Contents
- Scottish Parliament Thursday 22 June 2000
- McCrone Report
- Petrol and Diesel Prices
- Scottish Criminal Record Office
- Business Motion
- Care Standards Bill
- Milestone House Hospice
- Question Time
- First Minister's Question Time
- Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
- Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution
- Parliamentary Bureau Motions
- Decision Time
First Minister's Question Time
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the most recent meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-441)
The Cabinet discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.
Let me say how pleasant it was to see the First Minister back in action on television this week. We look forward to seeing him back here, after the close season for football and politics.
While the acting First Minister is still acting, will he agree that pensioners in his constituency and mine are facing 40 per cent increases in water charges, while the pension has increased by only 1 per cent? What action is he taking to ensure that pensioners and low-income households are able to meet that imposition of water charges?
I join Mr Salmond in saying that it was indeed pleasing to see the First Minister in action, and I am sure that the whole Parliament sends him good wishes for a continuing speedy recovery.
Mr Salmond raised the question of water charges. If he had been listening attentively last week to Sarah Boyack's announcement on the future of water charging, he would have heard her say that the Executive is considering how those on lower incomes can be helped, given the fact that the current benefits system does not extend to that.
I know that there is a review, but would not it have been sensible to have the review before putting the charges up by 40 per cent in the north of Scotland and by substantial amounts in other parts of the country? Did Mr Wallace hear the debate in Parliament this morning, at which it emerged that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was putting up the pension by 1.1 per cent, based on inflation, he was also putting up petrol duty by 3.3 per cent—also based on inflation? When he met the chancellor a couple of weeks ago, did the acting First Minister raise with him the question of social inclusion and pensioner poverty? Can he explain why that differential exists, or does he agree that the chancellor is robbing pensioners and cheating motorists?
I was aware of the figures that Mr Salmond alludes to. I am sure that he is also aware that in 1999 the retail prices index led to a pension increase of 3.2 per cent, but to an increase in excise duties of 1.33 per cent. I am sure that Mr Salmond was not suggesting that the cost of the rise in pensions should have been reduced to the level of the rise in excise duties.
Those figures must be considered against the background of the document produced by the SNP before the election, "The Economic Case for Independence", which assumed that the petrol escalator would continue. Under SNP plans, pensioners and other drivers in Scotland would have had to pay far more for their fuel than is the case as a result of the budget.
Petrol prices increased last year by 8 per cent; I would have expected the acting First Minister to remember that, because he and I voted against that increase in the House of Commons. Is not it the case that, last week in the House of Commons, the Liberal social security spokesman described the rise in pensions as pathetic? Is not it the case that, in this chamber today, Liberal MSPs described the rise in petrol duties as pathetic? Is not it pathetic that the acting First Minister has to act as a Labour party mouthpiece in defending a chancellor who is robbing pensioners and cheating motorists?
That question had a tinge of pathetic desperation about it. I am only too pleased that Mr Salmond has again made reference to my voting record on the issue. I would certainly have voted against him if he had ever been in a position to propose a budget that clearly showed that, as a result of "The Economic Case for Independence", the escalator would have continued right through until 2003-04. Under the SNP, people would have had to pay far more for their fuel than the SNP is ever prepared to admit. That would have been the cost of independence, and Mr Salmond is too feart to admit it.
I will give Mr Salmond credit; he is very brave if he tries to suggest that there is some difference between me and my colleagues. I can tell him that I am much closer to my colleagues than he is to his.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise with him. (S1F-440)
I have had two meetings with the Prime Minister this month, the latest being in Glasgow last Friday at the joint ministerial committee on health. No future meetings have as yet been planned.
Will the Deputy First Minister take the opportunity at his next meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the operation of the Barnett formula? I note from the press this week that Lord Barnett has suggested that the formula might be reviewed. Will Mr Wallace confirm that under successive Conservative secretaries of state for Scotland, we won a very good deal from the Treasury in the annual spending round, with the result that we sustained consistently higher levels of spending on education and health throughout our period in office? It is Mr McConnell and the Scottish Executive who are failing to stand up for Scotland's interests in their negotiations with the Treasury.
The Barnett formula, which was in the white paper and was reflected in all the debates that we had on setting up a Scottish Parliament, will deliver stability in funding and avoid annual haggling, which would have been very damaging.
As public expenditure increases, there is convergence. Under the latter years of the Tories, there was divergence as the result of public spending cuts. I would much rather be in a position where we are about to spend record levels in real terms on health and education, as this Executive is doing.
I welcome the Deputy First Minister's commitment to stability in our constitutional settlement. The Conservatives certainly welcome that.
I will move to another matter that relates to public finance, which touches on the point that Mr Salmond raised about the differential inflation rates that are applied to pensions and petrol taxes. For matters that are within the Scottish Executive's responsibility, will the Minister for Finance, Mr McConnell—like Gordon Brown—fiddle the figures by using a higher rate for setting taxes such as business rates, but a lower rate for calculating future spending decisions?
I do not know where Mr McLetchie is coming from; perhaps that is the sort of question that is being fed to him by Mr Bill Walker. I said a fortnight ago that Phil Gallie was in the mainstream and that that was worrying; the Tories have shown that Bill Walker is now in the mainstream—that is chilling.
It is without foundation to suggest that Jack McConnell would in any way fiddle figures. That is a slur and I am sure that Jack McConnell is pleased—along with other members of the Executive—to be a member of an Executive that is spending record levels on education, health and improving public services in Scotland.
When the acting First Minister next meets the Prime Minister, will he bring up the issue of Liberal Democrat party policy? I think that he is still a member of that party. When he does so, will he mention the policy approach of his colleague Malcolm Bruce, who last night repeated his calls for full financial powers for this Parliament? Will they agree with Mike Rumbles, who said in the debate this morning that his view was that we should have more power over our own affairs, including tax? Will the acting First Minister agree with Robert Brown and Ian Jenkins, who again this morning—
Mr Wilson, your question must relate to Mr McLetchie's original question, which was about meetings with the Prime Minister.
With the greatest respect, I asked at the start of my question whether the Deputy First Minister would bring up Liberal policy when he next spoke to the Prime Minister.
We could not hear for the noise.
I was not—[Interruption.] If members on the Executive benches—
Order. There is too much noise—even I cannot hear what Mr Wilson is saying.
Will the Deputy First Minister agree with Malcolm Bruce, Ian Jenkins, Mike Rumbles and Robert Brown—all Liberals—who have called for greater powers for this Parliament on finance, or will he disagree with them and back the Labour party, which he seems to work for? Is he the leader of the Liberals or the mouthpiece of the Executive?
I put on record my appreciation of the SNP, which has given more party political broadcasts for the Liberal Democrats than anyone has done in a long time. I am sure that people will be pleased to hear what my colleagues have to say.
We have made it clear—it is what we argued for and on what we fought the referendum—that the Barnett formula gave the Parliament the best opportunity to get off on the right footing with stability. The white paper, which was the precursor to the referendum, said that
"Any more substantial revision would need to be preceded by an in depth study of relative spending requirements and would be the subject of full consultation between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government."
It was envisaged even then that, in the longer term, such matters might have to be revisited, but I do not know of anyone other than the SNP—for the obvious purpose of constitutional wrecking—who wants to upset the stable basis on which my party and the Labour party fought the referendum.
Before I call question 3, I ask members to note that supplementaries have to be in order, as the original question is.
Post Office Closures
To ask the First Minister what representations have been made by the Scottish Executive to Her Majesty's Government regarding the future of the local post office network in Scotland in the light of the announcement of post-tax losses by the Post Office. (S1F-442)
The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the United Kingdom Government on a wide range of issues, including the future of the post office network in Scotland.
What provision and allocations has the Executive instructed its agencies to make to repair the economic and social fabric of communities, if and when post offices close as a consequence of automated credit transfer of benefit payments into bank accounts? If the Executive has made no such plans, will it give an assurance today that no post offices will close?
The Scottish Executive has been working closely with the United Kingdom Government on this matter. Members will be aware that the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit will produce a report on the matter shortly, which we have been assured will take full account of circumstances in Scotland. Furthermore my colleague Henry McLeish has set up a group of ministers to examine closely the issue of the network of post offices. The issue will be taken account of in our project for modernising government. I believe that there are great opportunities for sub-post offices, not just in rural areas—although post offices are important in such areas—but on many urban estates in Scotland.
As a representative of a constituency that has many rural post offices and many people who use them to claim benefits, I ask the minister to restate the commitment that has already been given by representatives of the UK Government and the Executive that people will retain the choice of collecting their benefits in cash at the post office. Furthermore, does he agree that the other political parties would be better seeking constructive solutions, instead of scaremongering and frightening elderly people into believing that they will not have that choice?
I confirm that those benefit recipients who wish to collect their benefit payments in cash from a post office will continue to be able to do so. That welcome assurance has been given. I share the view that there are opportunities to support the network of sub-post offices. Henry McLeish's group of ministers is actively addressing that issue. The group should help to secure a proper and adequate network of post offices throughout rural Scotland and many parts of urban Scotland.
Action Programme for Youth
To ask the First Minister what progress has been made on the action programme for youth. (S1F-451)
Together with a large number of ministerial colleagues, I took part in the youth summit in Motherwell on Monday, which marked the first major step in the development of our action programme for youth. The event was successful and enjoyable. More than 1,200 young people from across the country took part. My colleagues and I were greatly encouraged by their enthusiasm and their ideas.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree not only that the voice of young Scots must be heard, but that their ideas must be acted upon, to show that our new democracy is genuinely inclusive? Will he give an assurance that the Executive will respond publicly to the ideas and issues that were raised at the summit?
When I addressed the summit, I said that the days were past when young people were expected to be seen and not heard. The young people came forward with many good ideas. Many of us, when we campaigned for a Parliament for the whole of Scotland, meant that not only in terms of geography, but in terms of all Scotland's different peoples, young and old. We ought to pay attention to what young people say. They have experience of many important issues into which, with the best will in the world, we do not have the same insight. I confirm that an Executive response to the key issues raised at the summit will be published.
Does the acting First Minister accept that many youth organisations suffer severely from the annual cuts in local government budgets, which mean that they are underfunded? Will he find some way for the Executive to put in more money, either directly or indirectly through the councils, to enable youth organisations to deliver the sort of programme that the Executive wants?
Many of the youth organisations that we are talking about rely very much on the work of volunteers. During volunteers week, we made clear the extent of the work that the Executive is doing to support voluntary organisations, including youth organisations, which have an important role to play in our society. We value the contribution that they make. In addition, we have set up pilot projects to give funding for leisure and recreational facilities—a subject very close to Mr Gorrie's heart—for young people with criminal records, as a proper diversion from criminal activity.
Fisheries Council
To ask the First Minister what progress was made at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 16 June 2000. (S1F-433)
The Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, Mr John Home Robertson, attended the Fisheries Council. Good progress was made in a range of areas. In particular, Mr Home Robertson raised the issue of the unregulated haddock fishery to the west of Rockall and obtained the support of a number of member states to bring that fishery under control. The United Kingdom team also made clear its opposition to the view expressed by the Commission that there should be further reductions in fleet capacity under the multi-annual guidance programme.
I welcome the progress made by the fisheries minister at the council. Will the acting First Minister confirm that the Scottish Executive will support the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's zonal management proposals, as a constructive proposal for fisheries, rather than the crude percentage cuts proposed by the Commission last week? Will he also confirm that the Executive is doing all that it can to obtain the agreement of the Norwegian Government to the introduction of square-mesh panels in whitefish trawls to protect the large number of immature haddock in the North sea? Will he also confirm that the fisheries minister will be able to make a statement to the chamber on those matters?
That question came in three parts. First, we believe that technical conservation measures and effluent limitation have played an important part in easing the pressure on stocks and ought to be given proper consideration by the Commission, instead of the crude cuts in capacity that the Commission has proposed. Square-mesh panels are a subject very dear to my heart, as I campaigned for them with successive fisheries ministers at Westminster for a long time. It now appears that we are about to get there, which shows what happens if one perseveres long enough. I accept the importance of getting Norwegian agreement to use the nets in Norwegian waters. I assure Mr Scott that Scottish Executive officials and scientists are engaged in discussions with their Norwegian counterparts. We expect to confirm shortly that Norway will accept the nets. I will need to be reminded of the third question.
Will the fisheries minister make a statement?
I know that Mr Home Robertson has answered a written parliamentary question on the subject and has made a report available to the Rural Affairs Committee. If a statement is requested or required to supplement that, the matter may be taken up with the business managers and with Mr Home Robertson.
Reform of the common fisheries policy is one of those topics that keeps being brought up. It is clear that the CFP has not been a success for UK fleets, partly because of the diversity of the types of fish in our waters. Stocks have not been maintained, fishing communities have not been preserved and young people have not entered the profession. Will the ministers responsible therefore examine closely the late Dr Allan Macartney's report on the need for zonal control, which was passed, I think unanimously, by the Committee on Fisheries of the European Parliament?
I am sure that ministers and officials will consider any useful contribution. I pay tribute to the work that Allan Macartney did, and the question of greater regional management of fisheries is certainly on the agenda.
However, I caution Dr Ewing in damning the common fisheries policy out of sight. Relative stability has been of considerable benefit to the Scottish fishing industry and I hope that she is not suggesting that that should be challenged.
Will the Executive give some assurance that the six and 12-mile limits will not fall when the derogation comes to an end in 2002?
That is an important issue in the 2002 review. The early indications in consultations with all member states are that those limits are not under any challenge and we would certainly seek to defend them.