Plenary, 22 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, June 22, 2006

Official Report 534KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2373)

This is a welcoming country, in which violent crime has been reducing and in which our football fans are a source of pride rather than embarrassment. It is entirely unacceptable for any individual, of any nationality, to be attacked in this country because of the football shirt that they are wearing. The Parliament sends out that clear message today.

The next meeting of the Cabinet will of course discuss issues that are important to Scotland.

I join the First Minister in condemning the despicable actions of a minority in this country. Their behaviour should not be allowed to reflect on the reputation of the vast majority of decent people in Scotland.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the concordat agreed between Scottish ministers and the Secretary of State for Defence, which requires Scottish ministers

"to consider any proposals for … the exercise of powers by the UK Government that may have an impact on … Scotland."

I am sure that we would all agree that a decision to site a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons on the River Clyde would have an impact on Scotland. Is the First Minister for or against replacing Trident?

The easy answer in these situations would, as ever, be yes or no, but the issue requires a considered opinion. It is no secret to the chamber that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I enthusiastically supported unilateral action by the United Kingdom to reduce its nuclear deterrent, in order to bring about improvements in an international situation that was at best worrying and at worst terrifying, as the cold war continued. As the Reagan and Gorbachev years took effect and as the international movement for nuclear disarmament had an impact, we saw a reduction in the nuclear stockpile internationally. I believe that that was the right time to change and to take the approach that it was right to take part in international negotiations.

I see a very important decision facing the United Kingdom in the year or two ahead. I agree absolutely that people in Scotland should have an opinion on that issue and I welcome the UK Government's commitment to a debate on the issue. I hope that that debate is informed and sensible—on the one hand, without committing ourselves automatically to a new generation of nuclear weapons but, on the other, without taking unilateral actions, in advance of the international situation and our analysis of it, that would remove the UK from international negotiations and reduce our influence at a time of potentially increasing tension on the nuclear issue worldwide.

Sometimes it is right, on issues of great moral importance, for a leader to say yes or no—to say which side he is on. I remind the First Minister that last night Gordon Brown made it clear which side he is on. He supports the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde. We know that a decision will be taken over the next few months about whether to spend up to £25 billion of taxpayers' money on a new generation of nuclear weapons. There should and will be a massive public debate about this issue. I ask the First Minister which side of that debate he starts from. Does he agree with Gordon Brown that we need new nuclear weapons or, like many in his party, will he oppose new weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde?

I am on the side of the people of Scotland and good security for our country. If we are exchanging views on policies here, I am happy to point out that that is not the side taken by the Scottish National Party, whose policy of withdrawing from NATO and from the United Kingdom armed forces and reducing the number of bases and support for the armed forces in Scotland would have a devastating impact on our country's security. The people of Scotland are well aware of that.

On the specific issue of nuclear weapons, I agree that there should be a debate—that is the UK Government's official position. I will certainly take part in that debate.

We do not know whether it will be confirmed during the next six months that the Iranian Government is preparing to move towards having its own nuclear weapons or deterrent. We also do not know whether the North Korean Government will test nuclear missiles during the months ahead. However, we know that the UK faces a decision on replacing its nuclear deterrent. That decision must be made in view of the international circumstances at the time. I do not have a preconceived view of what that decision should be, but it should be made in the interests of the security of the UK and Scotland and to give us the maximum impact that we can have in international negotiations to reduce the worldwide stockpile of nuclear weapons and their proliferation in new or emerging states.

Would we not be much more credible in preaching non-proliferation to Iran and North Korea if we were not deciding to upgrade our own nuclear weapons? Has the First Minister not dodged the question again? I remind him of the recent newspaper interview where he said that the First Minister of Scotland must speak up on issues for which the Scottish Parliament is not responsible but which have implications for Scotland. He said:

"I will … not hold back."

Will the First Minister live up to his promises? Will he come off the fence and tell us where he stands on this very important issue? Does he think that Trident mark II will be a good use of £25 billion of taxpayers' money or does he, like me, think that that money would be much better spent on schools, hospitals and pensions?

I stand for the security of Scotland within the United Kingdom, and for a proper response from and the participation of the United Kingdom in international negotiations to reduce the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. Ms Sturgeon might take the easy route of withdrawing from having any influence or participation in those discussions, but Scotland, through the United Kingdom, has an important role to play in those international negotiations. The way in which the decision is made might just have an impact on nuclear proliferation and on our ability to control it and to ensure that the world is in a better situation rather than a worse one. That is why we should make a considered judgment.

I will speak out on this issue, but I will do so with the full facts at my disposal, in view of the international situation and the analysis of how it might develop. I have mentioned two uncertainties that exist in the world right now, and Ms Sturgeon should take account of them. The SNP's policy of withdrawing from NATO and ensuring that Scotland is no longer part of the British armed forces and loses personnel, bases, power and influence would threaten the security of Scotland. That policy should be under examination here, just as the right decision should be properly examined by politicians in this Parliament, by the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK and by the British Government.

I will take no lectures from a party that has axed more than 2,000 Ministry of Defence jobs in Scotland since it came to power. Is it not the reality that while the First Minister waits and prevaricates, Gordon Brown and the debate are moving on? Is it not also the case that most people in Scotland, including many of his own Labour colleagues, believe that there is no moral, economic, military or legal case to be made in the modern world for putting new Trident missiles on the Clyde? Is it not a shame that we do not have a First Minister who has the courage to stand up and say that? Is it not a shame that we do not have a First Minister who is prepared to speak out for Scotland and Scotland's interests?

I hope that the people of Scotland are reassured that they have a First Minister who takes the issue seriously, who is prepared to examine the evidence, who wants to influence international negotiations and who wants to make the right decision rather than one who gets a cheap headline on day one of the debate. I intend to take the issue seriously. If Ms Sturgeon thinks that putting under threat MOD jobs in Scotland—6,000 jobs are dependent on MOD contracts and 25,000 people in Scotland are directly employed by the MOD—and the £1.5 billion that is spent on defence in this country is the right thing to do for the security of Scotland, she is wrong and the Scottish National Party is wrong, as has been proved time after time by the people of Scotland in elections.

Let me be clear on the specific issue that Ms Sturgeon raises: I do not believe that the conclusion to the issue that is under debate is clear at this stage. I believe strongly that it is important to assess the international situation, to examine the threats that are posed to that situation and to make a decision on whether to proceed with a new generation of British nuclear weapons on the basis of an analysis of how it would be best to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the size of the nuclear stockpile. The decision should be made on that basis and, in my view, on that basis alone. That is my sole criterion. When I express a view on the matter, I will so with only that objective in mind.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2374)

I have no plans to talk to the Prime Minister over the next week, but if I do, one of the issues that we will discuss will be the United Kingdom's positive attempts to deal with the impact of the Barker judgment, which was discussed in this morning's statement on the legislative programme. I take the opportunity to thank both main Opposition parties and others for indicating that they will help us to take action on behalf of people in Scotland who are suffering from the impact of exposure to asbestos.

I hope that when the First Minister meets the Prime Minister, he will pass on to Mr Blair Scotland's condemnation of the shameful, mindless and brutish acts of thuggery that were committed when two vulnerable individuals were attacked simply for supporting the England football team. I hope that the First Minister will tell the Prime Minister that the overwhelming majority of Scots are tolerant, kindly and open-minded people who are horrified and nauseated by such appalling incidents. Will the First Minister update us on what is being done to track down the perpetrators of those crimes to ensure that they are properly dealt with through the criminal justice system?

As ever, it is difficult for me to talk about individual cases, but I can be clear about a number of things. First, I will certainly pass on Annabel Goldie's view—which I am sure is the unanimous view of everyone in the Parliament—that the acts to which she refers are disgraceful and should be condemned and that they should be acted on by our forces of law and order. I believe that if it can be proved that the acts were racially motivated, that should be the basis on which any charge is applied, but it would be wrong of me to comment on the specific circumstances until they have been properly investigated and the culprits have been identified and—we hope—eventually charged.

We would all want to back the police force and ultimately—I hope—the procurators fiscal in the areas concerned to ensure that they send out a clear signal in Scotland and elsewhere that those individual acts run against the trend of a reduction in violent crime in Scotland, the positive atmosphere that surrounds our football supporters and the enjoyment that everyone is taking in the world cup, regardless of their perspective. We want it to be emphasised that over recent years Scotland has been a welcoming country, not just to people from elsewhere in the world but to people from England in particular. Today we send out a clear message that many more English people will be welcomed. The increase in our population is largely due to the fact that people have come here from elsewhere in the UK. They are welcome here and they will be for years to come.

I thank the First Minister for his response and was glad to hear it.

The attacks in question bring shame on Scotland, create a negative image and are a sad illustration of the attitude of a minority of the population. The fact that a grown man was able to attack a seven-year-old boy in a park in the middle of the afternoon without fear of apprehension is a sad indictment of our justice system. Does the First Minister accept that that is another indication of the crisis in our justice system, in which only 145 police are on the beat at any one time and three out of four crimes are not even reported to the police? Will he say what action he is taking to increase the police presence on our streets and in our parks and communities?

First, I express regret that Annabel Goldie's subsequent question may have divided the unity in the chamber on the issue. That said, I am happy to join the debate.

Of course, the figures that Annabel Goldie quotes are largely wrong and there are far more police officers on the beat in Scotland than she says there are. As everybody knows, there are also increasing numbers of police officers in the community in Scotland and, in many areas, those officers are backed up by community wardens. There are officers who are working very creatively to maximise their presence in their local community. They are doing so not only by being on the beat and by having the support of community wardens but by using new transport methods such as bicycles. Following her activities of yesterday, I understand that Miss Goldie may have an interest in bicycles.

In taking the actions that we have taken over the past three years to reform our criminal justice system, the Government has done more than almost any Government before us to ensure that more police officers in Scotland are focused on tackling crime and that our justice and prosecution service is more able to ensure that those who are caught are properly dealt with. There has been a huge improvement in the efficiency of our courts. That can be seen in the reduction in the time that is wasted not only by witnesses and victims but by individual police officers; the time wasted by police officers has reduced massively. They used to have to sit around courtrooms waiting for cases to be heard when they could have been out on the beat—that is where they are now. There has been a huge increase in the number of support staff, who were put in place to take away from police officers all the bureaucracy and administration that they had to do. Officers are now available to go out and do the job that they signed up to do, and to be effective with it.

Those are significant measures and they are making a difference. The strongest message that we can send out is not that we will put an individual police officer in every individual park in Scotland on the off-chance that one day an individual might attack a seven-year-old boy, however despicable that act might be. The real action that we need to take is to ensure that we change the culture of our society. That is why the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is so important. At its core, it tackles that culture of disrespect and intolerance. The Tories should be ashamed of having fought it all the way.

That is a downright lie.

Not for the first time, I have to bring the First Minister to book, because my party supported the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill in the Parliament.

In fact, the figure of 145 police on the beat to which I referred is extracted from an Executive document, "Narrowing The Gap—Police visibility and public reassurance—Managing public expectation and demand". Although, as the First Minister said, there may be more recruited police officers in Scotland, wherever they are, they are not walking the streets.

As the First Minister knows, operational policing matters are decisions for chief constables and politicians should not interfere in them. However, does the he accept that the current policing policies that are favoured by chief constables are in conflict with the public's demand for more police on our streets and on the beat? Does he further accept that it is only by making the police more accountable to the public, regularly publishing community crime statistics and directly electing the conveners of police boards that policing will begin to reflect the needs and demands of the public?

Even if Miss Goldie does not remember it, all members on the Executive benches remember the opposition that she, Mr McLetchie and others put up to our drive to tackle antisocial behaviour in Scotland. I remember Conservative members queuing up to say that I was exaggerating the problem and that not only were the measures that we were proposing not required but they were over the top and inappropriate. The Conservatives said that all we required was more police on the beat. The reality is that we have delivered more police on the beat and delivered the laws that allow them to do their job in tackling antisocial behaviour and crime in our local communities.

Alongside the raft of measures to modernise and change our criminal justice system, in which reform in the High Court has been followed by reform in the sheriff court, and many other changes, we have the new laws to tackle antisocial behaviour and a record number of police officers—no longer just a record 15,500 but now more than 16,000 police officers. If Miss Goldie's alternative is simply to turn the conveners of local police boards in the eight police authorities in Scotland into political footballs, by creating elections for their positions, she is kidding herself, her party and the people of Scotland.

---

Scottish National Minimum Wage Helpline

To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Executive has made to the Department of Trade and Industry about the impact on low-paid workers of the withdrawal of funding for the Scottish national minimum wage helpline. (S2F-2386)

The decision on the helpline's funding is a matter for the United Kingdom Government, but the Scottish Government continues to engage with and support organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland to ensure that money advice is available to people in Scotland.

The First Minister is aware that Scotland's dedicated national minimum wage helpline faces the axe, although there are no plans to close the helplines in Northern Ireland or England. Every year, the Scottish helpline sends 80,000 pieces of literature to some of the most exploited workers in the country, who depend on that lifeline. The helpline has helped some 3,500 people since its launch in 2003.

Does the First Minister accept that there is a continuing need to combat the scourge of low pay in Scotland? If he does, given that the helpline's running costs are just £36,000, will he act to ensure that that vital service can continue?

How the service is provided is entirely a matter for the UK Government, which provided a clear and persuasive explanation for its decision and questioned the statistics that Colin Fox has just given.

The Scottish Parliament has a proud record of supporting money advice services for citizens in Scotland, primarily through local authorities, through which our initiatives and legislation are making a big difference to families by ensuring that they receive the advice that they need and are led away from debt problems—in a world in which debt is an increasing problem for poor families.

We also support national projects. I mention just two such projects: the Scotland-wide young Scot moneyline initiative, which makes a big difference to young people who might find themselves in financial difficulty; and the Citizens Advice Scotland financial education project, which is trialling approaches to financial education, to ensure that the next generation of young Scots will be less in debt than were their mothers and fathers.

The Scottish helpline operates as a partnership between the Scottish Low Pay Unit, Citizens Advice Scotland and HM Revenue and Customs. The Scottish Executive has been asked to help, too.

I am disappointed by the First Minister's reply because, according to the Scottish Low Pay Unit, more than 10,000 workers in Scotland are being paid less than the national minimum wage. The First Minister appears to be abandoning those workers to their fate. Is he saying that we cannot afford to spend £36,000 to ensure that workers who are exploited by unscrupulous employers are informed of their rights and afforded the full protection of the law? Are not the Executive's priorities all to pot if £36,000 cannot be found to fund a successful lifeline, when £50 million was recently doled out willy-nilly to Scottish Enterprise—a company worth £450 million? Does the First Minister accept that if he does not act to save the helpline, people will conclude that the Executive is not doing enough to protect vulnerable low-paid workers, who have a right to be paid the national minimum wage?

It is not the job of the Executive or the Parliament to move in every time the UK Government makes a decision about a project's funding and to replace withdrawn UK funding with Scottish funding. Nor is it my job to defend the UK Government.

Of the Scots who contacted various helplines because they had difficulties in relation to the national minimum wage, more Scots were helped by the UK helpline than were helped by the Scottish helpline. Such statistics led the UK Government to make its decision. As I said, the decision was entirely a matter for the UK Government.

Our job in Scotland is to use our powers to ensure that through education and money advice that is provided by local authorities and the voluntary sector we help to deal with debt in communities. We have been doing that increasingly successfully as a result of the Parliament's many initiatives—many of which were cross-party initiatives—and I hope that we will continue to do that.

---

Transport Infrastructure Projects (VAT)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any concerns about the imposition of VAT on Scotland's transport infrastructure projects, such as the Aberdeen western peripheral route. (S2F-2377)

We are aware of the issue and are working closely with the local authorities that are affected to reach a solution.

I am a committed supporter of the Aberdeen western peripheral route. The Minister for Transport, Mr Scott, has been quoted as saying that the project has no VAT liability. However, on the basis of advice from the Treasury, Aberdeen MPs are certain not only that VAT is due but that ministers should have known that. Which of them has got it right—the Minister for Transport or the Labour MPs? If the Labour MPs are right, who will pay the VAT—the Executive or council tax payers?

I do not recognise the comments that Brian Adam quotes. In dealing with this important, if technical, issue, it is important that we deal in facts rather than misrepresentations.

I believe that the issue requires to be addressed. The correct way to address it is for us to work with the local authorities and for them to appeal the ruling that has led to this situation. The previous practice of ensuring that VAT was recoverable on local authority-led projects was one on which we based our current transport programme. That has been changed, over the past few months, by rulings at a United Kingdom level that are either being challenged or going to be challenged by the local authorities that are affected. We hope that those challenges are successful.

---

BAA (Takeover)

To ask the First Minister what impact the takeover of BAA is likely to have on the development of the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport rail links. (S2F-2385)

Our Government is working closely with airport operators and scheme promoters to ensure the successful delivery of those projects, and we will work with any new partners should that be necessary.

The First Minister will accept that the takeover of BAA by Ferrovial may put at risk the private sector airport infrastructure investment in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports. Will he guarantee that the public sector investments relating to the development of the Glasgow airport rail link will go ahead—in particular, the investment in increasing the track capacity between Glasgow Central station and Paisley Gilmour Street station, which is vital to the economic growth of Ayrshire?

I welcome the vote that was taken in Parliament yesterday afternoon to make further progress on the Glasgow airport rail link. As I have said before, it is a national disgrace that we do not have a rail link between our two major cities and the two airports that are closest to them. It is time for us to rectify that situation. The investment is very important and I am certain that we will be able to work with whoever owns the airports to secure their participation and partnership in the delivery of those projects.

The First Minister will be aware that the Royal Highland show, which opens today in my constituency, is a Scottish success story. However, the Royal Highland Agricultural Society has now waited for more than two and a half years for the publication of BAA's master plan. Delays have resulted from the recent takeover talks and we await clarification of exactly why BAA needs the 300-acre site. Will the First Minister give us an assurance that the Executive will push for early publication of the master plan following the show and that ministers will meet the new owners of BAA to discuss the way forward for the master plan, in order to end the uncertainty, as well as the whole issue of the rail link to Edinburgh airport?

The importance of investment in Scotland's airports must not be underestimated. There has been considerable growth and expansion in our airports over recent years, which has been good for Scotland. We want that to continue, although we recognise that the environmental impacts of air traffic need to be addressed.

Passenger traffic at both Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport is likely to increase. At Glasgow airport, it is likely to rise from 7.2 million passengers in 2001 to, potentially, more than 17 million passengers in 2030; at Edinburgh airport, it is likely to rise from 6 million passengers in 2001 to, potentially, 24 million passengers in 2030. Those are huge increases, so continued investment in our airports is vital to make them as effective and efficient as possible. I have no doubt that the Minister for Transport will seek an urgent meeting with any new owners of Scotland's airports should the takeover take place and that, if these issues remain unresolved, he will want to raise them at that meeting.

---

Tourism Green Tax

To ask the First Minister what plans are being considered to introduce a tourism green tax in Scotland. (S2F-2381)

There are no plans to introduce a tourism green tax in Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for that straightforward and unambiguous response, which will be welcomed by all who are involved in tourism. I know that he is aware of the phenomenal success of the air discount scheme, which entitles residents of Scottish islands to a 40 per cent reduction in the cost of travelling by air to the Scottish mainland. Given the success of that scheme, I urge the First Minister and the Executive to consider a ferry discount scheme, which would allow islanders such as the pupils from Loch's school in Lewis who are in the gallery today to travel by sea to the mainland at a reduced cost.

I join Alasdair Morrison in welcoming the pupils from Loch's school, which I opened a few years ago and which sets very high standards. The pupils have been working hard all year and deserve their visit to the Scottish Parliament. They are welcome here.

We have no current plans for a ferry discount scheme similar to the air discount scheme, but I am sure that we will listen to any representations that Alasdair Morrison makes on the issue.