Plenary, 14 Dec 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, December 14, 2006

Official Report 804KB 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. (S2F-2614)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

If yesterday's local government settlement was as generous as the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform said it was, can the First Minister rule out yet another round of council tax rises next year?

Given the excessive rises in nationalist councils over the past two years, that would be a very rash promise indeed. Ms Sturgeon will have more control over those councils than I will. Given the nationalists' promise to make a serious cut in the amount of resources available to local government in Scotland, until we know the outcome of the election on 3 May it would be extremely rash to make such a promise because if the Scottish National Party were to win, council tax would certainly have to rise.

I am very proud of the SNP councils, which have some of the lowest council tax levels in the whole of Scotland.

Has not the First Minister just confirmed that next year people in Scotland will face their 10th consecutive inflation-busting council tax hike under Labour? I remind the First Minister that there has already been a 60 per cent increase in council tax since 1997—that is four times the rate of inflation in the same period. I also remind him that it is pensioners and low-income families who are bearing the brunt of those increases. If he cannot rule out 10 inflation-busting increases in a row from Labour, will he tell us exactly what he thinks next year's increase should be? Just for once, will he not duck the question?

Yesterday, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform made it perfectly clear that next year not only is there absolutely no reason for any council in Scotland to impose a council tax increase that is above the rate of inflation, there is no reason for any council to impose a council tax increase that is anywhere near the rate of inflation.

I return to my previous point. If we are to have a debate, it is not good enough for the SNP to distort the facts on our record on council tax as it seeks to distort the facts on tax, Government expenditure and so many other matters. The use of figures that include the final year of the Tories' council tax rises simply provides an untrue reflection of council tax over the past 10 years.

The truth is that every year since devolution in 1999, council tax has gone up by less in Scotland than it has in the rest of the United Kingdom—and by less than it went up in every year of the final few years of the Conservative Government. Last year, all three SNP councils in Scotland had council tax increases that were above the national average, and in the previous year the two SNP councils in Scotland had the highest council tax increases in Scotland. That is a record that voters in Scotland should judge. When the SNP makes false promises about freezing the council tax or about cutting £1 billion out of council services to fund its local income tax, voters should see that for what it is—the SNP saying anything to try to win votes.

I remind the First Minister that between 1998-99, when Labour was in power, and next year, there will have been 10 consecutive council tax rises under Labour. Last year, the First Minister said that the rises would not be more than 2.5 per cent. He was wrong, of course. Yesterday, Tom McCabe mentioned a figure of 3.2 per cent. The reality is that even the projections are going up under Labour.

Councils are rightly being asked to make substantial efficiency savings next year, but is the First Minister aware that that money is being chalked straight off their budgets? I refer the First Minister to a report that the Parliament's Finance Committee, which is convened by Labour's Wendy Alexander, published earlier this week. The report states that the Executive should allow councils to reinvest their efficiency savings. Is the First Minister aware that if he followed Ms Alexander's advice, council tax could be frozen next year? Would that not be putting council tax payers first?

I have two points on that. First, the amount of money to which Ms Sturgeon refers is exceeded by the amount that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform announced yesterday for local government services next year. The coalition partnership that forms the Executive is investing far more substantial amounts of money in local services than even the nationalists called for in that distorted question from Ms Sturgeon.

Secondly, the reality is that, rather than the cuts that would come under the Scottish National Party, local services in Scotland are being expanded, more money is available for them and council tax increases next year can easily be well below the rate of inflation. They will be in Labour authorities and I hope that they will be in Liberal Democrat authorities but, given the record of the past two years, it is unlikely that they will be in nationalist authorities. The challenge to the SNP is to keep its council tax rises down before it starts talking about cutting other people's services.

The SNP is absolutely clear that we will freeze council tax, whereas under Labour it will go up again. Is it not the case that Labour takes the money out of councils before it puts it back in? If the First Minister is not prepared to follow Ms Alexander's advice on the economy, why should the rest of us listen to anything she has to say? Is it not the case that Labour simply cannot be trusted on council tax and that council tax payers are today paying on average £421 more per year under Labour than they were before? Is that not just one of the many reasons why more and more people want to see the back of the council tax and the back of Labour and want a new SNP Government?

The SNP can run from the truth, but it cannot hide from it. The truth is that the false promise about freezing council tax, which has been made up simply to try to win votes, flies in the face of the reality of SNP councils in Scotland. Two years ago, SNP councils had the highest increases in Scotland and, this year, every one of them had increases that were above the national average. It is not surprising that, this week, the SNP seeks to distort the position on council tax: it cannot make up its mind on national taxation either. In the past three weeks, we have heard promises from Mr Mather, the man of many figures, that taxes would come down and promises from Angus Robertson MP, who leads the SNP's campaign from London, that taxes under the SNP would go up. Yesterday, we heard a miraculous promise from Mr Salmond, a man who will say anything to try to win votes, that no tax would ever go up under the SNP in Scotland. That is absolute nonsense. The truth is that the SNP has put up council tax more than other parties have done. The reality is that we are delivering improvements in local services and in the council tax and we will ensure that we look after the Scottish budget, too.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2615)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister before Christmas.

Five weeks ago today, the Burt review of local government finance, which was commissioned by the Executive, published its plans for an annual tax on home values. The First Minister's spokesman indicated that Labour would not support the rate but has not ruled out the principle. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform indicated that the proposal "remains under active consideration". The First Minister, true to form, said that he had made his position clear, even though he had not. Will he now make his position clear? Regardless of the rate, does the First Minister reject the principle—yes or no?

It is entirely proper to take the right and balanced view of the issue. The work that was put into the Burt commission's report needs to be read, analysed and considered seriously by ministers. I am sure that, as a result, it will form part of the debate at next year's Scottish elections.

I believe that the commission's principal conclusion would be unacceptable to Scotland. I said so on the day of publication and I say so again today. That does not mean, however, that the considerable analysis and consideration that the commission put into its work on local government finance should be either dismissed out of hand or accepted without proper consideration. We will do that in proper time.

If that was clarity, it was straight out of the Bute House bubble handbook—or perhaps that should be the Bute House babble handbook, as it was clear as mud. I think that we have it on record that the First Minister is not ruling out a Burt-style home value tax. If he is not ruling it out, he is ruling it in. The only question now is what rate the Executive has in mind. Is it the same 0.6 per cent rate that Labour is imposing on Northern Ireland? Is it 1 per cent? Is it 2 per cent? What percentage is it?

Dear, oh dear. As I have said in the chamber before, it is incumbent on Miss Goldie to respond to the answers when she asks follow-up questions. The follow-up question is redundant in this case. I have just said clearly that the principal conclusion of the Burt commission is unacceptable to ministers and, I believe, unacceptable in Scotland, but that the rest of the commission's report needs to be properly considered and that it will be properly considered. Given that there are no plans whatever to introduce the system that the commission advised—although, like the rest of the report, that should be properly considered—there is no assessment of what any rate would be under such a system. Miss Goldie's question is based on an entirely false premise.

The First Minister now seems to be confirming, as is his wont with so many issues, that he does not know, that he has no plans and that he is not intending to tell anyone. If the First Minister does not know what his Executive will propose next May, if we assume that we are currently working with the council tax system, and if we assume that the First Minister will dismiss a nationalist proposal for a 6.5 per cent local income tax—he is quite right to dismiss it—will he support what the Conservatives propose for pensioner households: a 50 per cent cut in their council tax? Will he support us in achieving that?

I suspect that one of the reasons why Annabel Goldie has difficulty following the answers is that, unlike her, I am not reading out what I say. I am trying to answer and deal with the questions as they arise—rather than reading out prepared questions that are not relevant to the answers that are given.

Let us be clear: the Conservatives, like the nationalists, are making a pre-election promise that they have not costed.

We have done.

They will not admit the reductions in expenditure that would result. The Conservatives need to outline the facts—

We have done.

No, they have not. They can shout from their seats that they have done, but when they were challenged on the matter before, they claimed that their proposals would be made possible by selling off Scottish Water. That is not the position in the annual accounts of the Scottish budget. The Conservatives want to propose reductions in local taxation. First, they must explain why that was never their record in government. Secondly, they have to explain where the money would come from.

I know that, as the MSP for Ochil, Presiding Officer, you are rightly concerned about the flooding in Milnathort and Kinross over the past 24 hours. The whole Parliament will wish to express sympathy to those who have been flooded from their homes, particularly at this time of year. For them, there will be very little festive cheer. Will the First Minister join me in thanking the emergency, voluntary and council services, which are working tirelessly to assist? Will he give his assurance that there will be a review of the adequacy or otherwise of the flood defences, a matter that Mr Reid has been highlighting for the past few years? Will the First Minister give his assurance that sufficient resources are in place to deal with the current crisis and to prevent a recurrence?

I am sure that we all sympathise with those who had to leave their homes last night and with all those who have been affected by the power cuts and flooding. We have to praise the emergency services and volunteers who have helped those families during the past 24 hours and will perhaps have to do so again over the weekend.

I reiterate what I said last week: the resources available for flooding in the Scottish budget have increased tenfold in recent years—a substantial commitment by this Government to improve flooding schemes locally. Given the technical knowledge that is required and the essential engagement with communities, schemes have to be brought forward by local authorities—that is their statutory responsibility. We provide 80 per cent of the funding and local authorities have to provide the technical proposals in consultation with communities.

As I also said last week, in committing to that expenditure, I have no doubt that, following the election on 3 May next year, anyone who is currently involved in this Administration will wish to continue with at least the current level of commitment to flooding expenditure in local schemes. We will resist the calls from the SNP and others to cut local government budgets by £1 billion, because that would have a direct impact on the amount of money that is available for local flooding schemes and other proposals. We will not allow such cuts to take place. We will continue to invest in local services.

The First Minister will be aware that Methode Electronics is likely to close its operation in the Vale of Leven, making 151 staff redundant as from 20 December. That would not be good at any time, but it is particularly bad for those employees and their families in the run-up to Christmas. Although I welcome the assistance of Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire in helping people secure alternative employment, will the First Minister join me and my Westminster colleague, John McFall, who is in the gallery, in encouraging Methode Electronics to meet its legal obligation to provide 90 days' statutory notice to all staff and to reflect that fully in the final payment of salaries?

It is clear that that is a desperately sad situation for the families affected, particularly at this time of year, and our sympathies are with them at this time. It is incumbent on the company to accept its responsibilities to those families. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and I have asked our officials to meet the company urgently, to pursue the case for it to meet those obligations properly, preferably before Christmas, in the final salary payment.

---

“Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 2004-05”

To ask the First Minister what implications the latest "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" report will have for Scottish public services. (S2F-2616)

The latest GERS report indicates at least one part of the dividend that Scotland received from its membership of the United Kingdom in 2004-05. That money has helped us to fund the improvements in our schools, the reductions in health waiting times, the reductions in crime and, of course, the support for a growing Scottish economy that have been so critical to taking Scotland forward in recent years.

I share the view that the First Minister expressed earlier this morning: that by far the most interesting of the many comments that have been made on tax this week came from Alex Salmond yesterday, when he ruled out any tax rises on the basis that Scotland's finances would be in absolute surplus this year. [Interruption.]

Order.

Is the First Minister aware that if the SNP had stuck to the way it calculated Scotland's budget as recently as it did in July, in its own document, it would have had to announce an absolute deficit earlier this week?

I am of course aware that the Scottish nationalist party has changed the methodology on which it calculates those estimates for Scotland on each of the three occasions on which it has published its so-called budget for Scotland. However, it cannot hide from the facts, it cannot keep making up the numbers and it cannot keep fiddling the figures. [Interruption.]

SNP members can shout all they like, but we know that the SNP will say and do anything to win votes. If that means that it must distort facts, it will try to do so. My advice to that party is to stop digging if you are in a black hole. I have no doubt that in the coming months the people of Scotland will see through its spending plans and its claims, which we shall expose, about freezing tax at Government or local level.

If we are to believe the contents of the report on Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland, does the First Minister agree that it is a shocking indictment of the Labour Government's management of the Scottish economy over the past 10 years and of the actions of the previous Tory Government? Does the report not make the case for electing a new Government that is determined to make this country a great deal more prosperous than Labour or the Tories have ever managed to make it?

I will say three things in response to Mr Swinney. [Interruption.]

Order.

First, Mr Swinney has just admitted by implication that there is a financial black hole in the SNP's spending plans.

Secondly, let us consider the SNP's plans for one sector of the economy—the financial services sector. The SNP's plan to break up the British economy so that there would be a Scottish economy and a United Kingdom economy would have an impact on the financial services sector in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere. There would be new regulatory bodies, new borders with England for the 90 per cent or so of exports from our financial services companies that operate south of the border and uncertainty for those companies and everyone who works for them that would have a devastating impact on families. [Interruption.]

Order.

Thirdly, it is shocking and disgraceful that, three days in advance of a publication that was prepared by independent civil servants—who do not have a voice in the chamber to speak for themselves—and that was certified by the independent Office for National Statistics, the SNP put out a publication the first sentence of which runs:

"The publication of GERS is a discredited, inaccurate and incredible political exercise."

If the SNP thinks that, in government, it could use such schoolboy bully tactics and attack people who cannot stand up for themselves in public because of their neutrality and independence, it is not fit for government.

---

Rural Post Offices (Closures)

To ask the First Minister whether Scottish ministers have assessed the level of additional social exclusion that will result from the proposed closure of rural post offices. (S2F-2622)

An announcement by the United Kingdom Government on its proposed future arrangements for the post office network is expected as we speak. The Executive will use four criteria in assessing the statement in the House of Commons: whether there will be an acceptable level of future services, especially in remote rural and disadvantaged communities; whether there is recognition that the post office network is not purely commercial and that it has an important social role to play; whether there will be plans for proper consultation with affected local communities; and whether there will be a continuation of Post Office efforts to promote innovative means of service delivery that preserve the existence of post offices in disadvantaged and rural areas.

As the First Minister grew up in a rural community on Arran, I am sure he agrees that post offices are at the centre of sustaining and nurturing such communities. I am also sure that he agrees with Tom Begg, the chairman of Postwatch Scotland, who has highlighted the importance of rural post offices not only as places from which to post parcels and letters, but as vital meeting places in communities such as those in the Scottish Borders.

I hear what the First Minister has said. Will he inform the Executive's representations to Her Majesty's Government by commissioning an assessment of the impact of the proposed closures on communities? If he does, will he report back to the Parliament on that before we rise for our final recess?

It is implicit in the four criteria that I have outlined, which were agreed by the Cabinet yesterday and on which we will assess today's statement and make any further representations that are required, that an assessment of the role of post offices should be undertaken by the United Kingdom Government and by the Post Office as part of the decisions that are about to be taken. I strongly believe that proper engagement with local communities, based on the facts, is the way forward, and I hope that they will take on board the suggestion that has been made.

Will the First Minister join me in condemning this move and undertake to do everything in the power of his Executive to protect the increasingly fragile economy of the Highlands and Islands and the rest of rural Scotland?

I think that it is particularly amateurish to condemn a statement before it has even been made. It would be far better for us to outline the criteria on which we will judge the statement and to comment on it afterwards. That is what we intend to do.

Is the Executive considering ways in which, at its own hand, it could support the post office network?

We have continually tried to be helpful in that regard. It is important that we see post offices and the services that they offer as part of our wider strategy for rural development and support for rural communities. At the same time, however, it is important that those who have responsibility for post offices properly have regard to those circumstances, too. It is on that basis that we will assess the statement that is made today.

---

Sectarianism

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made on the issue of sectarianism. (S2F-2617)

All those who were involved in this week's reconvened summit on sectarianism have made considerable progress in tackling sectarianism. Working closely in partnership with a wide range of organisations, we have implemented measures in education and sport to bring people together, and we have seen contentious marches reduced and reorganised. A total of 58 football banning orders on conviction are awaiting trial, and football clubs have imposed their own bans on a significant number of people.

I take this opportunity to thank everybody—from all sides and from all corners of Scotland—who was involved in the first summit on sectarianism and the one that was held this week. I believe that they have done themselves proud.

In welcoming all the progress that the First Minister has made so far in the campaign against sectarianism, I ask whether he acknowledges the concerns of those who believe that clarity is required on the part of all the authorities concerned regarding what is considered to be sectarian behaviour and what constitutes legitimate expression of cultural and historical identity. Does the First Minister agree that, unless clarity is achieved, there will be misapprehensions about what constitutes sectarianism that will exacerbate tensions within and between communities, which will undermine the good intentions of the anti-sectarianism campaign?

Everyone who was at the summit on Tuesday agreed that, although it is important to respect traditions and people's right to celebrate them, when those celebrations turn to hatred or bigotry we need to be tough in our approach. I believe that it is important, especially when public officials or private security firms and others are involved, that people understand the difference between the celebration of a historical tradition and the kind of behaviour that we all abhor—behaviour that comes from hatred, leads to violence and is rooted in bigotry, which we intend to stamp out.

---

Private General Practitioner Practices

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive supports the introduction of private companies to run local GP practices. (S2F-2625)

In the traditional model of general practice, the partners are already independent, self-employed practitioners who own and run GP practices as businesses for profit. That arrangement has been in place since the start of the national health service.

Is the First Minister aware that Harthill health centre is the subject of tenders for future GP services? At a packed public meeting last week, many of its 1,000 patients from Greenrigg, Blackridge and Whitburn expressed alarm that they are being made guinea pigs for privatisation, because one of the three tenders is from a multinational, multimillion-pound company that has no experience of GP services in Scotland, but has significant contacts with NHS Lanarkshire.

If the Executive has any belief that the NHS is for the public and not for profit, will the First Minister seek, and share with my constituents, legal advice that shows that a precedent will not be set and that automatic tendering of GP services will not take place when GPs are willing to continue a practice?

Scottish National Party representatives say many bizarre things in the chamber and in communities, but that must be among the worst. The truth is that, from the beginning of the health service, GP practices have involved independent, self-employed practitioners and have been run as businesses for profit. The situation at Harthill is not in any way different from the historic position or the position elsewhere in Scotland today.

Local members—Karen Whitefield in particular—have made proper representations on their constituents' behalf to ensure that the area's health needs, rather than the political posturing of Fiona Hyslop and the rest of the SNP, come first. I send a clear message to all the local residents to whom Fiona Hyslop referred: do not believe the scaremongering or misrepresentations—this is the health service in action. If it is SNP policy to nationalise every GP practice, that would be a huge change in our health service that it would have to explain the length and breadth of Scotland.

Since we started late, I use my discretion to call the constituency member.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the First Minister agree that whichever private company delivers GP services in Harthill following the dissolving of the Eccles-Thom partnership, the health care needs of the people of Harthill and Eastfield in my constituency and of Greenrigg and Blackridge in my colleague Mary Mulligan's constituency should be paramount? Will he therefore assure me that in awarding the contract, NHS Lanarkshire will ensure that those people's needs, which relate to access, limited public transport in the locality and the rurality of those communities, and that the need for local knowledge, stability and continuity of provision will be central to any decision?

I congratulate Karen Whitefield on putting her constituents' health care needs ahead of the SNP's political posturing. The Minister for Health and Community Care has raised those issues on her behalf with Lanarkshire Health Board and has received those assurances.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—