Plenary, 28 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, September 28, 2000

Official Report 660KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

We are three minutes late, so I will extend First Minister's question time by three minutes.

---

Scottish Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's main priorities currently are. (S1F-561)

I will start by congratulating John Swinney on his election as leader of his party. I look forward to what may be the rather unusual experience of exchanging views in a reasoned and reasonable fashion in the months ahead. The very fact that Mike Russell praised Irene Oldfather suggests that some strange chemistry is at work.

The Executive's priorities, as John Swinney will know, were set out clearly in "Making It Work Together: A Programme for Government", which was published last September. We will shortly publish a report on the achievements delivered against that programme. I think that 47 priorities were to be completed by October 2000; when the report appears, I know that John Swinney will be impressed and pleased to endorse the progress that has been made.

I welcome the First Minister's remarks, and his welcome to me in my new office. I would like to carry on in the reasoned, considered and rational fashion that he would expect of me, by continuing with some of the political consensus that I have been creating in the Parliament.

May I congratulate the Labour party—

What?

Yes—I congratulate the Labour party on arriving at a sensible policy on pensions, a policy that my party also arrived at last week. Will the First Minister assure us that, when he next goes to the joint ministerial committee, he will argue for the restoration—supported and secured by the Labour party conference—of the link between pensions and earnings? Does he support the Barbara Castle position, which earned her a standing ovation, or that of Gordon Brown, which delivered abject humiliation?

If John Swinney thinks that a four-minute standing ovation for Gordon Brown was "abject humiliation", he is setting very high standards for his party conference.

The Labour party has a strong commitment—in both the Scottish Administration and the UK Government—to tackling the problems that are faced by older people in our society. Mr Swinney will be aware of the evidence of that: the minimum income guarantee has increased to £90, and the credit for pensioners of middle and lower income, which tackles the great irritation and understandable aggravation of those who cannot benefit because they have savings that tip them over. All those things are coming through and will lead to a good deal for older people, especially when taken in conjunction with the announcements made by Wendy Alexander about central heating for pensioners and council tenants. A substantial community care package is to be announced shortly. A lot is happening, and I hope that that will be warmly welcomed by everyone.

I think that means that the First Minister supports the chancellor.

The First Minister knows that I am a man of my word, just as I know that he is a man of his word. I remind him of the firm commitments that he made when he was shadow minister for social security. At that time, he expressed his anger, which he shared with the pensioners, at the breaking of the link between earnings and pensions. Does he still hold that anger in his soul? Will he argue for the restoration of the link between earnings and pensions when he attends the meetings of joint ministerial committees? Will he stand up for Scotland on that point?

I hope that no one will object if I say to John Swinney that I hope he will not parade his honesty at every question time—it would become rather repetitive.

I have always been the strongest possible adherent to the national minimum income guarantee. It is the best way in which to help the poorer pensioner and to boost pensioner incomes at the bottom of the scale. I have given Mr Swinney a substantial list of the improvements that we are introducing. If Mr Swinney had listened to the chancellor during what he described as the chancellor's "abject humiliation", he would know that the promises that have been made on pensioner credit and the increase of the minimum income guarantee mean that we are spending more on poorer pensioners than they would have received as a result of the earnings link.

The First Minister will not be surprised to hear that I parade my honesty every day of the week.

We have been told that, having got it all so badly wrong, all Labour ministers are listening to the public. If the First Minister has been listening, why cannot he give us an absolute commitment that he will argue for the restoration of the link between earnings and pensions, as he has argued in the past? Why was it right then, but not right now? Whether one is a Scottish motorist, school pupil, pensioner or farmer, Labour is not listening and is not delivering for the people of Scotland.

John Swinney should have listened to what I said. When I was Labour party spokesperson on social security in another place, I was a very strong supporter of the minimum income guarantee for the reasons that I have just given: it is the best way to help those who are on the bottom of the income range in retirement. I was strongly in favour of that and I hold to that opinion.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I echo the First Minister's welcome to Mr Swinney as the newly elected leader of the Scottish National Party, although his questions might have been directed more appropriately to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

To ask the First Minister when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise with him. (S1F-557)

I saw the Prime Minister this week at a very enjoyable and successful Labour party conference. I was there and David McLetchie was not, which gives me a considerable advantage in judging the event.

We see each other regularly and discuss matters of relevance to this Parliament and to the United Kingdom as a whole. One of the topics that we often touch on is the successful launch of the Scottish Parliament and the progress that it has made.

I hope that when the First Minister next meets the Prime Minister, he will discuss with him the Executive's response to the recommendations of the Sutherland commission, which we debated this morning. Will the First Minister confirm that in Scotland we can dare to be different, that we can implement the Sutherland commission's recommendation on the funding of personal care, and that his Executive is not hamstrung in any way—constitutionally or politically—by the rejection of that recommendation by the Prime Minister for England and Wales?

The Prime Minister for England and Wales?

No, the Prime Minister's rejection of the recommendation for England and Wales.

I thought that that was an interesting definition of the Conservative party's constitutional position, but I see that I was making the mistake of actually listening to what Mr McLetchie said.

Of course we can dare to be different. When the announcement is made about community care, Mr McLetchie will see that we have dared to be different in the sense that we have applied a rigorous, but sensible, approach of trying to ensure that the significant amount of money that we have been able to find is used to raise standards of care for the vast majority of those who are in residential care. That is what is important, and it is a test that everyone will want to apply.

Of course, I am very conscious of the Sutherland report. I welcomed it when it was published and congratulated Sir Stewart on his work. I am glad to repeat that, but obviously we will have to look at the return on the resources that we have to try to ensure that we have an exciting and innovative package that will make a difference to those who are infirm in old age, and also, in many cases, to their carers.

I thank the First Minister for correcting my slip of the tongue. Of course, I hope that the Prime Minister will remain the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, albeit—[Laughter.]

Order. Let us hear the question.

Some members are easily amused. To finish my sentence: albeit that the remaining tenure will be short.

To return to the original subject—and dismissing the hilarity for the moment, because this is a serious point—will the First Minister tell me, given that the Deputy Minister for Community Care singularly failed to answer the question this morning, whether, in the words of the Executive amendment, working

"over time . . . towards fulfilling the Royal Commission's objectives of fairness and equity in the care of the elderly"

means the same as working "over time" to implement the key recommendation of the Sutherland report on the funding of personal care? Do those statements amount to the same thing, or not?

Mr McLetchie looks at me quizzically—and he started so well.

The important point is "fairness and equity". We have to ensure that we do everything possible with the funding and resources that are available to raise quality of life, provide facilities, and provide support, both physical and emotional, to those who are surviving in difficult circumstances and who have to face the infirmities of old age. I do not think that David McLetchie would disagree with that. Later, we may have an argument about the best way of doing that, but that is an argument about means.

On the matter of ends, one has to look only at the list that I mentioned a few minutes ago to see the commitment of this Government to the older generation: the concessionary fare scheme that will be announced shortly; the warm deal; the community care package, which will be generous; the income guarantee; and the credit for those who are just above the social security limit. That does not include previous work on, for example, eye tests, television licences and so on. A great deal has been done. We have to keep up that pace of progress, and I hope that that is something we can all join in doing.

---

Central Heating (Funding)

To ask the First Minister what the sources are of the £220 million public funding recently announced by the Minister for Communities for the installation of central heating systems. (S1F-569)

I am not absolutely clear about where Fiona Hyslop gets her £220 million from. We announced that the total programme will involve investing £350 million over five years. That will be fully fundable through new money, support from Scottish Homes and the warm deal, obligations on new landlords and important support from Scottish Gas, Scottish Power, Scottish Hydro-Electric and Transco. That is a major investment in the infrastructure of our housing stock. It will take scores of thousands of pensioners out of fuel poverty and will mean a more sensible and effective approach to the problems of thermal efficiency and the dangers of hypothermia.

I thank the First Minister for his answer, but I think that he may be confusing private and public funding.

Will the source of the funding affect entitlement to the scheme? Will the First Minister say whether all our pensioners will be entitled to central heating? Will pensioners in the seven local authorities that are considering whole stock transfers, including pensioners in Glasgow and Galloway, be entitled to central heating, or will that be conditional on stock transfer? Are all pensioners entitled to apply to the scheme, as the press release implies, or will tens of thousands of Scottish pensioners remain in fuel poverty and be excluded because of their postcode and their landlord?

I may drop the odd stitch in that long list, but I will try it. As I understand it, there is £210 million of new money and about £40 million that is a transfer from the new housing partnership.

So it is new housing partnership money?

Yes, but that is because our abjectly humiliated Chancellor of the Exchequer has made such savings on debt repayments. That is why we can make that transfer without any cost to the programme that was envisaged.

The scheme will affect all council tenants and all pensioners who are in homes that do not already have central heating. There are no traps or clever escapes and there will be no fodder in this scheme for the paranoia of the Scottish National Party. The scheme will work and it will make an enormous improvement in the quality of life. I hope that it will be widely welcomed by the lady. It is unconditional. The private money is about £10 million—a comparatively small but very important contribution, which should be welcomed as an example of the kind of partnership that this Administration is building with the private sector.

---

Adult Education and Training

To ask the First Minister what measures are being taken to support and encourage adults with poor basic literacy and numeracy skills to access education and training. (S1F-566)

This week Henry McLeish announced £22.5 million over the next three years to raise literacy and numeracy levels and to back up the recommendations of the adult literacy 2000 team when it reports in December. He also announced recently £1.5 million this year to increase the number of trained literacy workers by more than 200. Those represent real boosts, which give real impetus to the need to tackle the problems of adult literacy.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating West Lothian Council, which next Monday will launch a video and website to inform people what adult basic education is available and to encourage them to take it up? Does he agree that those who are involved in adult basic education should be innovative in opening up avenues for people to overcome their natural nervousness and reluctance to take up those opportunities?

I agree entirely that there are often inhibitions and a fear of the unknown. Adequacy problems can inhibit people who could greatly benefit from adult literacy help. I am glad to congratulate West Lothian Council on an innovative attempt to overcome those difficulties.

The important point is that in the past, adult literacy has been very much on the fringes of the education world. It has not been given a high priority. We are putting that right.

Does the First Minister concede that a major barrier to access to education and training this year has been the 1 September start date for individual learning accounts? Can the First Minister say how many Scottish students have been disadvantaged by that start date, given that most Scottish courses started in mid-August?

I am not aware of that difficulty. I will inquire of colleagues who specialise in this field and write to the member if a problem exists. The matter has certainly not been drawn to my attention and I do not think that it commands a great deal of sympathy on the Executive benches. However, I will certainly look into it.

---

Deportees

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive intends to take following the arrival in Scotland of convicted criminals deported from elsewhere. (S1F-571)

Persons convicted abroad and deported back to the UK will no longer be serving any sentence and will normally have committed no offence in this country. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be legal grounds justifying intervention by authorities in Scotland or the rest of the UK following their arrival. If such an attempt to intervene were made, there might be genuine legal difficulties in relation to the European convention on human rights and other matters.

In view of the concern that has been raised about the case of the Wood brothers from Canada, will the First Minister consult the Home Secretary about the possibility of some kind of parole conditions or supervision orders for convicted murderers and other serious offenders who are deported to this country? I ask the First Minister to bear it in mind that when our mutual friend, Henry McLeish, was a Scottish Office minister, he said that he was seeking Jack Straw's support for appropriate legislation.

There are genuine problems with this issue and quite extensive discussions have taken place on the best way forward, although solutions have not been easy to find. For example, there is a proposal to amend the convention that covers such movements, in order to allow people to be brought back to this country shortly before they complete their sentences; it would then be possible to impose on them conditions of supervision and other controls. However, that would be a substantially difficult undertaking, which would take some time to implement and which would require the agreement of Governments in many countries.

We take the matter seriously and we have been trying to assist with it.

May I make one further comment, Presiding Officer?

I have another supplementary question.

I will still continue.

We should not forget that we are talking about two-way traffic. There may be big spurts of publicity over a particular case of someone who comes into this country, but the best figures available to me—which may be open to a little questioning as to their total accuracy—suggest that, since 1995, we have exported, if that is the right word, from this country prisoners on completion of their sentences to their country of origin who far outnumber the number of prisoners who have come to us. I make that point to try to encourage a sense of perspective.

I listened carefully to the First Minister's comments. He seems to have moved away from the position that was stated by Henry McLeish almost two years ago.

Will the First Minister take on board the wording of motion S1M-1214 and ensure that further consultation takes place on the issue with the Home Secretary, as it is important to everyone who lives in Scotland and the United Kingdom?

I made it clear that there has been a lot of discussion on this matter, and I do not regard that discussion as one that has been concluded. In particular, I mentioned the possibility of alternations to the convention.

I repeat: if, in relation to cases such as the Canadian case, we said that we would not take this man, as some of the popular prints would urge upon us, we might be in danger of finding that a large number of people have to stay in the United Kingdom who otherwise would leave it promptly. We might also find that, on a head-count basis, which I accept may be misleading but is still of some interest, we would be very much the losers.