Plenary, 16 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, March 16, 2000

Official Report 562KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Ministerial Responsibilities

To ask the First Minister whether he plans to reshuffle ministerial responsibilities in the near future. (S1F-207)

No.

Well, he should.

Does the First Minister recognise his responsibility, through the social inclusion agenda, for pensioner poverty? We now know the full extent of what is called the state earnings-related pensions mis-selling scandal. In 1986, the Tory Government decided to halve the benefits payable to widows under SERPS, but did not tell anyone about it for 10 years. What assessment, if any, has the Scottish Executive made of the impact on pensioner poverty of the new arrangements that were announced in the House of Commons yesterday?

I cannot give Mr Salmond details on those arrangements. As he knows, the situation has recently come to light. It is an unfortunate and sad story that dates, as he fairly said, from 1986 to 1996 when, unfortunately, misinformation appears to have been given out.

I do not think that anyone can give an accurate assessment of the likely damage. In the House of Commons, Alistair Darling suggested the figure of £2.5 billion, but that is for starters and is the basic minimum cost of the introduction of a protected rights scheme, which we felt was only just in all the circumstances. No calculation of the final damage can be made yet, either on a United Kingdom basis or on a Scotland basis.

I am glad that the Government is tackling the matter and has decided to go for the most full and complete protection—the protected rights scheme—rather than for a halfway house.

I hope that the Scottish Executive will make an assessment of pensioner poverty.

The break in the link between pensions and average earnings is another legacy from the 1980s, which resulted this year in a rise for pensioners of 73p. Given that any one of water bills, council tax bills or rent bills could more than swallow up that increase, does the First Minister accept that pensioners feeling excluded and short-changed by the Government makes a mockery of a social inclusion agenda?

If I thought that pensioners were being forgotten, excluded and short-changed, I might have some sympathy with Mr Salmond's question, but I do not accept that analysis—and certainly not from Alex Salmond.

Of course there is a need to do a great deal for pensioners. As Mr Salmond knows, we have tried in a number of ways to make a start on that task. For example, we have made the broadly valid and direct link between pensioners' age and their poverty. The poorest pensioners, in terms of the range of retirement incomes, are those who are in the older age groups, to whom the television licence concession is of particular significance.

We have also considered those who live on income support, have no other form of income and are at the bottom of the income range. The guaranteed minimum income for pensioners is extremely valuable and has helped a large number of the poorest paid pensioners in society.

We have also taken a number of other steps, of which perhaps the best known is the £100 winter warmth allowance, which will be paid year on year and which is a breakthrough in terms of what was offered by previous Governments.

A great deal is happening. In this country, we are privileged to have an effective occupational pension scheme that drives up average incomes among the pensioner community as a whole in a welcome way.

In terms of social inclusion, it is particularly important to look for those who are in most need of help and to give them that help at the first possible opportunity and as effectively as possible. That is the Government's policy, which I defend and strongly commend to the chamber.

I remind the First Minister that it was the Trades Union Congress that called the 73p increase insulting and derisory.

Given that the Deputy First Minister wishes to open the war chest to help local services, would a fair assessment be that most members in this Parliament would put a higher priority on local services and helping pensioners, and would question the morality of competing with the Tory party on direct tax cuts or continuing with a war chest?

Given that that is the situation on the eve of next week's budget, will the First Minister make a decisive statement that he expects to see real action from Gordon Brown to help pensioners in Scotland?

I understand that people will always look at one part of an economic policy and ask that that passage be taken out of the overall context and improved or boosted in some way. The low uprating of the pension in cash terms reflects the low rate of inflation, which is extraordinarily important for the stability of our economy and for people who have savings, many of whom are pensioners. If we spend unwisely, the almost inevitable consequence will be a rise in interest rates and unemployment rates, and we will yet again approach the stop-go, boom-and-bust cycle that has been all too familiar in previous years.

This Government has a remarkable record in economic management, producing a budget surplus and pushing up spending in a range of areas. I do not need to remind Alex Salmond of that again, as I have done so for the past three or four weeks. I hope that I am not being cynical in vain, but the increase in the local government settlement of 3.7 per cent in Government-supported expenditure and 3.4 per cent in—[Interruption.] That is the reality, but when one produces the evidence for Mr Salmond he just dissents. That is a significant increase above the rate of inflation.

Over the next two years, local government spending in Scotland will be at its highest ever level in real terms. In terms of per capita spending, Scotland is 34 per cent ahead of England. In terms of total local government expenditure, Scotland is 27 per cent ahead. Mr Salmond should consider those things before making the points that he repeatedly makes in this chamber.

---

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. (S1F-204)

I cannot find the page with my prepared answer on it, but I hardly need to, Sir David. I always think that the fact that Mr McLetchie and Mr Salmond ask the same question week about is not really evidence that great minds think alike.

I can answer Mr McLetchie's question by telling him that I met the Secretary of State for Scotland at the Scottish Labour party conference and that we had extensive discussions at the end of that remarkably unified, enthusiastic and successful event.

I shall not disturb the First Minister's delusions as to the success of the occasion, but I wonder whether, during their discussions, he and the secretary of state talked about section 28 or 2A. The First Minister will be aware that David Blunkett has today announced that legally binding guidelines will be issued requiring teachers in England to emphasise the importance of marriage for family life and its significance as a key building block of society. Why will the First Minister not do the equivalent in Scotland and insert a reference to marriage in the replacement for section 2A that he announced in this Parliament on 24 February? Is he content that different standards will apply north and south of the border, to the disadvantage of our children and their parents?

This is a highly contentious matter that deserves careful consideration. I am sorry that Mr McLetchie chose to quote slightly selectively from the clause that is going into the Learning and Skills Bill. In fact, it refers to

"marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks".

We do not have a statutory curriculum, as there is in England. Scotland has a different approach and tradition, which is greatly valued by a range of educationists. We have included in our bill a strong reference to "stable family life". That is an inclusive term. As I have told David McLetchie before, the important thing is that we encourage the professionalism of teachers and the involvement of parents. Above all, we should have a system that does not in any way suggest that differentiations should be made between children because of the domestic arrangements of their parents.

Hear, hear.

I note that the First Minister has confirmed that there will be a differentiation in legal approach between Scotland and England, as a matter of choice.

There always has been.

Let us leave it there; we will have plenty of opportunities to discuss the matter further. No doubt we can discuss the Blunkett proposals in the context of the bill when it is debated.

I will move to another topic that the First Minister may have discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland: the growing bureaucracy in Scotland, for which they are both responsible. We now have 22 ministers, instead of five, at the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive; 12 special advisers instead of two; and a Parliament building that no one knows the cost of. Also, as was revealed this week in a parliamentary answer, the size of the civil and public service in Scotland has grown by 10 per cent since Labour came to power in 1997. When does the First Minister intend to get a grip on the growing size of his Administration and the government machine in Scotland?

I am sorry that Mr McLetchie decided to move on, because his earlier question concerned something that deserves discussion and examination.

Of course we want efficiency in government—and we want to deliver services effectively. David McLetchie's head counting, however, is not necessarily the best way of evaluating the work of the civil service or the end-product of its efforts. I accept that a separate competence—a new legislative competence—within the United Kingdom will inevitably involve additional resources. For example, we have a policy-making demand that is very different from the old Scottish Office arrangements, with which I was familiar and in which I participated. It is always a matter of balance. Mr McLetchie takes a great risk if he imagines that he is some sort of political Macawber and that cutting the bottom line is the only way of getting good government in Scotland.

---

Education

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to address the geographical differences in educational attainment in Scotland. (S1F-212)

I accept entirely Kenneth Macintosh's point: improvement in all schools must be our priority. Schools have set targets that take account of comparisons with similar schools, and the excellence fund allows local authorities to take account of local priorities in promoting improvement in their schools.

Is the First Minister aware that, on average, the life expectancy of a young man in Barrhead, an area of my constituency, can be up to 10 years lower than that of a young man in Newton Mearns or Giffnock—other parts of the constituency? Does he recognise that if we are to end the vicious and destructive cycle of low expectation and low achievement, we must deliver on all areas of policy—on jobs, crime and hospitals—as well as on schools? That way, everybody in our communities will get the chance they deserve.

I certainly accept that principle; indeed, I have referred to it on a number of occasions recently. All our constituencies can yield examples of the contrasts that we have in Scotland and of how people can have opportunities snuffed out and lose the chance to reach their potential. We have a strong and driving imperative, which I hope the whole chamber shares, to do something about that.

It is quite wrong that someone who lives a small and simple bus ride away may find themselves in a different world in terms of their personal prospects. That is what the excellence fund—£389 million over three years—is about: early intervention in schools. That is what the "Raising Standards—Setting Targets" project is about. Members are interested in that: educational opportunity and driving up standards are an essential priority in the fight to which Kenneth Macintosh referred in his question. It is clear in that project's first annual report that we are making real progress. I am pleased about that, but very conscious of how far we have to go.

Does the First Minister think that there is any link between geographical differences in educational attainment and geographical differences in the amount of money that is spent on each child's education? In particular, will the First Minister comment on the fact that a primary school child living in Angus has—according to current Scottish Executive figures—£2,030 spent on his or her education, whereas the figure for a similar child living in South Ayrshire would be only £1,734? The South Ayrshire figure is nearly £300 less than the figure in Angus, and some £200 less than the national average.

Nicola Sturgeon raises an interesting point. As she knows, we make an indicative allocation to local authorities under the local government distribution formula. The grant-aided expenditure allocation for education this year as against last year is up by 6.2 per cent, and this year against next year there will be an increase of 4.3 per cent, which represents £126 million. She will see that the Government is doing its bit in that respect.

One must be careful about simplistic comparisons, because there will be a need to spend more—which is represented in the distribution formula—where there are small primary schools in country areas. Particular comparisons are sometimes misleading and difficult. We provide the resources and local authorities have to make their own dispositions in terms of how much they spend and how they spend it. That is the nature of local democracy—and something the SNP has strongly defended on the ground that the allocation of resources should not be directional or pre-emptive.

Does the First Minister agree that, in many cases, educational attainment and some of the other issues that have been raised have little to do with geography but everything to do with class and income, and that even in communities such as Barrhead, or Johnstone in my constituency, there are huge differentials in the same towns—and sometimes in the same villages—caused by social status?

Of course there are enormously important environmental influences, such as the area in which one lives, the traditions of that area, the pressures of unemployment and the problems of social deprivation. There are many reasons why children do not always realise their potential. Encouragement in the home and the ambition of parents are potent forces in the prospects of success. We have to do what we can to unlock the door of opportunity for children, whatever their background. We do that through our social inclusion policy and our education decisions, and we will continue to do that. I hope that we will see results over the next year or two.

---

Council Tax

To ask the First Minister whether the amounts set by local authorities for council tax bills for the financial year 2000-01 are on average higher than those in England for houses of equal value. (S1F-199)

The average band D council tax level across Scotland next year will be £886, an increase of 4.4 per cent. The figures for England are not yet available.

Will the First Minister concede that it is simply inevitable that council tax bills for houses of identical value will be higher in Scotland than in England because we have differing banding systems? Does he agree that a house that is worth £60,000 is in band E in Scotland, but is in band C in England? In consequence, and according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the expected bill for a house worth £60,000 in England will be £744 next year, but that for a house worth exactly the same in Scotland will be £1,041. That is a 40 per cent surcharge—

Order. That is enough.

There is an old term of friendly abuse in politics, when somebody is described as too clever by half. Mr Ewing is rapidly qualifying for my prize, which is a personal reward for the barrack-room lawyer of the year.

Mr Ewing has made the point that if one takes a £60,000 house it may be in different bands in different parts of the country, but that is not just the case in a straight comparison between Scotland and England; it may be true in different parts of England as certainly as it is true between Scotland and England. It is therefore extremely difficult to make those comparisons with any validity.

As I mentioned a minute ago, local authorities in Scotland receive 34 per cent more grant per head than do those in England. Total expenditure per head is 27 per cent above that in England. That is not necessarily something that we should be complacent about: it may raise a lot of interesting queries about why, and whether we get full value for money for that differential, but it does not suggest that people are getting a bad deal. If one looks at the past two years—I know Fergus Ewing will have done this—it will be seen that the increase in council tax in England has been substantially higher than the increase in council tax in Scotland. As a fair man, he can take some consolation in that at least.

Does the First Minister agree that we would take Fergus Ewing and his colleagues more seriously if they proposed alternative council budgets rather than carped from the sidelines?

I am a charitable man and I recognise that the chance of making empty attacks that occasionally—but only occasionally—verge on the unfair is something to which all Opposition politicians are given. We have seen some good examples of that over the past few months.

---

Inward Investment

To ask the First Minister what proposals the Scottish Executive has to attract inward investment to Glasgow. (S1F-216)

The Scottish Executive, acting through its inward investment arm, Locate in Scotland, the Scottish Enterprise network and the Glasgow Development Agency, aims to attract inward investment to all of Scotland—specifically to Glasgow in relation to this question—and must respond to customers' needs on choice of location.

In the year April 1998 to March 1999, 10 projects were attracted to Glasgow, which involved planned investment of more than £24 million and the planned creation or safeguarding of more than 2,000 jobs. I am glad to say that the indications are that that level of success is being maintained in the current year.

Will the First Minister confirm that Glasgow's bid to host the Scottish Parliament for at least its first two years was given serious consideration and, if so, by whom? Does he agree that, for only £50 million, the India Street complex and High School of Glasgow would provide a first-class Parliament complex with excellent public transport and communication links?

That is a point of view. It is going a little wider than the question in the business bulletin, but that is not for me to judge.

It is also prehistory.

I hope not prehistory. I know I am old, but that is ridiculous.

No personal offence was intended—the question was about a previous Administration.

The siting of the Scottish Parliament will be a matter for this Parliament and perhaps immediately for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I had better leave it at that before I get into trouble.

The question in the business bulletin is about investment in Glasgow. Will the First Minister agree that the Scottish Parliament being based in Glasgow would be an excellent way to improve investment? Will Donald Dewar give a commitment, as the First Minister and as a Glasgow MSP that, should he fail to cap the excessive expenditure on the Holyrood project, and it increases to a penny more than £109 million, he will insist that Glasgow is considered as a serious bidder to host the Scottish Parliament?

Order. I have to say that the First Minister is not responsible for this matter. Does he want to comment?

All I will say is that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and for Parliament.

I am happy to see that the Glasgow economy is modernising and that banks such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and J P Morgan and companies such as Monster.com, which is at the cutting edge as it is a big, well-established internet company, are coming to Glasgow. Unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by more than 50 per cent compared with the early 1990s. It is down by 2,622 since January 1999. Although there is a long way to go and there are many problems to face, we have reason to be pleased about the progress that is being made.

Meeting closed at 15:32.