Plenary, 19 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, January 19, 2006

Official Report 727KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-2056)

I spoke to the Prime Minister last Friday—as I promised last week—and I wished him a very happy new year. I have no immediate plans to meet him again.

Will the First Minister today give a straightforward and categorical assurance that there will be no increases in the tolls for the Forth road bridge?

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the current position on tolls. The Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which is the authority currently responsible for the bridge, has made a proposal. It is a local proposal from the local councillors who sit on the board. Ultimately, it will be for the Scottish Government to take a view on that proposal. We will do so properly, in the light of decisions that we must take on the future of the bridge and on any replacement for it.

Is it not the case that the First Minister has just confirmed that the proposal to increase the tolls for the Forth road bridge above the current rate of £1 is very much alive and kicking? When Gordon Brown said last night that he welcomed the decision to abandon any increase in tolls, did he have the wrong end of the stick, or was he deliberately trying to mislead the public?

I speak for our Scottish Executive and ministers—for the Scottish Government. We agreed yesterday that the right way forward for the Forth road bridge was to link any decision on tolls with decisions on the long-term future of the crossing. I am sure that our decision will be welcomed by all local politicians in Fife and, of course, by local people.

I have to be very clear here. Like the people of Fife, I think that it will be hard to find any justification on economic grounds for the 300 per cent increase in tolls that has been proposed. However, we have a due process to go through and there are many unresolved issues. We will go through that process properly and we will make a decision on the present proposal, and on any future proposals, based on the critical need to secure a crossing for the people of Fife to the other side of the water. We will do that with the interests of commuters and economic and environmental arguments in mind. Scottish ministers will make the decision.

Is it not the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be pulling the First Minister's strings to some extent? Is it not equally the case that the First Minister has still failed to rule out an increase in the tolls to above £1? Is it not the case that what we have here is a classic case of new Labour spin and deceit, with Gordon Brown telling the public before a by-election that increases have been abandoned, while he and the First Minister know full well that the tolls are set to go up afterwards? Is that not exactly what is going on here? If that is not the case, why will the First Minister not take the opportunity, today, to back up exactly what Gordon Brown said and to rule out any increase at all in the tolls for the Forth road bridge?

First of all, I have explained the position very clearly indeed, and I have given an indication of our view on the specific proposal that has been made. Secondly, let us talk about deceit and spin. There is only one party in this Parliament that currently supports the proposal to increase the tolls on the Forth road bridge, and that party—with admirable honesty—is the Scottish Green party. There is only one party in this Parliament that is currently in negotiations with the Green party to form a coalition after the next election, and that party is the Scottish National Party. If we are talking about deceit and spin, let us have a bit of honesty from the SNP about what would happen if the SNP were sitting on our benches.

I point out to the First Minister that the Labour councillor and the two Liberal councillors on FETA voted for the £3 increase in the tolls on the Forth road bridge. The SNP stands four-square against any increase in the tolls. If the First Minister wants to pretend that he is against the increase, I will give him yet another opportunity to do what Gordon Brown pretended to do yesterday—rule out any increase in the Forth road bridge tolls. If the First Minister is not prepared to do that, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Forth road bridge tolls under Labour and the Liberal Democrats are on their way up.

Even the SNP candidate in the Fife by-election—who has no chance whatever—was a bit more honest than his colleagues in the chamber. In his campaign launch on Tuesday, he talked about opposing increases in the tolls if they were too high—not increases in the tolls, but increases that were too high. He is more honest than his colleagues in the Parliament are about the SNP's long-term intentions for the Forth road bridge.

Let us be absolutely clear: we have a very important decision to make about the future of the Forth road bridge. Access across that piece of water is an issue for the long-term future of the people of Fife and the north-east of Scotland and for people in the south who might be moving north. We will make the decision on the bridge; then we will make a decision on tolls.

The current proposal faces widespread opposition in Fife and we believe that it will almost certainly have to be looked at again. We will follow due process in doing that, as we are required to under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Scottish ministers here will make the decision and we will do so in the best interests of the people of Fife, not in answer to silly promises and slogans or as a result of the kind of back-handed, behind-the-scenes negotiations that would be likely to lead to the proposal coming about in the first place.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2057)

The Cabinet will discuss a number of issues, all of which are important to the people of Scotland and many of which are important to the people of Fife in particular.

Perhaps that is confirmation of the toll increase after all.

The First Minister will be aware that £19 billion has been invested in education since devolution. According to official statistics that were released today, spending per pupil has increased by 60 per cent since 1999. However, despite all that additional money, the gap in examination results between the most deprived schools and schools in more affluent areas has grown. The gap remains constant for the lowest 20 per cent. Why is that?

Today's report shows the increased pace of improvement—and the pace of improved attainment in examination results in particular—among the highest-achieving schools. The pace of improvement in high-achieving schools is faster than the pace of improvement for schools that were at the lower end of the achievement scale or for individuals who have struggled in the examination system. That is precisely why we announced the schools of ambition programme 18 months ago and why we are implementing it with the enthusiastic support of business partners, school heads, parents and others in the education system. The programme is directly related to the need to improve standards and performance in low-achieving schools. It will ensure that they have the resources that they require and the exam results that will give their pupils the best opportunity in life, but, crucially, it will also give those youngsters the ambition and aspiration that will make them more confident and more likely to succeed.

The pace of acceleration in examination attainment in the lowest sector has not just been slowing; it has been constant. That requires clarification, because it gives rise to universal concern. The situation is depressing and worrying. However, the experience of Inverclyde Council offers some hope. The council covers some of the most deprived areas of Scotland, but exam attainment is on a par with that in more affluent areas such as Perth and Kinross. Would the First Minister agree with Mrs Martin—[Interruption.]

Clear the gallery as quickly as possible. Carry on, Miss Goldie.

Would the First Minister agree with Mrs Martin, head teacher at Clune Park Primary School in Port Glasgow, and Dr Nigel Lawrie, the head of education services at Inverclyde Council, who attribute the success of the council's schools to leadership from head teachers and to parental and community involvement in schools?

Yes. I am enjoying the new, consensual approach to education policy—perhaps I will return to that in a second.

It is important to acknowledge that, across the system, the level of investment to which Miss Goldie referred in her first supplementary question has resulted in not only better school buildings, more modern equipment and all the other improvements that we have listed in the past but improved attainment in maths, reading and writing and other areas. The improvements throughout the system are important, but it is particularly important that we focus on schools and youngsters who fall behind their peers.

That is why we launched the schools of ambition scheme that has been mentioned, but it is also why the areas that today's report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education identifies are the ones that we have prioritised. For example, we have prioritised strong leadership through the new programme that is in place for the training of school head teachers; we have prioritised early identification of pupils who fall behind; we have encouraged every school in Scotland to introduce a proper uniform policy that raises the standard and improves discipline in the school; and we have introduced homework clubs to give youngsters who cannot study at home the chance to study outwith school hours. Along with smaller class groups, those and many other aspects of our reform programme are targeted specifically at the youngsters who fall behind, at the schools that fall behind, at leadership in schools and at ensuring that schools do not fall behind as the whole system improves.

Admirably, Mr Cameron has dropped the idea of a pupil's passport that would directly disadvantage such schools in every community in Scotland. Is the Scottish Conservative party prepared to do the same?

Unlike the First Minister, who seems to be told what to do by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not told what to do by any of my colleagues south of the border.

I am pleased that the First Minister acknowledges that leadership from head teachers and parental and community involvement in schools are important building blocks. Therefore, why has the Executive for six years followed a programme that is designed to undermine the freedom of head teachers, by interfering with their right to exclude disruptive pupils, and parental involvement in schools, by proposing to abolish school boards, thereby ending parents' ability to have a say in the selection of a head teacher? The Scottish Executive is damaging the very things that can help to make schools successful. Will the First Minister accept that his strategy was and is wrong, and will he give head teachers and parents greater freedom and responsibility in the running of our schools?

Both of Miss Goldie's statements are completely untrue. First, head teachers have the power to exclude pupils and should use it whenever they feel they have to. The encouragement that they have received from the Executive to do so is a serious attempt to ensure that they do not listen to the disinformation from the Tories and others that would lead them to conclude that they cannot.

Secondly, we are not abolishing the right of parents to have and to sit on school boards. We are not only continuing that opportunity but expanding the opportunities for parental involvement, so that they are more relevant. Parents will be able to choose for themselves the level of parental involvement in a school board or any other mechanism, not have it imposed by us from the centre.

We will not only expand head teachers' freedom in those and other areas and improve the involvement of parents and others in the local community, but ensure that the pupils in the school, who matter most, improve their attainment too.

Will the next meeting of the Cabinet discuss the cash crisis at Scottish Enterprise? Will the First Minister confirm what the shortfall in Scottish Enterprise's budget for this year is? Will he also tell us what impact the immediate cut of 15 per cent in local enterprise company budgets will have on businesses in Scotland and individuals who rely on support from, or supply services to, Scottish Enterprise?

The financial year for Scottish Enterprise is, of course, not over. Alex Neil should remember that. We should ensure that Scottish Enterprise knows its budget and that it implements its decisions within that budget. That is what we expect Scottish Enterprise to do. That is its responsibility, and it is properly audited for that purpose. I expect Scottish Enterprise to meet its budget targets.

Does the First Minister share my concern at reports that the City of Edinburgh Council will not proceed with the tramline projects as originally proposed under the tramline bills that are currently before the Parliament? Will he do all that he can to support the trams, through inflation proofing and other measures? Does he agree that this is an opportunity to reconsider whether the proposals before us represent the best routes for the tram?

I think—although I stand to be corrected—that the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications has yet to speak to the tramline bill committees on the matter. When he does, he will outline the Executive's position. It would be wrong of us to comment on reports at this stage. The important thing is that we have a clear position on the projects' finances and other details, and it will be outlined to the committees in the appropriate way.

---

Free Prescriptions

To ask the First Minister what information the Scottish Executive has on the proportion of MSPs and Scottish MPs and MEPs who qualify for free national health service prescriptions. (S2F-2069)

We do not have any such personal information on MSPs, MPs or MEPs.

Since the Scottish Executive insists

"that patients who can afford to should … contribute towards NHS dispensing costs",

I would have expected the First Minister to say categorically that no MSP qualifies for free NHS prescriptions. However, the fact is that 30 members of this Parliament are entitled to free prescriptions, despite the fact that they are among the top 2 per cent of wage earners in Scotland, with a salary of at least £50,000 a year. So is J K Rowling, so is the Queen and so is everyone over 60 years of age, regardless of their income; yet 300,000 people on disability living allowance do not qualify for free prescriptions and neither do 219,000 people on incapacity benefit.

Put your question, please. Let us not have a speech.

Does the First Minister recognise that it is time to replace the utterly discredited exemption system and to abolish the charges for everyone?

I find that a slightly perverted argument. Having complained about the figure of 30 MSPs—that is Colin Fox's figure, not mine, and I do not hold, nor would we seek to hold, such personal information about the conditions of members of the Parliament—and the fact that there might be people in the Parliament who qualify for free prescriptions for medical reasons, the member then advocates giving out free prescriptions to everybody else, which is strange. That is consistent with the approach that is taken by Colin Fox and the Scottish so-called Socialist Party.

We currently have a prescription system in Scotland under which about 50 per cent of the population is exempt from prescription charges and about 92 per cent of the items that are dispensed are free to people who are subject to exemptions, as they are the high users of medicines. The system also allows pre-payment of block prescriptions, so that people do not have to pay over the odds over a long period for on-going prescriptions, over either four or 12 months.

Colin Fox might like to dress up as Robin Hood, but he is behaving like Robin Hood in reverse. Taking from the poor to give to the rich is not my idea of socialism, and it should not be Colin Fox's either.

That is the longest answer that I have ever received from the First Minister, although 92 per cent of it was waffle. The First Minister is on record as saying that the Executive's strategy is to target benefits at those who need them the most. I could provide a list of people for whom that targeting does not work very well. The fact is that 2.5 million Scots are not exempt from charges, which, unfortunately, those on the Labour back benches seem to accept; it is fiction to suggest otherwise. The fact is that the rich do not have to pay for prescriptions while the poor have to pay for them.

Is the First Minister still a supporter of the committee system? If so, will he say when in the past seven years the Executive has rejected a bill the approval of whose general principles a lead committee has recommended? Tell us when, here and now.

As I said on the day when I became First Minister back in November 2001, there are times when we have to say no—when the time is not right or the money is not there. In this case, not only is the time not right and not only could the money be better used elsewhere, but the policy is wrong. It is the wrong policy to give free prescriptions to people who can afford to contribute and thereby to take out of the health service money that would help the people whom Colin Fox says he wants to help. As ministers, we have a duty to make that absolutely clear.

Fifty per cent of Scotland's population is exempt from prescription charges and more than 90 per cent of the prescriptions that are dispensed are free. The system needs improvements and we will produce plans for those improvements. However, the money to provide free prescriptions for all could be better used elsewhere. As I have said to Colin Fox, he would be acting as Robin Hood in reverse.

---

Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will respond to the publication of the Arbuthnott commission report on boundary differences and voting systems. (S2F-2059)

The commission published its report today. We will consider it carefully and allow time for reflection and dialogue with interested parties before responding to the elements of the report that fall within our remit. In the meantime, I take the opportunity to record my thanks for the work that the commission—Professor Arbuthnott and his colleagues—has undertaken in the past 18 months.

I echo the First Minister's welcome for this constructive report. I note that the commission says that the Scottish Parliament

"is a major step in improving government in Scotland"

and that we should give priority to establishing stability in our voting systems while improving people's understanding of how the systems work.

Will the First Minister give a commitment to consider the recommendations on promoting wider and more effective teaching of how people can vote in the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, particularly in schools? Will he consider in detail the recommendations on improving voter turnout at those elections, particularly through e-voting and boundary changes, to make life more straightforward for people? Will he also focus on what we can do to ensure that people are registered and motivated to participate in elections?

All those matters are important. Of course, we will examine the commission's recommendations that are directed at those objectives. All of us in the Parliament should share the objective of increasing turnout not only at the Scottish Parliament elections, but at other elections. Improving administration of and access to the system is one part of that. Another element is the exchange of views in Parliament and presenting a choice for the electorate. I look forward to doing that in the next 15 months.

---

Nuclear Power Stations (Planning)

To ask the First Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister in respect of any planning issues associated with the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations for Scotland and the disposal of nuclear waste. (S2F-2064)

I have held no discussions with the Prime Minister on planning issues that are associated with the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations for Scotland or on the disposal of nuclear waste. Planning decisions are of course devolved to the Scottish ministers.

That is right. The First Minister will be aware that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill says that the proposed national planning framework, which will have a 20-year span, must contain a statement of what his ministers consider to be priorities for that framework. The bill also says that ministers

"are to have regard to any resolution or report of … the … Parliament"

in considering that framework. Would a proposed nuclear power station or nuclear waste site require to be included in that framework? If so, and if Parliament objected to such an inclusion, what exactly would "have regard to" mean?

To be honest, I am not absolutely certain whether the framework would include a specific planning proposal of that sort, although it might include the overall use of areas for certain developments and the national direction of policy. I am sure that we would be happy to clarify that during discussion of the proposals.

I make it clear that our powers with regard to nuclear power stations relate not only to planning. Of course we have powers over planning matters, but we also have powers under section 36 of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1989 to refuse consent to construct any generating station of 50MW or more. The Executive's position on nuclear stations remains as it always has been. We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved. As we heard yesterday, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is currently considering all the options for the long-term management of waste. It intends to make recommendations later this year, which we will consider when they are made.

Does the First Minister agree that we must plan for a secure and sustainable energy supply in Scotland and that money that is invested in a nuclear power station, which would buy us around 30 years' energy supply, could be invested in developing genuine renewable energy supplies, which would have an infinite ability to supply energy? Will he ensure that our strategic planning decisions reflect what I have said?

As I said, I hope that our strategic planning reflects our policies relating to energy, the environment and other matters. It is clear that our strong commitment to renewables will be an essential part of that planning. During the discussions on the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, we will make it clearer how that commitment fits within the planning legislative framework.

Our policy is clear. We want a significant shift in favour of renewable energy in Scotland and we want to support not only the generation of such energy, but the skills that can be used and the jobs that can be created to supply that industry at home and abroad. We are absolutely committed to that policy. We are making good progress and we will make more progress in the years to come.

Will the First Minister acknowledge that there is a need to plan for the security of electricity supply without there being greenhouse gas emissions? Will he also acknowledge the importance of the electricity supply industry in many parts of Scotland? When decisions are taken—as they must be—about the safe permanent storage of nuclear waste, does he intend that the Executive should objectively consider the case for the most appropriate replacement of decommissioned capacity in Scotland that would maintain electricity supply jobs in Scotland? If that is the case, may I put in an early bid for the Torness B station?

I am sure that John Home Robertson will make his case forcibly whenever the discussions on waste and future energy policy take place in the next year.

There is an air of déjà vu about the energy review that was announced on Monday—Tony Blair makes up his mind and then commissions a dodgy dossier to support him. Will the First Minister and the Executive feel obliged to follow the dossier's recommendations, or will they let Scotland think for itself?

I cannot be clearer than I have been. I have probably said what I am about to say more than anything else that I have said in the just over four years in which I have been the First Minister. We have planning powers that we must take seriously, and we cannot legally—never mind politically—be dictated to by anybody else, but we also have powers relating to electricity generating stations. Members have a duty and a responsibility to make their own decisions on such matters. Scottish ministers will make their own decisions and there will be proper parliamentary debates to help to guide us in our work.

I want to correct Nora Radcliffe's assumptions about the lifespans of nuclear and renewable plants. Hunterston has been generating successfully and safely for the past 30 years and has at least another 10 years remaining; the lifespan of a windmill, for example, is some 25 years. Will the First Minister take those facts on board?

It is important to take on board all the facts and to base our policies on the science and the facts as much as on our political instincts and judgments. I hope that this year in Scotland we will have a serious debate about the matter that we are discussing, that there will be a serious debate elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that we will make rational decisions that can be justified to the Scottish public not only now but for generations to come. That is what I and we collectively seek to achieve, and that is what we will do.

---

Dentistry (Funding)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied that dentistry is adequately funded. (S2F-2065)

Dentistry is receiving substantial increases in investment. Funding will increase from £200 million in 2004-05 to £350 million in 2007-08, which is a 75 per cent increase.

It is unfortunate that the new measures were not negotiated with the British Dental Association but, as I understand it, determined unilaterally by the Scottish Executive. The result is that many dentists will not get the new allowances, despite the fact that they treat children and exempt adult patients—our most vulnerable national health service patients. Will the First Minister intervene to ensure that the new contract is negotiated in the best interests of patients and ensures future access to NHS dental care in Scotland?

Not only has the budget increased by 75 per cent over the three years, but it has now more than doubled since the Conservative Government left power in 1997. That Government closed the Edinburgh dental school, which led to many of the current shortages in Scotland. Even though it is a long time ago, let us remember the past. The decisions that were made then still have an impact on the Scotland of 2006.

Let us also be clear: no group has a veto over the decisions of this Parliament or the Executive. When we make decisions on many matters, including dentistry, we put the public interest first. If dentists sign up to work with NHS patients, they will get their part of the investment. If they decide to do that, it is important that they make the commitment with the public interest at the core of their work, just as it is at the core of ours.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—