Plenary, 14 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, March 14, 2002

Official Report 693KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1742)

Before I answer that question, I would like to welcome the delegates from the National Fire Protection Association of the United States and Canada who are with us today in the gallery. They are the first delegation from the NFPA to go abroad in the organisation's 106-year history. I am sure that, given the valiant efforts of many of its members in New York and Washington last September, the Parliament will want to wish the delegates well on their visit to Scotland.

In answer to Mr Swinney's question, our Cabinet will, of course, discuss improving public services and other such important matters.

I associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister in relation to our guests today.

The First Minister will be aware that, since 1995, Scotland's economy has grown by 9 per cent while the economy of London and the south of England has grown by 26 per cent. Can the First Minister explain that difference?

It is possible to select statistics from any combination of years to make political points. Since I became First Minister, I am on record as saying that the rate of growth in the Scottish economy is far too low. Because it needs to be higher, we have embarked on a long-term programme to ensure that we have the skills, finance and strategy that will take Scotland into the 21st century and ensure that Scottish businesses grow and provide the jobs that will be required in the future.

I am glad that the First Minister has admitted that the policies of the United Kingdom have failed to deliver economic growth for Scotland. That is a welcome contribution to the debate. Does he agree that Scotland needs the proper powers that will enable us to ensure that we can deliver a competitive advantage for the Scottish economy? With that competitive advantage, we would be able to deliver higher economic growth. Will he agree with me that generating more wealth in Scotland will give more resources to our public services and a competitive advantage to our companies, or will he decide to stick with relative economic decline in the United Kingdom?

I find it rich that someone who just yesterday proposed to reduce the amount of money that is available to the Government and the public sector in Scotland by cutting taxes in a willy-nilly, risk-taking way can say today that he wants wealth generation in Scotland. It is quite clear that Scotland has a choice in the years to come. It can choose to take a risk—a leap in the dark—by jumping into a programme for which Mr Swinney's economic spokesperson, who has made 30 presentations in different boardrooms across Scotland, was unable to say on television yesterday afternoon what level of taxation would be required.

I presume from what was said yesterday that Mr Swinney wishes to reduce business taxation in Scotland. However, at no time has he suggested how that gap or the existing gap might be filled and he has not made it absolutely clear what increase in personal taxation would be needed to fund that gap. He has never recognised or given any credit to the importance for Scottish companies and jobs of a stable fiscal environment such as we have at the moment, in which interest and mortgage rates, inflation and levels of unemployment are low, employment is at its highest for a generation and the right strategy is in place for Scotland's future.

The First Minister obviously wants to ask me a number of questions about the issue. I will happily change places with him and start delivering the answers. Indeed, that will happen in a matter of time. He gave me a litany of statistics. Let me give him some more. Compared with London, we have lower employment and growth levels, lower rates of business start-ups, higher rates of business failure and a falling share of UK public spending. Would not it be better if the First Minister just trusted himself, the Scottish people and the Parliament with normal powers to ensure that we can deliver a growing economy for Scotland?

No, it certainly would not. It is absolutely clear that Scotland's businesses and the people who work—and want to work—in Scotland want a stable Scottish economy that is growing and building on the success that exists in the country. That economy will be reliant not on inward investment, as Mr Wilson recently claimed, but on growing our own Scottish companies by taking the science in our universities and putting it into businesses to ensure that we develop the products of the future. That strategy will work for Scotland, unlike Mr Swinney's ill-costed, unprepared, risk-taking, leap-in-the-dark set of policies that do not add up and will not work.

We should compare that set of policies with ours, which will give us a higher-skilled economy; take the science out of our universities and put it into our businesses; result in Scottish businesses that grow because the finances that are available for investment are here in Scotland; and mean a stable fiscal framework and a single market inside the UK. All those policies will work for Scotland. Mr Swinney needs to answer the following questions: who will set interest rates in Scotland? Who will set the level of the Scottish currency? Who will set the level of taxation? What will those different levels be? He cannot answer those questions and the Scottish economy would suffer as a result.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I welcome the First Minister back to the chamber for question time after his absence last week. At the risk of finding out how rude his good health now is, I ask him when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-1744)

I thank Mr McLetchie for that; I am delighted to be back. I will next meet the Prime Minister when it is appropriate for me to do so and I am absolutely certain that our discussions will be constructive.

I hope that some of those constructive discussions will be about the problems that our rail system has experienced last week and this week and that might stretch into the future. Perhaps the First Minister and the Prime Minister will also discuss the comments that are reported today from the leader of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, Mick Rix, and his Scottish deputy, Mr Lindsay, who threaten an escalation of strike action by train drivers to up to two days a week or more for the rest of the year. The First Minister and the Scottish Executive cannot just wash their hands of the issue, because continued strike action threatens its whole transport strategy, which is based on getting people off the roads and on to the trains. How could that strategy work if our trains are not only not running on time but not running at all?

The fact that our trains are not running is indeed a concern and will be even more of a concern if the trains are not running on even more days in the months to come. I will be very clear on this, as I have been before.

I do not accept Mr McLetchie's point that the Executive has been silent on the matter. We have said from day one of the dispute that the parties to the dispute should get round the table and negotiate a solution. That should not need to involve the strike action that is planned; the parties involved should get round the table, conduct modern industrial relations and ensure that there is a bit of give and take on both sides and that, ultimately, the passengers on Scotland's railway system are put first.

Is not it a fact, and should not the First Minister be saying, that the demands that the train drivers are making are, quite frankly, outrageous and totally unreasonable? The company should be getting the support that it deserves from the Executive. The First Minister and his Minister for Environment, Transport and Lifelong Learning should be giving it that support. Last week, the Scottish Executive made great play of saying that it had secured a deal offering an extra £34 million to ScotRail. That is a considerable sum of taxpayers' money. What I and all the frustrated commuters of Scotland would like to know is why, as we are paying so much money to the piper, our First Minister is not calling more of the tune.

It would be entirely wrong of me to tell the ScotRail management how to solve the dispute. That is their job and they should be doing it. The unions should be constructively discussing how to resolve the dispute. I hope that the discussions that are taking place today at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service provide that resolution.

The Executive made a decision last week in conjunction with the Strategic Rail Authority, which is financed by our colleagues in the Westminster Government in the United Kingdom—something that Mr Swinney does not want us to have any more. The £70 million package is in the interests of Scottish passengers and will ensure that train services in Scotland continue to run and function in the interests of Scottish passengers. That is the most important factor. I welcome Mr McLetchie's support for that intervention and hope that he will agree that the management and the unions should resolve the dispute quickly and avoid any further strikes.

---

Rented Housing

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to ensure that tenants are free to choose the form of renting their homes most appropriate to their individual circumstances and preferences. (S1F-1735)

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which was passed by the Parliament, provides a range of safeguards and enhancements to tenants' rights. Those include the requirement for tenants of local authorities and registered social landlords to be consulted and balloted about any proposal to transfer their homes to another landlord.

Does the First Minister accept that to frame the choice facing tenants in such a way that a vote against council housing triggers a massive debt write-off and huge additional investment, whereas a vote for council housing blocks exactly that same debt write-off and additional investment, is to give no real choice at all? In fact, it disempowers tenants, discredits any notion of equality or a level playing field across the tenures and—almost in Mafia tradition—makes the tenants an offer that it is thought they cannot refuse.

No, I do not agree with that. There are two important points to make. First, the ballot that is under way is ultimately a matter for the tenants in Glasgow. It is right that they should have that vote and that choice—I believe that the choice before them is one that is well worth making. However, the issue is about more than the investment, the finance and the debt write-off. It is about tenants taking control over their lives. It is vital in the 21st century that we move away from monolithic provision and give tenants in Glasgow and elsewhere the opportunity to take control over their tenancies and their housing stock. I believe that housing associations are the way ahead to do that.

Why will the First Minister not admit that Glasgow Housing Association is not a housing association at all, but a front for private financiers? The Scottish Trades Union Congress and all the unions have called the deal political blackmail. Will he explain why Glasgow tenants have never been given the choice of a deal done by the council? How can there be choice when there is only one shabby deal on offer? What does the First Minister mean by "choice"?

What is on offer is not a shabby deal. It is a deal that, if accepted, will deliver investment in and refurbishment of Glasgow's housing stock to a high standard. That has been long overdue and is now desperately required in the 21st century.

Those of us who live either in Glasgow or not too far away are looking forward to hearing the various statements that those on the list of candidates that the SNP presents for next year's elections might make. In the past couple of weeks, we have heard Sandra White calling for absolutely no ring fencing in local government and Nicola Sturgeon calling for lots of it. We have also heard Kenny Gibson calling for a yes vote in the Glasgow housing ballot and Dorothy-Grace Elder calling for a no vote. Dorothy-Grace Elder described the housing stock transfer as a shabby deal and a threat to the principle of social housing, but Kenny Gibson said—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

We cannot have a point of order on a point of argument.

Exactly.

Dorothy-Grace Elder said that the deal was shabby and a threat to the principle of social housing. Kenny Gibson said that it is irresponsible to vote no. It is time that the SNP worked out its position on the deal.

Does the First Minister agree that people in Scotland are not interested in the ideologies of ownership? Does he accept that housing stock transfer is not just about the provision of resources but a step change to community ownership, where investment is properly managed in the long term in a manner decided by the tenants?

Yes. Both ownership and control are important, but we cannot stick with ideologies as the sole determinant of our policies. It is critical that we decide policies that are in the interests of those whom we are here to serve. I believe that housing associations that are driven locally by tenants, that are the choice of tenants and that are run by the tenants are the way forward.

On Tuesday, David Comley, the director of housing services in Glasgow, sent us a letter explaining the resources that would be available to Glasgow City Council if it did not have to service its debt. The resources available, without a penny of new borrowing or any other money from the Scottish Executive, amount to £129.2 million a year or £1.3 billion over 10 years. Rather than trying to force the abolition of council housing in Glasgow, will the First Minister agree that the same debt write-off deal that is available to an unelected quango—the GHA—should be available to the elected council in Glasgow?

Dorothy-Grace Elder is applauding. I think that Tommy Sheridan might have a new recruit; he might have an ally in next year's elections after all.

I hope that the tenants of Glasgow will be able to make an honest choice in the ballot. I seriously object to some of the comments that I have heard from Mr Sheridan in the past week, which paint a distorted picture of the financing of council housing in Glasgow and make absolutely no reference to the fact that rents would rise under the plans that he consistently proposes in the chamber and elsewhere. I also object to the comments from those with whom he has been associated in the campaign for a no vote in Glasgow. I heard one of those people on the radio this morning saying that rents would go up, that benefits would be cut and that people would be in danger of losing their homes. What a load of absolute rubbish. The proposal that is before Glasgow tenants guarantees low rent rises for many years to come. It guarantees a level of investment that will protect them in their housing and it guarantees their security as tenants. It is absolutely wrong, particularly for someone who calls himself a socialist, to scare old people in Glasgow in that way. That should stop and the people of Glasgow should make their own choice.

Is the First Minister aware that, in my constituency of Glasgow Pollok, a significant number of people have already chosen to live in much-sought-after homes that are run by community-based housing associations and co-operatives? Does he agree that such community empowerment is a positive step forward and not a threat? Will he join me in condemning those who, while tenants in Glasgow are deciding what to do, equate housing associations and co-operatives with privatisation? That equation is wilful scaremongering, particularly among elderly people who remember what the private rented sector was like. It is a grave insult to all those in my constituency and elsewhere who have worked voluntarily to deliver real housing change in their communities and, as we are talking about ideology, it is a denial of the proud history of the co-operative movement and the potential of co-operative and community-based solutions to make a difference in our local areas.

As I said, part of the choice concerns finance. In Glasgow, for example, housing association rents are cheaper than rents in the council housing sector. That is one fact that Glasgow tenants will take into account in deciding. However, the issue is also about people taking more control over their lives. On housing associations—whether the Queens Cross Housing Association that I recently visited in Patricia Ferguson's constituency, the housing association in Adler in Dundee that I intend to visit before the summer, housing associations in my constituency or those in other members' constituencies—we all know that, where tenants have taken more control over their lives in respect of their housing, finances and repair and maintenance standards, not only have they obtained better housing, but communities feel better. There is less crime, more community safety and many other benefits. That is the goal that we are trying to achieve and it is worth fighting for.

First Minister's question time started late, so I will take another question.

---

European Union Directives<br />(Genetically Modified Crop Trials)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will make representations to the European Commission seeking an urgent review of European Union directives governing genetically modified crop trials, in light of decisions by insurance companies not to provide insurance as reported in the Sunday Herald on 10 March 2002. (S1F-1743)

The European directive that governs the release of GM organisms has recently been revised to improve procedures relating to the release of GM crops and informing local communities. The Executive is consulting on the implementation of the directive. Discussions are on-going at UK and EU levels on environmental liabilities and they include consideration of matters relating to insurance and financial security measures.

I thank the First Minister for his response. I am pleased to hear that there is an on-going debate. Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Executive must play a leading part in the development of simple and straightforward liability regulations that can deliver compensation for those who may have suffered financial loss due to genetic contamination?

I would want to take as a starting point in discussions the fact that our objective is to stop and avoid genetic contamination. All trials, which follow other, stringent trials in laboratories elsewhere, will be designed to ensure that, if the crop is ever to be taken any further, it will not involve genetic contamination. Scotland will play a full part in the development of the new directive. We agree that we need clear and unambiguous rules.

Is the First Minister aware that directive 90/220/EEC, which is in force in Scotland, gives Scottish ministers the power to stop trials of GM crops where there is known damage to the environment or public health? Is he aware of the evidence from around the world, including the UK, of the damage that those crops are doing to the environment? Is he prepared to use that power and tell the people of Munlochy that the field in question will be ploughed up now rather than fertilised, as it was on Tuesday?

It can be easy to score political points by scaremongering, but I think that that is wrong.

We hear a lot from the Opposition about the importance of committee reports. Earlier in question time, Mr Reid highlighted a committee report that was the result of considerable study; the Executive will consider that report's conclusions. The matter that Fiona McLeod has raised is another example of the Transport and the Environment Committee considering an issue, examining the controls and giving the Executive appropriate advice. None of that advice conflicts with the actions that we are undertaking.

It is right and proper that we ensure that whatever happens in Scotland does so in the context of safety and that there is no danger to local people. It is also important that we continue to make improvements. That is why I believe—I have said this before in the chamber—that we must improve consultation measures and the controls that exist. We must ensure that, if any crops are ever taken further, that is done only on the basis that they are absolutely safe in local communities and across Scotland. That is the basis on which we will make our decisions and that will not change.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for the Executive not to release to the chamber information that is relevant to answers given to questions? I am thinking of question 9 in question time and question 4 in First Minister's question time.

There is no requirement on the Executive to do so. As I understand it, the Executive has still to respond to the committee's report. Am I right on that?

May I respond to that point, Presiding Officer?

Yes.

My guess is that Mr Harper may be referring to the answer to a question that was not taken today—from Mr Iain Smith, the member for North-East Fife—on the announcement about GM crop trials. Is that right?

Robin Harper indicated agreement.

I have no proof that this has happened, but I hope that it has: I guessed that Mr Smith's question would not be taken this afternoon, so I specifically requested at 9 o'clock this morning that his question be answered in advance of question time today, because I knew that question 4 at First Minister's question time would come up. I hope that his question was answered in advance today. If it was, the information was available to members.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During question time, you said that you could not hear some members. At that point, the audio levels seemed to go up. Could you perhaps check with the operators of the sound system to find out whether we can have slightly higher sound levels?

I have to confess that the problem was with the speaker under my desk. It is possibly loud enough for Mr Gallie to be able to hear it. It stopped functioning for a while, but it is now back in order.