Plenary, 15 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, January 15, 2004

Official Report 686KB 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-517)

Presiding Officer, today we are joined by several local newspaper editors who are here to visit the Parliament. I am very pleased to welcome them.

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

I thank the First Minister for his answer and echo his welcome to the newspaper editors.

Last week, in advance of the announcement of the proposals on top-up fees, the First Minister said that even if we do nothing, there will continue to be a higher level of funding in Scotland. Does the First Minister stand by that statement?

There is no doubt that the proportion of our budget and the amount spent in Scotland will continue to be better when compared with the total amount spent in England. However, decisions have been made at the United Kingdom level that will affect the level of income that universities in England will get and we have to respond to that. That is precisely why we established last year phase 3 of our higher education review, why it will report in February and why we will act very quickly thereafter.

That does not sound like a ringing endorsement of the view that the First Minister expressed last week. Last week, the First Minister said that even if we continue to do nothing, there will continue to be a higher level of funding in Scotland. Before the close of business last week, the First Minister clarified in writing his remarks about fishing. I hope that we are not going to have a repeat of that today in relation to higher education.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that top-up fees would contribute an extra £1.8 billion every year, which represents a 30 per cent increase per student, on top of an existing higher education budget in England of £10 billion. In the light of those figures, how can the First Minister justify his statement that even if we do nothing, there will continue to be a higher level of funding in Scotland, given that higher education spending in England is rising at double the rate in Scotland and will rise much faster with the introduction of top-up fees? How can he justify the statement that he made just last week?

As I have said before, I do not blame colleagues in England for wanting to ensure that their universities catch up with the quality and level of expenditure that exist in Scotland. No doubt they will welcome that development.

It is also important that we in Scotland stay ahead of the game in higher education as a whole, not just in the universities, and in relation to student financial support, research and connections with business. In each of those areas, we are already ahead of the rest of the UK and we must continue to be so. That is why we established the latest stage of our higher education review, why it will report in February and why we will act quickly thereafter to outline our plans for the years ahead, which will ensure that higher education in Scotland remains among the best in the world.

The debate in Parliament would be best served if the First Minister accepted that his statement is now unsustainable. There is no basis in what the Prime Minister said yesterday about increases in expenditure in the higher education sector in England on which to justify the First Minister's statement that, even if we do nothing, Scotland will still be further ahead.

Given yesterday's announcements by the Prime Minister, does the First Minister accept that the extra £1.8 billion that will go into institutions south of the border will mean that unless he does something to develop his original position, Scottish universities will suffer? What is he prepared to do to close the funding gap?

There has never been any doubt that the Deputy First Minister and I are going to do something about the issue, because we are absolutely committed to quality and quantity in Scottish higher education. We are also committed to retaining the current level of income in Scottish higher education and in Scottish student support. That is unlike the Scottish nationalist party, which proposed in its election manifesto last year to take the income from the graduate endowment out of the budget. It also proposed only one solution to the questions posed by top-up fees in England and Wales, so what did it propose? Although again today the SNP has criticised us simply for setting up a review and a committee that will consider the procedures, the SNP proposed setting up a committee to consider the matter. I inform Mr Swinney that we will not sit around and talk about the matter; we will do something for Scottish higher education and we will ensure that it stays among the best in the world.

We can always tell when the First Minister is in trouble. He starts bringing in every single bit of other information that he can. The First Minister has now accepted that he must do something to address the issue, although he said last week that doing nothing was enough. Does he accept the point that I just made to him, which is that, in Scotland, because of yesterday's announcements, the university sector will be worse off? Does he accept that the Scottish Administration is sleepwalking into a problem of its own making?

The truth of the matter is that the university sector in Scotland would be worse off only if we did nothing, and we have never said that that would be the case. When we act, we will do so on the basis of proper evidence and a proper balance of decisions between spending on universities and spending on schools, hospitals, roads, railways, tackling crime and other priorities. What we will not do is what the SNP proposed in its election campaign last year, which is to cut the budget for higher education in Scotland. We will expand the budget for higher education in Scotland. That is what will help to make a difference.

---

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-520)

I have no formal meetings planned with the Prime Minister this month, but when I next see him, I intend to tell him that, in my opinion, Scotland remains the best place in the UK, and that if anyone from anywhere else in the UK wants to come and see what a good place Scotland is in which to live, he would be welcome to bring them here and show them.

The First Minister will have a full house in Bute House. I hope that Mr Hain enjoys the First Minister's hospitality.

Last week, the First Minister and I debated provisions in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill that would give the police new powers to disperse groups of young people. The First Minister claims that we need new powers, but I believe that to tackle antisocial behaviour we need more police officers. Moreover, we need an increase in the number of police officers who are dedicated to community policing. However, if the First Minister is confident that his approach is correct, can he tell members how many officers are on foot patrol in communities in Scotland at any one time?

I do not have that figure in front of me, but I can tell Mr McLetchie one thing clearly, which is that there are an awful lot more police officers on foot patrol than there were in 1997, when his party's Government was voted out of office.

Police numbers declined between 1997 and 1999. However, the answer to the question that I posed the First Minister is that, at any one time, there are only 140 police officers on foot patrol in the communities of Scotland.

Name them! [Laughter.]

Even I would not ask the First Minister to name them.

Earlier this week, Mr Henry said at a Justice 2 Committee meeting:

"If the powers are sufficient, why are there problems in so many communities throughout Scotland?"—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 13 January 2004; c 482.]

The answer to his question is that the powers are sufficient but police numbers are not.

In September 2002, the First Minister told members in the chamber that police numbers would

"increase and decrease slightly over time".—[Official Report, 26 September 2002; c 14199.]

In the spending proposals set out in "Building a Better Scotland", the Executive is committed only to maintaining the capacity of the police. If the First Minister is serious about tackling antisocial behaviour, as he tells us constantly that he is, instead of just maintaining numbers at a level that is clearly insufficient to do the job, will he commit to a significant increase in the number of officers dedicated to community policing? Will he make our local forces more accountable to local people in order to deliver safer streets?

I will remind Mr McLetchie of a number of things that are important in relation to this issue. First, it is vital that we have the highest possible number of police officers—we currently have a record number and we intend to maintain that. Secondly, it is important that those police officers are not burdened with administrative tasks and that they have support staff in police stations throughout Scotland who can take the administrative burden off them, allowing them to get out not only on the beat but on operational duty and on all kinds of other duties such as undercover drugs work and work in other equally important areas. We have achieved that through a massive increase in support staff, which has released more police officers to get out on to the street.

Thirdly, it is vital that police officers do not waste their time sitting around the courts when they could be out on operational duty. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament just now and which will reform our court procedures, will ensure that more officers in Scotland are on operational duty in years to come.

Not only will we have a record number of police officers, not only will they have the equipment that will help them to carry out intelligent policing and so catch more criminals and not only will we have more police officers on the beat and on operational duty instead of sitting in their offices, but we will have more police officers not wasting their time sitting in our courts when they could be out there catching criminals and doing the job that they signed up to do. That is what we are going to deliver, but we are also going to give them the laws and powers that will help them to do their job effectively.

We have one open question, from Patrick Harvie.

I refer to today's revelation of a public-private partnership tender for the M74 extension, with a headline figure of £1 billion, announced while the planning inquiry was still under way. Will the astronomical increase in road-building costs coupled with the comparatively tiny grants announced for sustainability projects make a laughing stock of the Labour-Lib Dem Administration and wipe out any public trust in its responsible spending, PPP rip-off deals and environmental double think? Will the First Minister confirm the truth of the revelation?

All the experience of public-private partnerships in this session and in the previous one is of deals that deliver on time and within budget and which are effective for the taxpayer. I understand and respect absolutely Patrick Harvie's principled position against road building. However, it is my view—I have stressed this before in the chamber—that the M74 is good not only for the economy of the west of Scotland but for the environment of those who live in the area, because it will take cars off roads next to houses and put them in places where the immediate environment will be damaged less. That is good for the population of the west of Scotland as a whole, not just for its economy.

---

Fish Farming

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive is taking to support the fish farm industry. (S2F-515)

The Food Standards Agency has said that Scottish salmon is within internationally recognised safety limits and its advice is that people should consume at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be an oily fish such as Scottish salmon. [Interruption.] I have to say that the future of the Scottish salmon industry is a serious matter, not a laughing matter as the Scottish nationalists seem to think. It is a matter that deserves the united support of the Parliament in the face of research elsewhere that is at best doubtful and which is unnecessarily damaging to our industry. Through the implementation of the strategic framework developed with the industry we support the sustainable growth of Scottish aquaculture, ensuring that it is both diverse and competitive.

I welcome the First Minister's response. Does he share my concern about the impact of illegal dumping in the European market of cheap, inferior salmon by non-European Union countries? Does he agree that it is essential that the European Commission puts in place safeguards to protect Scottish salmon producers? Will the First Minister join me in condemning the politicians and organisations that aligned themselves so cynically with the conclusions that were published last week in a report on salmon farming? The report was based firmly on bogus science and has been denounced by all credible international and local health monitors.

My constituents—although I did not live in the area at the time—probably know as well as anybody else in Scotland how important food standards are, given the deaths that took place in Wishaw back in the mid-1990s, which were one of the reasons why the Food Standards Agency was established.

The Food Standards Agency is an independent agency here in Scotland. It was set up to give us advice on such matters. Not only does it recommend that Scottish salmon is safe, but the European Commission does so too. We should go out there and promote our industry, both freshwater and farmed. I hope that in the years to come we can ensure that we are able to deal with anti-competitive practices elsewhere and can ensure that the European Commission gives Scottish salmon the special status that it deserves, so that we see it on more plates in more countries throughout the world.

Does the First Minister agree that salmon farming is absolutely essential to the economy of the Highlands, and the west Highlands in particular, sustaining as it does more than 6,000 jobs where there are no alternatives? Does he agree that the recent so-called scientific research that has attracted so much publicity is wholly flawed, and was funded by the massively wealthy Pew Charitable Trusts, which is a body that is prepared to pursue direct intervention to achieve its so-called objectives? Does he also agree that the sample used did not include any wild Atlantic salmon, that the salmon used was bought before the compulsory labelling laws were introduced and that there is, therefore, no basis or foundation to this unreliable so-called research, which has done immense damage as an act of sabotage to this vital Scottish industry?

I will say three things. First, the importance of the industry to communities, in particular in the north-west of Scotland, should not be underestimated. Secondly, the quality of the industry has been affirmed by independent agencies—not by politicians—and we should back those independent agencies in what they say. Thirdly, I appeal to everybody in the chamber to unite behind the industry and to promote what is good about it, Scottish salmon and eating fish in general, instead of prolonging the advertising of the research, which is what the people who published it clearly want. I hope that that will ensure that not only Scottish jobs but Scottish diet and health improve in the years to come.

I am delighted to hear that. Does the First Minister agree that the American research actually confirms that Scottish salmon is safe to eat? It confirms that Scottish salmon meets the United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines and confirms that Scottish salmon meets the World Health Organisation standards. The facts in the report confirm that Scottish salmon is safe to eat. I hope that the First Minister agrees with the Food Standards Agency—which, after all, was set up as an independent organisation to give advice to consumers on food safety matters—which has said categorically that Scottish salmon should be part of Scotland's diet.

I am happy to agree with those remarks.

Given the clear inconsistencies between the positions of the Government's own Central Science Laboratory and the Food Standards Agency on the toxicity of farmed salmon, will the First Minister convene an independent inquiry into the issue, for the sake not just of consumers, but of the Scottish salmon farming industry?

I agree that it is very important that we verify what we say and that it is of benefit to the industry as well as to consumers that we are able to justify and promote Scottish salmon with some confidence. My understanding is that the report by the Central Science Laboratory was considered by the Food Standards Agency. Based on WHO calculations, it was found that there was an element of double counting in the report's assessment of tolerable daily intake and the report was seen to be questionable. The Food Standards Agency—which I repeat is an independent body that was set up for this purpose—has said that Scottish salmon is safe to eat. That message should go from this chamber throughout the world.

---

Financial Services

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive's financial services strategy group will be asked to report on the future of both Abbey National operations in Scotland and the potential consequences of demutualisation of Standard Life for the Scottish economy. (S2F-538)

The financial services strategy group exists to support the industry and to deliver long-term success. It was not established to look into individual commercial decisions. Our devolved Government will continue to support the financial services sector as a whole. It competes in a challenging market, in which companies based in Scotland continue to do very well.

While we recognise that the financial services sector is still growing at 5 per cent a year in Scotland, the announcements of the past 48 hours give cause for concern. Will the First Minister seek urgent meetings, first with Abbey National, particularly in respect of the threat of the transfer of £28 billion of asset management to State Street of Boston, which would have a damaging effect on Scottish financial services, and secondly with Standard Life and the Financial Services Authority, in respect of the possible demutualisation and its impact? Will he, along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, consider invoking section 18 of the Industry Act 1975, if that becomes necessary?

On the last point, I believe strongly that Standard Life should make its decision based on the interests not only of its staff—that is important—but of its policy holders and the funds that they control. That is an important principle, which Standard Life should adopt. I notice that that position is supported—at least it was supported on Monday—by the economic spokesperson for the Scottish National Party. I welcome his support for that position.

Our financial services industry in Scotland is in a very strong position and we should be wary of talking it down. We may have heard announcements this week that have caused difficulties or concerns, particularly for staff in individual companies, but in recent months we have also had the announcement of new jobs at esure, new takeovers by the Royal Bank of Scotland and all kinds of other developments that are strong for the Scottish economy, which create jobs in this country and which do very well for Scottish companies and companies based in Scotland.

The worst thing we could do to those companies would be to set them up in systems in Scotland of financial, fiscal and employment regulation, and other forms of regulation, that are separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, which would damage their business and cause chaos in the industry. We need to back the financial services industry by being part of Britain but standing up for Scotland too.

I welcome the First Minister's strong support for the long-term future of Scotland's financial services sector. Does he share my concern about the 900 staff in the Abbey Group who face an extremely uncertain future? Any change in location is disruptive for employees. Will the Scottish Executive explore with Scottish Provident the possibility, if not of retaining jobs in Edinburgh, at the very least of guaranteeing the security of the jobs that are being transferred to Glasgow? Will the First Minister give a commitment to ensuring that we have long-term investment in transport, in education and in our infrastructure in Edinburgh, which are the kinds of things that will attract the financial services sector not just to come to Scotland but to stay and to grow in Scotland?

Yes, we will do all we can in that respect. In relation to one of Alex Neil's questions, the Deputy First Minister is in discussion with Abbey and with Standard Life. His department is also in contact with them and other companies to monitor decisions and announcements relating to jobs in Scotland. We need to ensure that we see support for the financial services industry within a wider package of support for industry in Scotland. In Edinburgh, that involves improvements to transport and a range of other improvements in skills, education and other local facilities, to ensure that companies have not only the employees but the infrastructure that can help them to deliver in a competitive global environment. They will have our support to do that. That is why we set up the strategy group and it is why I continue to meet the leaders in that industry regularly. We will ensure that all those companies, including State Street, which has created jobs in Scotland in recent years, have our backing in the years to come.

---

Higher Education Bill

To ask the First Minister what the implications of Her Majesty's Government's Higher Education Bill will be for students studying in Scotland and Scottish universities. (S2F-522)

Given earlier exchanges, Mr Smith will not be surprised to learn that we expect to receive the report from phase 3 of the higher education review next month. That will allow us to assess the situation and to make decisions as appropriate.

Will the First Minister reaffirm the commitment in the Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership agreement that there will be no top-up fees in Scotland? I am sure that he is aware of the concerns of many excellent research and teaching universities in Scotland, including the University of St Andrews in my constituency, that the introduction of top-up fees in England may put them at a financial disadvantage. Therefore, will he give a commitment that the Scottish Executive will vigorously pursue the potential for consequential funding as a result of the UK Government's proposals to introduce top-up fees if those proposals are successful? Will he also give a commitment that the Scottish Executive will direct any such additional consequential funding towards higher education?

Mr Smith will be aware that we do not directly link the consequentials that we receive from our colleagues in the UK to the budget that they have attached them to. As I hope the earlier exchange showed, I believe that funding for higher education in Scotland and for universities is an important priority for us, and it will be considered as such in our forthcoming spending review. However, we need to ensure that those decisions are balanced against important decisions in other priority areas. We are absolutely determined to ensure not only that Scottish universities retain their position as universities that welcome students without tuition fees, but that, in their research and teaching, they are among the best universities in the world. We will make those decisions having rightly made a comparison between additional spending on universities and additional spending on schools, hospitals, roads, rail, tackling crime and our other important priorities.

Does the First Minister agree that there will be no long-term Barnett consequentials from top-up fees in England? Does he acknowledge that, in assessing what resources are available to universities to spend on research and teaching, the important figure to use is spend per student, the figure used by Tony Blair only yesterday? Does he acknowledge that the spend per student in Scotland three years ago was only 3.6 per cent ahead of the spend in England? That was even before top-up fees and before the current period in which higher education spending in England is double the rate in Scotland. Does he admit that the Executive is doing less, better, in that area and that it is in danger of causing problems for the competitive advantage of our universities in the future?

I do not agree that we are doing less, but we are certainly doing better—I agree with Fiona Hyslop on that. Of course Scottish universities, and higher education in general, receive additional support in England. I do not entirely accept the figures provided by Universities Scotland, but I do not think that they are too far off the mark in terms of money per student. However, we spend a considerable additional amount of money in Scotland on such things as four-year degrees and the quality and commercialisation of our research. Those additional funds, which are not even in the calculation that I was quoting last Wednesday, are not available to English universities, so they are very important.

I would like to correct something that Fiona Hyslop said about consequentials at the beginning of her question. Where Government money is provided—and a substantial amount of new Government money is being provided to English higher education as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement last week—we will get the consequentials of that money. We will consider whether or not to spend that on universities, on higher education in colleges, on student financial support or on the many other important priorities here in Scotland as part of our spending review. We shall do that logically and rationally and we shall have the best interests of Scotland at heart when we make our final decisions.

If the First Minister's constituency counterpart at Westminster, Frank Roy MP, were to come to him and seek his advice on how he should vote on the bill on tuition fees, how would the First Minister advise him to vote? Would he advise him to vote in favour or against, or would he advise him to abstain?

If my constituency member of Parliament came to tell me how he thought I should vote in this chamber, I would use a good Wishaw phrase in replying to him and say, "Cheery!"

Having had a constituent inquiring about the matter today, I want to ask the First Minister what effect he envisages the bill having on Scottish citizens who wish to study at English universities.

Those are some of the details that we need to study and resolve over the coming months. We have made our position very clear. For example, we established phase 3 of the higher education review, which is designed to assess all the implications and has secured the total involvement not only of the leaders of Universities Scotland but of the National Union of Students and its president. As a result, we will have a very accurate assessment of the issues that require to be addressed. We will receive some advice from those organisations on the matter; examine the finances that are available; and make our decisions as appropriate.

Furthermore, we will continue to discuss the implications of any decisions with our colleagues south of the border, which is something that we have been doing more and more over the past four and a half years. The Enterprise and Culture Committee made a very good point about the importance of close liaison between ministers in this Parliament and ministers in London. That liaison has improved over the past 12 months and will help us to resolve the issues before 2006, when the new regime is introduced.

Because we started late, there is time for one last question.

---

Oil and Gas Industry

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to retain jobs in the oil and gas industry in the north-east. (S2F-513)

Through the government and industry task force for the oil and gas industry, we are continuing to work with the UK Government and the UK oil and gas industry to develop, sustain and diversify the industry as it relates to Scotland.

The First Minister will be aware of the recent job losses in the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen and the importance of exploration and drilling to the industry. He will also be aware of job cuts in the drilling industry and the low level of drilling in the North sea last year and this year. Is he aware of proposals by the trade union Amicus further to encourage the transfer of unused assets in the North sea from major companies to smaller operators? How is the Executive supporting such initiatives?

Such initiatives will be vital to the long-term future of North sea oil and gas. We need to move away from a dependence on large fields and companies towards supporting smaller companies that have greater diversification and which can extract more from the outstanding reserves.

It is important for the Scottish Parliament to recognise that 50 per cent of the oil and gas reserves in the North sea remain under the sea. As a result, we must ensure that we support not only new developments but companies that are using the expertise that they have developed in the North sea and selling it abroad. After all, companies such as Kvaerner that have used what they have learned in the North sea to trade internationally and to create jobs in Scotland also deserve our support. Onshore as well as offshore jobs are at stake and I hope that the Parliament can support all aspects of the industry.

That concludes questions to the First Minister.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—