Open Question Time
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I ask the First Minister the usual question. [Laughter.] To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1O674)
I thank Mr Salmond for his question. On this occasion, we discussed two quite different sets of matters. One was matters of mutual interest; the other was matters of common concern. [Laughter.]
Well, I will tell the First Minister what he should have been discussing. In these days of freedom of information, I am sure that the First Minister would be delighted to answer questions on the report which appeared in The Herald this morning about a memo entitled "Dealing with the Scottish Parliament: Situation Report". Why are civil servants in the Scottish Executive sending out memos about the restriction of the rights of this Parliament and its committees to question the Executive?
I am glad that Mr Salmond—judging from the inference of his question—recognises that this was an internal Scottish Executive discussion document on a matter which was ultimately going to be the business of discussions between the clerks and the Scottish Executive about procedure. It was not a document that had been seen by or that had gone to ministers. Indeed, I first heard about it when I listened to "Good Morning Scotland", as I struggled from bed.
This Executive believes firmly—this was one of the main themes of my recent John P Mackintosh lecture—that the committees are an integral and vital part of the process, which we want to run effectively and with considerable impact. It is still, however, essential to adjust and ensure, from the points of view of the committees and of ministers, that time is used properly, that proper preparation takes place before meetings and that the system achieves all that is possible from it.
Can the First Minister clarify whether he is saying that ministers have not seen the memorandum, and that it was not copied to ministers? I find that a very surprising reply.
Can he tell me if the Osmotherly rules which Professor Peter Hennessy has described as an
"affront to Parliament providing 60 ways for civil servants to say no to select committees", are to be imposed on this Parliament? Is it the intention to impose the same outdated Westminster practices on our new Parliament, and why is it being done unilaterally?
I will take that point carefully, because I think it is important. There is no intention of introducing MacOsmotherly rules. There is a need to examine how committees operate and to ensure that they operate effectively and efficiently to the mutual advantage of both sides. That is beyond argument.
We have made a great deal of ministerial time available—rightly—to responding to requests from committees. We have taken a remarkably open view on what documents can be released to committees, certainly in sharp distinction to some of the practices in other Parliaments in which I have served. The documentation on prison matters that went before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday was an example of that.
I repeat: there is nothing wrong or unusual in it. I recognise that Mr Salmond has never been in government. It was a Scottish Executive discussion document about advice that would be given about the negotiations and discussions and about the practical arrangements to allow the proper running of the committee system. I repeat the fact that it was not a document that had reached ministerial level.
I am delighted to hear the First Minister distance himself from the contents of the document, particularly the part that said that there should be a week's notice of oral questions before a parliamentary committee.
I am a bit puzzled. The document apparently says, on the MacOsmotherly rules, that, in the meantime, colleagues should proceed as if the rules had already been promulgated. If the document is not being implemented, why does it contain that statement?
I repeat the point: we are showing openness. At Westminster, members would have been told that no one would discuss a leaked document, or approach the matter in any way at all. Mr Salmond should recognise this new flexibility.
Thanks.
Andrew Wilson says, "Thanks", but if he examined the way in which we have approached this matter, he would see how open our approach is.
I have not passed judgment on specific proposals that the document may contain. I repeat that this is not a matter of unilateral dictation to the committee system. All these matters would have been subject to further discussion, ultimately with the clerks and, presumably, through them with the committee system and the Presiding Officer.
I do not say this in a partisan spirit: Alex Salmond is tilting at windmills in his attempt to make this into a big issue. He must understand the nature of this document, its helpful intent, and measure that against the enormously open way in which we have conducted, and will continue to conduct, the ministerial contributions to the committee system.
I would like to ask the First Minister the usual question, but if there is anyone else he would like to meet, I would be very happy to put down a question about that in future. How did you get on with the secretary of state, First Minister? To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1O705)
I got on with the secretary of state as well as I always do. [Laughter.] I built in the ambiguity in order to get a laugh. [Laughter.] As David McLetchie knows, he is one of my favourite straight men.
As far as Mr McLetchie's question is concerned, I repeat that the secretary of state and I had a wide-ranging discussion. We will have many more of them. They are a valuable part of the liaison process between Westminster and Holyrood.
I am happy to be part of the new duo in the Scottish Parliament—Large and Large. [Laughter.]
Will the First Minister tell the chamber whether he and the secretary of state discussed the implications for Scotland of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement of a new hypothecated transport fund into which all extra increases in fuel duty will be paid? Will he commit the Scottish Executive to ensuring that the extra funds that come to Scotland, as a result of this new initiative and through the application of the Barnett formula, will be similarly ring-fenced and that they will apply to transport improvements in Scotland, so that our motorists get a fair deal for the taxes that they pay?
As a point of clarification, if I remember correctly, any increase above the retail prices index would be ring-fenced in that way. The system would also apply to tobacco tax. An increase of 1 per cent above RPI in tobacco taxation would produce about £300 million under the Barnett formula. Therefore, this is not a small
matter.
At this stage, I am not prepared to commit myself about the future in the way that David McLetchie wishes. One of the great advantages of our system is that when the Scottish block benefits, this Parliament—and the Executive, which guides the Parliament to the best of its ability—has discretion about how money is spent.
However, in order to reassure David McLetchie—I hope that he will take this as a genuine reassurance—I can tell him that we are very much committed to improving transport services and infrastructure in this country. In difficult financial circumstances, we are trying to reconcile the realities with other priorities, such as health and education. Sarah Boyack made some sensible dispositions the other day in her statement. However, we would like to be able to do better when circumstances allow. Certainly, public transport and transport infrastructure are a high priority for this Executive.
I thank the First Minister for his full answer and for the openness with which he has indicated that very substantial sums of money are involved as a result of this initiative.
Could be involved.
Very substantial sums of money could be involved as a result of this initiative, depending upon future tax increases. He will appreciate that many people in Scotland will be disappointed that he does not appear to be prepared to commit to the same bargain with our motorists as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entered into down south.
I move on. Mr Prescott was reported as saying that this transport fund will greatly reduce the need for revenues from tolls and taxes in England and that there were no plans to approve proposals from local councils in England and Wales before 2005. In the light of that change, does the First Minister still think that such tolls and taxes are necessary in Scotland? When does he expect our motorists to have to start paying them?
That might be described as a multifaceted question. I may not be able to answer it as fully as David McLetchie would like.
We have certainly kept the options open, in particular on congestion charging to tackle traffic problems. Congestion is a major problem for the cities in the central belt and, indeed, in Aberdeen. Congestion charging is not a matter just of raising revenue; several factors have to be taken into account when we decide whether to go down that road. Those factors include: the support and willingness of the local authority concerned; the environmental impact and CO2 emissions from vehicles; and the essential matter of whether the measure would get cities moving and allow the necessary flow of traffic.
It is important that we have the power to use such measures if that becomes necessary, but David McLetchie must not take that as some sort of threatening statement about the future or about any particular time scale. I repeat to him—and I hope that he will play fair on the matter—that what I said was about preserving our right to flexibility within the Scottish block, while making it very clear that we give a high priority to transport and the transport infrastructure.
Is the First Minister aware that an announcement of major job losses is widely expected to be made tomorrow by BARMAC, the management of the oil fabrication yards at Nigg and Ardersier? Is he also aware that the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise estimated that those job losses—direct and indirect—would number 3,156 and that that constitutes a major crisis in the Highlands?
Given that the devastation has been widely predicted, will the First Minister say what steps have been taken to combat the crisis? In particular, will he appoint a task force? Finally, given that the oil price is $26 a barrel and that oil companies have received tax breaks, will he meet or has he met—[MEMBERS: "Come on."]. The question of 3,156 jobs is very serious. Has the First Minister, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, met the directors of the oil companies, who could have been asked to provide jobs to protect the highly skilled work force at the yards?
Of course, I accept that that is a very serious matter. I am familiar, in particular, with the Nigg yard, but I recognise that the BARMAC complex at Nigg and Ardersier is an important employer in the Highlands and Islands. The Highland-resident work force of the yards is scattered over a wide area. I think that just over 1,800 people are employed in the two yards and, if I remember rightly, a substantial number—about 60 per cent—of the total work force is employed not by BARMAC but by subcontractors of one sort or another.
I am aware that job losses of 300 were announced recently. I know that a meeting will take place tomorrow morning and that Highlands and Islands Enterprise is closely in touch with the situation and takes the matter very seriously.
We are dealing with an industry in which, as Fergus Ewing knows, employment is cyclical. If my memory serves me correctly, both Nigg and Ardersier have been on care and maintenance—in effect, mothballed—in the past and, fortunately, have recovered. The downturn reflects the sharp fall in oil prices in 1998. As Fergus Ewing said,
fortunately there has been a revival and signs of activity are returning to the fabrication industry. I hope very much that the yards at Nigg and Ardersier, and others who are in trouble, will be able to benefit from that.
As Fergus Ewing knows, the chancellor abandoned the review of petroleum revenue tax because of the industry's difficulties. In addition, certain tax changes were introduced to encourage investment, new development and new jobs. We will do all that we can, but the situation is difficult and there are no easy and immediate solutions. It will be no consolation to Fergus Ewing, or to any of his people, but—perhaps rather surprisingly—at UiE Scotland Ltd in Clydebank, on the edge of my constituency, the work force has varied between 20 to 30 people and over 2,000 people.
That is one of the problems and difficulties in that industry. The Government has, as I suggested, been trying to stimulate development and to ensure that the great contribution that the North sea makes to the economy of east Scotland in particular, but also to that of Scotland as a whole, will continue.
Landfill
rose—[Interruption.] [Laughter.]
Order. I am the only person who is allowed to show a red card in this chamber. [Laughter.]
I am grateful for this opportunity. I am tendering, with immediate effect, my resignation—as a bus convener of the tartan army. [Laughter.]
I hope that on this occasion I have not overindulged your favour, Sir David. I will put my question to the minister.
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to help Scottish local authorities switch from landfill as the main waste disposal option. (S1O688)
That was rather difficult, Sir David. I hope that there will be understanding rather than misunderstanding in my response.
The Scottish Executive has made a commitment to announce a national waste strategy for Scotland by the end of the year. We will prepare that in conjunction with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and it will be published before the end of the year. The Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, has also launched a project called REMADE, which aims to develop markets for recycled materials. This will help local authorities to find markets for the waste that is recycled.
I note that the minister mentioned misunderstanding. I presume that that was the case when he voted with the Tories on social justice yesterday. The Tories might have given me the red card, but they got the red card from the people of Scotland when they were rightly thrown out on their ear after 19 years of Thatcherism.
Does Mr McAveety think that it is right that of the £40 million—and rising—that has been raised by landfill tax, 80 per cent goes to the Westminster Exchequer to reduce employers' national insurance contributions by 50p? Will not he concur that money raised in Scotland should be spent here to assist local authorities and others to advance recycling and other environmentally friendly alternatives?
As Mr MacAskill has spent the past six months voting with the Tories on virtually every occasion, it is delightful to hear him mention that I have done so. I voted with them by accident yesterday—it was deliberation on Mr MacAskill's part that has resulted in him voting with them for the past six months. I might believe in the new politics but I ain't joining that bunch.
Brothers and sisters, I do not accept that we need to adopt a partisan approach to using revenue raised in the UK. The Labour party supports the UK and a devolved Scottish Parliament. The SNP clearly rejects that. The Government will utilise UK resources where that is appropriate for Scottish needs, and we will use Scottish resources where that is appropriate for UK needs.
We will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the local authorities to develop our approach to the recommendations that will emerge at the end of the year. We guarantee that we will work in conjunction with local authorities in Scotland to ensure that they meet their environmental commitments.
It is easy to say it, but it is harder to deliver.
Does the minister agree that we must respond swiftly to health concerns associated with landfill sites? Can he further reassure me that SEPA will respond swiftly and effectively to the concerns that have been raised by Greater Glasgow Health Board following its investigation into Paterson's tip in the east end of Glasgow?
I thank the member for that question and I assure Margaret Curran that I will continue to ensure that SEPA will deliver regarding any concerns raised by the local community, and that any monitoring that will take place must meet national standards and guidelines. I hope that Margaret Curran can address the issue with her local community.
On a point of order. I would like to ask a question with reference to the question that Fergus Ewing asked during open question time. I did not want to interrupt the question in view of its importance. Can you, Sir David, give a ruling on supplementary questions in regard to the extent to which they should follow the lead question? Are we to understand that the question can be entirely open?
You will be aware that the Procedures Committee shortly will bring a report to Parliament that will increase the degree of openness in questions. The committee has worked on this, having assumed that supplementaries follow the topic as defined by the original question. It would be helpful to have that guideline laid down now.
You are absolutely right that the supplementary questions should always follow the main question. Indeed, I so advised Fergus Ewing before we came into the chamber.
On a point of order. Following the First Minister's comments about the Executive memorandum that suggested that members of this Parliament and its committees will have to give more advance notice and more details of their questions to ministers, and even risk having their questions to ministers blocked, can we have an assurance that any rules or procedures that affect the accountability of the Executive to this Parliament will be debated and approved by this Parliament, not cobbled together behind closed doors by clerks, civil servants and ministers?
That is not really a point of order; it is a dangerous extension of question time. Perhaps it would help the Parliament if I said that that is one of the matters of mutual concern that the First Minister and I have discussed. Any such procedural rules would be a matter for this Parliament as a whole to approve.
I am sorry that questions and answers were so long today. We now turn, rather late, to the minister's statement on freedom of information.