Plenary, 23 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, March 23, 2000

Official Report 702KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

UK Parliament (Visits)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to visit the United Kingdom Parliament. (S1F-225)

Shortly. I regularly visit the Westminster Parliament and I particularly enjoyed my visit there on Tuesday this week.

When the First Minister next goes to the Westminster Parliament, will he take time to reflect on the claims of the Scottish Executive that the freedom of information legislation going through this Parliament will be better than the freedom of information legislation at Westminster? If that is the case, can he explain why our parliamentary information centre has been unable to obtain key documents relating to the Holyrood project? This is what the head of research and information services has to say about the Scottish Parliament information centre's attempts to contact officials in the Scottish Executive:

"My staff have contacted the relevant official at the Scottish Executive, who informed us that he had passed this request ‘upwards' as he wasn't sure of the exact position with regard to public access to these documents. When we chased the official . . . to find out when we might expect a decision, he apologised and said he didn't know whether we would be able to see the reports or not, and if so, when we would be able to get access to them."

Will the First Minister deprecate that climate of secrecy and undertake to have those key cost consultant reports in the parliamentary information centre by the end of this week?

A good deal of the information that Alex Salmond requires has been in the public domain for some time. I can assure him that there is no intention of withholding documentation that is properly in the public domain. I will look into the matter, but I think that he is getting into something of a paddy about it.

If the parliamentary information centre cannot obtain the original cost consultant reports on Holyrood and St Andrew's House, this Parliament is entitled to be concerned when the information centre is obstructed by officials in the Scottish Executive. Will the First Minister undertake to have those documents in the information centre of this Parliament by the end of this week, or could there be some reason why he does not want those documents to be available to members of the Parliament?

I know that Alex Salmond is a master of innuendo, but the suggestion that I am personally blocking information that should properly be available to members is one that I greatly resent. I have said that I will look into the matter and I will do so.

If the First Minister does not want that suggestion to hang over him, why does not he undertake to make the documents available to the Parliament by the end of the week? Does he accept that the original estimate of £50 million that he gave to the people of Scotland for the Holyrood project was based on erecting a simple building on a flat site? Did no one tell him that Holyrood was not a flat site and that, whatever else Mr Miralles may be accused of, he does not build simple buildings? Are not those the facts about that original estimate? Are not the people of Scotland entitled both to see the rake's progress of escalating costs at the time when the First Minister was in charge of the project and not to have vital information withheld from members of this Parliament?

I must say that I enjoyed the dramatic way in which Mr Salmond threw his papers on to the desk. If he sees a conspiracy, I am not surprised; he is always seeing conspiracies. As I understand it, the publication of the Spencely report is planned for the very near future. There will then be a full debate in this chamber. I am confident about the way in which the choice of site was approached. It was done with the aid of inspections and visualisations of buildings on all four sites by architects and, as Mr Salmond said, exercises in costing the proposals were carried out. That will no doubt be a matter for debate, but the important thing is that we continue in a constructive way to get the right solutions to a difficult situation, rather than imagining bogeymen and conspiracies, as Mr Salmond does. Perhaps the disappointment of many years on the Opposition benches is getting to him.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S1F-223)

I meet the Prime Minister regularly, and I spoke to him on the telephone several times over the budget period. The specific matters are for me.

I invite the First Minister to ask the Prime Minister, the next time that he speaks to him, to convey our congratulations to Rhodri Morgan on his decision to put the Welsh Assembly building on hold pending an examination of all the options, a course of action that we could have taken last June—if we had done, we would not be in the mess that we are in now.

In view of the fact that Mr Morgan has taken his decision against the backdrop of a cost escalation of only £2 million, whereas our cost escalation is estimated by some at £200 million, will the First Minister place a cash ceiling on the Holyrood project, so as to inform our debate on the Spencely report in a couple of weeks' time?

These attempts to skirmish are futile given that we will have an authoritative report shortly—with, I have no doubt, proposals from the parliamentary body that is in charge of the project—and given that we will have a full-scale debate. I suggest to Mr McLetchie that parallels are always dangerous and are often incomplete.

The decision that was taken last June was taken by the Parliament as a whole on a free vote, at least as far as we were concerned. Mr McLetchie's criticism—[Interruption.] It may be that the fact that there was a certain unity of purpose in some way—[Interruption.] I know from conversations with many people that they voted against their conscience and opinion because the Scottish nationalists were on a three-line whip on the occasion of the vote. There would have been a more comfortable majority in this chamber had it not been for those bully-boy tactics.

May I ask my question? May I have the First Minister's attention? As the First Minister knows, it is not sufficient simply to have the Spencely report on its own, because the Spencely report is concerned with the Holyrood project. If the Parliament is to debate the issue in its entirety, we must have information on all the options, to which Mr Salmond alluded earlier, and we must have an informed debate against the financial backcloth. In other words, how much money is the Executive prepared to make available for the project and where is that money coming from? That is a reasonable question to ask the First Minister and the Scottish Executive. Is the First Minister prepared to take responsibility for the new Parliament project, and take a leaf out of the Rhodri Morgan book of leadership?

That is a tempting prospect.

The project is in the hands of Parliament as a whole, and specifically it is delegated to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, on which Mr McLetchie's party is represented. I have no doubt that the SPCB will want to give a good account of its stewardship when the opportunity arises.

I have repeatedly made clear what the situation was when the SPCB took responsibility. I make it clear that I, and most of my colleagues, want a building that is fit for a Parliament. We want it to be completed in a way that gives a degree of cost control with which we can all feel comfortable. I have no doubt that we, at least, will be trying to achieve that, and I suspect, to be fair, that many others in the chamber will be trying to do the same. It is right that we wait until we have the Spencely report and then see how we proceed from there.

In view of the reports that are built on leaks and spin in today's The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Scotsman concerning the Holyrood project and the outcome of the Spencely report, will the Prime Minister join me in urging the Presiding Officer to make available to all members of this chamber Sir John's report when it is published? If that entails having an emergency meeting of the SPCB to decide that, will he join me in urging the Presiding Officer to call one?

I suppose that I ought to thank Ms MacDonald for my new title. John Spencely might be a little puzzled as well. [Laughter.] Mr Spencely is the head of a group of three men of experience and expertise. I understand that his report will be published and made available to Parliament. Suggestions or implications that pressure from the chamber or emergency meetings might be required to force the report into the public domain seem to me to be misplaced and rather excitable.

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Budget)

To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Executive has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the implications of the budget for Scotland. (S1F-231)

I do not reveal the details of the Executive's representations—not even to Andrew Wilson, the great journalist. I am tempted to make some comments on his efforts in that respect, but I will not do so.

Anyone who has a little nous and common sense will see that there are many things in the budget that reflect the representations that the Executive has made. That is one of the reasons why I look upon the outcome of the budget with such satisfaction.

Has the First Minister made any representations on the impact of the budget on the Scottish manufacturing sector? Does he acknowledge that, since he took office as Secretary of State for Scotland, 22,000 fewer people are employed in that sector? Does he acknowledge that the bulk of the difficulties in that sector, in the west midlands as in Scotland, are because of the over-valuation of sterling—which has gone up by 35 per cent since Labour came to power—against the euro? Will he further tell the chamber whether he has said in his representations to the Treasury and to the Bank of England that—in his opinion and with regard to the Scottish economy—the value of sterling is too high, too low or just about right?

Very clever. [Laughter.] Manufacturing industry in almost all parts of the country and the world tends to decline. I have been impressed by the facts that Scottish manufacturing output is up; that manufacturing exports from Scotland are up by about 8 per cent; and that, in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, growth in Scotland's manufacturing output has outpaced the rest of the United Kingdom's. Those are satisfying and important statistics and I commend them to Mr Wilson.

Some of the budget is of especial importance to Scotland: the airport passenger duty concession on flights from the Highlands and Islands; the third year in which there will be no increase in whisky duty; and the fact that there is no real-terms increase in the petroleum revenue tax. The 6 per cent escalator was not applied on any amount over the rate of inflation. There have also been important changes to vehicle excise duty on lorries, for example—changes that are worth about £45 million. That will create concessions that are, in some cases, as great as £1,800 a year. The £50 reduction in road tax will apply to 4 million cars. All those things are important to Scotland, as is the massive public spending increase that has been authorised. I hope that Mr Wilson will stop girning and welcome that.

Did the First Minister discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that the increases that were announced in Tuesday's budget will mean that in the next four years there will be approximately £2 billion more for the NHS in Scotland? Does he further agree that that dwarfs anything that the SNP has promised in its nationalist budgets?

That is true. Many of us remember the 1997 election in which the SNP—with tremendous magnanimity—offered £35 million a year in increases to the health service. That is a pretty miserable little tip. Can I also say with considerable satisfaction—

Zero—that is what you proposed.

Order, please, Mr Swinney.

I say with considerable satisfaction that, after the per capita increases for the coming year have been taken into account, the average spend per head in England will be £883, whereas in Scotland it will be £1,055. That reflects a substantial differential.

---

Freight Transport

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in moving freight from road to rail in Scotland. (S1F-229)

We are already more than half way to meeting the commitment in our programme for government to transfer 15 million lorry miles per annum off Scotland's roads by March 2002. That should give pleasure to us all.

I welcome the additional announcement of grants made by Sarah Boyack yesterday and the extra money for transport announced in the chancellor's budget. Will the First Minister confirm that the chancellor's announcement on 44-tonne lorries does not run counter to the policy of moving freight to railways?

Indeed it does not. Anyone who complains about the rearrangement of vehicle excise duty would be ungracious and short-sighted, as it is an attempt to encourage people to move to lorry weights that are suitable for roads and that do not lead to unnecessary problems in road construction.

Sarah Boyack has made a series of announcements about uses of the freight facilities grant. I will take two extremes as examples. First, the important development at Ayr harbour will allow the transportation of timber by sea to Ayr and its redistribution from there. Secondly, in great contrast, the Safeway supermarket agreement means that refrigerated units will go by rail from Bellshill to the Inverness area. That will again relieve the weight on roads, which I think is important even to nationalist MSPs.

Given that grants totalling £1.58 million have been made to Safeway to move goods by rail rather than by road, is it the intention of the Executive to offer that facility to others? Are the refrigerated units, to which the First Minister referred, for the exclusive use of Safeway? Would not the money be better spent on investing in the rail infrastructure so that all users might benefit rather than one or two private companies?

I will have to look into some of the details of Brian Adam's question. I am told—I am getting advice as I speak—that I said that refrigerated units will go by rail to the Inverness area, but the facility goes beyond that; it will be available up into the Thurso and Wick area, which is important. Some of the units concerned were manufactured in the Fraserburgh area, which again seems to me to be a good thing on the whole—I will not hold anything against an area such as Fraserburgh, much though I might be tempted. The story is a positive one. I will look into the detailed points that Brian Adam made and I will write to him.

Will the First Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has promised the shadow strategic rail authority increased money for investment in rail services, funded by reallocating declining revenue subsidies, including those from franchises in Scotland? Will the Executive be allocated any part of those funds to invest further in Scotland's passenger and freight services, including enhanced allocations for the freight facilities grant?

I will certainly consider that point. I will not pretend that I can answer it off the cuff. Anyone who looks at the sweep of the remarkable announcements in the budget will know that we have got full consequentials. We have been happy with how we have been dealt with in that respect. If there is additional expenditure in an area elsewhere in the country that is comparable to a devolved area, I am sure that we will get our share.

---

Local Government Finance

To ask the First Minister what adjustments the Scottish Executive might consider making to the way the local government financial settlement is reached next year. (S1F-220)

That is a wide canvas. I like "might consider making"; I have no doubt that we will consider many things. I notice that Keith Raffan is constantly considering things—sometimes to my entertainment and sometimes to my benefit.

Of course there is a continuing dialogue. Jack McConnell has set up a close liaison with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and conversations are taking place. I was at the COSLA annual conference yesterday and those arrangements were firmly praised as a model of good practice. It has been the case in our system for many years that distribution formulae were a matter for agreement between the Administration of the day and local government. One of the difficulties is that, when one is presented with a special case, that is prone to the revolving door problem—if we give to one, we take from another. We recognise that there is some discontent with the grant distribution formula; it is under active consideration at the moment.

Let us hope that that will be to the benefit of us all. Does the First Minister agree with me and the Minister for Finance that we cannot approach next year's local government financial settlement in the way in which we approached this year's? If he has gone beyond the point of consideration, perhaps he could let us know what realistic progress he thinks can be made on the following points: a relaxation of ring-fencing; a move towards three-year funding; central funding of salary increases; and a review of the formula. Has he given those three points his consideration?

They are constantly with me. Of course, this is always a matter of balance. Ring-fencing, for example, is a tiny percentage of the more than £6 billion that we now give to local government each year. Keith Raffan may be interested to know that Government support for local government services is almost 35 per cent higher per head in Scotland than it is in England. We work closely with local authorities and we will continue to do so. That must be on the basis of agreement. The one thing that matters, at the end of the day, is that we have an efficient delivery of services. In terms of the spending guidelines, the settlement this year, as I know Keith Raffan will accept and will be familiar with, was 3.7 per cent, while grant-aided expenditure was up by 3.4 per cent. Those are both well above the rate of inflation. We hope to beat inflation again this year.

What plans does the Executive have to investigate an alternative local taxation that would be based on an individual's ability to pay?

That is a formidable question. At the moment, there is no major inquiry into the funding methods of local government in relation to, for example, replacements for the council tax. There is some correlation: self-evidently, wealthy people tend to live in properties with a higher banding. It is interesting to note that, at the time of the Conservative debacle over the poll tax, the Conservatives were driven back to a form of property taxation—it is hard to avoid. I cannot promise Shona Robison that in the near future there will be a change as fundamental as the one that she appears to envisage. If she would like to write to me, I would be interested to know what her favoured candidate is.