Plenary, 27 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, April 27, 2000

Official Report 650KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I know that I speak for the Parliament when I say how pleased I am to see the First Minister back in his place again. [Applause.] We wish him all the best for the operation to come.

To ask the First Minister what happened at the most recent meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-273)

I am quite glad to be back, too. I am delighted to be able to agree with something that the honourable gentleman has said. I meant to say Alex Salmond—I am reverting to a past life. He will not be surprised to hear that we discussed many interesting things at the Cabinet meeting, but that I cannot tell him any more than that.

This afternoon, we will have an interesting debate on an initiative that, as the First Minister knows, has been carried forward on a cross-party basis and has occupied the attention of several Parliament committees over several months. Does he recall that the founding principles that were built into the standing orders of the Parliament were specifically designed to allow back benchers, minority parties and the committees of the Parliament to influence legislation? That can happen only if the Executive is prepared to allow it to happen. Given that the majority of the members of the Parliament are for the abolition of domestic poindings and warrant sales, would it not be appropriate—even at this late stage—for the Executive to withdraw its wrecking amendment? That would allow the bill to proceed to the next stage, at which the Executive could bring forward any amendments it chose.

I accept that this is a Parliament with a much more open approach to legislative opportunity; that is already becoming apparent. I cannot say that on occasion that does not give members of the Executive sleepless nights. There are many joys, as well as irritations, in this dream. However, that approach is in place, we support it and we have always been protective of it.

There is undoubtedly a strong feeling in every part of the Parliament that fundamental reform of our laws on diligence is required. The present arrangements for poinding and warrant sale are thoroughly unsatisfactory. There is also a widespread feeling—one that I suspect Mr Salmond shares, as do many of the committees that have investigated the matter—that it is not possible to implement that reform through a simplistic, one-section bill. If we are going to find a balance, it is necessary to put in place other measures and amendments to the present system.

Everyone in the chamber would want to protect those who cannot pay, but members would not want to offer encouragement to those who can pay, but will not. Every member will recognise that other interests have to be considered. If we get the balance wrong in collecting council tax, for example, we must consider the serious impact that that might have on public services. That is something that local government would want us to bear in mind.

I do not pretend that Tommy Sheridan's bill is satisfactory—it is far too simplistic in its approach. A great deal more work would have to be done on it. However, I accept that it captures the mood in the chamber for fundamental reform.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I shall stop short of asking the First Minister whether he comes here often, but I will say that I am very pleased to see him here this afternoon. I am well aware that there is nothing more invigorating to the First Minister than having the opportunity to be rude to me. I will gladly bear that cross in the interests of restoring him to rude good health as soon as possible. The Conservatives wish Mr Dewar well in what lies ahead of him and hope to see him return as soon as possible.

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Prime Minister and what issues they discussed. (S1F-269)

I thank Annabel Goldie very much. I am very glad to have her good wishes; however, I do not want to make a habit of receiving good wishes on this basis. In any case, general rudeness should not be taken as rough wooing.

I last met the Prime Minister in Cardiff on 7 April at the joint ministerial committee on health. I speak regularly to him on the telephone, of course, but the specific matters that we discuss are private.

I had rather harboured a private and personal hope that the First Minister might have commended unpaid indefinite paternity leave to the Prime Minister. However, in the absence of such a conversation, did they discuss crime in light of developments north and south of the border? I particularly raise this point because, somewhat disappointingly, crime in Scotland has increased and the number of policemen has gone down since the Conservatives were in power.

As much of the crime in our communities in Scotland arises out of drug abuse and drug addiction, can the First Minister tell the chamber how the newly appointed drugs enforcement officer is getting on? Has he been given any targets to achieve or a measurement output framework within which to operate? It is vital that we know whether we can assess the impact of what the Drugs Enforcement Agency is doing. [Applause.]

A bad case of one hand clapping, I think.

Of course I sympathise with Annabel Goldie's comments about crime; an increase in recorded crime figures is always a matter of concern. This year's increase over last year's figures was 1 per cent, which is fortunately a lower rate of increase than last year. About 14,700 policemen are currently in service, which is historically a high number.

As Miss Goldie knows, grant-aided expenditure for the police force for the current year is £742 million, which is an increase of 3.8 per cent on last year and therefore above the rate of inflation. Chief police officers always look for more money; although I do not blame them for doing so—it is part of their job and part of human nature—they have not been badly treated. Given the claims from and difficulties of other parts of the public sector, a balance must be struck.

I agree entirely with Miss Goldie's comments about the DEA. We must obviously be able to assess the output and the return on the not inconsiderable manpower, personnel and resources that we are putting into the system. I expect that, when the DEA's annual reports become available, they will give us a picture of the body's effectiveness. However, the situation is always difficult because such effectiveness often reveals more of the hidden drug community. That causes people to complain that the incidence of drug abuse is rising in this country, when it is simply a measure of the success of law enforcement agencies.

Does the First Minister share my concern about the slow take-up of the drug treatment and testing orders, which so far number only six? Furthermore, will he tell the chamber what measures the Executive is taking to increase that take-up? Although cutting the supply of drugs through enforcement is very important, the whole question of cutting demand requires extra spending on treatment and encouraging the take-up of drug treatment and testing orders.

Those dispositions are available to the courts and it is important that courts consider such orders in suitable cases. However, apart from encouraging courts to do that, the most important thing that any Executive can do is to ensure that there are places to take up and that resources and expertise are available. It is particularly unattractive to consider such a recommendation and then find that no places are available and the necessary support for the individual is not there. That priority is very much at the centre of our thoughts.

---

Inward Investment

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in attracting investment from outside the UK to areas of Scotland such as Fife. (S1F-278)

It would be fair to say that that is a well-timed question. I know that Scott Barrie will have been as delighted as I was by the announcement the other day that Motorola is making its largest investment in Europe—an investment of some £1.3 billion—in the former Hyundai site outside Dunfermline to create a state-of-the-art semi-conductor facility, which will employ up to 1,350 people. The investment anchors in Scotland an enormously important leader in the electronics field and gives immense encouragement. It is a credit to all the people who worked so hard to broker what was a complex and difficult deal given the circumstances of the Hyundai company, which was extremely positive in helping us to reach the successful conclusion that we arrived at.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. Of course, I welcome last week's announcement of Motorola's massive investment in Duloch Park in Dunfermline. Does the First Minister agree that that is a good example of how Scottish Enterprise, local authorities, further education colleges, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government can work together to achieve positive outcomes for our economy?

I have no difficulty in agreeing with Scott Barrie, but this is a matter in which everyone can take some satisfaction. I know from personal experience how hard my department and Locate in Scotland worked and the extent of the positive willingness on the part of the two major electronics companies to reach an agreement and this happy solution.

That is not the only good story in Fife. I was pleased by the efforts—in which the Scottish Executive was fully involved—to ensure that Longannet survived the difficult cash flow problem that has afflicted it in recent months. I hope that the announcement on help for the coal industry will ensure that the substantial low-sulphur deposits at Longannet will continue to support jobs and the power station for a considerable time. I admire greatly—and this is nothing to do with the Government—the efforts made by Babcock Power and Rosyth 2000 to build and develop that site. The 1,000th job on site has recently been created, which is good news for Fife.

---

Assisted Areas Map

On behalf of the Liberal Democrat group, I extend our good wishes to the First Minister for his forthcoming spell in hospital.

To ask the First Minister whether he will discuss changes to the revised assisted areas status map of 10 April 2000 with the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S1F-268)

The assisted areas map is a reserved matter, but it is one in which we have an interest and it is a fair point to put to me. I make no complaint about the matter being raised. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I regularly discuss issues affecting development. The negotiations on the assisted areas map with the Commission have been a long, difficult and drawn-out process. We will continue to watch developments very closely indeed. I understand Euan Robson's particular anxieties. I am sure that his supplementary question will give me the opportunity to comment on them.

The First Minister will know that the changes have removed from the map all Berwickshire and key industrial sites in St Boswells and Kelso in my constituency. Jedburgh was never even included to begin with. Does the First Minister appreciate that, if those communities are not restored to the map, several companies within them will have to compete with rivals in other parts of Scotland that have assisted area status, some of which have been brought into Scotland from overseas by Locate in Scotland?

I am not unsympathetic, but I do not want to sound optimistic. We are very late in agreeing the assisted areas map. That was not a matter of fault on our side. The discussion with the Commission about the basis on which the lines should be drawn has been very complicated and difficult. We fought very hard for a solution that would suit us in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. We have had to adjust the map, although only marginally. The outcome is good.

I want to make two brief comments. First, population coverage in the Scottish Borders has increased. I know that that is no great consolation to Euan Robson, but the figure has gone up from 36 per cent to 44 per cent as a result of the changes. There are worries about St Boswells and Kelso, but there is more coverage in Galashiels, Hawick and Peebles. I am sure that, as a Borders patriot, Euan Robson will be prepared to take the slightly broader view. Secondly, I remind the chamber, that although population coverage in Scotland came down by 1 per cent from 49 per cent to 48 per cent, that is not too bad given that England's coverage is 24 per cent and that coverage in Great Britain as a whole is 29 per cent. The outcome was not bad. It was hard fought. I hope that Euan Robson accepts that.

Is the First Minister aware that, in the Highlands of Scotland, the average wealth per head is some £6,000 less than in the Republic of Ireland? Can he therefore explain why every part of Ireland has and will continue to have over the next five years the benefits of assisted area status, whereas Inverness, Nairn, Moray and Badenoch and Strathspey will all be cut from the map? Has independence in Europe been bad for Ireland?

Ireland, as Fergus Ewing knows, did extremely well for many years because it was coming from an extremely low base in terms of gross domestic product per head. It therefore benefited as a very poor region of Europe. I am delighted to say that life is much harder for Ireland now—delighted because that reflects the progress that the Irish economy has made. As Fergus knows, Ireland was a major loser with regard to the whole structural funds argument and also with regard to the assisted areas argument. As is always the case in Europe, traditional arrangements protect for a very long time. However, I do not think that we should misunderstand the situation.

In the Highlands and Islands, the overall population coverage is 73 per cent, which is extremely high—certainly the highest coverage in Scotland and well above the Scottish average, as it ought to be. The two other high figures are 64 per cent population coverage in Fife and 69 per cent in Glasgow.

I know Inverness well, although obviously not as well as the member who represents it does. It is a town with a great deal of imagination, initiative and bounce of life. I suspect that it will continue to do very well indeed; we will encourage and help it in every way that we can.

---

Post Offices

To ask the First Minister, further to the statements by the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs on 27 January and 8 March that the Scottish Executive would be conveying concerns about the future of the post office network in Scotland to Her Majesty's Government, what the outcome of these discussions has been to date. (S1F-275)

The debates on 27 January and 8 March reflected concerns that were widely shared in this chamber. The United Kingdom Government has been made well aware of those concerns. We will continue to ensure that the interests of Scottish communities are kept to the fore.

Is the First Minister aware that both those debates identified the fact that, to allow the network of post offices in Scotland to continue, it would be beneficial for additional services to be made available to Scottish post offices? Is he aware that one of the best options is for the Scottish Executive to enable such services to be offered? Can he name a single thing that the Scottish Executive has done since those debates that will facilitate the provision of services within post offices across Scotland?

I think that there is great potential. We have an extremely buoyant Scottish economy, for which we can claim at least some marginal credit—much credit also goes to Westminster. If the economy is buoyant and if we have the lowest unemployment rate for 24 years, shopkeepers inevitably benefit as certainly as people in other employment.

I do not despair about rural post offices. There is a great deal of anxiety about the coming of automated credit transfer and the modernisation of the system, and we have spent about £500 million on the automation of the post office network. One reason for doing that is that it opens up opportunities for further services to be provided directly in sub-post offices. We cannot be specific about this now, but if one considers how banking services and financial services are developing, one sees that that level of sophisticated automation opens up opportunities and possibilities, which we are prepared to consider closely and to promote in any way that we can.

I should add a reminder that, as Mr Mundell will know, there is no question that people will be forced to use the method of direct payment into their bank account. If they wish to continue to go down to the post office and take cash over the counter, they are entirely entitled to do so. The administration of the system is, of course, very expensive—a point that I am sure will appeal to Annabel Goldie and that would appeal to David McLetchie if he was with us. If I remember correctly, the transactions at present cost about 45p a time, whereas, using ACT, the sum falls to about 1p. The great thing is that there will be opportunities in the future. We certainly do not predict, do not want to see and will not in any way encourage the death of the rural post office.

---

Parliament (Media Coverage)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has made any representations to the BBC, ITV and the Scottish Media Group regarding the coverage of the Scottish Parliament. (S1F-274)

I do not know whether the insinuation is that Christine Grahame is unsatisfied with her starring role. Naturally, the Executive wishes to see informative coverage of the business of the Parliament, but we have made no representation to the broadcasters. I take the view that broadcasters are in charge of their own business and must be left to make their own decisions.

I assure the First Minister that I am quite happy with my bit part for the time being.

My concern is poor coverage. I hasten to add that that is not the fault of political journalists—I know what side my bread is buttered on. I am concerned about restricted formats and schedules. The habits of Westminster die hard. A serious point, perhaps related, is the decrease in voter turnout.

Given that the committees are the engine room of this Parliament and that the Parliament is committed to openness and accountability, I ask the First Minister to make appropriate representations to ensure that coverage reflects our committee work. I understand that technology and airtime is available on Scottish Television and Grampian Television. Can he advise us whether the Executive is pursuing the setting up of a public parliamentary channel so that the committees, which are developing robust and cheerful personalities, can be shown in the raw?

I must put a bounce in my life by going along to inspect these bright and cheerful personalities at work. I was interested in Christine Grahame's ladylike declaration of ambition and intent. I hope that she does not remain a spear carrier for ever.

The point is serious but, although I understand that I am being asked only to make representations, I am not sure that that is entirely for me. One of the problems is that only committee room 1 is equipped for broadcasting. I can understand that there is a reluctance to spend a great deal of money on equipping other rooms, particularly if—as we hope—we will be in our present accommodation only for a limited time. A balance must be struck. Another issue is the running and interesting argument between my friends in the media and the authorities in the Parliament about whether the media should be charged for the equipment and the feed time that they use.

We keep a running tag on the situation and want it to improve. I hope that, when we get decent quarters, the facilities will be more expansive and will encourage the development of the broader stage on which Christine Grahame wishes to appear.

Has the First Minister reflected on the cut in the coverage of this Parliament that is likely to occur due to the decision to cover the proceedings with only two cameras rather than five when the Parliament moves to its temporary home in Glasgow? That decision will lead to a disruption of the archive record and an inability on the part of the BBC and others to cover the Parliament in full and it will disadvantage the public, as public access will be much more limited. Has he a view on this matter and could he help to move the argument forward?

On this matter, I share Tom McCabe's view, as he answers for the Executive in this area. It would be nice to have five cameras rather than two. However, we should bear in mind the fact that the period in question is only three weeks. The cost, which is something like £15,000 or £17,000 for two cameras, will rise substantially if there are five cameras. Whether that cost would be justified is a matter of judgment. The balance of opinion on the committee was that the extra cost would not be justified; I would not dissent from that. I understand, however, that, in the best of all possible worlds, the cost of the Parliament would not be an issue. If the cost of the Parliament was not an issue—and, funnily enough, people have tended to think recently that it is an issue—I would be behind Mike Russell on this issue. At the moment, however, no.