Plenary, 12 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, February 12, 2004

Official Report 704KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

We are a little ahead of ourselves, but I think that we are all here, so we will begin.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-627)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement to build a better Scotland.

In October, the First Minister said about the council tax:

"we are running a low-tax policy that"

is

"good for Scottish taxpayers".—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; c 2771.]

Which taxpayers was he talking about when he made those comments?

I was talking about Scottish taxpayers, funnily enough. Increases in council tax in Scotland last year were significantly lower than increases in England, and increases in council tax in Scotland in recent years have been lower than increases in the years when the Conservatives were in government. Both those comparisons show that council tax in Scotland is on a lower trajectory, but there are serious issues about efficiencies in spending in local government, to which I am sure we are about to return.

I do not think that the people of Scotland will be heartened by the First Minister's complacent attitude to increases in council tax in Scotland in comparison with increases south of the border. People in Scotland are paying high council tax bills, of which I will give the First Minister examples. As of today, the lowest council tax and water charge in Scotland will be a significant £1,249 in the Western Isles, which is an increase of 39 per cent since this Government came to power four years ago. In the Scottish Borders the charge will be £1,323, which is a rise of 56 per cent. In the city of Dundee, the charge will be £1,481 and in Glasgow it will be a massive £1,559 for a band D property.

It is scant comfort to those council tax payers that the First Minister hides behind the higher increases south of the border. Does the First Minister accept that the council tax is not a low tax but a high tax, which hurts the poorest the hardest?

I do not think that there is such a thing as a popular system of taxation or a system that does not hit people in their pocket. However, there are ways in which we ensure that the public services that local authorities in Scotland provide are funded properly; that allows the councils to make their decisions and be held accountable for them locally, whether they are providing for additional activity to challenge antisocial behaviour, as is happening in Edinburgh, or taking decisions in relation to their schools, roads or other public services, as is happening in other parts of Scotland.

The important thing is that we as a Government take our responsibility for those services seriously. That is why we have funded in total free personal care for the elderly. That is why we fund in total the teachers agreement that is revolutionising our classrooms. That is why we fund in total programmes on youth justice that are central to our objectives of challenging antisocial behaviour. In each of those areas, we provide the funding that councils require; councils then have to make decisions on the local services that are required and the taxation that funds them.

Mr Swinney's party was the most vocal in this chamber in advocating the abolition of council tax capping, which reduces central Government control over local authorities. One of the good things that the Parliament has done is to give local authorities a bit more freedom. Councils should exercise that freedom responsibly and they should be held accountable by their electors as well.

Let us go back to what the First Minister said in October about the council tax, which he described as a "low-tax policy". Throughout local authorities in Scotland, the tax has gone through the roof in the past four years with an average increase of 40 per cent; there have been increases in the Scottish Borders of 56 per cent, in Aberdeenshire of 46 per cent and in Stirling of 44 per cent. Those are significant increases that contradict what the First Minister said about low tax.

The fundamental problem with the council tax is that it is an unjust tax. It is wrong for the First Minister and for me to pay the same council tax as a low-paid worker or a pensioner with a modest occupational pension. In the face of such unfairness and injustice, does the First Minister accept that we need to introduce a system of local taxation that is based on people's ability to pay? Does he accept that we do not need to review the council tax, as he plans to do, but that Parliament quite simply needs to abolish the council tax and to introduce a system that is based on fairness, justice and the ability to pay?

Our starting point in the discussions is to ensure that all the facts are on the table. The first important fact in all this is that at least 80 per cent of Scottish local authorities' income—that which is spent on public services locally—is funded by national Government and therefore by taxes that are based largely on the ability to pay. There is a direct correlation between income tax as it stands nationally and the funding of local services.

Within the council tax system, there is a substantial system of benefits that could be reviewed in relation to pensioners, but that currently ensures that 25 per cent of all households and 40 per cent of pensioner households receive some benefit. Those who are lowest paid or who have the lowest incomes receive council tax benefits that contribute towards meeting their costs. The system can be reviewed and that will happen in the review of local government finance. However, there must be a tax system to pay for our roads and schools. In my view, that system must share the pain among as many people as possible. Whatever system we come up with at the end of the day should be based not just on ability to pay, but on efficiency, effectiveness and spreading the pain among as many people as possible who benefit from local services.

Does not the First Minister accept that council tax takes no account of an individual's ability to pay, with the exception of the benefits to which he referred, most of which are reserved matters? Is not the principle that is at stake the importance of the ability to pay? Is not a consensus beginning to emerge in Scotland that the council tax is unfair and unjust and that it should be abolished and replaced by a system that is based on ability to pay? Will the First Minister consider that as part of the review of local government finance?

Months ago we said that we would examine different systems as part of the review, and that will happen. That will be a good thing, because it will ensure that every alternative to the council tax is subjected to scrutiny. No one should choose a local tax system without taking account of all the facts. No one should choose a local tax system assuming that those who have to pay the tax will be particularly happy at the end of the day. Mr Swinney supports a system in which substantially fewer people would make a contribution, but in which all the people who pay would make a larger contribution than they make at the moment.

It is simply not true to say that a system that is based on the property that people own or rent, with a benefits system that assists 25 per cent of all households and 40 per cent of all pensioner households, is in no way related to ability to pay. Ability to pay is a factor in the council tax, which is one part of an overall taxation system. If the council tax is replaced by a local income tax, there will be administrative costs and money will come out of local services to meet those costs. The Parliament may want to make that choice at some point, but it should do so with its eyes wide open.

---

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-623)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again later this month. Nearer the time, I will decide what issues I want to raise with him.

I suggest to the First Minister that he and the Prime Minister discuss the issue of boundaries. Speaking earlier this week in the House of Commons about the plan to have different constituency boundaries for elections to Westminster and elections to this Parliament, Brian Wilson said:

"If, even at this late stage, we do not stop to contemplate the essential stupidity of what is being done, people in Scotland ... will have a long time to wonder how politicians"

created such an incomprehensible measure

"out of something that should be as straightforward ... as possible."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 February 2004; Vol 417, c 1183.]

I think that I have quoted him accurately.

As it was the First Minister's determination to retain 129 members of the Scottish Parliament that got us into this mess, does he agree with Mr Wilson that his position was essentially stupid?

If we read the whole—[Interruption.] If we read the totality of what Mr Wilson said earlier this week, we find that he was speaking in support of the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland of a commission that will investigate these matters. I, too, support that decision. I welcome the fact that, perhaps for the first time at Westminster, the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed to commission an inquiry that will report both to him and to me as First Minister. I look forward to the debates that we will have in the chamber about the issues relating to the work of the commission and about its outcome. However, I have absolutely no regrets about representing the view of the Parliament to the British Government and winning the argument to ensure that the Parliament has stability over the next four years.

The problem with that statement is that no one outside the chamber believes that the Parliament needs 129 members.

The late Mr Dewar understood the importance of having the same boundaries, which is why the Scotland Act 1998, as it stands, would reduce the number of MSPs to 108. Sam Galbraith—otherwise known as the authentic voice of Scottish Labour—said that there was "nothing magic" about 129. Does the First Minister not agree that it is essentially stupid that Labour politicians are setting up an advisory commission to sort out an unnecessary mess that is entirely of their own making and which is, even at this late stage, perfectly avoidable?

Not at all. It is absolutely right that we have stability in this Parliament for at least the next four years; it is absolutely right that the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster be reduced following the devolution settlement; and it is absolutely right that the British Government should stick to the principles of the devolution settlement that were voted on in a referendum by the people of Scotland. Those principles should stand and should be adhered to in any new system or in any debate that takes place over the next few years.

It is important that, in this Parliament, we continue to prioritise the issues of improving our schools, improving our health service, improving our transport systems and tackling crime in Scotland—rather than getting involved in the sort of boundary reorganisation and redistribution that Mr McLetchie seems to want passionately, despite the fact that he has only recently become a constituency member. He should make a point of enjoying his next three or so years representing Edinburgh Pentlands, because in 2007 we hope that he will not be there any more.

I hate to disappoint the First Minister, but I think that that is wishful thinking. We will see.

The First Minister says that he is sticking to the devolution principles, but one of those principles was of a partnership of MPs and MSPs working together. One of the ways of underpinning that principle in the Scotland Act 1998 was to have the same constituencies for this Parliament and for Scotland's other Parliament at Westminster. Instead of having another bureaucratic commission, why do we not do two very straightforward things that would resolve the problem? First, we should stick to the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, which the First Minister's Government passed; and, secondly, we should scrap the plans to change the voting system for our local councils. Why do we not simply leave well alone—not so much doing less better as, in the First Minister's case, doing nothing brilliantly?

I thank Mr McLetchie for the compliment in his final word. However, the debate around constituency boundaries and reorganisation is not, and has not been, a priority for the Executive. In my view, it should not be a priority for this Parliament.

The British Government is absolutely right to go for stability here in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill passes through the House of Commons quickly and without too many incidents. I also hope that, over the coming period, we can have a genuine debate about the way in which the bill will impact on our work as MSPs and—much more important—on our constituents. Ultimately, we are here to serve them. I hope that we will continue to stay focused on the important things—reducing crime, improving our schools and hospitals, and creating jobs.

We have one important constituency question from Johann Lamont.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the First Minister may be aware of two serious incidents involving firearms in my constituency in the past week. Does the First Minister recognise the concerns of my constituents about those events? The fact that such violence can happen in their neighbourhoods generates an understandable fear. Does he also recognise the dispiriting impact on the people who carry out very good work locally—often voluntarily—to create active and attractive communities?

What action is being taken to tackle the use of firearms by organised criminals? What steps are being taken to deal with the organised criminal elements that may be rooting themselves into communities through businesses such as private security firms, private rented property firms and other local enterprises?

I am happy to give Johann Lamont assurances. The response this week from the newly appointed director of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency made it clear that his organisation will not only continue to target successfully Scotland's biggest drug dealers, but will be prepared to move into the area of targeting the other biggest criminals in Scotland, including those who are responsible for much violent crime, not only in Glasgow but elsewhere. That is very welcome and he will have our full support.

We welcome the British Government's announcements earlier this week that it will move towards having a national serious crime agency that will be responsible for tackling incidents, gangs and criminal activity. We will co-operate fully with that and the SDEA will be fully involved in it.

There is also a responsibility at local level. I know that Strathclyde police and Glasgow City Council are considering the measures that can be taken to tackle not just the outcome of such incidents, but the supply of knives and weapons. Far too many shopkeepers in Scotland sell weapons that should not be on the counter, never mind in anybody's homes. They need to stop doing that, or we will bring in regulations to stop them.

---

Climate Change (Emissions)

To ask the First Minister whether, in the light of last week's Scottish Executive report into increased flooding because of climate change and the Natural Environment Research Council's rapid climate change programme predicting a possible cooling down of western Europe because of changes to the Gulf stream, the Executive will give higher priority to reducing emissions that cause climate change and what reduction in such emissions is expected by 2010. (S2F-653)

Tackling climate change is a high priority for Scottish ministers and we are working in partnership with the United Kingdom Government to meet our Kyoto target.

If that is the case, how does the First Minister justify his massive, climate-busting road-building programme, which is supported by the Tories and will simply increase traffic levels and climate pollution?

I justify the road improvement package, because it is part of, first, a much larger package of measures that will improve the Scottish economy—improved transport links of all kinds are vital for that—and secondly, a wider programme of transport improvements, the vast majority of which involve funding for public transport that does not involve roads. In my lifetime—perhaps even in Mr Harper's—there have never been so many new investments in new railway stations, new trains and new public transport developments in Scotland to increase the number of bus journeys, for example.

Public transport in Scotland is on the up and that is very important, not just for our environment but for our economy and for the movement of ordinary people, a large proportion of whom still do not have access to a private car.

Does the First Minister agree with these words, from Donald Dewar's white paper on transport policy in 1998:

"We acknowledge that the ‘predict and provide' approach to roads building is unaffordable, unsustainable and, ultimately, self-defeating"?

I absolutely agree with that and that is precisely why we are not building new roads willy-nilly throughout Scotland. Instead, we are investing in trains, railway stations and new railways.

The M74 is an exception; it is a vital link if we are to stop what might currently appear to be the terminal decline of the economy of the west and south-west of Scotland. We will turn round that decline by investing in the M74 and in rail links to airports and between that part of Scotland and the rest of Scotland—and the rest of Britain. Those investments in transport will keep business competitive in the west of Scotland and ensure that there are jobs in the area in the years to come. The existence of that specific road-building project is not an indication that new roads will be built willy-nilly throughout Scotland. We will provide new roads where they are required, whether that is around Aberdeen or in the south of Scotland, but we will ensure that there are also public transport options.

Given the First Minister's commitment, not only to sustainability but to sustainable growth, will he comment on the fact that we now know not only that growth in Scotland in the most recent four quarters, compared with the previous four quarters, was higher than in the rest of the UK, but that, as the Scottish Parliament information centre confirmed this morning, the growth rate was faster than in Canada, Mexico, Austria, Belgium—

Back to climate change, please.

—Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland? [Interruption.] Indeed, if one merely considers the averages, the rate was faster than in the G7, faster than in the European Union 15—

No, I am afraid that I will have to stop you—

—and faster than in the eurozone. Let me come to the question. [Interruption.] Does the First Minister agree that it would greatly improve the quality of the debate on the Scottish economy if the Opposition parties could accept that fact—

I am sorry.

I call Alex Johnstone.

To return to the original question, does the First Minister accept that the need to cut CO2 emissions is paramount and that the way in which to achieve that in the short term is to replace electricity generating capacity with nuclear capacity at the earliest possible opportunity?

I will take both members' points.

The growth area for Scotland in electricity generation in the years to come must be renewables generation. I have seen dismissive suggestions in the media and elsewhere about our ability to tackle that challenge, but in doing so, we will not only improve the environment in Scotland for generations to come, but create jobs from the expertise that we develop and the manufacturing production that takes place.

On the subject of manufacturing production and on the general issue of sustainable growth that Wendy Alexander raised, this week's clarification of the figures is welcome because it makes it more appropriate for us to compare the growth in gross domestic product north and south of the border. However, we should never base our economic strategy in Scotland simply on a comparison between Scotland and England. We should look for economic growth in Scotland, and look to grow that growth, because that is good for Scotland. The challenge that we must take up is to be more competitive than anywhere else in Europe, not just England. Those who seek to make only that comparison and to disparage Scotland at all times are wrong. The Executive's progressive and positive policies will ensure that Scotland grows in the future.

---

Environmental Justice Fund

To ask the First Minister what the purpose is of the Scottish Executive's environmental justice fund and what its potential impact will be. (S2F-628)

Our partnership agreement makes it clear that we are committed to securing environmental justice for all Scotland's communities. Ministers are currently looking at the potential for an environmental justice fund that would allow resources to be targeted at a number of communities that have been exceptionally ravaged by the cumulative effects of quarrying, mining and landfill operations.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware of the great anger that is felt by my constituents in Greengairs, who believe that there is little environmental justice following a Scottish minister's approval of an application for yet another landfill site there. That application has been approved despite the fact that my constituents already have Europe's largest landfill site on their doorstep. Does the First Minister agree that there must be a fundamental review, with environmental justice for all as its guiding principle, of Scotland's planning law? Does he agree that planning conditions must be properly enforced and that resources must be made available to ensure that landfill operators comply with the conditions of planning consents? Will he ensure that representatives from Greengairs and communities like it are involved in the development of the environmental justice fund to ensure that it meets their needs and does not negate developers' obligations? Finally, will the First Minister agree to the reasonable request of my constituents to meet him?

Ministers will be happy to meet representatives of the Greengairs community. I suggest that that meeting should take place before we finalise any details of an environmental justice fund so that the community can have an input into the framework for the fund. I remind members that we have recently provided resources for North Lanarkshire Council and others to tackle the issues of contamination and decay of vacant and derelict land that require to be tackled.

We plan to launch our consultation document on rights of appeal and planning before the Easter recess. We will ensure that, although the ministers with responsibility for planning are rightly bound by the legal position, which they must ensure is properly implemented, the conditions that are attached to the most recent planning application decision for the area adjacent to the Greengairs community—and those that are attached to other decisions—must be met by the developer and the council in advance of any application being approved. If the conditions are not met, we will want to reconsider the matter.

---

Scottish Sport (Lottery Funding)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government's Department of Culture, Media and Sport in relation to lottery funding for Scottish sport. (S2F-633)

There is regular discussion and correspondence on a range of issues, including the lottery and sport, between ministers and officials in the Scottish Executive and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

I am glad that those discussions take place. Can the First Minister estimate how much Scottish lottery players will contribute to a successful bid for the 2012 Olympic games to be held in London? Does he agree that the benefits to Scotland of any such bid would be, at best, tangential? Most important, will he guarantee that Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen will not suffer a reduction in funding as a result of that bid?

As Mr McAveety made clear yesterday in relation to one sport, football, and as the Executive has made clear on many occasions—in relation to support for Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen, support for young people in relation to sport, support for capital expenditure to improve sports facilities in schools, communities and at national level—the Executive will not only maintain current levels of spending on sport in Scotland but increase them in the years to come.

It is the worst kind of Scottish parochialism that would deny young people in Scotland the inspiration and the enjoyment that would come from the Olympics being brought to Britain; those young people could see, on their doorstep, athletics at the highest level and perhaps they would be inspired to take on a career as a competitive athlete or to participate in the sport of their choice. If Scotland makes a contribution towards the Olympic bid and the bid is successful, the benefits for Scotland—if we have ambitions for Scotland rather than resentment towards England—could be substantial. When Sydney won the Olympics, the people of Melbourne did not hide in a corner and cry. They won contracts from the Olympic companies, they attracted tourists from among those who came to Australia, and they got their young people to watch the games and be inspired to take part in years to come. We in Scotland should do the same.

---

Free Personal Care (Funding)

To ask the First Minister whether sufficient resources are being allocated to fund free personal care. (S2F-630)

Free personal and nursing care is one of the real achievements of devolved government, with more than 40,000 elderly people already benefiting throughout Scotland. It is well funded and we will ensure that it remains so.

Given that more than 2,000 patients remain in national health service hospitals, ready for discharge, and given the long wait for occupational therapy appointments and community care assessments in some councils, how will the First Minister ensure that local authorities deliver high-quality, value-for-money care services to many of the most vulnerable people in Scotland?

There have been further discussions this week involving ministers and representatives of local authorities. Additional funding has been allocated to local authorities, and there should be no need for them to make people wait for those important services.

Health ministers are working on that issue constantly and are ensuring that local authorities have the right level of resources to implement the policy on personal care. Those of us who implemented that policy, put the commitment into action and ensured that the resources were available increased the cancer budget in Scotland at the same time and increased and improved the facilities that are available for cancer sufferers. We are very proud to have done not just one of those things, but both.

In the light of that comment, perhaps the First Minister will join his Minister for Health and Community Care in slapping down his former colleague, Sam Galbraith, for the disgraceful comments that he made about free personal care. Will the First Minister reassure the Parliament that the views that were expressed by Mr Galbraith are not held by any of his Cabinet colleagues?

In my short time as First Minister, the Executive has implemented free personal and nursing care in Scotland, fully funded it, and ensured that we have monitored its implementation. At the same time, the cancer budget in Scotland has increased, facilities for cancer sufferers in Scotland have been improved, and the lifespan of cancer sufferers has been increased. I am very proud of that record and I stand by it.

I make a commitment to the chamber that the Cabinet discussions in which I have been involved for nearly five years will, with due respect to my colleagues, remain private. Some of them should be very glad about that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You used the provisions of rule 13.7 when Wendy Alexander, in a supplementary to a question by my colleague Robin Harper, deviated from the subject matter of the original question. Why, then, did you not use your powers to stop the First Minister when he deviated from the subject of Robin Harper's question in his response to the question from Alex Johnstone?

Under our standing orders, I am responsible for questions. Supplementary questions must be to the point and must be brief, which is why I zapped Ms Alexander. I am not responsible for answers, but I indicated that the First Minister should hurry on.

I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In this morning's debate, a suggestion was made that the Presiding Officer should have powers in relation to answers. The Procedures Committee has considered the matter, but it decided not to go ahead with providing the Presiding Officer with such powers. Will you undertake to have further discussions with the Procedures Committee, with a view to taking such powers on board?

The Procedures Committee has reached its conclusion, as Mr Smith said this morning.

I now suspend this meeting—

The reason for the committee's decision was to prevent bogus points of order such as those that we have heard this morning.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—