Plenary, 15 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, December 15, 2005

Official Report 851KB 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-1999)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, we will discuss many important issues. I have given notice to the other party groups of one such issue, which is that the bid from Scotland and Glasgow to host the 2014 Commonwealth games enters a new phase today when the chairman of the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland submits formally the intention to bid to the Commonwealth Games Federation. I am sure that all members of all parties would want to welcome that step. [Applause.]

At the games we will seek to showcase Glasgow and Scotland and demonstrate the level of support for the bid throughout the whole of Scotland. Hosting the games will provide the opportunity for Scots to show their pride in their country and their history and the warmth and welcoming nature for which they are rightly famous. It will also provide the opportunity for them to show that if we work together, there are few limits to what our small nation can achieve.

I wish Glasgow, my home city, every success in its bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth games. I am sure that those games will be a resounding success.

I remind the First Minister of an exchange that we had around this time last year. I asked him to allow councils to keep the money that they saved through efficiency measures and use it to keep council tax down. In the spirit of consensus that always marks these occasions, he said no. Now that the cross-party Finance Committee of the Parliament has recommended exactly the same thing, will he reconsider?

It is important that the local authority budgets of the Executive—we contribute 80 per cent to local authority spend in Scotland—should make their contribution to the savings targets that we have met. That, in turn, finances the expansion in education and other vital local services that are funded by our Scottish Government. It is also important that councils have an incentive to save in order to keep some of the money for themselves and reinvest it in local services or in keeping council tax down. For both those measures, we have set realistic, sensible targets for local government in Scotland, which councils are perfectly capable of meeting. I hope that they will do so.

I asked the First Minister whether councils could keep all the money. He clearly still thinks that the answer should be no. I point out to him that, according to the Finance Committee, the Executive cannot specify what the money is being spent on. He talks about front-line services, but the Finance Committee said:

"it cannot be demonstrated to Parliament that growth in frontline service has been delivered as a direct result of … savings".

The question is why councils cannot keep the money to lower council tax. Councils in England keep the money to do so. The Finance Committee also said that without that money, council tax will have to rise by 6.6 per cent next year, or front-line services will have to be cut.

Will the First Minister now concede what everyone else in Scotland knows to be the case, which is that his commitment to keep council tax rises to 2.5 per cent next year is, as things stand, pie in the sky?

I have every respect for the committees of this Parliament, for their place in our arrangements and, normally, for the content of their reports, but if what Nicola Sturgeon reports is accurate, in this case the Finance Committee is wrong. The reality is that even our councils, which normally predict much higher rises at this time of year than eventually occur when the budgets are set in February or March, estimate currently that rises will be significantly lower than the figure to which she referred.

We have not only the efficiency savings, which are essential to our central Government expenditure and local government expenditure, but significant additional expenditure on new teachers; school buildings; new equipment; new arrangements for our schools; new opportunities for our young people; our social services; our health service; and the many other services for which this Parliament and local government in Scotland are responsible. We will continue to make that investment and increase expenditure by above the rate of inflation, but we will improve the situation by demanding efficiency savings at the same time. That is the right course of action. Anything else would be irresponsible.

I note that the First Minister did not, anywhere in his answer, use the words, "2.5 per cent increases". I assume that that is because the only people who think that council tax increases next year will be as low as that are the same people who think that Scotland made a profit out of the G8 summit. It is, frankly, delusional.

A Labour colleague of the First Minister, Pat Watters of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, summed it up best when he said:

"Jack is speaking in a vacuum."

Isn't he just? The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform will not say that there will be an increase of only 2.5 per cent, the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business says that the increase will be at least 4 per cent and now the Finance Committee has blown the First Minister's comment out of the water.

Will the First Minister finally take his head out of the sand and address the harsh reality that council tax payers are facing next year?

The contribution from central Government to local services through local councils in Scotland has increased by about 50 per cent in the past six years. That is a substantial increase in expenditure that local councils have been able to use to improve their local services in communities across Scotland. In addition to that, it is important that we make savings as we continue to invest. It is absolutely essential that local councils keep their council tax increases to the minimum. There will be those that can go below the target figure that we have set. I hope that others aim for that target figure and make it.

I must say that, if the Scottish National Party seriously seeks ever to hold positions of Government in Scotland, it is not a sensible option for it to have an absolute free-for-all for local government, with no targets and no savings, as part of its national expenditure plans. That is not a sensible approach to the use of public money and would certainly not lead to the improvements in local services that we wish to see and which it claims it wishes to see.

I hope that, rather than castigate an independent report on the economic benefits of the G8, Ms Sturgeon will take seriously the issues of national budgeting, of ensuring that local services have the investment that they need and of ensuring that those services are partly financed by efficiency savings that every level of government and organisation involved in government in Scotland can and should be delivering.

I want local councils to make savings but I want those savings to go into the pockets of council tax payers. Let me tell the First Minister what has gone up by more than 50 per cent: council tax, which has more than doubled since 1997. Does he not understand that hard-pressed families and pensioners cannot cope with another inflation-busting increase? The Finance Committee makes clear that, if he does nothing, that is exactly what they will get.

I suggest to the First Minister that, if he does not understand what the Finance Committee has spelled out in black and white, he ask his colleague Wendy Alexander for advice. She is a member of the Finance Committee; perhaps she can explain it to him.

Members of all parties are perfectly at liberty to disagree with my analysis, but I hold firmly to it. I believe that local authorities in Scotland should keep their council tax increases down. In pursuing that policy, we have been successful in recent years in comparison with any other part of the United Kingdom and in comparison with every one of the final years of the last Tory Administration. No matter how often Ms Sturgeon tries to compare the last Tory rise with that in any year since the Labour Government took office in 1997, she is not going to be able to do it. In every year since devolution, council tax rises in Scotland have been lower than they were in England and lower than they were in the last five years of the last Tory Government.

We are proud of that record, but it is not sufficient simply to be proud of it; it is important that we keep the pressure on. It is also important for Opposition parties not to call for a free-for-all. It is absolutely essential that our local authorities deliver good, quality services that are efficiently run and that they get the additional investment that is delivered as a result of that efficiency. That is what we will achieve.

I think that the leader of the SNP misrepresents the Finance Committee's all-party report when she suggests that it implies that there would be a 6.5 per cent council tax increase this year. What the Finance Committee argued—

You have to put a question, Ms Alexander.

The Finance Committee argued for an equal approach to services. I think the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform—

Question, please.

—and indeed the First Minister might want to look in detail at what the all-party report has to say—

Question, please.

—and not rely on what the leader of the Opposition says.

We will move to question 2.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I, too, endorse the First Minister's comments about the city of Glasgow's bid for the Commonwealth games. My party certainly extends its very best wishes to the city in its endeavours.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2000)

I do not expect to see the Prime Minister before Christmas, but if I do I will wish him a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I am sure that that message will be received with far more accord than any discussion of education policy.

Perhaps when the First Minister next meets the Prime Minister he might raise with him the Scottish Executive's homicide statistics, which were published yesterday. They disclose that the figure for 2004-05 was an appalling 10-year high, and show that the single biggest category of killings involved the use of a sharp instrument—in other words, knife crimes. Another very disturbing statistic is that 29 per cent of all those killings happened in Glasgow. How have things in Scotland got so bad after six and a half years of Labour-Liberal Democrat Government?

A whole range of factors has influenced this matter. From all the expert comment that we heard yesterday and, indeed, that we have heard in the past, it is clear that a serious problem exists in the culture in parts of Scotland and among certain groups, especially young men. That problem is the combination of attitudes to alcohol and, in particular, knives—one police officer yesterday suggested that knives have replaced medallions as the mark of manhood among some young men in certain parts of Scotland—and an inability to resolve even the most minor arguments by any means other than violence.

The high incidence of knife crime is the main reason why we are introducing legislative proposals to double the maximum sentence for knife crime; why we are ensuring that police officers are able to stop and search people who they think might be carrying offensive weapons; why we are raising the age at which people can buy knives; and why we are consulting on introducing further restrictions on shops and commercial premises that sell knives and other things that can be used as weapons.

However, although action is being taken in all those areas, those measures alone will not solve the problem. Not only do we need to change the culture—indeed, we recently instituted a change in our drinking laws to reduce binge drinking and levels of drunkenness—but we need a change in the attitudes of young men, in particular, and how they conduct themselves not just on Saturday night but during the rest of the week.

Nothing can obscure the fact that this unhappy and tragic situation has unfolded over six and a half years of Government from Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Yesterday's figures show that knife crimes account for more than 50 per cent of all killings.

The First Minister referred to provisions to increase sentences in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before Parliament. However, the tragic thing is that certain convicted criminals who are already out of prison under automatic early release have contributed to the very figures that I have just highlighted. The same discredited practice will apply to any increased sentences that are introduced as a result of the bill. In other words, two years will mean one year and four years will mean two. As a result, does the First Minister accept that, as long as automatic early release prevails for long-term and short-term prisoners, there is no sentencing deterrent?

I certainly suspect that the legislation on automatic early release that the Tories introduced in Scotland, which allows people to leave prison early automatically and without any conditions attached to their release, has contributed in recent years to the situation in Scotland. That is precisely we are committed to ending the current law and replacing it with a far more rational and effective solution.

Over the year, we have consistently said that we expect the independent Sentencing Commission for Scotland, which we established, to report by the end of the year on these matters in a way that I hope all parties will take seriously. We expect to receive that report and will, as soon as possible thereafter, bring forward legislative proposals that will change that Tory legislation and will mean that we have better legislation in Scotland to ensure that sentencing means what it says and is more effective in stopping people committing crimes in future.

I will not flinch from criticism where it is merited. The Tories in Government repealed that legislation, recognising its deficiencies, eight years ago, but the incoming Labour Government refused to implement that repeal. That is why we are where we are today. Even worse, this Executive shower has compounded the problems by refusing on four occasions in this Parliament to end that discredited practice. How many more murders have to be committed and how many more families have to be decimated before this blockheaded Administration faces the inevitable? Six and a half years of blunder, bluster and inertia have brought us to where we are, and if the First Minister is still going to drag his feet on ending automatic early release, will he and the Lord Advocate review the whole basis on which knife crime is charged to ensure that far more of those crimes are prosecuted on indictment in our higher courts, where our judges have much stiffer sentencing powers available to them?

I have to say that, at a time when corrections to previous mistakes in sentencing policy are being implemented by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition Government to ensure that sentences in this country are more effective and that they mean more to members of the public and to the individuals sentenced, so that our prisons and community sentences can provide more effective programmes to stop people reoffending and to cut Scotland's disastrous rate of reoffending, it does not fit well with Miss Goldie's new consensual image for her to exaggerate and to refer to bluster and delay.

I can absolutely assure Miss Goldie, as I assured her predecessor, that this Administration will end automatic early release. We shall do so not in the cack-handed way in which Michael Forsyth tried to do it, but properly. We shall do it in such as way as to ensure that judges who have to implement the policy understand it, are involved with it, agree with it and therefore implement it effectively. We shall do it in such a way as to ensure that our prisons can implement the policy and cut reoffending at the same time. We shall do it in a way that I hope will secure cross-party support in this Parliament and which will therefore stand the test of time. We will not do it either in the way in which the Tories did it when they introduced the legislation in the first place, or in the cack-handed way in which Michael Forsyth tried to amend it, simply to create an election gimmick rather than to solve the problems of Scotland.

Pure waffle.

Mr Gallie.

Given the terrific news, announced this morning, that City of Edinburgh Council tenants have voted overwhelmingly to reject stock transfer plans, will the First Minister accept that the result is, first of all, a hammer blow to plans to privatise Scotland's public housing stock and, further, that he is now morally and politically obliged to ensure that the £1 billion carrot dangled in front of a yes vote is now made available to tenants in the city of Edinburgh to write off the debt, to invest in improved housing and to build publicly owned rented accommodation for city tenants?

I enthusiastically support community ownership of housing in Scotland. I do so because, as a socialist all my life, I believe that people should have more control over their own affairs. I also believe that a fundamental principle of our socialism is that people should have that democratic control over their own lives and the places in which they live. They would get that through community ownership and housing stock transfer. It is tragic that, probably because of misrepresentation by people such as Colin Fox, the tenants of Edinburgh have voted down a proposal that would have led to 10,000 new homes in the city, significant improvements in the quality of the housing stock and stability in rent levels. As the council leader said yesterday, it is likely that the decision—following misrepresentation by Colin Fox and others—will lead to substantial rent increases, a cutback in new housing in the city and deterioration of the housing stock. That is a tragedy for Edinburgh, and I hope that those responsible will reflect on it today.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S2F-2005)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland recently. We discussed a number of issues that are important to the people of Scotland.

I add my voice and that of my party to the considerable joy that the Commonwealth games bid has been lodged and wish Glasgow the very best of luck in a process that will require a great deal of support from the people of Scotland and the Executive.

On a less salubrious aspect of international affairs, the First Minister will be aware that the Council of Europe has considered the evidence available so far that rendition flights pass through European airports, including Scotland, and has concluded that that evidence is credible and justifies a thorough inquiry. There is considerable concern in Scotland that crimes under United Nations and European Union law have been committed on Scottish soil. Given that the evidence is credible, does the First Minister think that those allegations should be investigated?

The Council of Europe is perfectly free to investigate. I hope that if it investigates, any investigation that it conducts will be thorough. We and all citizens of Europe will consider its report with interest. The Lord Advocate and others have said clearly in the chamber in the past that it is simply not possible to issue search warrants in Scotland or to prosecute in Scottish courts without the necessary evidence. If anyone has evidence, in relation to this or any other matter, of an alleged crime taking place on Scottish soil, they should put that evidence into the hands of Strathclyde police or the Lord Advocate, and the necessary action will result.

I am well aware that the First Minister cannot issue instructions to the police or to the Lord Advocate, but what we are calling for is an investigation. The rapporteur to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights yesterday asked whether all European Governments will co-operate with an investigation into exactly what is going on. Will the First Minister give a commitment to play his part in helping with that investigation?

If we had any reasonable request from the Council of Europe to provide information or to assist with any investigation that it was carrying out, that is what we would do. We are rational human beings who are willing to assist any international organisation in that way. However, I reiterate that for any allegation of a crime on Scottish soil to be substantiated, for any search warrant to be issued or even for a court to be approached, it is vital that the appropriate evidence is given to Strathclyde police, to one of the other police forces in Scotland, or to the Lord Advocate, so that he can make inquiries. That is the right way for us in Scotland to run an independent police and judiciary system, and we do that with the absolute best of intentions. We are of course concerned about the debate around this issue and the other concerns that have been expressed, but we must also ensure that our system operates independently. That is one of the reasons why we are one of the best small countries in the world.

---

Fresh Talent Initiative

To ask the First Minister what impact the United Kingdom Government's adoption of a similar scheme will have on Scotland's fresh talent initiative. (S2F-2010)

The UK Government has announced proposals to increase the number of overseas undergraduates and postgraduates who can remain in the UK for one extra year. Those proposals do not change our fresh talent working in Scotland scheme but they give us an even greater pool of people who may choose to live in Scotland.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware of the significant number of migrant workers and their families who are moving into the Highlands, mostly from eastern Europe. He will recall my interest in language support in school for the children of those migrant families. I thank him for his recent letter outlining the work that has been commissioned on that. However, does he agree that the growing number of children of migrant workers needing specialist English language support at school may not have been fully recognised in the funding for additional support for learning? Will he undertake, along with the Minister for Education and Young People, to monitor the increasing need for such specialist English language support in areas under pressure, such as the Highland Council area, to see whether there may be a need for extra funding for the education service, such as that which was made available to Glasgow City Council to support the children of asylum seekers?

I agree that the issue is serious and that the benefits that workers who come to our country bring to our economy and society are to be welcomed. The issues that Maureen Macmillan raised in her recent letter to me are, of course, of concern. I am sure that the Minister for Education and Young People will be happy to discuss them with her in detail.

---

Childhood Obesity and Social Deprivation

To ask the First Minister what research has been undertaken by the Scottish Executive into establishing any links between childhood obesity and social deprivation. (S2F-2003)

Analysis of information on childhood obesity collected by the information and statistics division of NHS National Services Scotland suggests that levels of obesity are associated with social deprivation but that the association is not strong and that obesity is a problem affecting all social classes.

I personally suspect that the association is greater than is suggested by that analysis; we would welcome further research on the issue. We are currently involved in a study at the University of Dundee that is investigating the role of family characteristics, health knowledge and beliefs, patterns of food buying, cooking and serving in determining the diet of disadvantaged children. That more positive look at what can be achieved and what might be going wrong could make a significant contribution. It is intended that the study will report in February 2007.

I thank the First Minister for that very full answer and I welcome the steps that have been taken. He talks about patterns of food buying in deprived areas, but we know that people in such areas do not always have the luxury of choice. They may need to buy cheap foods, which often have poor nutritional value and may lead to ill health and obesity.

Does the First Minister agree that until poverty, which is the root cause of deprivation and ill health, is dealt with, his Government's efforts, no matter how laudable—and we applaud them on this side of the chamber—will not tackle childhood obesity and deprivation? Until this Parliament has the power to deal with low pay and unemployment, we will be firefighting rather than resolving the underlying problems.

Where do I start, Presiding Officer?

First of all, I believe that there is a direct link between poverty and ill health. That is why we will ensure that we take targeted action in the areas most affected by poverty. We hope that we will have the support of the Scottish National Party and others as we seek to make our action effective.

Secondly, I believe that obesity and many other health problems are widespread and are more related to the nature of today's society than to deprivation and disadvantage. Our solutions therefore have to cover a wide range of people, and that is why we have such comprehensive programmes in place.

I turn now to the final point that Christine Grahame raised. Yesterday it was recorded that Scotland's International Labour Organisation employment rate rose again, to the highest level ever recorded—75.2 per cent. Christine Grahame says, the day after, that this Parliament is somehow failing in its actions with the United Kingdom Government to tackle unemployment and to increase employment in Scotland. That is the sort of negative stuff about Scotland that we hear from SNP members all the time. Why do they not talk up their country for a change, instead of talking it down?

---

G8 Summit (Security Costs)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government in respect of payment of security costs for the G8 summit at Gleneagles. (S2F-2002)

Our Scottish Government had extensive discussions with Her Majesty's Government, at both official and ministerial level, in respect of payment of security costs, leading to an agreement in advance of the G8 summit in July 2005.

I am aware of the Executive's claims about the economic benefit of the G8 summit, but those claims will be of little comfort to many businesses in Perthshire that, in effect, had to write off the whole of July, suffering severe losses. In his discussions with Her Majesty's Government, has the First Minister raised the issue of compensation for those businesses for their losses?

Yes, and Her Majesty's Government decided to retain the policy that it had before the summit—that it was not possible to have a general policy of compensation, or even to make exceptions for individual businesses, but that it was of course possible for both the United Kingdom Government and us to compensate local authorities if they were to decide to compensate businesses—perhaps through the business rates system or otherwise. Mechanisms were in place, but the choices had to be made locally.

In decisions that we have made this week, we have fully compensated the local authorities for the costs that they had agreed for arrangements to do with the G8 summit. In addition, we have compensated Scotland's police forces and other public institutions. The fact that we have done so contradicts the claims that we would not, which were made regularly by both main Opposition parties. We have made sure that the compensation is properly financed.

Yesterday an independent report—not Scottish ministers—claimed that even in the weeks immediately around the summit, Scotland made a profit on that event. [Laughter.] I have to say—especially to those mean-minded characters in the Scottish National Party who are laughing—that the G8 summit was about much, much more than the profit and loss to Scotland. It was about the future of Africa and climate change in our world. Those issues are bigger than the sort of political debate that takes place among the Tories and the SNP, and I am really glad that the G8 leaders came here, discussed them and made some progress.

What a disappointing response from the First Minister. Does he not acknowledge the incredulity of ordinary members of the public—whom he would no doubt categorise as being mean minded as well—that it is principally the Scottish taxpayer who is picking up the cost of a party to which, in effect, they were not invited, and the cost of which was felt disproportionately by small businesses, especially those in the Strathearn area? He said that Her Majesty's Government would refuse to do anything for those people who have been left out of pocket by the G8, but will he commit to doing something for them?

I do not want to be too mean spirited, but I have to say that when Roseanna Cunningham was invited to the party at the summit, she did not hesitate to accept the invitation and come along. We need some consistency.

The decisions on the provision of relief for small businesses in Scotland are a matter for local authorities, not for national Government. If the SNP members of the local councils in the area affected want to decide to provide such relief, they should make the necessary decisions, rather than send Roseanna Cunningham along to the Parliament to try to get someone else to make those decisions for them.

The summit was about much more than the profit and loss to Scotland. Scotland made money out of the summit and will continue to do so for years to come. Although individual businesses and local communities were put under pressure at the time, our police forces defended them well and should be praised for that. However, the G8 was about a much bigger agenda and for Scotland to be able to host a summit at which such important international issues were discussed should be a source of pride to our small country. The SNP claims that it wants a seat at the top table, but it does not want the top table to come anywhere near us.