Plenary, 20 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 20, 2007

Official Report 733KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what meetings he will have today. (S3F-149)

Later today, among other engagements, I will meet the chairman of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to discuss charges for electricity transmission that discriminate against generators in Scotland.

I warmly welcome Wendy Alexander to her place. Let me also now welcome all 27 appointments that she has made as it would take too long to welcome them individually.

I thank the First Minister for his warm words of welcome.

On the subject of warmth, yesterday was the seventh anniversary of Labour announcing our scheme to give free central heating systems to pensioners. More than 80,000 Scottish pensioners have already benefited. Why, then, did the Minister for Communities and Sport admit yesterday that the Scottish National Party Government is now reviewing the scheme, with targeting or means testing the likely outcome? Can the First Minister assure Scotland's pensioners that the scheme will not be cut back and that all Scottish pensioners without central heating will still qualify?

We are entirely committed to the statutory target to eradicate fuel poverty. That point was made by the minister yesterday. I am afraid that Wendy Alexander's description of what he said at yesterday's committee meeting is not accurate. Nonetheless, the important point for people around Scotland is that we are reviewing the scheme as a means to improving it. As I am sure she will know from her knowledge of housing, the scheme and many other aspects of housing in Scotland are badly in need of improvement.

Yesterday, the Minister for Communities and Sport told the Local Government and Communities Committee that free central heating for pensioners was now under review and that targeting was planned. The truth is that we extended the scheme whereas he has spoken about restricting it. Is that review under way, or has it simply been ditched because, once again, a minister has been rumbled? Winter deaths shamed Scotland; the central heating scheme cut those deaths by a massive 70 per cent in just five years. Why is the Minister for Communities and Sport now proposing to cut that lifeline?

Perhaps Wendy Alexander should have adjusted her second question after she heard the first answer. The Minister for Communities and Sport said clearly yesterday that we are reviewing the scheme with the purpose of improving it. Clearly, we could not improve the scheme unless we reviewed it. Given that I have now said that twice, Wendy Alexander should accept the fact that there are deficiencies in the scheme and that we are hoping to improve on them. I think that that will be widely welcomed by people in Scotland who suffer from poor heating in their houses and who are looking forward to improvements under an SNP Government.

The First Minister is ducking the question. His minister yesterday talked of targeting. At the moment, every single pensioner in Scotland who is without a central heating system qualifies for the scheme. Where does targeting fit if every single pensioner in Scotland currently qualifies? This week, pensioners all over Scotland are turning on their heating. Under Labour, the scheme was available to every pensioner, whether they had money or not. Why is the First Minister now targeting it?

I am answering Wendy Alexander's questions very precisely. It is not my fault that she cannot think of the right questions.

The minister said that we were targeting improvements in the scheme. For the third time, I say that the Government's purpose is an enhanced and improved scheme. Wendy Alexander should reflect on the fact that there are substantial waiting lists in the scheme, as in so many areas of Labour policy. Our purpose is to target improvements, which will be widely welcomed by the people of Scotland.

We made it clear that the scheme was available to all pensioners. The First Minister has refused to repeat that commitment today. Last week, the First Minister ditched a review because what one of his ministers said was brought to light. It speaks volumes about the SNP's priorities that some pensioners will be targeted and left out in the cold, when cash is being made available for new signs and new embassies, and when £500,000 is being made available for a broadcasting commission. We would like a First Minister who stops using Scotland and starts serving Scotland.

Wendy Alexander should have adjusted her fourth question after the first three answers. Can we focus on the fact that we have made it clear that we are reviewing the scheme to enhance and improve it? Since this is her first outing, I gently remind her that the number of people in fuel poverty rose under the previous Administration.

Wendy Alexander has made 27 appointments, involving more than half the Labour group in the Parliament. A number of people are beginning to wonder whether she appointed the wrong half.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I, too, welcome Wendy Alexander to her place for First Minister's questions. The First Minister will be fearful of a petticoat strangle every Thursday. I am sure that we will do our best to oblige.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-150)

I will try very hard not to be the meat in the sandwich—let me put it that way.

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister at present. However, I have written to him this morning and I hope to speak to him in early course about the critical situation affecting animal welfare as a result of the foot-and-mouth restrictions affecting the sheep flock on hill farms in Scotland. I will arrange for that correspondence to be placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

The First Minister is enthusiastic about introducing a local income tax. Indeed, he has said that it would be a "fair" local income tax

"based on ability to pay."—[Official Report, 5 September 2007; c 1366.]

I want to ask him about that fairness and that ability to pay.

Am I right that, under the SNP proposals, a hard-working nurse would pay the tax, but that, for example, a comfortably off man with a nice little portfolio of shares who received a dividend income of, say, £20,000 a year—

Oh!

Order.

He would not pay a penny of the SNP's income tax on that dividend income. Is that fair?

We can safely conclude that all ministers in the Government would gladly pay local income tax because it would be based on people's ability to pay. There is a huge difficulty in trying to charge investment income because of the costs of administration, which would be enormous. What we can say is that because a local income tax would be based on people's household income, it would be based on the ability to pay. That must be inherently fairer than a council tax that for many people, including the vast majority of Scotland's pensioners, bears no relationship whatsoever to their income. It is therefore an inherently unfair tax, which, I remind Annabel Goldie, the Conservative party introduced.

Is the First Minister aware that within this Parliament—indeed, within his party and even his Government—there is a self-proclaimed expert on tax avoidance? During a debate on Tommy Sheridan's plans for local taxation, no less a person than Mr Stewart Stevenson said:

"Here is how I would avoid the tax in total and pay not a penny."—[Official Report, 1 February 2006; c 22919.]

Indeed, Mr Stevenson's speech in that debate was a master-class on tax avoidance. It is compelling reading for accountants.

The truth is that wealthy individuals such as Mr Stevenson, who have substantial dividend income, will, as he said, "pay not a penny" of the SNP's income tax on any of that dividend income. The First Minister says that that is fair; I think it stinks. There is hypocrisy at the heart of Government. Does the First Minister still adhere to his proposals?

Regardless of whether people are for or against local income tax, every study of local income tax acknowledges that a tax based on income levels is inherently fairer than a tax based on property, which might bear no relationship to income.

The circumstances for investment income would be no different from the current circumstances. I do not know whether Annabel Goldie realises that people do not pay council tax on investment income; they pay council tax on the value of their property, which in some cases bears no relationship to their income. Whatever else we say about local income tax, can we at least agree that a tax based on income is inherently fairer than a tax that might bear no relationship whatever to people's income or earning potential?

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I, too, welcome Wendy Alexander.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-151)

The Cabinet will discuss a wide range of issues of importance to the Scottish people.

I congratulate Nicol Stephen on being elected unopposed to the Liberal leadership for the next four years and I welcome him back from the fringe of Brighton to the centre of Edinburgh.

In his manifesto for the first 100 days of an SNP Government, the First Minister said that he would access money from the fossil fuel levy and use it for renewable energy projects in Scotland. Has he kept that promise?

We are in negotiation on that very matter at the moment.

When I last met the board of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—I will meet leading Ofgem officials again this afternoon—I was surprised to find out that during the entire period of the imposition of the fossil fuel levy, no approach seemed to have been made by the previous Scottish Executive for the more than £50 million of Scotland's money that was lying in that fund. The Scottish Government has rectified that position by opening negotiations to have that money returned to Scotland.

Unlike that reply, the 100-day programme was perfectly clear. It promised the money within 100 days. It said that not getting the money was "a sign of" the "Executive's failings" and went on to say:

"An SNP government would not make the same mistake".

Before the election, the First Minister personally promised the Buchan Observer that he would access the money. However, last Sunday, John Swinney wrote in a different newspaper that he had not got the money, which is now £80 million—he had made the same mistake. Indeed, he said that to access the money now "does not make sense". What has changed between the promise being made by the First Minister and the promise being broken?

We are in negotiations to access the funds, which makes perfect sense. What does not make as much sense is that Nicol Stephen, during a long period in Government, including a long period as an energy minister, seems to have failed over eight years to have the money returned to Scotland.

I am delighted to have Nicol Stephen's support for the Government's negotiations to ensure that the fossil fuel levy, which has accumulated in Ofgem's bank account and, I am informed, currently amounts to almost £80 million, is returned to Scotland, so that it can be invested in Scotland's energy and renewables future.

The First Minister will be aware of the widely acclaimed work of the domestic abuse court and the assist project, which operates in my constituency and across south Glasgow. I welcome his executive decision in recognising the benefit of rolling out the pilot across Glasgow. Will he confirm the timescale for acting on that decision? Will he give a commitment that any Glasgow-wide project will include a key role for assist, which supports vulnerable women and children and provides critical information to the court on risk? Will he ensure that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice does not press on with his dangerous blanket opposition to custodial sentences of less than six months, given the widespread recognition of the benefit of such disposals in providing real respite to some of our most vulnerable women and children and providing a real punishment for, and sending a real message to, those who perpetrate violence within their own homes and families?

I will take the positive aspect of Johann Lamont's question—the fact that she welcomed our approach to the matter. I am informed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that an answer to her parliamentary question has been prepared and that an announcement will be made within the next few days that, certainly on the first part of her question, will not disappoint her in terms of this Government's commitment.

I read this morning in that fine and always accurate publication, The Daily Telegraph, that the First Minister is due to meet the Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, to raise with him concerns that the golden thread that links different parts of Scotland with their historic regiments is being broken. When the First Minister speaks to Des Browne, will he tell him that the Scottish Conservatives—and, I am sure, many others in the Parliament—are appalled at that breach of promise from the Ministry of Defence and the Army, which goes against all the pledges that were made at the time of the mergers? Does the First Minister agree that it is a real irony that, in the week when the National Theatre of Scotland's production of the play "Black Watch" is opening to great acclaim in Los Angeles, back home, the proud institution that it celebrates is being weakened still further?

"Black Watch" is a wonderful and challenging play. It makes a huge number of important observations on the Scottish regimental tradition and the current conflict in Iraq.

On Murdo Fraser's question, I basically agree. I had a meeting with the save the Scottish regiments campaign and other interests last month. They not only pointed to the essence of the campaign—their opposition to the regimental merger—but argued strongly that the Ministry of Defence had not kept a number of commitments that had previously been made on the golden thread. I raised the matter within days at a meeting with Des Browne and promised to write to him with full details provided by the campaign. That will be done within the next few days.

It should be said that the defence secretary's initial response at the meeting was that the Government would be prepared to discharge the obligations and commitments that it had made. That was quite a hopeful response, which is why I am sending such a detailed letter to him. I appreciate that we will have the support of many members—I hope that we will have their support—in putting forward that argument.

---

Scottish Assigned Budget

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government intends to take in relation to the United Kingdom's chancellor's reported intention to increase the Scottish block grant by 1 per cent above inflation in this spending round. (S3F-167)

The strategic spending review 2007 will focus on achieving the Government's purpose and five strategic objectives. The level of increase in the Scottish budget will not be known until the announcement of the United Kingdom comprehensive spending review in October. The Scottish Government will exercise financial discipline and deliver a programme of efficiency and reform to address any effects of lower budgetary growth.

Does the First Minister agree that there is real irony in the situation, given that although oil prices are currently touching around $80 a barrel, Scotland faces the prospect of the worst financial settlement from the United Kingdom Treasury since devolution?

Keith Brown makes an excellent point. It puts into stark contrast an expected tight spending round when we look across the North Sea to Norway and see a country that enjoys the full benefits of its own natural resources.

I was told last year by Wendy Alexander that the Scottish National Party should be anticipating $30 to $40 as an oil price. As Keith Brown rightly says, the price is currently touching $80. That was not one of Wendy Alexander's better forecasts.

Will the First Minister acknowledge that under Labour, the budget of the Scottish Executive—now the Government—has doubled since devolution, and that it is his problem if he goes around the country promising everything to everybody, as he will have to sort out that mess?

I agree with Andy Kerr that there is a lot of mess to be sorted out, but that is another question.

As Andy Kerr well knows, the previous real-terms increases in budgetary growth have been 5 per cent, 5 per cent, 5.7 per cent and almost 3 per cent. It is against that trend that the current position will be judged. I was told last week by a Conservative member that the Centre for Public Policy for Regions at the Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde had identified 35 uncosted SNP commitments in our manifesto. I looked closely at that research, because I was interested. The same research identified 77 uncosted commitments from the Scottish Labour Party, which was exceeded only by 89 from the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Yes, indeed—there is a lot of mess to be sorted out.

It is the actions of the current Government that we are interested in. [Interruption.]

Order.

Before the election, John Swinney said that he had been

"in extensive and detailed discussions with the civil service",

and that the SNP was

"prepared and ready to become Scotland's next Government."

Does the First Minister agree with me that the tightness of the financial settlement can come as no surprise to him? Why, therefore, did the SNP make so many uncosted and unaffordable promises—on class sizes, on nursery schools and on students in particular—that it is now having to ditch?

I understand why Robert Brown does not want to dwell on the past. However, it would be best if he listened to the previous answer before repeating a question that walks right into the figures: 35 uncosted SNP commitments—according to the Centre for Public Policy for Regions—77 from the Scottish Labour Party and 89 from the Scottish Liberal Democrats. I would have expected Robert Brown to have exercised a little bit more prudence and discipline when Nicol Stephen was preparing that manifesto.

The First Minister will be aware of the moveable feast that passes for Lib Dem constitutional policy these days. The Lib Dems now want Scotland to have a share of the oil revenues that they and the other unionist parties have denied the people of Scotland for years. Great—welcome aboard. However, does the First Minister agree that Nicol Stephen and his party are tying themselves in knots by arguing against the right of the Scottish people to a first-ever referendum on Scottish independence, because they want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, while calling for a referendum on remaining in Europe, because they want the UK to remain in the European Union? Does the First Minister agree that that is neither logical nor sensible, let alone liberal or democratic?

I took great encouragement from Ming Campbell's policy announcement this week—he is moving in favour of a referendum and I think that Nicol Stephen might follow shortly. I take this opportunity to welcome warmly Nicol Stephen's conversion this week to the idea of Scotland getting access to our oil and gas resources. We are having a national conversation that might prove very fruitful.

---

Renewable Energy

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to increase renewables generating capacity. (S3F-161)

The Scottish Government is engaged in a range of activities to increase renewables generation capacity. We are dealing efficiently with applications for consent to build generating capacity; we have asked local authorities urgently to prepare supplementary planning guidance to implement Scottish planning policy 6, and we will support the authorities with expert advice; and, crucially, we are making the case for transmission charging that is more favourable to renewables in Scotland. As I said, I will meet the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets this afternoon to discuss the matter and to press that case. Those are just a few of the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to support a rapid increase in Scotland's renewables capacity.

In nearly five months, ministers have managed to process only four wind farm projects—that is the efficiency that the First Minister refers to. The Government has consented to one of those projects and it has rejected three, including one that, as the First Minister knows, is in his own area.

On 21 January, Mr Salmond told the Sunday Herald that

"There should be a cap on future developments. We should concentrate the development of onshore wind into suitable areas."

The industry is puzzled. Is there a cap on wind power developments? Should the industry restrict its proposals to certain areas, and, if so, which ones? If there is no cap, when will the 4GW of renewables projects sitting in the First Minister's in-tray finally emerge?

Iain Gray is correct: we have processed four wind farm applications in our four months of Government. That compares with two applications processed in 2006, and three processed in 2005. I would have thought that Iain Gray would welcome the rapid pick-up of pace under this Government.

Iain Gray must be well aware—although he has repeated today an attack that he made on us before—that we have since granted consent to Harestanes. That is 282MW of renewables capacity and a very substantial addition to Scotland's array of renewable energy projects. Further announcements will be made within the next few days.

Is the First Minister aware of the study published by Highlands and Islands Enterprise that shows that it is 30 times more expensive for electricity producers in the north of Scotland to connect to the grid than it is for electricity producers in Denmark? Will he confirm that a U-turn by Ofgem is overdue? I hope that he will be able to confirm that tonight when he meets Ofgem. Ofgem charges a tax on our geography, and we need to be freed from it so that we can develop marine renewables.

Rob Gibson is perfectly correct in his assessment. There are two substantial areas of discrimination against Scottish generators, and against generators in the north of Scotland in particular. The first is the existing one of access to the grid. Rob Gibson is right when he says that there is a huge impost on areas of Scotland, compared with a subsidy that is paid elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Our access compares incredibly unfavourably with the access of renewables generation elsewhere in Europe.

The second area of discrimination is, of course, Ofgem's contemplation of imposing a further discriminatory tariff in terms of transmission losses. The good news is that Ofgem is thinking again about that. The study that Rob Gibson mentioned, and the unanswerable case that is being prepared by this Government on a range of interests, including renewables, as we try to prevail on Ofgem, will, I hope, give Scotland a fair opportunity to develop our massive potential in renewable and other green energy resources.

---

Agenda for Change

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to review agenda for change in Scotland, in light of the questions raised by the King's Fund report, "Realising the Benefits? Assessing the Implementation of Agenda for Change", on issues associated with agenda for change in England. (S3F-155)

The introduction of agenda for change in NHS Scotland has been carried out in full partnership between the health directorates, NHS Scotland employers and the health trade unions. The process is on-going, and in light of that the Scottish Government has no current plans for review.

The First Minister will be aware of the dissatisfaction and low morale in the national health service caused by the perception that agenda for change is improving neither patient care nor staff conditions. In particular, job evaluation appears not to be working, with many staff salaries still not agreed since 2004. Recruitment is becoming more difficult, and career structure and advancement are being jeopardised. Will the First Minister tell Parliament what will be done to address those and other issues immediately?

The issues are being addressed at the moment. However, as John Scott knows, the King's Fund report does not necessitate a different response in Scotland. Agenda for change was implemented in a different manner in Scotland, and over a different timescale, from what happened in England. As implementation has not been completed, it is too early to carry out an evaluation. However, the process of implementation is on-going. It is happening right now.

I raise an anomaly faced by clinical psychologists in health boards throughout Scotland. The problem has been going on much longer down south. Clinical psychologists with three to five years' experience are still on a low grade and have not been regraded, yet new starts in October 2007 are automatically being put on a new grade. Will the First Minister look at the issue and perhaps write to health boards regarding that anomaly?

There is a process of review that allows such concerns to be addressed. For completeness, I will write to Sandra White and give her all the details I can about progress in that area.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—