Plenary, 21 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, June 21, 2007

Official Report 802KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-74)

I have a number of engagements, including a visit to the Royal Highland show at Ingliston, that great showcase for the Scottish food and farming industry.

Earlier this month, at the first First Minister's question time in the new session, the First Minister rather shamefully misquoted Donald Dewar and threatened to ignore the Parliament when it expressed its will. I remind the First Minister that never once in five and a half years as First Minister did I ignore the will of the Parliament. Has he reflected on his statement earlier this month? Will he guarantee that when the Parliament votes for legislation or budgets for a proposal, he will not to delay it or defy the will of Parliament?

I quoted exactly Donald Dewar from 4 October 1999. I remind Jack McConnell that Donald Dewar said:

"As part of"

the

"perfectly normal constitutional arrangements, except in certain circumstances, the Scottish Executive is not necessarily bound by resolutions or motions passed by the Scottish Parliament."

Does the former First Minister now agree with Donald Dewar, or has he changed his mind?

Mr Salmond is going to have to learn that it is First Minister's questions, not leader of the Opposition's questions. That was yet another answer from the First Minister that does not really address the question, in a week when we have seen more and more broken promises from the Scottish National Party. A promise to Northern Ireland about tuition fees was broken within 24 hours; a promise on class sizes was torn apart by Fiona Hyslop; and a promise on school discipline was completely ignored. The First Minister even confirmed this morning what we have all suspected: that he is indeed the emperor without any clothes.

The First Minister said that he would listen to the Auditor General for Scotland about the Edinburgh trams. The Auditor General has said that the cost and time targets for the Edinburgh trams project have been developed using robust systems and that the highest cost risk is the general delay in the programme. Will the First Minister stop delaying and announce today that he will go ahead?

I answered Mr McConnell's point specifically. It is not my fault if he cannot think of the right questions. [Interruption.]

Order.

In terms of the achievements of this Administration in implementing our manifesto, I see Labour members progressively taken aback by the speed at which we have implemented our manifesto over the past five weeks.

I give Jack McConnell this assurance: I will always appear before the Parliament properly dressed. [Interruption.]

Settle down.

I will never wear a pin-striped kilt.

We have no guarantee from the First Minister that he will respect the will of Parliament, even on legislation or budgets, and no answer on, or even a vague reference to, the Edinburgh trams.

I will ask the First Minister a question that he might find a little easier. What do Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria and Switzerland all have in common?

They are all independent countries and they all come above Scotland in the index of success that was compiled by the Labour Party's former economist, or, as Jack McConnell is calling it, the index of deferred success.

I remind Jack McConnell of the importance of parliamentary votes. Members asked us to bring to the chamber information about infrastructure projects. I direct him to the substance of the Auditor General's report. On the Edinburgh airport rail link, the report states:

"The EARL project is unlikely to be delivered by the target date of the end of 2011 … There is no clear governance framework … There is no procurement strategy in place"

and there is a high degree of uncertainty. It states that the

"project board did not meet between April 2006 and February 2007"

and that it has yet to secure any contribution from BAA or indeed ownership from Network Rail. Under those circumstances, even Jack McConnell could not possibly vote for the EARL project.

Each of the small countries that I mentioned has a rail link from the airport to its capital city, and there should be such a link in Scotland. Indeed, Alex Salmond called for such a link in the House of Commons in 2002 and Miss Sturgeon called for it in the Scottish Parliament in 2004. Mr MacAskill said that the project

"is expensive, but what you get in return is more than just a rail link."

The Parliament resolved that the rail link would be more than just a rail link for Edinburgh—it would be a rail link to the rest of Scotland. Does the First Minister have ambition for Scotland? Will he take personal responsibility for ensuring that the rail link from Edinburgh airport to the rest of Scotland is delivered on time and within budget, in the same way that he claimed over and over that Donald Dewar should take responsibility for the Parliament building?

The Holyrood project is not a particularly auspicious example from the former Minister for Finance. However, he has given me an opportunity to reflect on what the Auditor General said in his report about the trams project. He stated:

"The highest cost risks are currently utilities diversion work".

Utilities will be diverted if the tram project goes ahead and we start to dig up Edinburgh. The Auditor General said that there is

"sufficient funding in place to proceed with Phase 1a",

but there is

"a current shortfall of £48.8 million"

for the completion of phase 1. In other words, the sub-phase can be completed, but not the whole of phase 1. I remind Jack McConnell that if we start to dig up Edinburgh's roads for the project—which I will vote against—it will be a bit like "Mastermind": if we start, we have to finish.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-75)

The Cabinet will, in the interests of the Scottish people, discuss a range of vital matters.

I have been considering the First Minister's honeymoon period and will give praise where praise is due. Mr Salmond is mastering the arts of his office—oratory, eloquence, intellectual stimulus—but there is one first ministerial trait at which he excels: the U-turn. Student grants and loans were going, but now they will not go. School assault statistics were going to be released, but now they will not be. Class sizes were going to be cut immediately, but now they will not be. Tuition fees for Northern Irish students in Scotland were going to be scrapped, but now they will not be. There have been other U-turns. Will the First Minister clarify whether another U-turn is looming? Is he now abandoning a local income tax? Does he support a land value tax?

We support a local income tax; we will therefore introduce legislation to repeal the unfair and oppressive council tax. I am not confident of Annabel Goldie's support in these matters, but I am ever hopeful of it. We have an absolute commitment to a local income tax. To paraphrase somebody from a few years ago: you turn if you want to; this Administration is not for turning.

In this Parliament, what the First Minister wants and what he gets might be two very different matters. All the indications are that he will find it extremely difficult to win support in the Parliament for a local income tax. I ask him again whether, given that the council tax—whatever he thinks of it—is currently the burden that bears most oppressively on our older citizens, he will support some kind of council tax discount system for our pensioners.

As Annabel Goldie knows, we are working to freeze the council tax. I am sure that it will be greeted with great joy throughout Scotland that at last, someone is acting to try to limit that oppressive burden on the Scottish people. Annabel Goldie rightly declares the council tax, which was introduced by the Conservative Party and increased vastly by the Labour Party, to be oppressive. What I cannot understand about her question is why on earth, if she believes as I do that the tax is oppressive, she does not vote with us to abolish it.

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what issues they will discuss. (S3F-76)

I hope to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the British-Irish Council in Belfast next month.

On Edinburgh trams, on 30 May, Stewart Stevenson said that costs were "out of control". Yesterday, the Auditor General for Scotland said that the

"Financial management and reporting of the project appears sound".

Who is right?

I read out earlier some of the key points from the Auditor General's report on these infrastructure projects.

Answer the question.

The information that has come back to the Parliament vindicates entirely the five votes in the Parliament that said that we must have that financial information. [Interruption.]

Excuse me, First Minister. Such sedentary exclamations may be suitable for another place, but they are not suitable in this chamber. [Applause.]

When we look in detail at the Auditor General's report, which I am sure Nicol Stephen has read, one thing stands out with extraordinary clarity: according to the Auditor General, there were no meetings of the project board between April 2006 and February 2007. Where was the former Minister for Transport when that project was running into the sands? Was he absent without leave?

The First Minister's response suggests that he has not yet properly read the Auditor General's positive report. I am asking about the Edinburgh trams project today. Why is it that the First Minister's spin doctor was quoted this morning as saying that the SNP motion next week will call for both projects to be cancelled and his ministers say that costs are "out of control", but the Auditor General says that the projects are "sound" and "robust"? Ministers have said that they need a week to work out what to do next, but the First Minister's spin doctor says that they decided last night. Scottish business is waiting, the projects are waiting and the Parliament is waiting. Can we have an honest statement about this important project from someone in the Government?

I also read out the quotes from the Auditor General about the trams project. I am particularly interested in the shortfall of £48.8 million that he identified in phase 1. Perhaps in next week's debate, Nicol Stephen will tell us where that £48.8 million will come from. Will it come from the council tax payers of Edinburgh or does he expect the Executive just to extend the budget?

On the BBC website today, Paddy Ashdown is quoted as saying:

"You do not build partnership government by seeking to add the Liberal Democrats as a bungalow annexe to a Labour government."

Nice words. I suspect that that construction project was over budget as well.

---

Joint Ministerial Committees

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in re-establishing joint ministerial committees with the United Kingdom Government. (S3F-83)

I intend to call for a meeting of the joint ministerial committee when Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister.

Does the First Minister agree that it is an indictment of the previous Administration that the joint ministerial committees, which the late Donald Dewar carefully established, were allowed to fall into disrepair? After the joint ministerial committees are re-established, will the First Minister take an early opportunity to raise the need to transfer powers under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 from Westminster to Holyrood, starting with the repatriation of Scotland's oil and gas revenues to this Parliament?

Alex Neil and I are at one—as we always are—on wishing to extend the Parliament's powers. As for establishing the procedures, I hope that the argument for having a proper, organised and formal structure of decision making throughout the United Kingdom—between the Assemblies and the Parliaments—is supported not just in this chamber but in Belfast and Cardiff. Enthusiasm is great for putting decision making in a proper structure and for not tolerating the position that the last plenary meeting of the joint ministerial committee was in October 2002—perhaps that explains some of the misunderstandings and difficulties that have arisen in the intervening five years.

How does the First Minister plan to approach the Prime Minister to discover what was decided in Europe without a by-your-leave or information being sought from this Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly? From reading the Scotland Act 1998, I think that we should have been consulted.

The one joint ministerial sub-committee that is working is on Europe. Linda Fabiani represented Scotland at that sub-committee's meeting last week before the European Council meeting. She expressed concerns and identified issues on which Scotland has much at stake.

Before the Liaison Committee on Monday, the Prime Minister described a number of what he called red-line issues, with some of which we agree, such as the need to protect the independence of the judiciary in Scotland and the integrity of the Scottish legal system. Whitehall seems to be well aware that that issue is important.

We will certainly know more in the next few days about the full extent of what will come out of the European Council meeting. That will be followed by an intergovernmental conference. I hope and believe that the incoming Prime Minister will be very sensitive to the views of this Parliament, this Government and the people of Scotland in identifying issues that may give us substantial concern.

I will ask about procedure. Does the First Minister agree that personal and political relationships with the UK Government are vital to the success of government in Scotland? He gave a commitment to Dr Paisley and Martin McGuinness to review the application of tuition fees to non-Scotland-domiciled students. Did he inform the UK Government of that, in line with the concordat between the Scottish ministers and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills? If so, when did he do that?

As I have been given the opportunity, I will say a word about what I found in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Order.

It is inspiring to see two parties—indeed, many parties—working so closely together in a way that people would have thought unimaginable only a few weeks ago. That is the big picture that we should look at when we consider Northern Ireland, and we should do everything that we can to help.

As Robert Brown must know, we cannot remove fees for Northern Irish students under the terms of the order that the Parliament has passed. However, if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland tell us that there are ways—not by abolishing fees—in which the flow of students between Northern Ireland and Scotland can be maintained and secured, given the situation, the Parliament and the Government should respond constructively and imaginatively.

Answer the question.

The answer to the member's question is, "Obviously not," as the premise of the question did not arise.

Further to that point, will the First Minister report to the Parliament on the joint ministerial committees that he intends to set up? Specifically, I ask him to report on his plans to use English taxes to spend on Northern Irish students who attend Scottish universities.

That is an extraordinarily convoluted question. It would have been better if, instead of pursuing that line, the member had changed his question after he heard the previous answer. I will be delighted to report to the Parliament on the progress that I hope will be made in establishing the JMCs. We all have a great deal to gain from having organised and respectful decision making across these islands.

---

Asylum Seeker Families

To ask the First Minister, during refugee week Scotland 2007, what stage has been reached in implementing the March 2006 agreement between the Executive and the Home Office on the treatment of asylum seeker families. (S3F-88)

I salute Bill Butler for the consistent work that he has done on the issue over many months since he came to the Parliament. We are working towards full implementation of the March 2006 agreement. We will hold the Home Office and the Border and Immigration Agency to account for every element of that agreement, and we will press for further progress where that is required in the interests of children, families and communities in Scotland that are affected by these issues.

The First Minister will know that, when I raised the matter with his predecessor on 29 March, Mr McConnell was able to report significant progress in respect of enhanced background checks on immigration staff and that agreement had been reached on

"lead professional arrangements, which should ensure that the particular needs of children are taken into account."—[Official Report, 29 March 2007; c 33757.]

Mr McConnell also evinced a hope—indeed, an expectation—that the 1,000 so-called legacy cases would be treated in a proper and sensitive manner, resulting in many such individuals being allowed to stay.

Given the overlapping nature of devolved and reserved responsibilities in this area, will the First Minister, when he meets the new Prime Minister, pledge to continue the approach of Jack McConnell in working co-operatively with Westminster, so that the agreement is put fully in place and legacy cases are dealt with humanely? Will the First Minister report back to the chamber on the outcome of his discussions with Gordon Brown on this very serious matter?

The answer to the last part of Bill Butler's question is yes. I saluted him for his work on the issue and I do so again. However, I do not share his interpretation that substantial progress has been made on the issue since 2006. The former Minister for Education and Young People provided a detailed written update on the non-implementation of the agreement to the Communities Committee and the Education Committee on 20 March. We should all realise that there has been considerable dragging of feet by the BIA in respect of lead professional arrangements. Adam Ingram is meeting Glasgow City Council today to ensure that there can be no suggestion that there will be any delays in Scotland to excuse in any way either the BIA or the Home Office from implementing an agreement that, after all, was reached in March 2006. I think that all members would have wanted much greater progress to have been made by June 2007.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware that one of the reasons why children of asylum seekers have been treated so badly, especially in Glasgow in incidents known as dawn raids, is that the United Kingdom Government has made a decision to exclude those children from the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Does he agree that it is shameful that some of the most vulnerable children in our country do not have access to the same basic protection on which children in civilised countries around the world can rely? Will he commit the Government to ensuring that its devolved functions are exercised as though the UNCRC applies to those children?

I agree with what Patrick Harvie says and I make the commitment that he requests.

I am sure that the First Minister agrees that Dungavel figures prominently in the issue that Patrick Harvie raised. What discussions has the First Minister had with the UK Government about the situation of young people in Dungavel?

I intend to hold such discussions with the UK Government as soon as we get the institutions established that will enable them to properly take place.

Given that there is a substantial feeling that the Home Office and the BIA have not been as quick as they should have been in implementing the agreement, it is a priority that we ensure that there is no suggestion that any institution, council or governmental body in Scotland can be accused of foot dragging. I know that there is concern about the issue right across the Parliament and I assure Hugh O'Donnell that, through the proposed institutions, I will do everything that I can to continue to pursue the issue until the blot and stain of dawn raids is removed from our country.

Does the First Minister share my concern about the plight of Sana Hussein and her four children, one of whom is a nine-month-old baby, who were taken to Dungavel on Friday and then had to suffer being transported by van to Tinsley house—a journey of 14 hours—on Sunday? Does he agree that that is totally unacceptable? Will he join me in welcoming Sana, who was released yesterday and who phoned me last night, back to Glasgow?

I share Sandra White's concern, I join her in welcoming Sana Hussein back to Glasgow and I pay tribute to her extensive work on the issue.

When people consider the general issue of asylum seekers and dawn raids, they sometimes think that there is logic and sense behind some of the attitudes that have emanated from the Home Office. However, I suspect that when people look at specific cases—when the issue boils down to individual families and individual children—and become aware of the circumstances of many of the families and children concerned, their opinion changes quite dramatically. Sandra White does well to bring to the Parliament one such case and I salute what she says.

---

Policing

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government is committed to the provision of an additional 1,000 officers for front-line policing. (S3F-79)

We are committed to delivering. That will require a co-ordinated, carefully planned and innovative approach. Plans to deliver our commitment are being drawn up and we will publish them in early course.

I am grateful for that reassurance. Does the First Minister agree that the public want the additional police officers to be occupied on the front line providing a visible and tangible deterrent and investigating crime? That being the case, does he agree that, bearing in mind the significant costs involved, the best solution might be to invite joint police boards to apply for the additional moneys, subject to schemes being approved by the Scottish Executive to ensure that the money will be used for the intended purpose—namely, front-line policing—rather than for administrative purposes?

I share Bill Aitken's concern. It would be useful to take up those matters in discussion with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. We have the same objective, which is to get more front-line police on to the streets in communities throughout Scotland. The main thing is that we work constructively to achieve the implementation of that shared objective.

I rather liked the remarks that Jackson Carlaw made during the safer and stronger debate about the 1,500 additional officers that the Conservative party had committed to provide and the 1,000 additional officers that the SNP had promised. He said:

"It would be interesting to know how the SNP arrived at its requirement figure; come to that, it would be interesting to know how we arrived at ours."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 421-22.]

Discussion all round with people who want to achieve the objective of putting more police on the streets in communities throughout Scotland is what is called for, so that together we can deliver on that commitment.

Following on from the quotation that the First Minister read out, does he agree that the Executive would be in breach of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 if it placed police officers in our communities, as the act states that chief constables have the sole responsibility for operational decisions about police deployment and enforcing law in their areas?

I cannot imagine that any chief constable in Scotland would disagree with the proposition that they should have the resources to put more policemen on to the streets and into the communities of Scotland.