Plenary, 23 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, March 23, 2006

Official Report 695KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I assure anyone who heard shouts of, "Come on McConnell" coming from my office this morning that the McConnell whom I was shouting for was Lee McConnell. I congratulate her on winning a well-deserved bronze medal.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2191)

Ms Sturgeon can shout, "Come on McConnell" any time she wishes.

Oh!

I am determined to ensure that her face looks as red as her jacket today.

It is the First Minister's face that is red.

I am sure that all of us want to congratulate the entire Scottish team on its outstanding performance in Melbourne. [Applause.] I thank all those who helped to promote Glasgow's bid for the Commonwealth games in 2014 while we were in Melbourne. I look forward to the team's return to Scotland. I am sure that its members will inspire young people in Scotland in the years to come.

When I next meet the Prime Minister or discuss anything with him, I will make a point of thanking him for his support yesterday for Glasgow's bid for 2014.

Tempting though some invitations are, they have to be resisted.

I join the First Minister in congratulating the Scottish Commonwealth games team; its members have done us proud. The First Minister had the good fortune to be present at the games to cheer them on. I assure him that they have lifted everyone's spirits back home.

Does the First Minister agree that all our Commonwealth athletes, not only the medal winners, have benefited hugely from taking part in the games? Does he further agree that their presence at the games has boosted not only Scottish sport, but the positive profile and image of Scotland abroad?

Absolutely. The athletes, the whole team, their collective performance and the individual talents on show have shown people back home that, if Scots believe in themselves and strive for the very best, they can achieve that.

I am convinced that those who succeeded in Melbourne will want to come back to Scotland and inspire others in the way that many of the medallists from Manchester did. Those successes are due in part to the great work that is done by the coaches—both Scots and international—who are employed in this country, the many volunteers who back up the athletes and their clubs and those who run the local and national facilities that the athletes enjoy at present. I reiterate to them our determination to improve specifically our indoor facilities so that more young Scots have the chance to achieve their best in the years to come.

I also congratulate the English and Welsh medal winners who have made us all proud over the past couple of weeks.

In the light of our stunning success in Melbourne, and the benefits that both the First Minister and I accept that that success brings for our athletes and profile, will the First Minister now consider backing the calls for a Scottish team in the London Olympic games? A Scottish team would allow many more Scottish athletes to take part in that fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity than would be the case if Scotland competed as part of the Great Britain team.

In coming to a view on the matter, I have taken advice from the athletes who compete for Scotland at both the Commonwealth games and other international meets throughout the year. The view of those athletes, particularly those who compete in team sports or in sports that involve pairs or triples, is that they will have more chance of success if they compete as representatives of the GB team. They believe that the medal haul for Scots athletes at the Olympics will be greater if they compete as part of the GB team than as part of a Scottish team.

Our ambition in this should not be to retract or close in behind our borders, so to speak, but to dominate the British team at the Olympics. Although I welcome the success of the English and Welsh athletes, particularly those such as the swimmer Rebecca Cooke who train in Scotland, I have absolutely no doubt that Caitlin McClatchey, Gregor Tait, David Carry and the other successful athletes from the past 10 days can compete in a British team and win medals for Scotland and Britain as a result.

I assure the First Minister that my suggestion is about ambition, not division. Sport is about participating as well as winning. We sent 170 athletes to Melbourne. Some of them won medals and others achieved personal bests, but every one of those athletes will have benefited from competing at the highest level.

I remind the First Minister that only 24 Scots were able to compete as part of the GB team in the summer Olympic games in Athens in 2004. Why should most of the Scottish athletes who are good enough to take on—and often beat—the best in the world in the Commonwealth games be denied the chance even to get to the starting line in the Olympics? Given that Hong Kong sent a team to the Beijing Olympics, does the First Minister agree that we should all pull together in a united way and aspire to send a Scottish team to London in 2012?

I will try to be charitable—[Interruption]—despite the fact that my colleagues are encouraging me not to be. This is a time for great celebration in Scotland; it is not a time for turning our team's performance into a party-political issue. Perhaps it is not surprising that the nationalists seek to do that, but the rest of us should resist the challenge.

I could have pointed out that the SNP's manifesto for the most recent Westminster elections contained a proposal to cut the budget for elite athlete support in Scotland on the grounds that it was wrong to support elite athletes and that only wider participation in sport should be supported. I did not make that point—[Laughter.] I did not do so because I did not want to introduce a party-political issue. We should unite to congratulate our team and support our athletes, because not only do they win for Scotland but they dominate the British team.

I say this as nicely as possible. The only person who is making a party-political point is the First Minister. I am saying, "Scotland has done great; let's do more of that."

Is the First Minister aware that small countries do well in the Olympic games? New Zealand sent 150 athletes to the 2004 Olympics, Ireland sent 50 athletes and Denmark sent 92 athletes. Norway won five gold medals, compared with Great Britain's nine medals. If we want to do what the First Minister always asks us to do and show that we are the best small country in the world, is not sending a Scottish team to the Olympic games the best way of doing that?

The job of politicians is to support people who are involved in sport locally and particularly to support people who have a special talent that they want to and can display on the international stage. Politicians should give those athletes every backing, not just through the provision all year round of facilities, coaching and the other preparation that was so important for our athletes in Melbourne, but through the decisions that we make about how our athletes are represented. The athletes themselves say consistently that they love competing for Scotland in the Commonwealth games—they have the chance to do so in many individual sports, too—but that they want to compete in the Olympic games as part of the British team, because that gives many of them the best chance of winning a medal.

Ms Sturgeon's suggestion would have meant that Shirley Robertson, a Scot who has become a role model and who spends a considerable amount of her time helping the Scottish Institute of Sport to develop the very athletes whose success we have witnessed during the past week, might never have won a gold medal in the Olympic games, because she competes as part of a team that would not be composed exclusively of Scots. Shirley Robertson would not have been at the Olympic games under Ms Sturgeon's formula. We should listen to the athletes and support them in what they do, at Melbourne and at the Olympic games in London.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2192)

I am certain that at the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet we will discuss how to take forward our support for sport in Scotland following our team's performance in Melbourne.

That is laudable, but perhaps the more pressing financial crisis in Scottish Enterprise will loom large once again at the next meeting of the Cabinet. I hope that the First Minister will today rule out using any of the £87 million from yesterday's budget to plug that black hole. The more important question is the agency's contribution to our economic performance. The Auditor General for Scotland has said that, because there is no explicit link to the smart, successful Scotland outcomes in Scottish Enterprise's annual report, it is difficult to assess Scottish Enterprise's contribution to the overall strategy. How does the First Minister propose to address that?

There are a number of points to make in response to that question. The national strategy for enterprise, which was embarked upon not just by Scottish Enterprise but by other agencies under the leadership of this devolved Government over recent years, is the right strategy and is moving Scotland in the right direction. As a result, we have seen the highest ever rate of employment in Scotland and an award was won last week for the performance of the Scottish labour market and its flexibility and success in our challenging modern world.

At the same time, it is clear that there are problems and a restructuring debate is taking place within Scottish Enterprise. That debate is necessary and it must have the right outcome. There are problems with the budget, which have been caused in part by the increased demand that has resulted from the success of the other policies that we have championed. Scottish Enterprise's management and the senior Scottish business figures who make up its board must resolve those issues, with the support of ministers, but it is important that we continue at the same time with our work on the national enterprise and economic strategy, because it is delivering results.

The First Minister paints a somewhat inaccurate picture of the Scottish economy. Since 1999, we have lost 57,000 manufacturing jobs. In 1997, when the Conservatives were in government, we had a net gain in new businesses that were registered for VAT—contrast that with a net loss of VAT-registered businesses in 2004.

The Enterprise and Culture Committee commissioned a report that compared the performance of the Executive's economic agency with those in other countries, and found that Scottish Enterprise had a far broader remit than comparable bodies in other countries had and that, as a result, those other bodies were more successful. Is not the problem that Scottish Enterprise is trying to be a Jack-of-all-trades and has simply ended up being a master of none?

I am not certain that that is the problem, although I agree that there is a need for sharper focus in the national work of Scottish Enterprise and for greater clarity in the projects that it supports, both nationally and locally. In particular, I want to see greater internationalisation of Scottish Enterprise's business in supporting Scottish companies that export and which want to invest overseas, at the same time as attracting the right companies to Scotland and the right investment to create jobs here. That has been achieved through the significant increase in Scottish Development International staffing abroad in the increased number of locations that are being supported by Scottish Enterprise; through the investment decisions that have resulted from that; and through the advice that has been given by the international advisory board of prominent Scots from around the world who are supporting Scottish Enterprise in delivering that strategy.

There is a need for clarity of focus and a need to ensure that Scottish Enterprise is focused on growing the Scottish economy in that international context, but there is also a need to get the right balance between national and local expenditure and national and local decision making. We are working with Scottish Enterprise to ensure that that is delivered.

I return to the starting point: the budget crisis in Scottish Enterprise. As far as the public are concerned, the Executive's economic agency is a bloated organisation whose contribution to the performance of our economy is far from clear. Businesses see a Rolls-Royce operation—the local enterprise companies—which is serviced by the padded comfort zone of the central organisation. Is not it about time that we changed the structure, stripped out functions that could be better provided locally—such as skills, training and careers advice—and took the opportunity to slim down the whole bureaucracy that runs the operation and make it fit for purpose?

Changes are required and I am sure that there will be a debate about the role of Careers Scotland and the correct management arrangements for that. We must look consistently at the role and structure of the local enterprise companies and at how efficiently they are operating, in addition to ensuring that the national organisation is operating efficiently.

Let us not divert attention away from some of the other choices that have existed in the chamber and that would exist, which underlie the points that are being made by Miss Goldie. First, there may be a budget issue in Scottish Enterprise at the moment, but it is nothing like the budget issue that would have existed if the cuts to Scottish Enterprise's budget that are proposed by the Tories had been implemented after the last election. I am sure that Annabel Goldie would still like those cuts to be implemented; certainly, her deputy would like that, given that he is in favour of abolishing Scottish Enterprise altogether and of not having an enterprise agency in Scotland that is business led. That would be the wrong decision for us and we will continue to oppose that option.

Annabel Goldie paints a false picture of the Scottish economy. We have seen sustained economic growth, as well as the highest employment figures in almost all of Europe, over a significant period of time. The economic performance of the enterprise agency and others gained an award again last week, and we see the internationalisation strategy having an impact. The right decisions were taken and they are making a difference for the Scottish economy. That is why I suspect that there is more business confidence in Scottish Enterprise as a whole than there has been for a considerable time.

Question 3 has been withdrawn, as John Swinburne is indisposed. Following past practice, I will allow the independent group two questions.

Is the First Minister aware of an injustice and inequity that is experienced by a small but significant group of pensioners when they enter council-owned residential care homes? Those pensioners are assessed on their ability to contribute to the cost of their care and, as part of that assessment, some councils place a notional value on property that those pensioners owned but might well have sold as much as a decade before they require residential care.

I am not aware of the details, but we have guidelines on that, which all local authorities should follow. If there are any discrepancies in that or any local issues that need to be taken up, I will be happy to ensure that the right minister responds to Margo MacDonald.

It might be better for the Executive to revisit the National Assistance (Sums for Personal Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2002, with a view to equalising the assessments nationally, rather than devolving the decision to councils on how far back the notional property value will apply in assessments. In one council that is known to the First Minister, 11 years has been the comparator. Perhaps the Executive could follow the guidelines that are used by the Inland Revenue when it pursues unpaid taxation. It feels that it needs to go back only six years.

That is an interesting point, but guidelines are in place, which should be followed. The guidelines leave some discretion to local decision making, but they also set a national standard in the context of the improved provision that is available for elderly care in Scotland. The policy that ensures that people in Scotland do not pay what they used to pay for their care is one of which we are proud and which we intend to continue.

I will allow one constituency question from Duncan McNeil.

Is the First Minister aware of the recently announced compulsory redundancies of 70 academic staff at James Watt College? I am sure that the First Minister recognises the importance of the college to my constituents. Does he share my concern that, understandably, positions have already become entrenched? Does he agree that difficult problems are rarely resolved by conflict and threats, and that it is in no one's interests that the dispute continues? Will he ensure that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and the Scottish Funding Council do everything in their power to resolve the immediate problem to ensure a future for James Watt College?

I am aware of the issue but not the detail. In colleges, as elsewhere in the public sector, there will, at all times, be a need for changes in staffing provision to reflect current priorities. However, in this case there could be other issues that need to be addressed. I am certain that the Scottish Funding Council, the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will be interested in looking at the issue. I presume that they are aware of the situation. I would be happy to arrange for them to write to Mr McNeil.

---

Smoking Ban (Enforcement)

To ask the First Minister whether all measures are in place to enforce the legislation on smoking in public places, which comes into force this Sunday. (S2F-2196)

Given this opportunity, I will say how pleased I am that, from Sunday, Scotland will become the first part of the United Kingdom in which public places will be smoke free. I recognise that that will be a challenge for many people and many businesses; I hope that they will see the long-term picture and the benefits that will follow for future generations of Scots from the change in culture that we are bringing about.

Enforcement of the legislation on smoke-free places is primarily the responsibility of Scottish local authorities and significant additional resources have been allocated to them for that purpose. I am confident that the legislation will be mainly self-enforcing as it has been in other countries where smoking has been regulated. The majority of the Scottish population welcomes and supports the new law and that support will continue to grow as the benefits of smoke-free public places become evident.

As the Parliament has provided a lead to other legislatures in banning smoking in public places, I am pleased that the Executive has made resources available to local authorities to adequately enforce the legislation. I am also pleased that funding has been made available to help people who want to give up smoking.

However, does the First Minister agree that the third side of the triangle is prevention, and that the best way of combating nicotine addiction is never to start smoking? What measures is the Executive thinking of taking to discourage young people—especially girls, I am afraid—from experimenting with tobacco? Will he consider the possible use of role models from the fields of entertainment—and indeed sport, with the return of our heroes from Melbourne—to get across the anti-smoking message to children in the later years of primary school and the early years of secondary school?

That is a very valid point. Implementing the new legislation will not be sufficient in itself. Alongside the legislation, we need to have a major national and local education campaign that uses this unique opportunity to reinforce the message about smoking, particularly for young people. The use of role models in that campaign, particularly sporting role models, could be important.

One of the main reasons that young people start smoking is because when they are in a public place, particularly a place of leisure, there is a smoky atmosphere and pressure from their peer group. I believe that banning smoking in public places will have a huge impact on the number of young people who are tempted to start or who find it difficult to resist that opportunity. In many ways, the change of culture that we are creating is far more important than the law itself.

I welcome the commitment to enforcement that the First Minister has just reiterated, and I am certainly looking forward to going out for a smoke-free pint with my friends on Sunday night.

Given the fact that there have been almost no prosecutions and no convictions for selling tobacco to minors, what action will the First Minister take to enforce the law on underage tobacco sales? Will he commit to going even further by supporting the raising of the legal age for buying tobacco to 18, introducing plain packaging for all tobacco products, banning all advertising of tobacco even at the point of sale, and putting colour photographs of the damage that tobacco causes on tobacco packaging, particularly cigarette packets?

I hope that the First Minister agrees that now is not the time to rest on our laurels; it is the time to move forward on this issue.

As Mr Maxwell is aware, a group is considering the age restriction; that group will report to Parliament in due course.

Mr Maxwell will also be aware that there is a balance to be struck between legislation and enforcement, and winning consent so that people make voluntary choices. The new legislation is important, but we need to ensure that young people who are sold products illegally are aware that the sale is illegal; we also need to ensure that those who sell the products are properly prosecuted. At the same time, it is important that we win consent for this culture change and that people voluntarily make the choice not to smoke and stick with that choice throughout their lives.

---

Honours (Recommendations)

To ask the First Minister how many recommendations for honours have been made by the Scottish Executive since 2003. (S2F-2202)

One thousand seven hundred and forty-six names have been recommended to be considered for the biannual honours lists since 2003.

Is the First Minister aware of a written answer that was given to me by Mr Tom McCabe in answer to a question about the honours recommendations process? It states:

"Details of this process are confidential."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 29 July 2005; S2W-17373.]

The First Minister talked about the job of politicians. Is it not the case that a key part of politicians' jobs in this Parliament is to be open and accountable to the people of Scotland? Is it time for the First Minister to retract the statement by Tom McCabe and to change the Executive's approach to the honours system?

Not at all. I can think of few things that would be more foolish in relation to the honours system. The vast majority of the 1,746 people who were put forward for honours were nominated by others in their local community. They were not all successful, because of the balance that is struck in the list between different backgrounds, geographical areas, interests and types of voluntary organisation. It would be entirely wrong for us to remove confidentiality from the process, because of the embarrassment that might be caused to those who were not successful.

Ah—the embarrassment.

Mr Stevenson shouts about the issue, but a school cleaner who is nominated without their knowledge for a national honour but does not make it on to the list on that occasion does not want to be the subject of a national media story. It was not their choice to be nominated and it would be foolish to put them in that position.

The 1,746 names to which I referred included names of people whom I approved for nomination, who were successful in the national system for determining honours but who chose for a reason not to accept the honour. We should not embarrass those who want to do that confidentially. There is a very good reason for the names being confidential. People do not want to be embarrassed in the way that I have described. Mr Stevenson should rethink his attitude to the issue, which is very wrong.

---

Scottish Water (Privatisation)

To ask the First Minister whether there have been any discussions at ministerial or official level with Her Majesty's Treasury since May 2003 regarding the privatisation of Scottish Water. (S2F-2195)

There have been no discussions with the Treasury at any level about the privatisation of Scottish Water.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that, given the Treasury "for sale" list, Scottish Water is very much a candidate for sale, and that, not for the first time, he is out of the loop and Gordon Brown is hatching plans behind his back? Is it not the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can and will compel a sale of Scottish Water, whether the First Minister likes it or not, and that, instead of dragging his heels and being stuck in the past, the First Minister should get on with it, privatise Scottish Water and, by so doing, deliver a far better deal for its customers, business and domestic, than they are presently receiving from a failed and failing nationalised industry?

Having lost the debate in the chamber, Mr McLetchie is trying another route in order to see his policy implemented. The decision to which he refers is a matter for the Parliament and the devolved Government. It has been made consistently in favour of the public ownership of water in Scotland and, at the same time, of improved efficiencies and better delivery of service. The decision does not lead to the privatisation of Scottish Water. Mr McLetchie and his Conservative colleagues may want that, but their policy has been rejected time after time.

Does the First Minister agree that there is no evidence that the Scottish people want their water industry to be sold off and that the fact that it is not privatised has not stood in the way of a multimillion-pound investment in capital projects to improve our water industry?

We continue to see challenges in the delivery of the Scottish Water service. I need to ensure that the programme for the years ahead includes, in particular, improved capacity for increased numbers of housebuilding projects in Scotland. However, we have seen consistently lower increases in water charges; we have seen improved efficiencies in the organisation; and we have seen capital investment that is leading to cleaner water in and a better service for Scotland. Much work is still to be done, but improvements in recent years prove that the decisions taken so far have been the right ones.

The SNP rejects all this talk about privatisation of water, but the existing model for Scottish Water was endorsed by the Conservative member of the Finance Committee. That model burdens current taxpayers with 86p in the pound of every capital investment that is undertaken.

Is the First Minister prepared to review the benefits of a public, not-for-profit trust model to transform the prospects and long-term performance of Scottish Water?

That is an interesting if convoluted question. I am sure that it will be the subject of debate in the months ahead.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—