Plenary, 17 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, November 17, 2005

Official Report 763KB 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-1920)

We will discuss all sorts of issues, all of which will be important to the people of Scotland.

I am sure. According to the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, the body that regulates company mergers and acquisitions, when talks are under way about a possible bid for one company by another,

"more information (in the public domain)"

is

"preferable to less information".

Does the First Minister agree?

It is important that information is in the public domain; however, it is also important that companies behave appropriately in those circumstances. Therefore, when information should be in the public domain, there is an obligation on the part of a company to make sure that that happens. However, I would also want to be clear that the interests of companies, particularly those headquartered in Scotland, were being protected as part of that process.

I refer, of course, to a possible takeover of ScottishPower. Does the First Minister share my concern that, right now, ScottishPower is being negotiated away behind closed doors? The next we might hear is that a deal has been done to sell Scotland's biggest industrial company to E.ON.

I accept that the company has a duty to its shareholders, but will the First Minister accept that at stake are the national interest, the consumer interest and the employee interest? For those wider issues to be fully debated, there must be clarity from ScottishPower about its intentions. Will the First Minister join me today in asking the board of ScottishPower to break its silence and to make clear exactly what is going on?

Ms Sturgeon's interest in consumers is a welcome development as part of the debate. It would be helpful if we had some perspective. Discussions are being held at the moment, but there could be other indications of interest should ScottishPower decide that it wants to move in that direction or should E.ON decide that it wants to make a bid. Ultimately, if such a proposal were made it would have to be investigated properly and thoroughly at United Kingdom or, more likely, European level.

There are still several stages in the process. Our job in this Parliament is to defend and promote successful Scottish companies that are headquartered in Scotland, and ScottishPower comes into that category. That is why it is wrong for anybody from any corner of the chamber to run down ScottishPower or to create unnecessary speculation about it. Our job is to promote the fact that ScottishPower is making the right decisions to ensure that it remains profitable and that it remains the successful Scotland-headquartered company that it is.

We know that ScottishPower is in talks with E.ON. I asked the First Minister—but he did not answer—whether it would it be in the national interest for ScottishPower to be up front about the state of talks.

Is the First Minister aware of the growing body of opinion in Scotland that ScottishPower should remain independent? Sir Iain Noble and Charlie Gordon—the local Labour MSP—think so. Even the European Commission said this week that merger control is needed to preserve competition in the energy market.

I ask the First Minister to answer unequivocally: does he agree that ScottishPower should remain an independent Scottish company, and does he accept that if he would only come off the fence, he could be very influential in making sure that it does?

We have heard this ridiculous position from Ms Sturgeon before. Of course, any responsible member in the chamber should believe—as I do—that it is far preferable for Scottish companies to remain independent and to be headquartered here in Scotland.

We also have to live in the real world. The last time Ms Sturgeon raised this matter in the chamber, she was described by a variety of economics experts as being an opportunist with poor economics and as having a position that "defies logic", that was "shameful … opportunistic nonsense" and the

"worst kind of political expediency",

as well as being "dishonestly simplistic" and showing "knee-jerk nationalism". I could not have put it better myself.

Of course we want ScottishPower to remain independent and headquartered here in Scotland. Of course, should there be any changes, we want the maximum number of jobs and the most effective operation of what remains of ScottishPower to remain here in Scotland. Of course we would want both the United Kingdom and the European Commission to investigate any proposed merger.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that we live in a global economy. When Scottish and Newcastle buys up Greek or Russian breweries and beer companies or other companies around the world, ensuring that they are part of a Scotland-headquartered company, or when the Royal Bank of Scotland buys up banks in America, ensuring that they are part of a Scotland-headquartered company, we do not expect the Americans, Greeks or Russians to tell us that they are putting up their barriers and that we cannot buy their companies. We must recognise that we need competitive companies here in Scotland that are competing on the world stage and winning in world markets. That is the best way to preserve and expand Scotland-headquartered companies. The sort of protectionism that Ms Sturgeon promotes is wrong, and it will not work. It would result in a rundown of the Scottish economy, with barriers being put up, and it would end up destroying Scottish jobs.

I remind the First Minister that my position, which he so derides, is shared by his good friend, Charlie Gordon.

The First Minister tells us what he wants, but not what he is prepared to do to get it. Is he aware of what happened when, earlier this year, the United States House of Representatives expressed its opposition to a foreign takeover of an American energy company? The foreign company pulled out, citing the "unfavourable political environment". Why will he not accept that—albeit in limited circumstances—when the national interest is at stake, politicians have a duty to stand up and be counted, and that he is now failing in that duty?

The direct implication of what Ms Sturgeon has just said is that access to the part of the US energy market that ScottishPower is still involved in, even having sold PacifiCorp, would no longer be allowed, and that she would not want ScottishPower to have that stake in the US renewable energy market. That is a ridiculous position.

If we are going to grow Scottish companies and have successful Scottish companies competing on the world stage, generating profits and, therefore, tax returns in this country, as well as generating jobs here in Scotland and keeping the Scottish economy's international profile high, we need Scottish companies to be able to buy companies on the international market and to take a stake in other countries. If Ms Sturgeon thinks that every country should throw up its barriers and prevent that from happening, she must realise that Scottish companies would be affected and would ultimately fail. That sort of nationalistic, simplistic nonsense will not do when it comes to a 21st century economy.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1921)

I hope to meet the Prime Minister again soon.

The First Minister should arrange a meeting as soon as possible. Mr Blair is a veteran of quelling rebellions. Judging by yesterday's pantomime here, the First Minister is in need of some desperate advice.

I wish to raise with the First Minister the latest figures from the Department of Trade and Industry for the number of VAT-registered businesses in Scotland. Those figures are regarded as a useful barometer for the health of our economy. In contrast with a healthy net gain of 1,825 businesses eight years ago, there was a depressing net loss of 135 businesses last year. The business barometer is dropping. How does that fit with the First Minister's "smart, successful Scotland" soundbite?

The figures are one of a number of indicators of the business growth rate and of business start-ups in Scotland. What is important is that we have a proper strategy for increasing the business start-up rate in Scotland and for ensuring the future success of those businesses. That involves not only the widely acclaimed and successful reorganisation of the grant schemes and support that are available for business in Scotland, which have been admired and copied elsewhere, but the need to create a more risk-taking, confident culture among young Scots in particular.

I will be asked a question later about determined to succeed. Earlier this week, I attended the Young Enterprise Scotland annual conference. Several hundred youngsters from throughout Scotland are involved in enterprise projects in the classroom. Those projects, which did not exist five years ago, are encouraging them not only to know more about business but to have the right sort of attitude that will encourage them to start up businesses during their lives.

We have to change the culture of Scotland, rather than just change the numbers involved or the decisions on legislation in this Parliament. By changing the culture we will see more businesses being created. Some will go to the wall, but many will succeed and grow and become the global companies that we have just been discussing—or at least trying to discuss—with the Scottish nationalists.

I have heard much from the First Minister in this chamber that is depressing, but to say that some businesses will go to the wall when we are looking at the worst recorded net fall of VAT-registered businesses for eight years and not to show a greater degree of concern is truly astonishing.

I accept that the First Minister is not, for the moment, on the easiest terms with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners, but I presume that he is still talking to Mr Stephen, his deputy. Mr Stephen said at his United Kingdom Liberal Democrat conference that he wanted to go further than the recent decision to restore parity with England on business rates and

"to make Scotland even more competitive with rates lower than England."

I well understand Mr Stephen's sensitivity, because he is the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, and in his own back yard of Aberdeen there has been a net loss of 100 businesses registering for VAT in the most recent year.

Will the First Minister accept the concerns of his deputy that we need to do more to help our businesses? Will the First Minister pledge to cut the rate now to achieve parity with England, or is his coalition really in tatters?

I will say two things in response to that. Not only are we committed to achieving parity between the business rate in Scotland and business rates elsewhere but we are all committed to ensuring that Scotland has a competitive edge. I said in the chamber in early September that one of the areas that we would look at specifically was ensuring that companies in Scotland that are engaged in research and development have an advantage in the business rate system. We are continuing to pursue that idea.

On business start-ups and whether people should be taking risks, I have to say with all respect that I think that it is wrong for us to create a culture in which people should not be encouraged to start up a business in the first place because they might be condemned when their business idea does not succeed. We need to create a culture in which people are willing to start up businesses. Yes, some of those business ideas might not come to fruition and the business might go to the wall, but many of them will succeed. If we have the right culture in Scotland, we will see more businesses started, more businesses succeed and more businesses grow on the global stage. That is the kind of enterprise culture that I want to see in Scotland, that Nicol Stephen wants to see in Scotland and that this partnership Government wants to see in Scotland. The wrong way to change that culture is for the Tories and others to condemn those who try and fail.

I am tempted to restrict my question to three words: is that it? That was a most extraordinary display of rhetoric from someone who clearly has never run a business in his life. The figures are there. Business success in Scotland is going down. Can the First Minister do something about that now, or has he absolutely no relationship with his Deputy First Minister?

When I was a teacher back in the 1980s, the kids whom I taught in Tullibody in Clackmannanshire would never in a million years have dreamed of starting a business. They would never have dreamed of having the opportunity even to have such an ambition. They would never have dreamed that if they did so, they might be supported by politicians and Government. We need to ensure that in this country, youngsters from whatever background and whatever community believe that starting a business is a legitimate aspiration for them. That is why we are not going to stick with the ideas of the past that come from the Tory party but will ensure that in Scotland today youngsters in every primary and secondary school believe that they can start businesses, can have that aspiration and can succeed. That is a can-do, confident culture that will result in more business start-ups, more businesses registered in Scotland and more success for the Scottish economy.

There are two important constituency questions.

The First Minister will be aware of the tragic circumstances of the case involving Farah Noor Adams, who was found murdered beside the River Kelvin. The police are now investigating why, when she dialled 999 five times on her mobile phone, British Telecom did not pass her call to the emergency services.

Will the First Minister assure me that the investigation will take into account the fact that many people who call 999 will not be able to speak to an operator because of the danger that they are in, most notably when violence against women and children is involved? Will he assure me that the investigation will recognise that many people rely on their mobile phones to help to keep them safe?

Commenting on the specifics of such cases is always difficult because of the need not to prejudice any investigation that is taking place. However, I will say that the existence of mobile phones and mobile phone operators in this country should make lives safer rather than put lives in more danger and that it should be easier, rather than more difficult, for people to contact the emergency services.

I understand that the circumstances are being investigated at the highest levels in the phone company and—obviously—in the police, and we will ensure that ministers receive a report of that investigation. If we need to take any action, we will pursue it. However, I want to make it clear that the safety of the public must be paramount and that phone operators and phone companies in this country have an absolute duty and obligation to ensure that the 999 system operates successfully and that people's calls are quickly passed to the emergency services. If that does not happen, action will be required to resolve the problem.

In the light of yesterday's announcement about the loss of 260 jobs at BAE Systems Avionics, will Scottish Executive ministers, as a matter of urgency, meet the relevant parties and take all possible steps to try to safeguard those highly skilled jobs for Scotland?

Yes, of course. Discussions will take place with Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothians and the other agencies that help out in such situations. With Scotland's employment rate at its highest-ever level, I hope that there will be a good market that will ensure that people's skills are kept in Scotland and that people find alternative employment. However, it is important to stress that BAE Systems is making positive decisions elsewhere in Scotland and that it has been able not only to retain workers, but to expand the workforce in Glasgow, for example, as a result of other contracts that it has been awarded. The decision to which the member refers is deeply disappointing and local action will be required to alleviate the outcome, but it is important for us to ensure that BAE Systems and the work that it is currently involved in are welcome in Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1934)

I expect to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland within the next week or so. We will discuss a number of issues that are important to the people of Scotland.

In September, the First Minister told us that a new protocol was needed to protect the welfare of children of asylum seekers. Last month, he told us that progress was being made and that he expected us to be patient. However, after each assurance there are more dawn raids, each of which seems to redefine brutality. Will he condemn the latest reported example in which the Home Office carried out a dawn raid and deported a family to Pakistan, knowing that it was leaving behind—abandoning—a 16-year-old child? Is not that the most disgraceful neglect of responsibility for that child's welfare? If the child returns to Scotland, will the First Minister acknowledge that his welfare is still the Executive's responsibility?

I do not intend this point to be in any way facetious or to demean the importance of the particular incident, but I do not think that 16-year-olds are automatically covered by the legislation that protects children in Scotland in every case. Therefore, we would need to ensure that any interventions in such cases were appropriate.

Discussions continue with the Home Office on the agreement that we seek to reach with it. However, it is important for me to state yet again—as I have done on every occasion on which we have discussed this matter—that, if we have a system of immigration in this country, there will be people who will fail to meet the criteria and, therefore, will not be allowed to remain in the country. If people do not leave the country voluntarily, they will have to be forced to leave. That is a natural consequence of every immigration system in the world.

We are determined that cases that concern young children involve the education and social services that, in this country, have a responsibility for those youngsters. That is the agreement that we are seeking to reach with the Home Office. When we have made detailed progress on that, we will, of course, report to Parliament.

It becomes harder and harder for even the most patient of us to have any shred of faith in the First Minister's assurances. Surely he must accept that the practice of unannounced dawn raids must inevitably risk the repetition of this outrage, with more children lost, and that it is now time for something more than empty assurances. Will he give a firm and clear date for the new protocol? Will he agree that, come what may, the dawn raids must end, or will he take the only other option and admit that, however sincere his concern might be, he and his Executive are powerless to protect the welfare of these children?

Not at all. The appropriate services in Scotland and the appropriate authorities in Scotland already intervene when they need to in cases that involve asylum seekers and children in Scotland. They have done that consistently and with great integrity. They should not be insulted in the way that they have been. They carry out their jobs properly, we expect them to do so and they should be recognised for that.

At the same time, there needs to be an agreement with the Home Office. However, it would be far better for us to have the right agreement than to have an agreement that is reached in haste. That is why we will ensure that the discussions progress towards the right conclusion. I will not set some arbitrary date, as that might mean that the agreement could be inadequate. I want to ensure that the agreement is properly completed, and that is the point at which we will report to Parliament.

---

Enterprise Education

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in achieving the original targets set by the determined to succeed working group. (S2F-1925)

Since we began implementing our enterprise in education strategy, the determined to succeed programme, we have funded dedicated DTS co-ordinators in every local authority, worked with partners such as Young Enterprise Scotland to get enterprise activities into every classroom, helped nearly 100 head teachers to attend a new leadership academy so that they can lead the enterprise effort within their schools and worked with the Hunter Foundation to develop XLerate, a ground-breaking programme to bring enterprise to vulnerable and disengaged young people.

I am sure that the First Minister will be aware of the successful determined to succeed programme that is being run in the North Lanarkshire Council area. However, is he aware of the excellent work that is being done between schools and business in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth area? Greenfaulds High School, pupils from which are present in the Parliament today, is one of the schools in which students, teachers and business benefit from the programme. However, as the targets were set three years ago, does he agree that it is time to review their success? In line with a question that was asked earlier today, I commend this worthwhile programme to the Scottish Executive for long-term funding.

I think that we should keep the programme under constant review, and we will report back to Parliament as the review process determines the next stages in the direction of the determined to succeed initiative.

I congratulate Greenfaulds High School on its initiative and also the many other schools across Scotland that are engaged in the programme. I believe that this is one of the most exciting things that has happened in Scottish schools for well over a generation. In our schools, enterprising teachers, head teachers, local businesses and local business figures, as mentors and advisers for young people, come together with the young people themselves, who display a more confident and can-do approach than I have ever seen in my experience in Scottish schools. Those youngsters will drive forward Scotland in the years to come. The determined to succeed strategy is making a huge difference and I congratulate all those who are involved in it. Of course we will develop it as the years go by.

---

Schools (Pupil Attainment)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to improve pupil attainment in schools across Scotland. (S2F-1933)

I am pleased to tell Mr Smith that pupil attainment has improved each and every year since devolution and that Scotland has one of the most successful education systems by international measurements. To build on that, we are investing in more teachers and classroom assistants. We are also investing substantially in teachers' professional skills. We are reducing class sizes and improving the fabric of our schools through our building and refurbishment programme. Through the provision of free nursery places, we are giving every child in Scotland a better start in life.

Does the First Minister agree that publishing misleading league tables does nothing to improve pupil attainment? He obviously agrees that improved attainment will result from curriculum reform, investment in teachers to reduce class sizes and investment in new buildings and facilities.

Does the First Minister agree that parents want accurate and meaningful information about their children's education to enable them to make informed choices, and that such information will be delivered through the Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership Government's Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill? Does he agree that the education reforms of the Labour-only United Kingdom Government would be totally inappropriate in Scotland?

Opposition members hate it when policies succeed and achieve much for Scotland, when the partnership Government makes a huge difference and when Scotland gets better. I will tell Opposition members and those who seek to distort figures about our schools a few facts. Since the Tories left office in 1997, the attainment figures have risen by 7 per cent for primary 7 maths, by 10 per cent for primary 7 reading and by 14 per cent for primary 7 writing.

We have identified that secondary 1 and 2 are problem years in which we must tackle a tailing-off in achievement by having more English and maths teachers, smaller classes and a review of the curriculum, but even in those years, the S2 reading figure has risen by 20 per cent since the Tories left office in 1997.

Those figures prove the progress in Scottish education. We will build on them. They are not yet good enough for Scotland, because our ambitions for Scotland have no limits or caps. We will ensure that the new teachers, the new curriculum, the investment in schools and in other staff and the support for pupils deliver even higher levels of attainment in the years to come.

As a former maths teacher, will the First Minister reflect on the critical report on maths attainment in our schools by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education? It identified important or major weaknesses in 40 per cent of our schools. That is in the context of the findings of a recent survey of principal teachers of maths that the Scottish Mathematical Council conducted. That survey reported a slump in morale and pessimism among teachers about their subject's future because of a lack of national leadership and an absence of local support.

Lectures in pessimism from the Scottish National Party are somewhat difficult to take. Of course we take on board the views of HMIE and of principal teachers of mathematics. However, we also consider the stats, as I am sure teachers do, because they take pride in their work and they want us to recognise their achievements, rather than to run them down as the SNP and the Tories do.

I will describe the reality of mathematics results in Scotland. In 1999, 76 per cent of primary school pupils reached the desired level in mathematics. Today, the figure is 82 per cent. In S2—one of the years that have been a problem for youngsters in the past—41.7 per cent achieved the desired level in 1999, whereas 59.5 per cent achieve it today.

Of course that is not yet good enough for Scotland, but it is an awful lot better than it used to be. Devolution, the Scottish Parliament, the partnership Government and the teachers, head teachers, pupils and parents of Scotland are delivering. No amount of doom and gloom from SNP or Conservative members can run them down.

---

Forth Bridges

To ask the First Minister what the timescale is for the Scottish Executive to make a decision on the case for a new Forth road bridge, in light of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority's appraisal of the condition of the existing bridge and its future use. (S2F-1922)

We are taking forward as a priority two strands of work. The first involves an independent technical assessment of FETA's current analysis of the cable issues, which is due in January 2006. That will be followed by consideration of the results of a planned cable replacement/augmentation feasibility study, which is due in 2007. The Executive will be able to make the necessary decisions informed by that analysis.

Does the First Minister recognise or even acknowledge the strategic importance of the Forth road bridge for the whole of Scotland? Does he understand that, at the very least, the bridge is facing frequent closure for repair, that heavy goods vehicles are likely to be banned from it from 2013 and that the Executive needs to have a plan B in place? Will he therefore give an undertaking that the work on the case for a new Forth crossing will begin now?

It would be particularly stupid of us to start to carry out the work on a new Forth road bridge without having completed the analysis that will tell us what kind of facilities are required and what the exact nature of the current problem is. That is a particularly daft suggestion and we will not take it up. We will complete the studies by the appropriate authorities and then make the appropriate decisions.

Meeting suspended until 14.15.

On resuming—