Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 31, 2007

Official Report 642KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S3F-1)

I thank Jack McConnell for not asking me when I last met the Prime Minister. The Cabinet will meet next Tuesday and every Tuesday until further notice.

I say to the First Minister that it is time—it is time for clarity. This afternoon, Parliament will vote to continue the new railway development that will link Edinburgh's airport with the rest of Scotland. Will the First Minister accept that decision and proceed with the airport rail link with no further prevarication? Yes or no?

We are not convinced by the Edinburgh airport rail link project and we will bring a full financial assessment of it to Parliament at an early opportunity.

Jack McConnell will know that

"As part of"

the

"perfectly normal constitutional arrangements, except in certain circumstances, the Scottish Executive is not necessarily bound by resolutions or motions passed by the Scottish Parliament."

Oh!

Order.

I was quoting directly the late Donald Dewar from 4 October 1999.

With all due respect, the First Minister did not answer the question. I am happy to try another.

This afternoon, Parliament will also vote to continue the introduction of a 21st century public transport system for our capital city. Will the First Minister accept that decision and proceed with the capital city's trams without further delay? Yes or no?

We think that there are better ways to fulfil this capital city's need for a 21st century transport system. We are concerned about cost overrun in capital projects, which is why we will bring forward assessments for Parliament.

We have not completed the assessment of the tram system yet. However, for the chamber's information, we have completed one on the Alloa railway link, which is a very important project that was first announced by Jack McConnell's Government and was estimated to cost £35 million. The last estimate, given to Parliament on 16 March 2006, was of a maximum cost of £70 million. Our latest estimate—as of today—with the project almost completed, means that we are working on the assumption of a cost of £83 million.

I point out to Jack McConnell that TIE Ltd, which is the organisation in charge of delivering the Edinburgh trams, is, of course, also in charge of delivering the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line.

The First Minister will learn not to blame his civil servants and other organisations when he cannot answer questions. I ask these questions for a reason. The Scottish National Party said earlier in May:

"Our view is as a government, if we decide not to fund it, that would be that. It's simply a matter of government deciding how to spend the money. It doesn't have to come back to parliament for approval."

After nearly 200 hours of parliamentary time, two years of parliamentary scrutiny and a firm decision of this Parliament when the First Minister was elsewhere, that is not good enough.

We have had a week of spinning from the SNP. Last Wednesday, we were told that there would be a ban on ship-to-ship oil transfers, but by Thursday morning it was not so sure. At the weekend, we heard about a freeze on council tax, but on Monday Mr Swinney was not so sure. On Tuesday, the SNP was going to dual the A9, but on Wednesday it was not so sure. On Wednesday, it was going to cancel the rail link from the airport to the rest of Scotland and cancel the trams in Edinburgh, but today it is—again—not so sure. We used to think that the SNP had a plan for its first 100 days, but now we know that it is not so sure.

I say to the First Minister that delays cost money, will put off investment and will damage not only Edinburgh but the whole of Scotland. It is time—

Ask a question, please.

Will the First Minister promise to respect Scotland's Parliament and to put Scotland first? Will he promise to build the railway and the trams?

Goodness—Jack's questions are longer than his answers used to be. I saw a quotation from him a couple of days ago saying that we had not done much in the month that I have been in power. As I was elected by the Parliament only two weeks ago, I am hoping to achieve a lot in the next two weeks. However, I remind Jack McConnell that, in the past two weeks, we have introduced proposals—which were supported by the Labour Party mid-statement, if I remember rightly—to abolish tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges.

As the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has said, we are working on proposals to save the accident and emergency units at Monklands and Ayr; I hope for support from the Labour Party when those proposals come to Parliament.

We are introducing and working on new measures for tackling sex crime in Scotland, and I know that we will get support from the Conservative party on those measures. We are determined to freeze the discredited council tax in Scotland and are working with local authorities to do so. We have, with the support of the Scottish Green Party, ruled out new nuclear power stations in Scotland and have ruled in clean coal generation in Scotland. We are also working very hard to save the revolutionary Peterhead project from the indecision of the Department of Trade and Industry. All in all, that is not bad for the first two weeks.

Jack McConnell can have one more question, if he is as brief as possible.

I was not planning to ask more than three questions, but I must ask the question again because the First Minister has not answered it. The issue today is funding of trains from Edinburgh airport to the rest of Scotland and the trams for our capital city. Will the First Minister promise to respect the will of Parliament, accept its decisions and build a transport infrastructure for the 21st century?

I say gently to Jack that, if he wanted that to be the issue, he should not have started talking about all the other things, as well.

I read a quotation from the late Donald Dewar, which sets out the constitutional position. I will also say something serious to Jack McConnell about who is responsible for the financial competence and delivery of projects. We have delivery organisations of one kind or another but, ultimately, the Government and, in this situation, Parliament are responsible for infrastructure projects being delivered on time and on budget. That has not been this Parliament's experience.

In the Parliament's first four years, the overruns of the major infrastructure project that we are currently occupying probably caused more damage to Parliament's reputation than anything else that could be imagined. As First Minister, I am determined that that will not happen with other infrastructure projects, which is why we will bring to Parliament a proper financial assessment.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S3F-2)

He never phones, he never writes.

However, I have been congratulated by a variety of other people, ranging from Her Majesty the Queen to the Rev Ian Paisley. I will have to be satisfied with that. I also had a friendly and constructive phone call from David Cameron. He was phoning from Greece, so I have not yet returned the call as I am trying to save the Government money.

I understand that it takes two to tango and that the First Minister's Downing Street dance partner is nothing if not coquettish. However, most people are astonished that, although Her Majesty the Queen can travel to Edinburgh to meet Mr Salmond, Mr Blair is not big enough to even acknowledge the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland.

One thistle that needs to be grasped is the question of local government finance. I am aware that the First Minister wants to inflict a national tax increase on Scottish earners that, apart from being a burden on families and a nightmare for employers, will drive a coach and horses through the idea of local autonomy and local democracy. Furthermore, let us not forget that a £1 billion shortfall will hit our councils every year. Can he tell me when, even approximately—in the unlikely event that the First Minister gets that proposal through Parliament—the new system will hit Scotland?

I understand that the issue of local income tax is not one on which we have policies in common, but I hope that that will not affect our ability to work on other policy areas on which we have common views.

The case for a local income tax is that it is based intrinsically on ability to pay—the central feature of justification for any taxation system. Annabel Goldie would acknowledge that that is not necessarily the case with the council tax. I suspect that the difference between us is that she believes that we can amend the current unjust and iniquitous system, whereas I believe that we need a new, fairer and better system called the local income tax.

I thought that the new politics would mean that the new First Minister would, unlike his predecessor, actually answer the questions that he was asked, but already there has been a bit of a disappointing wobble.

I asked him when his new system would hit us. Let us face it: it is obviously four or five years away, at best. In the meantime, many of our older citizens are being clobbered each month by the current levels of council tax.

Does the First Minister agree that the Conservative party's proposal to cut in half the council tax bills for households whose occupants are aged 65 and over will bring immediate and welcome relief to those pensioners? Is he prepared, like his colleague, Alex Neil, to look favourably on that proposal?

Legislation will come in the first half of this parliamentary session and implementation of that legislation will, according to the will of Parliament, come in the second half of the session.

I agree that we need immediate action, which is why we are working on the council tax freeze, which will bring relief to all council tax payers. The difficulty that I have with the Conservatives' suggestion is that it would not differentiate between rich pensioners—some of whom have quite substantial incomes—and poorer pensioners. There would be no differentiation in terms of their bills apart from in respect of the housing component which—as we know—is not necessarily related to ability to pay. For example, I am quite certain that Her Majesty the Queen, whom we mentioned earlier, would not want 50 per cent relief on Balmoral, but would think that there are more deserving cases around the country in terms of basing taxation on the ability to pay.

---

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. (S3F-3)

I have had a telephone call from the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was a cordial call of congratulations, during which he offered co-operation on a range of issues. I hope to contact him soon to talk about the elections in Scotland, the procedures and how best we can have a more thorough and independent inquiry into that matter.

I do not often quote Stewart Stevenson, but I wonder whether the First Minister heard him on the BBC this morning describing the policy of dualling the A9 as

"a long-term objective, without any price commitment on it".

So—a policy that was announced on Tuesday has become a long-term objective by Thursday. Is that to be true of other Scottish National Party policies?

I can think of no issue more important for Scotland's future than education. The Liberal Democrats are committed to reducing class sizes in Scotland, with fully costed and detailed proposals to recruit 1,000 extra teachers and to build 250 new schools. What is the SNP's target date for delivering on its pledge to reduce class sizes in Scotland? How many extra teachers will the Executive recruit and how many new classrooms will be needed?

An announcement on that subject will be made in Parliament on 20 June. I remind Nicol Stephen of the range of policy initiatives on education that the SNP intends to introduce. He rightly draws attention to the reduction of class sizes to a maximum of 18 in primaries 1 to 3, which is a hugely important policy on which I hope we can work together, given the overwhelming international evidence that early intervention has fantastic results for children's development.

We should also consider the 50 per cent increase in free nursery education for three and four-year-olds, the commitment to provide a fully qualified nursery teacher for every nursery child in Scotland and the additional fund of £10 million to help those who have particular learning challenges, such as autism and dyslexia. That funding is particularly important. I hope that we can work together on that range of vital initiatives for the Scottish education system.

I am prepared to work with any of the parties in Parliament to deliver action on those issues. It is time for urgent action to reduce school class sizes by, for example, increasing the number of teachers in our schools and the number of teachers in training. We already have the answer to my earlier question in the joint analysis of the party manifestos—including the SNP's—by the University of Strathclyde and the University of Glasgow. That analysis confirms what we knew from the SNP manifesto, which is that it has no figure for extra teachers, no plans for extra classrooms and no date for delivery of smaller class sizes in Scotland. Will the First Minister give us the figures now, or is that another of his policies that turns out on Thursday to be just a long-term objective?

In the tradition of friendliness and co-operation, I point out that the analysis that Nicol Stephen mentions is not the best place for him to rest because—if my memory serves me correctly—it allocated to the Liberal Democrats 20 or 30 more uncosted commitments than it allocated to the Scottish National Party. However, rather than re-fight the arguments that we had during the election campaign, let us take the opportunity to say in Parliament right now that, on a range of policies—early intervention in education, reduction of class sizes, consideration of how to help children with real learning difficulties—there is not all that much between the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats. For one reason or another, in coalition in the previous Government, Nicol Stephen and his colleagues could not deliver on those aspirations and, for one reason or another, we are not in coalition now. However, in this consensus Parliament, we can still work together to deliver on the commitments that we have in common.

There are two constituency questions.

Does the First Minister share my concern about the lorry drivers at the Tesco distribution centre in my constituency of Livingston, who are disputing the downgrading of their terms and conditions of employment? With the announcement that 70 of the drivers will be sacked, widespread industrial action is now likely. Will the First Minister advise what may be done to encourage a negotiated settlement to avert further hardship to the Tesco lorry drivers and their families, and to avoid further industrial disruption?

Parliament does not control industrial disputes, but Angela Constance's question and my answer will represent the views of the overwhelming majority of members. I deprecate the sacking of people during an industrial dispute and I am sure that members will agree that it is far, far better for the parties in the industrial dispute to get back round the table to settle their differences without the element of confrontation and bitterness that is developing in the Tesco dispute with the lorry drivers.

The First Minister will be aware of yesterday's announcement from the financial services firm Resolution, which is one of the largest employers in my constituency, that it will transfer more than 1,500 staff to the Capita group, and of the immediate transfer of 500 jobs from Glasgow to India. In view of that, what will the new Executive do to assist the people who will lose their jobs? How will the Executive stop the further outsourcing of jobs abroad? Does the Executive have the answers for workers who are concerned for their jobs? How will the Executive secure the future of Glasgow's successful financial sector, which is currently leading the way in the world?

Pauline McNeill's final point should be stressed. We have an extremely successful financial sector in Scotland, funds through which have doubled over the past 10 years. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth spoke to Pauline yesterday about the immediate situation and the help that Scottish Enterprise can give to displaced workers. We acknowledge the seriousness of Resolution's announcement and the impact that it will have on individuals and families, which is why Scottish Enterprise is willing to work with workers who lose their jobs.

On the general position, the strategy for the Scottish economy must be to have a serious competitive edge for not just the financial sector but for many of our industries. That is exactly why everyone in the chamber should consider closely the huge success of the Irish financial sector—although we do not have the immediate powers to replicate that success, other than with small business. Over the same period during which the Scottish financial sector has doubled, the Irish financial sector has tripled. One aspect behind that success has been Ireland's ability to deliver an enhanced competitive position through progressive reductions in corporation tax.

---

Social Rented Housing

To ask the First Minister whether extending the provision of good-quality, local social rented housing will be a priority for the new Scottish Government. (S3F-20)

Yes. We look forward to working with members and parties across Parliament to develop proposals for extending provision of Scotland's social housing. That will contribute to our overarching aim of creating a wealthier, healthier and more successful country.

I inform the First Minister that the guarantees that were given to the former tenants of Maryhill's Butney area back in 2001 by Glasgow City Council and, subsequently, by Glasgow Housing Association, which promised them new local housing within two years of their old homes being demolished, remain unmet. Will the First Minister monitor the situation—significant further demolitions of social rented housing within Maryhill and across north Glasgow are planned—in order to ensure that, as opposed to broken promises, good-quality social housing is delivered? That would respect local communities.

There was indeed a promise, the timescale in which has not been kept. Nonetheless, there remains the promise to replace housing in Glasgow that is demolished by Glasgow City Council and the Glasgow Housing Association. The programme is set to deliver 6,000 houses throughout the city. The city council has reaffirmed that it is committed to directing that programme to areas where there are most demolitions. At the local level, programmes for replacement housing are agreed between Glasgow Housing Association and the other housing associations that are involved. The number of houses to be replaced needs to reflect the likely needs and demand in any given area. However, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will take time to review the progress that is being made on delivering the promises that were made to the tenants of Glasgow.

The First Minister might be aware that some members of his party believe that the previous Scottish Executive policy of community ownership of social housing was privatisation. Does he agree with that, or does he acknowledge the critical role of housing associations and housing co-operatives, such as those in my constituency, in creating safe, sustainable and thriving communities? If he agrees with me, will he ensure that the already identified record massive levels of investment in social rented housing that have been made through Communities Scotland and through working with local authorities, will be sustained without disruption or delay for communities and tenants? Will he assure us that calls for review are not calls for a standstill? Our communities deserve better.

It is obviously difficult to pick up the exact words sometimes, but I said:

"to review the progress that is being made on the delivery of the promises that were made to the tenants of Glasgow."

Glasgow City Council has reassured us that it is still committed to delivering the number of houses that was promised. There are some doubts, as Johann Lamont will know, about the timescale for delivery. The aim of the investigation and review that I am suggesting is to review how the promises that were made to the tenants of Glasgow are being kept.

For the record, the Scottish National Party has always been committed to local housing associations.

---

Tram Scheme (Edinburgh)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Executive has made of the consequences for the environment, economic development and traffic congestion of cancelling the Edinburgh tram scheme. (S3F-17)

A full review will be presented to Parliament. The consequences will depend on the alternatives. The alternatives that this party favours are guided busways on much of the tram alignment between Edinburgh airport and Haymarket; incentives for the use of hybrid fuel buses, which would reduce emissions; incentives to improve through-ticketing; real-time information at all Edinburgh bus stops; completion of the planned park-and-ride sites around the city, which are proving increasingly successful; and further bus-priority measures on the routes that are to be served by those park-and-ride facilities.

We believe that those measures offer a real alternative to the current trams proposal. However, the undertaking that we gave to hold a financial review and to give a presentation to Parliament stands. I hope that, out of that informed discussion and debate, we can seek agreement across the Parliament.

Given the First Minister's doubts about the tram scheme and his admiration for the economic policies of the Republic of Ireland, will he pay a visit to Dublin in the near future to see how the tram system there has, over a short period, reduced congestion, significantly promoted economic development and proved so popular that a major expansion is already under way? Does not he realise that the Edinburgh and Leith tram is the best option for the environment and for getting people out of their cars; that the scheme is essential for development of the waterfront in my constituency; and that it is being progressed through fixed-price contracts, under which the contractor bears the financial risk?

Nobody is a greater fan or user of buses than I am, but does not the First Minister know that Princes Street, with a current level of 320 buses per hour, is fast approaching the saturation level of 400 buses per hour, and that only an integrated bus and tram network can stop Edinburgh and Leith from grinding to a halt in the years to come?

I look forward to Malcolm Chisholm's trenchant views being expressed in the debate when we bring the financial consequences and appraisal to Parliament. It will be interesting to see whether his view on fixed-price contracts is justified by the financial analysis that is being called for and carried out now.

As far as a visit to Dublin is concerned, I am delighted to tell Malcolm Chisholm that the likely continuing Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, has invited me to do exactly that. I have accepted, and I promise Malcolm that I will look closely at the tram network when I am there.

---

Wave and Tidal Energy Industry

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to ensure that the development of Scotland's wave and tidal energy industry is not undermined by the United Kingdom Government's energy white paper. (S3F-4)

As the member knows, I have already placed on record my determination to see Scotland become a global centre for marine renewables. In doing that, I am happy to acknowledge the substantial contribution that was made by the previous Deputy First Minister, Nicol Stephen. Over the next two years, the world-class wave and tidal energy test facilities in Liam McArthur's constituency will play host to several full-scale machines, supported by Scottish Government funding.

Our support for the sector is already ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. We will, with the industry, be considering the white paper proposals for marine energy. We will make our views known to the UK Government but, if necessary, we will continue to provide separate support schemes for Scotland, because—as the member will understand—the support that we are providing in Scotland is substantially greater than that indicated by the energy white paper.

As the First Minister said, my constituency is home to world-class test facilities for wave and tidal energy, thanks—as he said—to the support from the previous Executive. I refer to the efforts not just of Nicol Stephen but of Jim Wallace. As a result, Orkney now boasts a cluster of businesses carrying out leading-edge work in marine energy and other renewables. If, however, Orkney's exceptional wave and tidal resources are to be harnessed for Orkney's and Scotland's benefit, a high-capacity grid connection to Orkney is vital. What assurances can the First Minister give that his Government will give strong support to a marine interconnector from the northern isles to the key centres of energy demand?

That is a good question. The point that we would make is that interconnectors are vital for a number of island communities in order to mobilise their energy resources. As Liam McArthur well knows, those matters are in the province of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the energy regulator. As he also knows, there are a number of substantial issues that not just island communities but northern and central Scotland have with Ofgem in terms of prohibitive charges for connecting to the grid. I believe that this is an issue of huge importance—not just for Liam McArthur's constituency, but all round Scotland in terms of our energy potential. I hope that members will unite in taking an unanswerable case to Ofgem that to realise our energy potential we must have the ability to deliver energy at reasonable prices to the areas of consumer demand.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I did not want to interrupt the first First Minister's questions, but the First Minister did invoke the will of Parliament in two different respects. I would like from you, if possible, a definitive ruling on the rule of Parliament and how it refers to any actions that are undertaken by the Executive, should the Executive disagree with the expressed will of Parliament. I do not think that it is correct to say that the late Donald Dewar set that in stone.

I thank Margo MacDonald for that point of order. Given the issue involved, I hope that she will forgive me if on this occasion I do not give an immediate reply. I will think about it and come back to you later in the day if I may.

That brings us to the end of First Minister's questions. Before I suspend the meeting, I remind all members—although I am sure that I do not have to—that there is a camera in the room and that we are about to meet for a complete Parliament photograph. If members remain in the chamber, it will all be over as soon as possible.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—