Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 12, 2005

Official Report 673KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

On behalf of everyone in the chamber, I am sure, I take this opportunity to wish Jim Wallace the very best for the future. [Applause.]

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1630)

At the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet we will, as ever, discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland. Yesterday's meeting of the Cabinet of course noted the impending resignation as Deputy First Minister of Jim Wallace and his considerable achievements in that post; the contribution that he made in advance of the creation of the Parliament to the design of its powers and the consensus for devolution that was built throughout Scotland; the contribution that he made to the successful referendum; and, of course, the massive contribution that he has made as a minister to building a better Scotland.

This week, we also celebrate the 60th anniversary of victory in Europe day. On Sunday, I had the immense pleasure of attending the national celebrations in Dundee. They were organised very ably by Veterans Scotland and Dundee City Council and I congratulate both on the way in which they organised that event, which was the first of what I am sure will be many such events this summer. We all owe an incredible debt of gratitude not just to those who died during the second world war but to those who survived, and to all those who made a contribution to the victory in Europe and then elsewhere. We will never forget those who died and we continue to honour and salute the bravery, courage and success of those who survived. [Applause.]

I warmly echo the First Minister's comments about the victory in Europe day anniversary.

I now turn to an issue on which Jim Wallace and his colleagues agree with the Scottish National Party: the unfair council tax. Is the First Minister aware that Iain Smith, a senior Liberal Democrat, says that Labour has

"secret property revaluation plans that will lead to many houses rising up the council tax bands and hit pensioners particularly hard"?

Iain Smith is right, is he not?

Iain Smith might welcome being praised in the chamber, but I am not sure that he will be pleased to be described as "senior" by Ms Sturgeon. However, I am always happy to talk about Iain Smith in the chamber, as members will know from last week.

A healthy debate is taking place about the future of the council tax but, as I have said previously in the chamber, it is taking place within the context of Scotland having the lowest council tax increases in the whole of the United Kingdom. In every single year since devolution the council tax increases in Scotland have been less than they were during the latter years of the Conservative Government. I hope that the context for the debate is also that people think seriously about the realities of change.

I believe that the council tax system requires to be reformed and changed. Others believe in a local income tax, and they have to justify that position. However, across the board, I hope that we can work hard during the next 12 months to contribute to the debate and to ensure that the commission that we have established produces robust recommendations. We in the Parliament—perhaps across all parties—should then think about how we implement the commission's recommendations.

I asked the First Minister whether Labour favoured a policy of property revaluation and he did not answer the question. I refer the First Minister to Labour's submission to the commission on the council tax. It argues for

"the introduction of additional upper and lower council tax bands to better reflect the changes in property values."

Is it not a bit of a no-brainer that we cannot reflect changes in property values without doing a revaluation? We could introduce an upper band of £300,000, but if we stuck to old property values, there would be very few houses in that band. Will the First Minister come clean with the Parliament today? Will he have the courage of his convictions to admit that Labour favours a policy of property revaluation?

My hopes for a serious debate and discussion on the issue have been dashed. There are no plans for a property revaluation in Scotland.

Is it not the case that Labour's stated policy in its submission to the commission depends on a revaluation? Labour in Wales has already carried out a revaluation and Labour in England is about to carry one out. The truth is that the First Minister cannot admit that he has such a policy because he knows that revaluation would be, to quote Iain Smith again, "disastrous". Can the First Minister not see that he is in this mess because he is wedded to a fundamentally unfair system? Instead of siding with the Tories to shore up the unfair council tax, why will he not join the Scottish National Party, the Liberals and other parties in arguing for the council tax to be replaced with a fair, progressive system of taxation that is based on ability to pay?

There are no plans for a property revaluation in Scotland for the council tax or for any other purpose at this time. Ms Sturgeon should simply accept that.

The only person who is in a mess is Ms Sturgeon. Any attempt to pretend that there is some hidden strategy to revalue Scottish properties will not detract attention from the revaluation that the SNP underwent between the beginning and end of last week. At the beginning of the week, Alex Salmond was absolutely confident that he would gain ground in Thursday's election with more votes and more seats. That was his position as late as 4 May, which was the day before the election. Of course, that was re-evaluated by Thursday night, when the number of votes no longer mattered to him. Perhaps Ms Sturgeon should come clean by re-evaluating the SNP's position. Will she admit that her party had a disastrous night last Thursday?

The best revaluation of last Thursday was the one that was carried out by the voters of Dundee East and the Western Isles.

The First Minister's policy on council tax depends on a property revaluation. I know, as do the Liberals and everyone else, that a revaluation would be disastrous for people throughout Scotland who are on low and fixed incomes. Why can the First Minister not come clean and have the courage of his convictions? If he believes in the policy, why will he not argue for it instead of, as usual, hiding and ducking on the issue? Why does he back the Tories in shoring up an unfair, regressive council tax?

Ms Sturgeon does not even have the basics of the argument right. She needs to try to understand local government finance, the system of taxation and the issue of fairness and redistribution before she raises the issue.

The independent commission will make a judgment between systems that are based on income and systems that are based on property. If its judgment is for a property-based system, I think that it needs to consider a better, more redistributive property-based system. That is a principled position, which should also be the position of SNP members if they believe anything that they say about social democracy. Let us have a bit more honesty in the debate. We need a bit more knowledge and a bit more application of ideas to the debate. If we have that, we might come up with a better system in the end.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1631)

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

When the First Minister gets round to meeting the Prime Minister, I hope that they will discuss the subject of health service reform, on which the Prime Minister very much likes to lecture the First Minister on his failings. The First Minister will recall that he told me two weeks ago that the Minister for Health and Community Care, Mr Kerr, had

"talked about a national price list in this chamber back in December. It was as clear as a bell."—[Official Report, 28 April 2005; c 16535.]

Indeed, the First Minister told me to read the Official Report of that debate, which I did. It was as clear as mud. There was no mention of a national price list or standard tariff in Mr Kerr's speech on 15 December, so I read "Fair to All, Personal to Each: The Next Steps for NHSScotland". I looked in vain for the words "national price list" and "standard tariff", but they are not in that document either. Can the First Minister tell me why Mr Kerr was so coy? What is really happening on the subject of reforming our failing health service in Scotland?

First, there will be a national tariff; secondly, there is no failing national health service in Scotland; and, thirdly, reforms are taking place in Scotland that are absolutely right for the Scottish context. Those reforms will make better use of the independent sector, but they will subsidise neither the sector nor those who can afford to pay in the way that the Tories would like to do. The reforms will make proper use of the independent sector, but they will do so with the values of the Scottish national health service at their core and heart. The reforms will ensure that people get treatment according to their need. That is precisely why, over the past six years of devolution, we have borne down on the longest waits first and met all the targets on in-patient treatment and why we will meet the target on out-patient waiting, too.

I think that we can take it from that response that the First Minister acknowledges that, contrary to what the First Minister told us two weeks ago, Mr Kerr said no such thing either in the chamber or in the document. We can understand the First Minister's hypersensitivity on the subject of the NHS in Scotland. In recent times, he has come under a lot of friendly fire on the subject from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and Scottish Labour MPs, to name but a few.

In a panicked response, the First Minister and his Minister for Health and Community Care started to talk about the greater use of the independent sector and about standard tariffs. However, nobody was fooled. Is it not the case that the First Minister and his Minister for Health and Community Care have lost control of policy on the health service in Scotland? Is it not also the case that, after eight wasted years, the man who trumpets Scottish solutions is being forced to acknowledge that it is Tory solutions that work?

I am flabbergasted. I recognise that Mr McLetchie has at least to try this week. Last week saw the fourth successive comprehensive defeat not just for the party that he represents in the chamber but for the ideas and values that his party represents. The people of Scotland rejected the values of subsidising people who have money in their pocket and who can afford to pay. The people of Scotland chose instead the values of our national health service and the way that it contributes to the quality of life by providing for people at the point of need. That is a core value of our health service in Scotland, and it is one that the Executive is not prepared to diminish.

When we ensure that we make the appropriate reforms and modernisation of the Scottish health service, we do so regardless of whether it will show up in the statistics. When we encourage nurses to do more of the things that doctors used to do, it is not because it will show up in the statistics but because more patients will be treated as a result of the policy.

Our policy is the same when we ensure that changes are made in accident and emergency and out-patient and in-patient treatment. When we build new clinics across Scotland and reform, modernise and rebuild existing clinics and facilities, we do so to ensure that patients are better treated as a result and not because it will show up in the statistics. We do all that because the Scottish health service is a national treasure, which we will continue to improve as the years go by. The people of Scotland will never allow the Tories to get their hands on the Scottish health service again.

That is a most bizarre policy: Labour has a wonderful record in the health service, but it just does not show up in the statistics. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. It must be hard for the First Minister to admit that he and his party were wrong in rejecting Conservative NHS reforms. The Prime Minister has adopted them for England and the better results are there for all to see. Why does the First Minister not follow suit? Why the delay? Is he worried about the lack of support from the Liberal Democrats and his own back benchers for what are in effect—let us face it—Conservative policies?

Mr McLetchie can carry on saying that until the cows come home, but it will neither make his party's policies right nor make the Executive adopt his party's policy of subsidising those who can afford to pay for private sector care—

But the Executive is going to do that.

No, we will not subsidise those who can afford to pay for private sector care. We will not take money out of the national health service and use it to subsidise those who can afford to pay. The policy of Mr McLetchie's party is crystal clear on that point and the Executive will not adopt it in Scotland. We will ensure that inside the national health service and with national health service resources in the independent sector, more patients are treated more quickly, quarter after quarter and year after year. That will continue in the Scottish national health service, but it will be done from the point of view of clinical need, not from the point of view of how much money people have in their pockets.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1634)

I do not have a formal meeting planned with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I met him on Monday.

The fragile nuclear policy in the partnership agreement states:

"We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."

How does the First Minister define "resolved"?

Decided upon, preferably by independent bodies.

Yet again, the First Minister has not answered my question.

Decided upon, preferably by independent bodies.

I will give the First Minister a choice of two possible answers. Would he define the issue as resolved when the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management produces its report in July 2006, or when a poor community has been identified and a facility has been built for nuclear waste? It is quite simple.

I think that Shiona Baird is trying to get at whether the decision is made when the general principle of handling nuclear waste is resolved or when the specifics of where nuclear waste might be stored on a permanent basis are resolved. Would that be right? Shiona Baird's questions are a bit unclear. I am looking for a nod—I might have a nod; right, let us have a go. The general principles of the handling of nuclear waste will be resolved when we see the recommendation on the general principles and the best method of handling from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. The individual sites will be resolved when they have been identified and agreed properly by Government.

There is a significant difference between the two, which is why I want the First Minister to be absolutely clear. Nirex states that it could be up to 25 years before a facility is built and our current waste is stored in it. Is that the First Minister's understanding of resolution? That means that we have to consider the matter 25 years before we commission new nuclear power stations. That is the crucial point.

We are crystal clear on this. The issue of radioactive waste management must be resolved properly before we make any decisions on any new nuclear power stations. That is the position of my party and of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and it will be the position of this partnership Executive for as long as it requires to be maintained until the final decisions are resolved. Whatever attempt Shiona Baird makes to cloud the issue and carve out a little bit of ground for the Green party, she cannot possibly disagree with the very reasonable position of saying that we must resolve waste issues before any decision is made on new nuclear power stations. She will not manage to cloud the issue today.

---

Planning (Community Rights)

To ask the First Minister, in light of recent media reports, how the Scottish Executive will ensure that the rights of communities are properly represented during the planning process. (S2F-1636)

We are determined to ensure that local people have better opportunities to participate in the decisions that affect them. Our planning white paper will detail a range of reforms to secure that as part of a wider modernisation.

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming Lord Robertson to the public gallery. [Applause.]

I do not support a blanket third-party right of appeal; I am in favour of a meaningful and robust local plan process that involves local communities fully. However, if local authorities deviate from agreed local plans, communities as well as applicants should have a right of appeal to the Scottish ministers. Will the First Minister assure me that the soon-to-be-published planning white paper will strike a balance that involves local communities and protects them from the sort of issues that have troubled us so much in the past?

I am sure that Cathie Craigie understands and recognises that I have had a particular interest in the issue for many years. In the context of the current planning system, I understand the demand and pressure for a third-party right of appeal. However, as we have stated again and again in the chamber in the past few months, we have twin objectives on the issue: one is to create a more efficient and modern planning system that ensures that local authorities and Government deal with the needs of communities and applicants properly and efficiently; and the other is to ensure that individuals and communities have a better opportunity to influence the decisions of local authorities and Government at each stage of the planning process. Those twin objectives remain in our sights and we believe that the proposals that we are putting together, which we will announce in detail when we publish the white paper, will meet them.

I echo Cathie Craigie's comments about Lord Robertson's attendance in the public gallery. I am delighted that he is here today, given the remarks that I made earlier about the Deputy First Minister. When the two of them worked together in the mid-1990s leading the Scottish constitutional convention, they did a tremendous job. I hope that both of them go down in history for that. [Applause.]

Further to Cathie Craigie's question and to the delicious questioning by Shiona Baird, is it not the case that the First Minister and his Liberal Democrat colleagues have a wee bit of a problem, because energy is a reserved matter, whereas planning is devolved? The solution is simple: designate nuclear power stations as developments of national significance, bypass democracy and then build them. What will the Lib Dems do then?

Mr Wallace says that the Lib Dems will beat the SNP again, which is perhaps appropriate, although I hope that the Lib Dems will remain in second place.

I want to be clear about nuclear power stations. We have the powers to stop new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland and we will use those powers until the issues of nuclear waste have been resolved. That is the clear view that the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties hold and we will stick together on the issue. No attempt to distort the picture or create scares among the people of Scotland will work, because the position remains crystal clear: the powers exist.

It is interesting that although the SNP talks about economic growth, as soon as we scratch the surface we find that it is no longer interested in that. The planning reforms that we will implement will be designed to ensure that communities and local people in Scotland have a better say and a better opportunity to contribute to planning decisions. On the other hand, our reforms will ensure that proper sustainable development comes about efficiently through a modernised planning system. I challenge the SNP to support that system when we make our proposals.

The First Minister's comments are encouraging. Will he ensure that the white paper and the bill that comes after it include an effective and robust system of consultation on development plans with communities, business interests and planners? Likewise, will he ensure that effective consultation is compulsory in the early stages of major developments, as that would much reduce the need for a third-party or business right of appeal? If we have early consultation, we will have much better democracy.

Donald Gorrie's comments are encouraging, too. I assure him that I will not sign off or be party to plans that come to the Parliament unless they include a robust system of early consultation and involvement. The system must ensure that local people and communities, as well as applicants, businesses, local authorities and others, have a proper opportunity to influence development planning and the strategies for local areas. We must also ensure that local authorities and Government carry that through consistently as they implement their decisions. That should be our clear objective. The best decisions are made when the most people are involved at the earliest stage, and the planning proposals that we introduce to the Parliament will ensure that that is the case.

---

Bail (Electronic Tagging)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with progress being made with regard to the electronic tagging of persons released on bail. (S2F-1629)

The bail pilot schemes were commenced as recently as 18 April but, since then, we have already seen that the system works in practice. The use of electronic monitoring means that breach is visible and immediately reported to the police, who can make an arrest. The pilots will evaluate the impact that electronic monitoring has on reoffending for this group of offenders, which is an important objective for us.

The First Minister's remarks will come as something of a surprise to the sheriff court areas of Kilmarnock, Stirling and Glasgow, because although no one is denying that tagging might have merit in cases in which the accused does not present a threat if released on bail, the pilot schemes are in chaos. I am sure that he will be aware that that situation has induced the Scottish Police Federation to use expressions such as "meltdown" and to express concerns for public safety. Is that not yet another example of the Scottish Executive betraying victims and witnesses and allowing fear and intimidation to pervade our communities?

Not at all. That is complete and total rubbish. I believe absolutely that the new system that we are introducing can work in practice. Those who are being released in the community can be more carefully monitored if they are electronically tagged. Not only can we monitor where they are and whether they are complying with the conditions of their bail; we can tackle reoffending because we can monitor what they do on bail and their progress thereafter. The circumstances in the pilot schemes include an incident in the Kilmarnock area in which someone breached their bail conditions and was arrested because they were tagged and could be traced. To describe that as a "meltdown" rather than a success is entirely wrong.

I wonder whether the First Minister has had the opportunity to read the Official Report of the meeting at which the Justice 1 Committee considered the secondary legislation that enabled the pilot. Members of all parties—my colleague Bruce McFee in particular—challenged Hugh Henry strongly on the subject. I was assured at that meeting that tagging took 30 minutes to set up. Will the First Minister explain why there can be a gap of up to four hours during which the accused is at liberty after leaving the court and before the tagging system is in operation, and why that four-hour window is creating safety concerns for members of the public?

To be frank, I am depressed that somebody can sit through all those committee hearings and learn nothing about the system. If Mr Stevenson had learned anything about the tagging system in the course of those discussions, he would know that if an accused is a threat to safety, they should not be released in the first place, never mind tagged in the home or on leaving the court. He would also know that to tag someone in the area in which they live, there must be a phone line in the house and the tagging has to take place in that area. It is therefore no surprise that, as I would have thought that Mr Stevenson might have learned, some time delay is required. He should also know that the system is being piloted to ensure that we can thereafter introduce any improvements that are required.

I hope that Mr Stevenson and others on the committee have learned something from those committee discussions and from this discussion. The idea of tagging persons released on bail deserves to be given a chance in Scotland. I believe that it can help to tackle reoffending and help to secure public safety, not threaten it. It is time that the SNP and the Tories stopped moaning for the sake of it and tried to help us to implement a measure that could improve the system in Scotland.

---

Nuclear Power

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has advised the Department for Productivity, Energy and Industry of its position on the construction of nuclear power stations in Scotland. (S2F-1644)

Yes. The United Kingdom Government is aware of the position of Scottish ministers on the issue. It is clearly stated in the partnership agreement between the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats that we will not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland while radioactive waste management issues remain unresolved. I thank Nora Radcliffe for the clarity of her question, which it was a pleasure to answer.

We do try to achieve clarity. My question, like others today, was triggered by reports that Joan MacNaughton, the director-general of energy policy at the DPEI, has suggested that before the summer recess the United Kingdom Government should come out in support of new nuclear power stations. She has also suggested that the Government will not meet its 2010 renewable energy target. Will the Executive ask the DPEI to put some effort into renewable energy, especially given the massive environmental and economic benefits for Scotland and the UK that would result from a marine energy industry?

Considerable efforts are taking place on that, particularly here in Scotland, where we have stretching targets on renewable energy. We are investing in and supporting the development of not just onshore but offshore wind farms, including what could be the largest one in the world. That wind farm will be well offshore and out of sight and therefore, I imagine, much more acceptable to the public as well as being likely to make a significant contribution to the generation of energy in Scotland.

We are also investing in the marine energy research that is taking place in Orkney. We could be leading the world if that research proves fruitful, productive and successful. I hope that those examples of work that is being done here in Scotland can be replicated elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that, as a nation, we can make our contribution not just to improving renewable energy generation here in the United Kingdom but to tackling climate change and global warming.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—