Plenary, 29 Mar 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, March 29, 2007

Official Report 416KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2801)

That is the final time I shall ask that question before the First Minister takes over on this side of the chamber.

I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister again very soon.

For the next 35 days, the Scottish National Party will work hard to win the trust of the Scottish people. Does the First Minister agree that he has lost their trust because he has broken so many of his key promises?

I will start with the council tax. I remind the First Minister that, four years ago, he promised to make the council tax fairer, but it has increased by 60 per cent and it is as deeply unfair as it ever was. The First Minister broke the promise that he made and people throughout Scotland are paying the price of that. In this final meeting of the session, will he tell us how he proposes to make the council tax fairer?

I say to Nicola Sturgeon that people will not trust the SNP if it tells untruths, which has happened again in the chamber. The high council tax increases under the Tories cannot be lumped together with the increases that have taken place under Labour or since devolution. Those increases have been lower than the increases in the Tories' final years and lower than the increases elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

For the third week in a row, I explain to Nicola Sturgeon that the Labour Party has not had a majority in this parliamentary session and that, as a result, it has simply not been possible to implement our desired council tax reforms. She does not seem to understand that. I look forward to debating with her the plans that she has put forward for a national tax increase of 3p in the pound, which would make Scotland the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, and for cuts of more than £1 billion in services. It is probably the first time a political party has made such a suggestion. Such cuts would affect every school, nursery and social work service and every other local service in the country.

Oh dear. The First Minister is making one excuse after another for Labour's failure to deliver. The people of Scotland know the truth about the council tax, because they pay their council tax bills, which are 60 per cent higher than they were. Is it not clear that the only local tax policy in the election is the SNP's policy of abolishing the council tax?

I turn to another of Labour's broken promises. I remind the First Minister that, four years ago, Labour promised to cut serious youth crime by 10 per cent. It said that such a cut would be "easily achievable," but youth crime has not come down. New figures that have been published this month show that it has gone up by more than 20 per cent. Communities throughout Scotland are paying the price of that Labour failure. After four years of failure to deliver, why on earth should anyone in Scotland trust the First Minister when he says he will tackle crime?

Nicola Sturgeon again completely distorts the truth. Back in 2003, when we were making it clear that crime and antisocial behaviour should be a significant priority in the session, the SNP fought what we said tooth and nail. It opposed the legislation that we proposed and said that it was ridiculous to prioritise crime and antisocial behaviour in an election campaign and a legislative programme.

The truth is that the number of violent crimes dropped by more than 1,000 last year—there was a dramatic change in the number of violent crimes that were committed in this country. The truth is that, as a result of our court reforms, more people are being tackled in the courts more quickly and less police time is being wasted. Those reforms have been part of the most comprehensive changes in the history of Scotland's justice system.

I believe that our commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour at the local level and building a better justice system at the national level are helping us to turn the corner and ensure that, here in Scotland, we can get a grip on crime, bring it down, catch more people and have less reoffending.

Let me tell the First Minister the real truth. Youth crime is up, gun crime is up, vandalism is up, and drug offences and serious assaults are up. It is beyond argument that the First Minister has failed to keep his promise to tackle crime, and no amount of ranting and raving about the SNP will cover up that fact.

Is it not the case that the First Minister has also broken his promise to stand up for Scotland? I remind him that, on 4 December at 11 o'clock in the morning, he said that he would listen to the people of Scotland before making his mind up on Trident, but at 6 o'clock the same day he proved that he listens only to Tony Blair. Against the wishes of the Scottish people, he gave his full backing to spending £100 billion on a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde. That money would be better spent on schools, on hospitals and on fighting crime.

When the First Minister has so completely failed to stand up for Scotland in the past, why would anyone trust him to do so in the future?

There are two truths here. The first is that Nicola Sturgeon's campaign manager for the election on 3 May, Angus Robertson MP, who is her party's spokesperson on defence and foreign affairs, explicitly promised to spend any money that was saved from nuclear weapons on defence forces and not on education, health, tackling crime, or jobs. No amount of bluster by her to deny that and to claim something else will be believed by anybody in Scotland. Secondly, the SNP wants to talk in the election campaign about issues that are decided elsewhere because on each and every policy that has been discussed here in the chamber, the SNP has got it wrong. It has been beaten policy by policy.

The most significant truth is that, in education in our schools and nurseries, in social work services and the care of our elderly and our children, and in tackling crime and making money available to our police boards, not only would the SNP lead Scotland to be the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, it would cut more than £1 billion from local budgets. Every one of those services would be affected. That is the truth in the election campaign, and that is why the SNP will not win.

I say to the First Minister that on education, health, fighting crime and tax, Labour has broken its promises, but all we hear from the First Minister is excuse after excuse. Is it not the case that people in Scotland have a clear choice at the election? It is a choice between Labour's broken promises and the SNP's ideas for the future. It is a choice between a Labour party that has forfeited the trust of the people of Scotland and an SNP that is working hard to win that trust. Is that not why, every day, more and more people are deciding that it is time for Scotland to move on from Labour, that it is time now for the SNP?

We will be very happy to debate the SNP's ideas over the next five weeks. Increased tax for every ordinary Scot, cuts in services in every local area—these are the impacts of the SNP's policies. Of course, there is also the policy that dare not be named, which is independence. If the SNP really believed that the people of Scotland will back independence, they would put that, and not all the other alternatives it is proposing, on the ballot paper. The truth is that the SNP does not come without independence and independence does not come without a cost. Over the next five weeks, the SNP will find that that is true, to its cost.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2802)

I sincerely hope that the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will discuss building up Scotland, not breaking up Britain.

With only five weeks to go before the election, I hope that the First Minister will focus on articulating the positive case for remaining within the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister realise that it is possible to value and applaud the union without belittling Scotland? By using the language of the apocalypse, he is simply playing into the hands of the nationalists.

Will the First Minister start to make the positive case and paint a picture of a confident Scottish nation that, as part of the United Kingdom, shapes the world and gives our people the best of both worlds?

I can do both. Scotland benefits from being part of the fifth largest economy in the world and from our partnership with the stable United Kingdom economy. As a result of that and the policies secured, and the legislation delivered, by the Scottish Parliament, Scotland today has the highest employment in the United Kingdom, the lowest unemployment since records began and an increasing—rather than a declining—population. We have investments in skills and jobs in Scotland that are outpacing the rest of the country. That success is part of the story of Scotland inside the UK, but it is also part of the devolution story.

During the next five weeks, I will not only outline the positive case for Scotland; I will expose the nationalists' policies. For example, they wish to devolve power over our national sporting heroes—against their will—and make a separate Olympic team, but they do not want power over the Scottish currency; they want to leave that with the Bank of England. They have a mish-mash of policies that would be a disgrace to any serious party, but which is very appropriate for them.

The First Minister has a very small window of opportunity. He must realise that any increase in poll ratings for the nationalists is not about Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond—and it is certainly not about independence, for which there remains little appetite—but about the First Minister and his Lib Dem cronies. The people of Scotland are so fed up with their failure that they are desperate to make devolution work better.

Does the First Minister accept that if he had not squandered the first eight years of devolution he would not be in this mess?

The 200,000 Scots who have a job today but did not under the Conservatives do not think that devolution has been squandered. The 1,000 Scots who were not victims of a violent crime last year but who would have been the year before do not think that the improvements that we have made in policing and the courts have had no impact. The Scots who are benefiting from the record number of drug seizures on our streets, which ensures that more people with drugs are caught and criminalised because they are selling drugs and that more drugs are taken off Scotland's streets, realise that there are benefits in devolution. The primary and secondary schoolchildren whose results are far higher than they were when the Tories were in power do not think that the years of devolution have been squandered. They are the people we represent. They are benefiting from devolution and they will continue to benefit as we build up Scotland.

The Scottish Conservatives are doing what the First Minister will not do, cannot do, but should have been doing. The Scottish Conservatives are making sensible proposals to sort out the bread-and-butter issues on which the Lib-Lab pact has failed. We have made proposals on affordable housing, on defeating drugs and cutting crime and on standing up for families. It is about time the First Minister realised that the only way to save the union is to save devolution; and the only way to save devolution is to start making it work for the people of Scotland and sorting out the issues that matter most to them. Making this Parliament deliver for its people is the only way to save our union from the nationalists. The First Minister and his Lib-Lab pact might not be up for that fight, but I and the Scottish Conservatives certainly are.

We have significantly less crime today, and many more police, than we had during the Tory years. We have 200,000 more jobs than we had during the Tory years. More people survive heart disease, cancer and stroke in this country than they did during the Tory years. More of our children get better results at school and get the chance to go on to university and college than they did during the Tory years.

In all those areas, devolution and this Labour and—yes—Liberal Democrat partnership have made a difference for Scotland. In each and every one of those areas, progress has been made that would not have been made under the Tories. Over the next few weeks, I will be delighted to debate with Annabel Goldie ideas about how we can build on the smoking ban to improve our public health, how we can build on the 200,000 extra jobs to grow our economy even more successfully, how we can build on the reduction in violent crime to ensure that fewer and fewer of our young people get involved in crime in the first place and how we can ensure that our schools go from being among the four best in the world to being the best in the world. That is the challenge for this Parliament; let us go to it.

---

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-2809)

I expect to meet the Secretary of State again soon. I am sure that we will discuss a range of issues that are current.

Can the First Minister clarify whether he and his party will be campaigning in this election for the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland?

Hopefully.

I think that that might be an announcement from Phil Gallie of his late candidacy in the election.

The position that I and my party will take in the election campaign will be unchanged from our position of last week, last month and last year. The position is clear. First, we have no plans for a new nuclear power station. Secondly, we will not sanction a new nuclear power station without the issue of nuclear waste being resolved. Thirdly, we will not rule out replacing the more than 30 per cent of Scotland's electricity that currently comes from nuclear generation. The parties that rule that out are being irresponsible and it will be important for us to state that in the election campaign.

So it is in, it is out, it is shake it all about, it is reserved, it is devolved. Can the First Minister tell us whether a vote for Labour is a vote for new nuclear power stations and whether people who do not want new nuclear power stations should first vote Green?

I have just tried to explain the position. I understand that this is an issue on which I must answer on behalf of my party and that, on this occasion, I am, perhaps, not speaking for everyone on the Executive benches, but I will reiterate the position.

First, it is a fact that there are no plans for new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Secondly, we should not even consider having new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the issue of waste has been resolved. However, the third fact is that more than a third of our electricity comes from nuclear sources. For parties to rule that option out for ever, in an uncertain world in which energy supplies are increasingly uncertain, is questionable. During the election campaign, I will be pleased to put forward that balanced approach.

---

Asylum Seekers

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made on the implementation of the Scottish Executive's agreement on the treatment of asylum seeker families reached with the Home Office in March 2006. (S2F-2808)

We have made significant progress. A number of measures have been in place for some time, including enhanced background checks on immigration staff working in Scotland and fieldwork for inspections of children's services for asylum seekers. Last week, the Minister for Education and Young People wrote to the Education Committee and the Communities Committee to confirm that we have now also reached agreement on lead professional arrangements, which should ensure that the particular needs of children are taken into account when decisions are being implemented.

The First Minister will be aware that the pupils and staff of Drumchapel high school in my constituency played a prominent part in drawing attention to the treatment of asylum seeker families, which led to the agreement that was announced in March 2006. This morning, when I spoke to Wilson Blakey, the head teacher, he confirmed that the pupils appreciate what the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have been trying to do.

Does the First Minister agree that the Minister for Education and Young People's letter, in which he urged the Home Office to take a sensible and pragmatic approach to reviewing the asylum applications of more than 1,000 so-called legacy cases in Scotland, should be welcomed and that such an approach should be actively pursued, not only because it is backed by the Scottish Refugee Council, not only because it will be supported by the majority of decent Scottish people and not only because it makes common sense, but because it is the right and just thing to do?

Bill Butler is aware that I have a long-standing personal interest in the issue. I believe strongly that we need a firm but fair and consistent immigration policy and a consistent but strong approach to assessing the applications of asylum seekers to establish who are genuine refugees and should therefore be allowed to stay in the country. At the same time, there are a number of families, particularly in Glasgow, who have been in this country for a long time. Their children have grown up here and they regard themselves as Scots rather than people who have recently come here. That is why I believe that those legacy cases, as they are known, are so important.

We have received a commitment from Home Office ministers that the cases will be properly looked at. I welcome that commitment, and I want to ensure that when it is implemented due care is taken in relation to the futures of those young people. Their contribution in our schools, particularly in some of the most deprived parts of Glasgow, to raising standards and even in some cases to leadership as prefects and in other positions of responsibility has been admirable and successful.

Alongside a fair but tough immigration policy, I want to see a proper, sensitive and considered approach to those who would be considered legacy cases—as a result of which I would expect many of them to be allowed to stay.

---

Child Poverty

To ask the First Minister whether any of the additional £1.8 billion to be made available to the Scottish Executive, as announced in last week's budget, will be earmarked for tackling child poverty. (S2F-2806)

I welcome Alex Neil's support for the union dividend. The resources are available for the period 2008 to 2011. The Scottish ministers will decide their use when they set budgets later this year.

The union dividend is 4 per cent of the oil revenues; the independence dividend would be 100 per cent of the oil revenues.

Does the First Minister realise that the level of child poverty in devolved Scotland is 10 times what it is in independent Denmark? Does he realise that the level of child poverty under Blair, Brown and McConnell is two and a half times what it was under Harold Wilson? After 300 years of the union, 10 years of a Labour Government and eight years of a Labour-led Executive, when will he actually try to do something about child poverty in Scotland?

Not only has pensioner poverty been reduced dramatically since 1997, child poverty has been reduced considerably—both absolute poverty as measured by a straight cash comparison with 1997 and relative poverty as measured by comparison with the rest of the population.

I believe that there are further measures that we can take. I outlined one recently: prioritising the provision of free school meals to the youngsters who need it most—who had their free school meals taken away by the Tories. That is in direct contradiction to the Scottish National Party policy, which is to provide free school meals to those who can afford it rather than those who cannot.

Alex Neil made a telling point in his question. His whole strategy for the economy would be based around the volatile oil price. The reality is that the parties who would gamble the future of the children in Scotland who are living in poverty on a volatile oil price that has dropped by $20 a barrel since last summer would not be able to tackle poverty in Scotland. It is those of us who want a strong and stable economy who will tackle poverty, and we will continue to do so.

Given the First Minister's personal commitment to the abolition of child poverty by 2020, how does he believe the Labour Party's commitment to extending free school meals fits into that ambition?

As I have just said, I believe strongly that free school meals should be targeted at those who need them most, not provided on an ad hoc, universal basis that includes those who can afford them. That is a wrong policy from the SNP. A policy of proper targeting is the correct one for the future in Scotland.

I also believe strongly that we are more likely to lift children in Scotland out of poverty if we are part of the fifth largest economy in the world than if that economy is our nearest competitor. With that approach, we can deliver even more children in Scotland out of poverty in the years to come.

---

Smoking Ban (Assessment)

To ask the First Minister what assessment has been made of the impact of the first year of the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. (S2F-2810)

Studies so far have indicated that air pollution in pubs has dropped by 86 per cent and that the health of bar workers has dramatically improved. I am certain that the ban has given Scotland an improved reputation elsewhere. I am also confident that the longer-term impact of the ban will be to improve people's health and to reduce the burden on the national health service.

If one of the hallmarks of the second session of the Parliament was the ban, does the First Minister believe that a hallmark of the next session ought to be a reduction in the instances of long-term conditions, in particular respiratory diseases, and better provision for those who suffer from them?

Both of those points are important. I hope that the Parliament will continue to tackle them in the next session. We can all be very proud of much of the legislation that has been passed in this four-year session, but the ban on smoking in public places was a particularly brave decision by the Parliament. It has transformed Scotland's reputation and made a major contribution to the fact that we now have one of the fastest growing tourism industries in Europe. It will lead to improved public health in the years to come and is an example of the kind of policy we should adopt in the Parliament in our third session, when we will take further brave decisions that secure Scotland's long-term future.

I welcome the First Minister's comments on the success of the first year of the smoking ban, although I remind him what he said a few short years ago. According to The Scotsman in 2004

"Jack McConnell, the First Minister, has stated that his preference would not be for a total ban."

The Sun said that the First Minister

"shied away from a total ban."

The Evening News said that the First Minister

"has ruled out suggestions that could lead to a complete ban on smoking in public places."

According to The Herald, the First Minister said that an overall ban would be impractical. Given his complete support for the ban now, does the First Minister regret his previous comments in 2003 and 2004 opposing a ban? Does he find it rather embarrassing that when I lodged a motion supporting a ban on smoking in public places, not one, solitary, Labour member supported it?

In the spirit in which the question was asked, I point out that, in the first session—before Stewart Maxwell was in the Parliament—Hugh Henry proposed a ban on smoking in public places. I have never said that before in the chamber because I am not interested in who claims the credit; I am interested in improving the health of the people of Scotland. I point out, for the benefit of Stewart Maxwell and other SNP members, that if there is one difference between me and Alex Salmond, it is that I listen. I can change my mind, I can listen to the people of Scotland and I can then deliver a policy such as that. That is something that Alex Salmond has never proven able to do.

Will the First Minister give a commitment that, when he returns next month as First Minister, he will continue to promote the healthy living agenda that has been so successful in this session of Parliament? Will he consider, in the new session, extending the smoking ban in ways that will protect children and young people in particular, for example by examining the effects of smoking on young people in cars and some outside areas?

There is further action that we can take in relation to young people in particular—I am sure that each of the parties will comment on that over the next five weeks. We should build on the public support that has been shown for the anti-smoking legislation by promoting an agenda for public health in Scotland. I believe that such an agenda can secure the same consensus and the same broad support. I look forward over the next few years to building on the sense of national pride that the smoking ban has delivered, to ensure that, across Scotland, particularly in poorer communities that have suffered as a result of ill health for decades—even centuries—we can turn round the health of the whole community, and not just those who smoke.

Members will be aware that this final plenary meeting of the second session of the Scottish Parliament will continue for another 20 minutes or so. I ask Murray Tosh and Trish Godman, as Deputy Presiding Officers, to join me on the podium.