hand is that, before we do that, we should talk about the evidence that we are getting from the areas where this has been tried. If the evidence shows a substantial decline in police recording across a range of areas, surely there is a powerful argument for giving support to the proposals in the Government's document.

Does the First Minister agree that, in looking at the policy, a proper balance should be struck between the rights of under-21-year-olds and the rights of people who have suffered in the past from antisocial behaviour and who have benefited from the reduction in antisocial behaviour in their area? [Interruption.]

Order.

It is our duty—one that we take seriously in other areas—to offer protection and support to young people in Scotland.

It is well known that one phenomenon that lies behind increased public disorder in Scotland, particularly at the weekend, is the availability of very cheap and, in some cases, very strong alcohol. People are not drinking and celebrating when they go out for an evening; they are going out for an evening already having drunk a substantial amount of alcohol. Every member who is in touch with the grass roots in their constituency should know that full well.

In three areas—Stenhousemuir, Armadale and Cupar—with the full support of off-licences, an experiment was introduced to see whether the restriction in sales caused by banning under-21s from buying alcohol in off-licences would have a considerable effect. Whatever the arguments, those three areas have seen an observable and significant decline in the number of incidents reported to the police, and the constabulary has verified that. If that evidence stands up to examination, is anyone in the chamber saying that it should be disregarded or that it should not be taken into account? Incidentally, the victims of antisocial behaviour are often young people themselves, who are most at risk from such antisocial behaviour.

Does the First Minister agree that, rather than targeting one age group, which would send the wrong message on tackling alcohol misuse, given that we know that people from a broad range of ages misuse alcohol, the right message would be to target licence holders who sell to underage drinkers and ensure that, after three breaches of their licence, they lose their licence for good?

If a licence holder does it once, they can lose their licence. The Labour Party presided over a doubling of alcohol consumption per person in Scotland during the past generation, with all the impacts that that has had for public health and disorder, so it is a bit rich for Labour to say that it wants to take action but then find some reason to disagree with every single one of the courageous proposals in Kenny MacAskill's consultation document. People who want to see Scotland genuinely face up to its difficulties with alcohol will look askance at politicians who say that they want to do something but always find a reason for not supporting proposals to do that.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—