Plenary, 30 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, November 30, 2006

Official Report 784KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I wish the First Minister a happy St Andrew's day.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2576)

I wish Nicola Sturgeon a very happy St Andrew's day.

Next week's meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

On Tuesday, the First Minister said:

"it is important to have a competition environment in the EU that ensures consistency and fairness".

Does he believe that there is consistency and fairness in the proposed takeover of Scottish Power by the Spanish firm Iberdrola?

The proposal raises three different issues. First, the European Union's current regulatory environment should be applied consistently by the European Commission. I made that very point to the President of the Commission on Tuesday. Secondly, inside the United Kingdom, competition law should be applied consistently and independently of ministers. That is the absolute objective of the provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002, which has been implemented in the UK. Thirdly, the specific proposal for Scottish Power raises additional issues aside from the importance of the consistent application of competition law.

Those additional issues include Scottish Power's promised investment in Scotland in renewables and in Longannet; the position of the employees, in particular those who are employed in the headquarters functions in Glasgow and management functions elsewhere; and, perhaps most important, the position of Scottish consumers, who have experienced very high price rises over recent years. I suspect that if the move goes ahead, consumers will want to see improvements in price in the years to come.

I suggest to the First Minister that we need to ask whether the proposed takeover is proceeding on the basis of fairness. The First Minister will be aware that the Spanish Government is going to great lengths, rather ironically, to prevent another Spanish energy company from falling into foreign ownership because it considers that that would be against Spain's national interest.

Is the First Minister also aware that the Spanish Government gives substantial tax subsidies to Spanish companies that buy foreign firms? According to a report that has been obtained by my office, Iberdrola stands to land more than £1 billion in tax subsidy for the takeover of Scottish Power. Indeed, analysts believe that the company would not be able to afford the bid without that subsidy—

Ms Sturgeon, all those matters are reserved. Will your question come to matters within the competence of the First Minister?

In light of that information—and in light of the comments that the First Minister made about the proposed takeover of Scottish Power—will the First Minister officially ask the European competition commissioner to investigate those subsidies? Will he demand that the takeover of Scottish Power be blocked pending the outcome of that investigation?

As I said in my first answer, on Tuesday I made clear to the President of the European Commission that the Commission should apply current European competition policy consistently across the European Union. He agreed absolutely with that point of view. In addition, I know that he and the Commission are determined to improve European energy policy and the way in which it is applied in such matters.

It is also important to recognise the environment in which we operate. That is why I said on Tuesday, and I repeat today, that we have two choices in today's global economy. Either we can run an open economy in which our firms are able to be successful globally by taking over firms in the international economy or we can have a closed economy in which we suffer the impact that that would have on jobs and growth in Scotland. Anyone who has any sense about economics will agree that we would suffer that impact as a direct result of such an approach.

In fact, the SNP made its position clear in one of our previous debates. Presiding Officer, I suggest that these questions are legitimate because we debated the provisions of the Enterprise Bill in this chamber—in fact, it was in the chamber of the first building that the Parliament used. In that debate, Adam Ingram spelled out the Scottish National Party's policy. He said:

"The SNP broadly supports the thrust of the Enterprise Bill, which is to deal effectively with anti-competitive practices. The introduction of sanctions on individuals who breach competition law is welcome, as is the widening of rights and powers for competition authorities."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; c 10900.]

At that time, the SNP's position was quite clear. One reason why its economic policies have so little credibility is that it takes one stance when we are passing legislation but moves away from those basic principles when the going gets difficult. It is time for the SNP to say the same thing on business issues from one week to the next, not just one year to the next.

I suggest to the First Minister that he has completely sidestepped the question. I asked him what he was going to do about alleged unfair practices in this case. I remind him that Scottish Power is our biggest industrial company, is of strategic importance and is one of only 19 major companies that have their headquarters here in Scotland—in short, it matters to the Scottish economy. Free trade is one thing, but the First Minister should be deeply concerned if Scottish Power is being taken over with the help of unfair subsidies. I point out to him that the European Commission will examine the Spanish tax arrangements only if it is specifically asked to do so. I tell him today that the SNP is submitting a formal request for an investigation. Will the First Minister stand up for Scotland and support that request?

I say for the third time that on Tuesday I raised with the European Commission President the importance of consistent application of EU competition policy. He gave me an absolute assurance that the policy would be applied consistently and that, on the basis of the limited information that was available to him at the time, it appeared that Iberdrola's move fell within that policy and would need to be looked at properly by the European Commission. Having received that assurance, I am perfectly happy to take him at his word. I believe that Ms Sturgeon should be, too.

The Commission will look only at general issues of competition unless it is specifically asked by the First Minister to look at the specific issue of the Spanish tax system. I hope that in his final answer he will say whether he will make that specific request. In an interview this morning, he said that he regularly makes wee slips at First Minister's question time. I suggest to him that being so cavalier with the national interest is more than a wee slip—it is an abdication of responsibility. Is it not the case that people want a First Minister who will fight for Scotland's interests? Is that not why more and more people want an SNP Government?

I really enjoy First Minister's question time. One reason why I enjoy it is that week after week Ms Sturgeon is unwilling and, indeed, afraid to raise issues that are the responsibility of the chamber, because she has lost the argument on each and every one of those. It is 18 months since Ms Sturgeon raised the issue of health waiting times in the chamber. This week, health waiting times are the lowest ever, but the member does not have the nerve to ask a question about them.

The position on Scottish Power is quite clear. It is vital that the competition procedures and the discussions that I will have next week with the company look after the interests of Scottish consumers and employees and ensure that the investment in the Scottish energy industry that Scottish Power has promised takes place. Those outcomes are more important than Ms Sturgeon making political points on Scotland's position in the European Union that seek merely to divide the country on constitutional issues. The European Commission has given us an absolute guarantee of consistency in the application of its rules when it investigates the proposed takeover. We have received a guarantee from Scottish Power that it has raised the issues that we want to see guaranteed. I hope that we will get further guarantees next Tuesday, when we meet the Spanish owners of Iberdrola. In the meantime, we will continue to implement an energy policy that has an impact not just here in Scotland but throughout the UK and the European Union. That approach across borders makes us different from the nationalist party, with its approach to borders.

Will the First Minister seek a meeting with the executives of Iberdrola in the light of its takeover bid for Scottish Power? If so, will he ask them for firm assurances of future job retention at Scottish Power, including 1,700 jobs in my constituency of Cathcart?

I appreciate Charlie Gordon's constructive and to-the-point question about the future of employees and investment here in Scotland. I confirm that Nicol Stephen and I will meet both Iberdrola and Scottish Power next Tuesday morning specifically to raise the position of the employees, the management and the headquarters functions here in Scotland; the long-term investment in Longannet and the renewables industries in Scotland; and pricing, which is of particular importance to businesses and individuals in Scotland. We will do so seriously with the objective of getting those assurances and putting the interests of Scotland first.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2577)

I met the Prime Minister last weekend. We discussed very important issues. I have no current plans to meet him again before Christmas.

The First Minister will be aware of the increasing and worrying level of fuel poverty in Scotland today. Some 328,000 households now live in fuel poverty. That represents a worrying 14.5 per cent increase—a rise of 42,000 households that the Scottish Executive described as "not statistically significant". I am sure that that clinical description will be of little comfort to those who struggle to pay the bills. Having listened to Nicola Sturgeon, I am also sure that the First Minister agrees that the protectionist policies of the nationalists, the like of which would have prevented Scottish Power from expanding in the first place, are certainly not the answer. Will the First Minister tell me what he plans to do to relieve the financial burden on those hard-pressed families?

The measures that we have introduced—such as the highly successful central heating programme, which has ensured that many more pensioners have warmer homes; the highly successful warm deal insulation programme, which makes a difference to the quality of heating as well as its efficiency and therefore the cost of heating in pensioner homes; and of course the economic measures that we introduced that have taken so many Scottish pensioners and families out of poverty in the past nine years—have together made a significant difference to fuel poverty in Scotland, although we must continue those measures to ensure that fuel poverty becomes a thing of the past.

The First Minister will be aware that one of the groups that suffer acutely from rising energy price policies is Scotland's pensioners. Shockingly, a third of them are trapped in fuel poverty. They are usually on fixed incomes and have pensions that rise only at the rate of inflation while their council tax and energy bills rise at well over the rate of inflation.

Although the First Minister cannot interfere with private businesses, he can do something about council tax. Will the First Minister join the Scottish Conservatives and say to every 65-and-over pensioner household in Scotland, "We will cut your council tax bill in half"?

I thank Annabel Goldie for reminding me of one of the elements that I forgot to mention. In addition to having a central heating programme and a warm deal energy efficiency programme that did not exist when the Conservatives were in power and taking out of poverty hundreds of thousands of pensioners and families who were in poverty when the Conservatives were in power, we have ensured that in every year since devolution, council tax increases in Scotland been not only lower than increases in the rest of the United Kingdom but lower than the increases in every one of the final years of the previous Conservative Government.

We are very proud of that record, but it is not yet enough. That is why we must continue our support for pensioner households to ensure that their homes are energy efficient and they can afford to heat them. Secondly, we must continue in our efforts to ensure that more and more pensioners are lifted out of poverty through targeted action so that Scotland becomes a better place.

I am sorry to say that it is for reasons such as those that the popularity in Scotland of the First Minister is dropping like a stone. Talk about putting devolution at risk—it is exactly that vacuum at the heart of Government that puts devolution and the union at risk. In the First Minister's Bute House bubble, Scottish pensioners are happy as Larry but, in the real world, life is no bed of roses. Many of Scotland's pensioners are sliding into poverty because their council tax bills are devouring more and more of their income. They want to know, as I do, when the First Minister will provide some dignity for the elderly and cut their council tax.

Economically and socially, Scottish pensioners are light years away from where they were 10 years ago—I suspect that Annabel Goldie knows that.

In addition to having the lowest council tax increases compared with any of the last years of the Conservative Government, in addition to having the warm deal programme to improve energy efficiency in pensioner households, and in addition to implementing the central heating programme to secure central heating for pensioners whose houses were freezing in the past, we now have pensioners who are able to travel around the country for free through the free concessionary travel scheme. We also have a whole range of other services for the elderly, including free personal care, none of which was in place when the Conservatives were in power. Because of their mismanagement of the economy, the Conservatives could not afford them.

It is time for Annabel Goldie to admit—even just occasionally—that although there is still much for us to do to improve the lot of pensioners in Scotland, there are pensioners the length and breadth of our country whose lives are far better today because of the actions of this Government, the actions of the devolved Scottish Parliament, and—if my Liberal Democrat colleagues will allow me to say so—the actions of the Labour Government in Westminster.

I am glad that the First Minister thinks that everything is rosy in the garden for pensioners. However, in the light of the Scottish public services ombudsman's recent decision to order Argyll and Bute Council to pay the costs of personal care to a 90-year-old man, will the First Minister kindly take steps to ensure that the hundreds of other people in Argyll and Bute who are waiting for their rightful payments for free personal care will also be paid, or will they all have to write to the ombudsman too?

We might regret the fact that the Conservatives write their questions before they come to the chamber and do not reflect on the answers that I have given. However, I congratulate Jamie McGrigor on asking a question about an issue that is in the news this week and is clearly of concern to constituents. My answer is that the review that we began six months ago—not only of the position in Argyll and Bute but of the position in other local authorities too, to ensure that the policy on free personal care is being properly financed and implemented by local authorities—continues. Ministers will report to Parliament as soon as that review is complete.

---

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-2592)

I expect to meet the Secretary of State again before Christmas. I suspect that we will discuss issues that are important to Scotland.

I want to ask about children's services and social work. There is clear evidence from the Executive's own social work statistics of the rising numbers of children in need of care and attention. There is also evidence of increasing costs. It is planned that the grant-aided expenditure for core children's social work services will fall by 2 per cent in real terms in the 2007-08 budget. Why? GAE funding for pre-school education is also falling by 2 per cent in real terms. Will the First Minister include that commitment to reduce children's services in his manifesto for the next election?

The funding of children's services and social work services comes not only from the education budget but from the justice budget, the health budget and other budgets too. All those budgets together have produced a substantial increase not only in the budget for children's services but in the delivery of children's services. Indeed, over a period of years, those budgets have also produced an increase in the number of social workers and have led to further improvements in the work that they do. That work has to continue as a result of the review that was published early this year or late last year, which will transform the social work profession. Thirty years on from the profession's creation in its current form, that is appropriate.

In relation to future commitments, I make it clear to Robin Harper that not only will there be the normal announcement before Christmas on local authority finance for next year's budget—the 2007-08 budget—by the minister with responsibility for local government, when he will clarify the budgets that are available for next year, but, if my Liberal Democrat colleagues will allow me to say this, there will be a firm commitment in my party's manifesto to ensuring that children and young people are the Parliament's number 1 priority in the next session.

The First Minister has a lot of work to do between now and those announcements, which I hope are positive. However, the truth of the matter is that, although members were given the impression that there was lots of money floating around for social work, the money that was, in his words, allocated for his six programmes, is virtually ring fenced—the Executive said that that money was for added value. There is therefore a real problem at the moment. There is a funding gap in social work spending on the three core services between the £416 million that is being spent and the £255 million that is provided by grant-aided expenditure. As I am sure the First Minister is aware, some local authorities are having to raid funds for care in the community to prop up children's services.

Please come to the question, Mr Harper.

What is the First Minister going to do about that? Will it be solved in his conversations between now and the announcements on the new budget? Will he release money from the six programmes into core funding?

Any decision to remove funding from the targeted programmes on health and on justice programmes that deal with young offenders and so on, and include them within general local authority funding, would have to be carefully taken, with clear assurances that the money would be used for the important priorities for which it was originally intended. As I said earlier, the minister with responsibility for local government will make a statement on local authority finance for 2007-08 before Christmas. In that statement, he will make clear the allocation of resources for local authorities, and therefore for local services, for next year. I am sure that the chamber would want me to wait for him to do so.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order that one of us should move an extension of 10 minutes so that all of the questions that are notified today for the First Minister can be adequately attacked?

I am not minded to exercise any discretion in that area.

---

Schools (Attainment Levels)

To ask the First Minister how this week's announcement of £60 million investment in schools will help to improve attainment levels. (S2F-2584)

Scotland's schools are benefiting from additional teachers, new and better buildings and improvements in curriculum, management and parental involvement. The additional resources that were announced this week will further improve the learning environment and the equipment available in classrooms. I have no doubt that we will see better attainment by pupils as a result.

Is the First Minister aware of the visit this week by the Minister for Education and Young People to Greenfaulds high school in my constituency, during which he took time to listen to the views of pupils and staff? A teacher who had moved to Greenfaulds from a public-private partnership school expressed the view to me and to the minister that young people learning in new and refurbished PPP schools have a clear advantage over those in schools without major capital investment in the fabric of the building and in equipment. Will the First Minister encourage acceleration of the capital programmes, and will he ensure that that welcome additional funding to schools is concentrated on schools that have not yet benefited from major capital investment?

That additional money can be used for two purposes: first, for further improvements in the fabric of school buildings; and secondly, for the equipment and resources that are available inside schools. It is appropriate that equipment and resources are available, and are continually modernised, in all schools. Clearly, improvements in the fabric of school buildings and facilities should be concentrated on those schools that have the greatest need. We would expect all local authorities, in allocating that money, to take that as one of the primary objectives.

In addition to the money for improvements to the fabric of school buildings, which has increased fivefold in four years to a total of £150 million, there is the overall school building programme, in which dozens—indeed, soon hundreds—of schools in Scotland are being rebuilt or renewed in a way that is improving the education of children the length and breadth of our country. I hope that voters in Scotland will vote in May for parties that are committed to that programme and not for parties that will abolish it.

Is the First Minister aware that the capital cost of St Patrick's primary school in Kilsyth in Cathie Craigie's constituency is £5.9 million in 2006 prices but that, as calculated using an Audit Scotland report from 2002, the extra costs for the contract will be between £4.4 million and £7.1 million? Will he finally acknowledge that the excess costs of PPP would be better invested in more teachers for smaller classes and in better equipment and resources to help to drive up attainment, particularly among the bottom 20 per cent of pupils in Scotland? Does he acknowledge that, according to a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education that was published this week, the performance of those pupils has remained disappointingly static under his stewardship?

I am pleased that Fiona Hyslop is at last willing to raise that issue, as Peter Peacock, the previous Minister for Education and Young People, made several attempts to get her to commit to writing the Scottish National Party's policy on the abolition of the school building programme and its determination to end all the projects for which there is not currently a contract. Every school building contract in Scotland has to pass the value-for-money test to ensure that it can go ahead. To say otherwise is to distort the truth.

The SNP said earlier this year that it would stop every contract that has not yet been signed and end the building of dozens of new schools in Scotland, but it is now unwilling to explain that policy in writing or to debate it properly in the Parliament. That shows that it is now running scared of the voters in next May's election.

---

Sex Offenders (Monitoring)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has calculated the cost to local authorities of monitoring high-risk sex offenders released under the automatic early release scheme. (S2F-2596)

With respect to Christine Grahame, the unconditional early release of serious sex offenders was ended in the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, which the Parliament passed.

I have been informed of a gentleman who served only two thirds of his sentence but would have served it all if he had undertaken a sex offenders rehabilitation course, so that does not pertain.

A very high-risk sex offender was returned to the Scottish Borders. He has got out on automatic early release, following a conviction for the serious sexual assault and torture of a young woman with learning difficulties. He failed to take part in any rehabilitation programmes while inside and has continued to be assessed as being at high risk of reoffending.

Come to the question.

The offender's return has placed a heavy financial burden on the local authority, which is now charged with monitoring him 24 hours a day. Does the First Minister believe that draining resources from social work services—which require them for other events—in that fashion is the best way to protect our communities? Will he consider preventing the release of such offenders, who are at risk of claiming another victim sooner or later?

In addition to ending the automatic early release of serious sex offenders in the 2005 act, we provided additional funding to local authorities so that such offenders can be monitored more effectively than before, even if they are back in the community after their period in prison.

In addition to that, the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament is now considering, will ensure not only that sex offenders and other offenders properly serve the custodial part of their sentences but that they are subject to further monitoring and supervision following their periods in custody. That bill takes the arrangements that we introduced last year because of the genuine concern that people throughout Scotland expressed about the issue and implements them further, and I hope the Parliament will pass it this winter.

Is the First Minister aware that one consequence of the tragic case to which Christine Grahame referred was the establishment in the Borders of an adult protection committee, to streamline the relationship between the police, social work and the health board at the highest level? Will he ensure that the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Parliament, retains the important statutory duty on all local authorities to ensure that that protection is in place? Is he as disappointed as I am that, last week in the Parliament, Christine Grahame argued against such committees, which she described as

"form filling, pen pushing and paper clipping"?—[Official Report, 23 November 2006; c 29696.]

I do not think that that is helpful, Mr Purvis.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Do we really require a point of order?

I simply ask you to look at the Official Report and check what I said.

That is not a matter for me; that is bandying about the politics of the issue.

I ask Mr McConnell to answer the substantive question from Mr Purvis.

I have no reason to believe that our current plans, as outlined in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill, need to be changed.

Because of the time lost to points of order, I will take question 6.

---

Affordable Housing

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to address shortages of affordable housing in areas where tenants have voted against housing stock transfer. (S2F-2578)

We are taking a range of measures that will improve the supply of affordable housing throughout Scotland. Those include an investment of £487 million this year for affordable housing programmes; the development of the shared equity scheme, homestake, to enable new-build housing; fundamental reform of the planning system through the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill to assist in the supply of land for housing; and a substantial eight-year investment programme to remove water and sewerage constraints on new build. Ballots on housing stock transfer are matters of free choice for those concerned and the funding of affordable housing through local authorities will continue, regardless of the result.

The First Minister will be aware that people on housing waiting lists do not have a vote in the stock transfer ballots. Will he assure me that action will be taken so that the outcome of the ballots will not lead to a reduction in the number of new affordable houses for rent that are built in their areas?

John Farquhar Munro makes a valid point about the impact of the decisions on those who are on housing waiting lists or who require housing. The parties in the Parliament—there are at least two, the nationalists and the socialists—that have campaigned against housing stock transfers should consider those implications when they run the misinformation campaigns that they do at a local level. Regardless of the outcomes of ballots on housing stock transfer, our commitment to investing in housing in Scotland continues.

For example, in the local authority areas where tenants have recently voted against transfer and all the benefits that it would bring, we continue to increase funding. In Highland, the funding this year will go up from £33.5 million to nearly £39 million; in Stirling, it will go up from just over £4 million to just over £10 million; in Renfrewshire, it will go up from nearly £19 million to more than £24 million; and in Edinburgh, it will go up from nearly £35 million to £57 million. In each of those four council areas, the benefits would have been even more substantial if housing stock transfer had gone ahead. However, we remain committed to having a good supply of affordable housing and to putting the needs of the people of Scotland first and we will provide that funding in those four areas to ensure that that happens.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—