Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 25, 2006

Official Report 708KB 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-2311)

At the next Cabinet meeting, we will discuss several issues and particularly the Minister for Justice's proposals for the sentencing bill, which we intend to introduce in Parliament this summer.

As the First Minister knows, he is responsible for tackling poverty and inequality. In the light of that, what views did he express on the Scottish Executive's behalf to his colleagues in London about today's proposal to increase the state retirement age?

I do not believe that we have made formal proposals, as pensions are a reserved matter, although there are implications for public services in Scotland and people who work in the public services could be directly affected.

Of course we engage regularly in discussions with United Kingdom Government ministers about pension systems in the public sector, of which there are several. Those discussions continue. I hesitate to say it, in case I am wrong, but the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform may even have been involved in further discussions yesterday when he was in London.

The Scottish Executive and the London Government have a joint ministerial committee on pensioner poverty, so it is absurd if the Executive has not expressed a view.

Is the First Minister aware that today's announcement about the retirement age will mean that everyone in Scotland who is aged 47 or under will have to work longer to get their pension? I refer the First Minister to the strategic audit that he published on Tuesday, which showed that health inequalities are as wide as ever. The average male life expectancy in Glasgow is just 69 years, which is five years less than that in Scotland as a whole, and the average life expectancy in Scotland is three years less than that in England. As the First Minister said on Tuesday, those gaps are widening. When people in Scotland enjoy fewer years of retirement than people south of the border, does he agree that it is wrong to propose an increase in the retirement age in Scotland?

I will make three brief comments. First, I sympathise with Margaret Curran, who is clearly affected by the proposals and is a bit exercised about that. Secondly, the Scottish National Party has distorted my speech on Tuesday. I said not that gaps were widening between Scotland and elsewhere but that within Scotland gaps between some of the richest and poorest areas were widening, although they are narrowing in other places.

Thirdly, Ms Sturgeon may well have alternative proposals for state pensions. I recall from last year that the SNP's most recent proposals were to remove all the support for the poorest pensioners and ensure that Government support did not target them, then to spread those resources among all pensioners, thereby increasing the gaps between the poorest pensioners and better-off pensioners directly and immediately.

If Ms Sturgeon ever aspires to hold Government office in any way, she will not be able to avoid the hard questions about how we in this country—like people in other countries—prepare for an aging population and ensure that our pension system is appropriate for that. Decisions on such matters may be taken elsewhere, but they must be debated in Scotland. While considering such matters, we must continue to support pensioners through the best central heating and energy efficiency systems in the UK, the best bus pass system—which allows pensioners throughout Scotland to travel throughout the land—and free personal care. Such support means that Scottish pensioners have the best services in the United Kingdom.

Is not the First Minister again talking absolute nonsense? The SNP supports a citizens pension that will be funded by reforming the unfair system of tax relief.

The First Minister dodged the question yet again. He did not say whether he agrees with increasing the retirement age. We seem to have a First Minister who can make pronouncements on the football team that he will support during the world cup, but who cannot say what his view is on the future of pensions in Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware that, in 20 areas of Scotland, life expectancy is lower than the current retirement age? Must we not tackle the huge inequalities in Scotland in respect of health and life expectancy before we start to talk about raising the retirement age? Is not this a classic case of a Scottish problem that needs a Scottish solution? Instead of simply toeing London's line, why will the First Minister not speak up for Scotland on such an important issue?

Getting so many clichés into one question must be desperately hard. The reality is that we must ensure that we have a system in Scotland that targets support to pensioners who need it. Rather than what the SNP proposes, we have a pension system that supports the pensioners who most need Government support. The SNP proposes to take money from the poorest pensioners, distribute it more widely and widen the gap between rich and poor pensioners. The Scottish National Party's policy is wrong for Scotland and it would be wrong for elsewhere in the UK.

The First Minister has still not answered my question. Does he believe that when life expectancy in 20 areas of Scotland is lower than the current retirement age, the retirement age should be raised? He has refused to answer that question.

I remind the First Minister that he said in a speech on Tuesday that

"to achieve a more successful, fairer and confident Scotland … we need to take responsibility for ourselves".

I agree. Taking responsibility for ourselves means being independent. Does he agree that if pension reform proposals took any account of Scottish circumstances, we would not be contemplating an increase in the retirement age at this time—yes or no?

Nobody in Scotland is fooled by the image that the SNP has portrayed of an independent Scotland in which no difficult decisions or hard choices would have to be made, no one would lose out and everybody would somehow get more. If the SNP were in Government in Scotland, under its plans money would be taken away from the poorest pensioners to be spread more widely, which would ensure that the gap between poorer and richer pensioners would widen rather than close. That is the reality of the SNP's policy. The SNP cannot criticise anybody for considering the hard issues and trying to come up with solutions until it is honest and truthful about its own policies.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2312)

I expect to speak to the Prime Minister soon, when we will no doubt discuss many issues.

Yesterday's announcement that 341 of the 3,300 abortions that were carried out on teenagers in Scotland last year were carried out on under-16s was described in the press today by Scotland's chief medical officer, Harry Burns, as "disappointing". His response is not surprising, because reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is one of the main objectives of the national strategy to improve sexual health. Does the First Minister agree that such deeply worrying figures require a rethink of the whole strategy?

The figures are not only disappointing—they are distressing. Going through such a procedure at such a stage in their lives must have a lasting impact on the many young people in question. I agree absolutely with the serious way in which Annabel Goldie approaches the issue. I hope that, from time to time, we can deal with such issues on a cross-party basis, looking seriously at the evidence and the challenges that face us.

I agree that there is a need to improve sexual health services and to ensure that a clearer policy is implemented locally throughout Scotland. The national sexual health strategy provides the opportunity for that. There is a need for all those who are involved in the services and those who have some influence over the services to take up the messages that are contained in the strategy as well as the recommendations on direct services.

That means giving young people the space and confidence to say no to sexual activity if they choose that road, or if they want to choose that road but feel that they are under too much pressure to do so. I believe that that message has not been made clear enough in the past in our schools or in our health service. Our sexual health strategy gives others the opportunity to be more consistent. I hope that, in pursuing that issue and others, in the months and years ahead, the Parliament can take a lead that young people in Scotland will follow.

Is it not the case that the strategy is failing? The figures speak for themselves. Most people will find the number of teenage abortions shocking and believe that something has gone terribly wrong when girls as young as 11 are becoming pregnant. Given that frightening trend, not to examine the whole way in which we deal with teenage pregnancy and sex education would be totally irresponsible. I accept the need to inform young people about sex, but there must be a balance. Is it not time that we sent out far clearer messages about the dramatic, life-changing consequences that can arise from premature sexual activity?

I agree absolutely with Annabel Goldie's analysis, but I do not agree with her conclusion. We rewrote the sexual health strategy and published a new strategy last year because we were concerned that the previous strategy was not delivering the improvements that we sought quickly enough. There has been a reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies in Scotland over the past six years, which is to be welcomed, although that is not yet enough. In the new strategy that was published last year, the messages were clearer than they have been for two decades or perhaps longer.

Young people need to be supported in making positive choices about their lifestyles. They need to be supported in resisting the peer pressure and the pressure from the media and entertainments industries and elsewhere to be more involved in sexual activity than they want to be at that age. There are a range of reasons why children as young as 11 and 12 find themselves pregnant. It is partly a problem of parental guidance not being given; it is partly because they are let down, occasionally, by the social services; and it is partly due to the lack of consistent implementation of a sexual health strategy that should contain not only access to contraceptive and other services, but—crucially—a clear message that young people can hear, believe in and move forward with.

I listened with care to the First Minister's response. Whatever the revised strategy may be, surely one message is missing. Given the fact that the number of abortions in Scotland that are given to girls who are under the age of consent has risen, in a year, by 32 to 341, will the First Minister at least consider funding pilot studies to examine the effects of a strong message discouraging premature sexual activity?

I am sorry to be repetitive. I know that it is sometimes difficult, in these question-and-answer sessions, to change questions that have been prepared in advance. I say with all sincerity to Annabel Goldie that the new strategy was published in 2005 and that the statistics that she is quoting are from 2005. It is difficult to change the habits that have been developed over a generation—perhaps longer—to ensure that fewer young women in Scotland become pregnant and have abortions, but that should be our clear policy objective. That is why we produced a new strategy last year.

The new strategy is clearer than any strategy has been for a very long time about the need to discourage sexual activity among young people. I hope that every social work department, every school and all the doctors and others who work with young people have read the strategy and heard that message, which it gives out loud and clear. If we are to reduce the number of young people who are becoming pregnant and the number of teenage abortions, it is essential that the message gets through to young people and that they believe we mean it.

I take the First Minister back to pensioners' needs and, in particular, the central heating programme. Will he explain to me why the Eaga Partnership told me yesterday and is telling pensioners daily that the current central heating programme is closed to new applications until August at the earliest? Will he assure Parliament and the public that that is not the case and that pensioners can register now? Will he ensure that Eaga's shameful actions are taken into account during the tendering process for the management of the new contract and borne in mind when the Executive allots it?

Having recently not only considered the issue as First Minister but inquired into the same point from my constituency interest, I understand the following to be the current position. First, a new contract is in preparation. It will run from September or, at least, the decision will be made then. Secondly, the current contractor has reached the limit of the number of systems that it can change under the existing contract because of recent demand. However, I make it absolutely clear that we have instructed Eaga, as our contractor, to take the details of all those who apply to it in the meantime to ensure that the new contractor will have their details and can move quickly to provide them with central heating systems. There should be no reason whatever, locally or nationally, for the contractor not to note applicants' details. If Karen Gillon is having a problem in that regard, I am sure that the Minister for Communities will be happy to take it up with the company.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2322)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly to discuss a range of issues of importance to Scotland.

This week, in a keynote speech in Stirling, the First Minister laid out his vision for the future. Sadly, those of us who expected the most serious challenge that faces us—climate change—to be addressed were disappointed. Does the First Minister agree that it was a serious omission to barely mention or address climate change in his speech?

No, because that was not the purpose of the speech, as I explained during it. If Robin Harper has not seen the speech, I would be happy to send him a copy. In the speech, I said that its purpose was not to discuss climate change but to lay out what I thought was most important in relation to Scotland's overall performance, not only in economic terms but as a society in relation to our opportunity to bring people together and to close the gaps between those who are falling behind and those who are doing well. It was also to lay out my belief that education, skills and learning are central. That is as true in tackling environmental issues such as climate change and building a sustainable Scotland as it is in building economic growth and ensuring that we tackle poverty at the same time.

Last night, millions of people saw our most trusted and respected celebrity, David Attenborough, tell us why, after years of consideration, he now believes that climate change is the most serious issue that faces us. The First Minister has said many times that sustainability should be incorporated into Executive policy across its areas of responsibility, so I expected—we have a right to have expected—that sustainability would be addressed in the speech.

The First Minister has committed us to 20 years of possible road, rail and air traffic expansion—sorry, road and air; not rail, I am sad to say—[Laughter.] There is a serious point to be made. The First Minister has committed us to 20 years of possible road and air traffic expansion policies that will seriously undermine all the other climate change-busting policies that he could possibly produce. Does he agree that his policies do not add up and do not make sense? Huge sums of money are being spent on air and road traffic and tiny sums are being invested in reducing climate change.

I refer Robin Harper to a speech that I made in February 2002, shortly after becoming First Minister, when I put the environmental concerns that he mentions and sustainable development at the centre of the Executive's strategy. I remind the member that, since that time, Scotland's waste recycling rate has gone from being one of the lowest not only in Europe, but in the world, to being significantly higher. Our use of renewable power has seen us not only secure a better target than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, but make progress towards that target that means that we may reach it ahead of time.

We have taken action in a variety of areas to secure greater environmental justice in Scotland's most deprived communities. There are now more than 2,000 eco-schools in Scotland—a higher proportion than almost every other country that supports the eco-schools movement. We now spend consistently more than 70 per cent of our transport budget on public transport. For the first time in a generation, we are opening new rail lines in Scotland. On climate change, there has been a 10 per cent reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 Kyoto baseline, at a time when the Scottish economy grew by 29 per cent—an admirable achievement in anyone's book. It is time that the Scottish Green Party celebrated and welcomed that, said "Well done" and helped us to go further.

---

Renewable Energy

I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests.

To ask the First Minister how the renewable energy strategy will benefit communities and help to improve the health and well-being of Scotland's population. (S2F-2317)

The increased use of renewable energy is one of the most important ways in which society can combat the effects of climate change. However, renewables are good not just for the scope that they offer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They also offer benefits to our economy in local manufacture and much-valued employment in communities. In respect of energy security, they offer the prospect of helping to reduce our nation's dependence on imported oil and gas.

I welcome the excellent progress that has been made towards meeting the Scottish Executive's renewables targets for 2010. Does the First Minister agree that, if we are to meet our targets for 2020, to tackle fuel poverty, to create Scottish jobs and to avoid reliance on energy sources that leave a legacy of toxic waste for generations to come, we need to increase significantly our investment in marine power, microgeneration, biomass, hydrogen technologies and energy efficiency?

There has been much activity in the area to which the member refers. Yesterday we launched our clean energy strategy, which sets out not only a continuation of the policies that the Executive has pursued but, crucially, new and significant investment of £7.5 million in biomass, which the Deputy First Minister mentioned. There will also be a significant increase in the resources that are available for microrenewables, further studies into the development of offshore wind power and further support for the marine energy industry. We in Scotland can grow all those areas. We can benefit not only Scotland but many other places as a result. We should continue to improve and invest in those technologies, so that we build for the future.

Does the First Minister agree that, in the medium to long term, greater emphasis on renewables could lead to lower energy bills for Scottish households? I bring the First Minister back to this week. What is his message to Scottish Power, which yesterday—the day on which it announced the huge profits that it has made—warned that its hard-pressed customers face an increase in their electricity and gas bills in the future? Does he agree that, if that increase goes ahead, even more thousands of Scots could be plunged into fuel poverty? What is he doing about the matter?

The member raises a number of different issues. I will try to run through them all quickly.

The question was a bit wide of renewables.

To see increased use of renewables, we need consistently to support the generation of power from renewable sources. It would be helpful if one or two members who are not very consistent on the subject, such as Mr Lochhead, were a bit more consistent. It is important that we send a very strong message to the energy companies, some of which are making a large profit at the same time as they are increasing domestic bills—unfairly, in my view. I want those companies to take their responsibilities seriously, and I want consumers to choose the options that are best for them.

On Mr Lochhead's final point, I make it absolutely clear that we are committed to energy efficiency in Scotland not just because it benefits the environment and reduces waste, but because it reduces household bills. Our commitment to energy efficiency measures will continue to be among the very best around.

I welcome the First Minister's last remark in particular. He will agree that fuel poverty desperately affects health and well-being. Does he agree that a cost-effective way of tackling fuel poverty is to improve poor insulation of homes and that money invested in developing techniques of retrofitting insulation to existing homes would be money well spent?

That was a bit wide of the question, too.

Nora Radcliffe knows much more about those subjects than I do, but I suspect that the answer is yes. Of course it is important that we look at using a variety of techniques and energy sources for homes, as well as ensuring that the energy used is held for as long as possible in those homes through energy efficiency measures.

---

Economic Competitiveness

To ask the First Minister—with whom we share ambitions for higher economic growth—what steps the Scottish Executive will take to address the fall in Scotland's rating in the table of economic performance in the latest IMD "World Competitiveness Yearbook" from 40th to 51st—of 61 nations—and why he considers that these steps will improve Scotland's rating. (S2F-2314)

To correct the impression that is created regularly by Mr Mather, I inform members that Scotland's overall position in the IMD "World Competitiveness Yearbook" in 2006 has improved from 36th in 2004 to 30th in 2006. That is a positive improvement in anybody's book.

However, we wish to continually improve Scotland's economic performance and that is why we are investing in infrastructure, in Scotland's universities and in skills.

I give the First Minister 10 out of 10 for bravado. He will note in that same yearbook that the gap between the United Kingdom and Scotland remains wide—there is no level playing field. The First Minister has often offered to debate with us that level playing field and I now return the offer to debate it with him anywhere, any time, in front of a representative audience—although perhaps he heard that Bristow Muldoon lost a similar debate by 23 votes to two last April. Is that why he will not debate the matter? When can we have that debate?

I hesitate to say it again, but Jim Mather has two options when he gets up out of bed in the morning. He can either celebrate Scotland's successes and feel good about the country that he lives in, or he can talk them down, denigrate and misrepresent them. Unfortunately, he chooses the latter option far too often.

Jim Mather asked about a world competitiveness survey, but he did not mention that that survey contains four aspects. On Government efficiency, we have improved from 39th place to 30th. On business efficiency, we have improved from 36th to 26th. On infrastructure, we have improved from 28th to 26th. Given the impression that we sometimes have of Barcelona and Catalonia, it is perhaps surprising that our overall performance placement is better than theirs.

Mr Mather does not come to the chamber and quote those positive statistics. He does not quote the Financial Times FDi magazine, which recently named Scotland the best region in the whole of Europe for human resources. He does not mention that in a recent worldwide survey of scientists, Glasgow and Dundee were both placed in the top five universities in the world for science. This Parliament should be about celebrating Scotland's successes, recognising our weaknesses and then investing in the right areas to ensure that Scotland succeeds in the future. I only hope that some day Jim Mather will help us to do that.

Given the figures published yesterday that showed that foreign investment in Scotland has fallen by 95 per cent since Labour came to power, does the First Minister believe that that is his fault or the fault of his Liberal Democrat deputy?

Again, that is not true, but we would of course expect no more from the Tories. The reality is that, for the five years for which investment is judged, Scotland is holding its share despite the problems that we had in electronics between 1999 and 2001, and we are now growing our share again. When we are attracting investment and jobs into this country and making the incentives work, it does not help for the Tories, who would be quick to criticise if we were not offering incentives for companies to come to Scotland, or other members of the Opposition to describe them as bribes, as Mr Neil did recently when Morgan Stanley agreed to bring hundreds of jobs to Glasgow.

Let us get a bit of consistency from the Opposition. Let us support investment in Scotland, give people the right incentives and, when they come, tell them that they are welcome and celebrate the fact that they are here.

---

E Coli

To ask the First Minister whether there is a higher prevalence of outbreaks of E coli in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. (S2F-2329)

Scotland has more cases of E coli 0157 per head of population than England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. I am told that extensive research has been done into why that is so and that the indications are that a more rural population and differences in detection may be contributing factors. However, we continue to monitor the situation.

I thank the First Minister for his response. Does he think that we need to know more about causation? If so, is it time for an Executive-led research programme?

As I have said on other issues, not least on multiple sclerosis, the Executive is open to proposals when there is a belief among members or others that more top-quality research is required in certain areas. Decisions to support research are, of course, made by those who are responsible for the relevant budgets—the chief scientist makes such judgments independently but on behalf of us all. I believe that more research could well be required into the reasons for the current situation, but the most immediate issue for us is to ensure that we tackle the issue and that people have the right guidance across Scotland to keep the incidence of this particular problem at the lowest level possible.

That concludes questions. Members should now go to the steps of the garden lobby for the photograph for the annual report. It will not take more than five minutes.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—