Plenary, 04 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, December 4, 2003

Official Report 710KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-402)

First, Presiding Officer, I am sure that everyone in the chamber will join me in congratulating you on your being made politician of the year. The award is richly deserved.

Next week, the Cabinet will discuss ministers' excellent progress in delivering the partnership agreement, and we will discuss our commitments for Scotland and how we can take those commitments forward into the new year.

I cannot imagine that that discussion will take a terribly long time. However, I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks about the Presiding Officer and the well-deserved award that he received last week.

On Monday, the Minister for Communities and her deputy visited the incredibly successful Dublin Docklands Development Authority, which is the fastest growing area in Ireland. Before she left, the minister said:

"I am keen to explore with … my Irish Ministerial counterparts what has contributed to this progress, and the lessons the Executive can learn".

What lessons were learnt on Monday?

I have not yet received a report from the Minister for Communities, but I certainly look forward to doing so.

Perhaps I can pre-empt the minister's briefing by sharing with the First Minister the contents of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority plan. Under the heading "Factors Contributing to Success", the plan says "Central to this success" is

"an attractive package of financial incentives to encourage high-quality … investment."

The plan goes on to say that the introduction of a special rate of corporation tax

"was another major contributor to success."

In short, the authority says that control of tax policy is "essential" to achievement of that level of economic growth.

Given that the Minister for Communities and the First Minister are determined to learn lessons from Ireland's success, when will the First Minister introduce similar proposals that will give Scotland the powers to put our industry and business at a competitive advantage and which will deliver the opportunities that people in Scotland seek?

The Scottish economy will be put at a competitive advantage partly because of the competitive advantage at which the UK has been put because of stable interest rates, low inflation, higher employment, lower unemployment and a better macroeconomic framework than has ever been the case in my adult life. Those factors make a serious contribution to economic growth in Scotland.

However, we in Scotland take our own responsibilities by pursuing the right economic policies such as developing skills, improving infrastructure, boosting research and development, doing what we can to improve productivity and ensuring that our Scottish companies can compete with the rest of the world. That is the right way to go. The low-tax—and ultimately low-growth—economy that Mr Swinney advocates would damage Scotland, employment and the people of this country.

The problem with what the First Minister has just said is that he is currently presiding over low economic growth in Scotland. We have lost 50,000 manufacturing jobs in this country. In a recent newspaper article, the Prime Minister wrote:

"Making everybody follow the same tax rules would quickly diminish Europe's competitiveness by killing jobs and stifling growth."

The "same tax rules" for Scotland are

"killing jobs and stifling growth".

If the First Minister is remotely interested in putting Scotland at a competitive advantage, will he learn the lessons of Ireland, which is the fastest growing economy in Europe? Will he do something right for Scotland and give us the powers that will put us at such advantage?

Mr Swinney does not want to put Scotland at a competitive advantage; instead, he wants to put it at a competitive disadvantage. He wants to have what he calls fiscal autonomy, but that is the wrong strategy for boosting economic growth. We know that the way to boost economic growth in Scotland is to improve skills, boost the infrastructure and ensure that we have productive and competitive companies that are investing properly in research and development. If we do that, we will be able to compete with high-value jobs and a high-value economy, instead of the low-value economy that Mr Swinney wants to be part of. His approach will always bring short-term success but long-term decline.

We have to learn the lessons of the 1980s and 1990s and ensure that the Scottish economy can compete in the 21st century. We do that by ensuring that our industry is competitive, not by trying to deceive industry by promising it greater public spending and the tax cuts that would never materialise under an SNP Adminstration.

Why is it okay for the Prime Minister to go around Europe defending every country's right to have its own tax rules to avoid

"killing jobs and stifling growth"

when he will not allow the people of Scotland to take the same decisions? Why is that right for every other country but somehow wrong for Scotland?

The people of Scotland voted for devolution, not for independence. They voted for a UK-wide tax regime that gives us the highest unemployment—sorry, the highest employment—

Oh!

It gives us the highest employment, the lowest unemployment, the lowest interest rates and the lowest inflation that most members in this chamber have ever experienced. That is a basis for serious macroeconomic growth. The way that we in Scotland build on that is to use the powers that the Parliament has to boost skills, boost infrastructure, boost R and D and boost productivity. If we do that, we will boost economic growth.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-407)

I hope to meet the Prime Minister shortly and I am sure that our discussions will cover a wide range of issues of importance to Scotland.

I do not doubt that it will be a wee chat rather than a "big conversation".

Last month as part of the debate about the possible introduction of top-up fees in English universities, Jim Wallace told university principals that there would be no more money for universities in Scotland. However, on Monday of this week the First Minister claimed—I think I quote him accurately—that he would

"make sure Scottish universities retain a competitive edge, not just in terms of the UK but increasingly across the world."

Does the First Minister acknowledge that those statements are seen by many as being riddled with apparent contradictions, and will he tell Parliament which one represents the Executive's position?

If Mr McLetchie reads the speech that the Deputy First Minister made last Tuesday he will find that his report of that speech is inaccurate. The Deputy First Minister did not say at any point that Scottish universities would not receive additional funds and he made the point that it is an issue that we will consider in the course of the next spending review.

That might be the position, but it is certainly not the way that it is understood by Scotland's university principals, who are concerned about the policy divide that is opening up between north of the border and south of the border. There is a great deal of confusion on the issue. We now learn that if top-up fees are introduced, our students who seek to study south of the border could face an "education Hadrian's wall"—as it was described in the press this morning—because they would have to pay £3,000 up front to attend and pursue courses at English universities. If the Prime Minister drives his policy through, what are the First Minister and his Administration going to do to mitigate its impact and ensure that Scottish students can still attend universities in the British system without having to pay £3,000 up front for the privilege of doing so?

Those who run the university systems in England and in Scotland have been able to use their basic intelligence to ensure that, despite the fact that we in Scotland have proudly abolished tuition fees—Mr McLetchie might not have noticed that we already have a different system in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom—we have managed to preserve the ability of Scottish students to study in England and of English students to study in Scotland. It is not beyond the wit of any Government or any university in the UK to ensure that that situation will continue.

It is certainly our commitment that the universities of Scotland will continue to provide the best possible education, that Scottish students who choose to study elsewhere will continue to receive it and that our universities will continue to be able to compete on the international stage with their research and teaching, as they do already. We will ensure that whatever proposals are finally agreed by the House of Commons, the Scottish university system will stay ahead of the game.

I look forward to the First Minister telling thousands of students in Scotland that tuition fees have been abolished when the bills for the graduate endowment land on their doormat within the next year or so—they will have an entirely different perspective on the so-called abolition. The problem that we are discussing today is entirely of the Labour party's making. It was Labour that introduced tuition fees, Labour that abolished grants and it is Labour that proposes top-up fees in England. I urge the First Minister to use his powers of persuasion to convince the Prime Minister to adopt Conservative policy north and south of the border, which would mean no tuition fees or top-up fees for any student anywhere in the United Kingdom.

What I want to see for Scotland is the best possible university and higher-education system: a system that is well funded but which generates its own income; that is funded by Government, but which also has commercial relationships with businesses that turn research into commercial projects; and which is flexible and imaginative not only in how it secures its income but in how it uses its expenditure.

If we achieve that, we will continue to have universities in Scotland that are ahead of the game. I am also pleased to see that some of the proposals that have been debated down south are already among the best aspects of the new system up here in Scotland, such as the abolition of up-front tuition fees and the introduction of more bursaries and grants for low-income families. Those ideas are being copied by our colleagues down south and I welcome their conversion to those ideas. I hope that over the next few weeks, as their policy becomes clearer, we in Scotland will get a chance to develop our policies, which will ensure that Scottish universities and Scottish students stay, as I said, ahead of the game.

Does the First Minister agree that a Labour Government has forced major constitutional change in the UK for the benefit of our democracy, but that current proposals to create a new supreme court have wide-ranging implications for the Scottish legal system? Does he agree that Parliament requires as a matter of urgency a debate on how we propose to enhance our distinctly Scottish approach to civil and criminal justice?

I agree absolutely that there should be a debate in Parliament; we intend to initiate such a debate early in the new year, but I also want to be absolutely clear about the proposal for a UK supreme court. It is entirely wrong of senior legal figures to describe the proposed court as being somehow an English court that will take powers away from the Scottish legal system. It will be a UK court that will have powers that are similar to existing powers at UK level. There will be no diminution of Scottish input or Scottish representation in that body and it is important that we ensure that that is the case. That is exactly the job that Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate have been pursuing over recent months, which is reflected in the proposals that have been reiterated yet again by the UK Government.

---

Obesity

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is in response to the programme "Stop Chewin' the Fat" and recent reports that Scottish children are among the most obese in the developed world. (S2F-415)

The latest figures on childhood obesity confirm what we already knew—that health improvement must be a long-term consistent priority for Scotland. Childhood obesity has significant implications for the future health of Scots and for our health services, but we will not tackle the problem overnight. It will take at least a generation of concerted action to turn round the eating and exercise habits of our nation. Flagship programmes in our school classrooms and playgrounds—such as hungry for success and active schools—demonstrate our commitment to improving the situation for Scotland's children.

After four and a half years of the Labour-Liberal Government in Scotland, and two years of the First Minister being in charge, one in five 12-year-olds is defined as being clinically obese. In June, the First Minister rejected the advice of the British Medical Association, One Plus, the Child Poverty Action Group and a range of trade union organisations, which argued that we require a radical solution; namely, free healthy and nutritious school meals. Will he now display the level of courage and political maturity that is required to admit that he was wrong, that we need a step change now, and that every child in Scotland should be guaranteed a healthy and nutritious school meal to tackle the problem?

I am determined to ensure that our schools and councils deliver healthy and nutritious meals for Scotland's school children. That is exactly why we are spending the money that Mr Sheridan would like to spend on the best-off and richest children on improving the quality of school meals, availability of school meals and take-up of school meals. Those priorities—getting nutritional quality right and improving take-up—are exactly the right ones for Scotland, but we must also ensure that children take more exercise and that they are fed better outside their classrooms. More than 100,000 Scottish school children are going to benefit by the end of this year from our free fruit in schools programme. That is the sort of initiative that will make a difference, unlike the tokenism of Mr Sheridan, who wants to benefit the rich but not to help the poor.

It is a bit contradictory to say that it is okay to give rich kids free fruit but not a free meal.

The programme to which I referred quoted 11 of the 12 food experts that were appointed by the First Minister's own food tsar. They said that free school meals would be required to tackle this problem. Why will the First Minister not listen to the experts? He will not listen to the British Medical Association, he will not listen to the trades union movement and he will not listen to the Child Poverty Action Group or to One Plus. Will he at least listen to the food experts who are advising him that free school meals are required to tackle this radical problem?

I am determined to listen to the evidence, but the programme that Tommy Sheridan quoted got the evidence wrong. One of the claims that it made was that the improvement in diet in Finland was down to the introduction of free school meals. Free school meals were introduced in Finland after the second world war to deal with starvation—not in the 1980s to deal with a poor health record. Finland rightly implemented national action, with all parties and people from all sectors of society working together to improve the diet, eating habits and exercise habits of the population. As a result, the health of the nation was dramatically improved. That is exactly what we are trying to do in Scotland. That is how we should concentrate our resources and that is what we will continue to do. We will back the evidence, back what works and back the international examples that show that Scotland is in shame at the moment, but which will ensure that it is a better place to live in the future.

Does the First Minister agree that, in looking at the evidence on child obesity, it is absolutely vital for the next generation that we do not focus exclusively on what food our young people are eating and which diet they are following? We have to look at physical activity in school and in getting to school. Does the First Minister agree that the historic low rate of children walking to school is a national disgrace? Does he also agree that it is vital that we do everything that we can—for example, the twenty's plenty initiative and encouragement of safer routes to school, as is being done by my local authority—to tackle the appalling rate of obesity among the next generation?

There is no doubt that more walking to school and more walking in our society would make a significant contribution to exercise habits, to our health and to the use of our health service. Initiatives such as twenty's plenty—which ensures that the introduction of 20mph speed limits round schools becomes uniform throughout Scotland—provide a significant opportunity, not just for greater safety around schools and greater walking opportunities. Other initiatives to encourage more youngsters and adults to walk more in Scotland are vital for the health of individuals and for the health of the country.

In the light of the shocking obesity levels in Scotland, does the First Minister now accept that, rather than spend money on setting up healthy-eating phone lines that no one calls, it would be more effective to remove unhealthy fatty foods and fizzy drinks from vending machines in our schools so that we stop giving our children contradictory and mixed messages about what it is healthy and unhealthy to eat?

We have to be more intelligent than that in our response to the situation. The reality in Scottish schools was that the number of children, who instead of eating or drinking in school, were leaving school to eat chocolate and drink rubbish further down the street increased dramatically for at least two decades. It is vital that we maintain in our schools initiatives to sell the right things and that we encourage children to eat and drink the right things, but we must also encourage children to stay in school so that they are not eating and drinking rubbish elsewhere.

The initiatives that have been put in place by the health improvement campaign—which Shona Robison and other members have criticised—take branding off vending machines, ensure that there are drinks other than fizzy drinks in every machine, ensure that water is available for our youngsters in schools throughout Scotland and ensure that they are encouraged to drink it. Those initiatives will make a difference; they will not drive kids back outside schools or encourage them to go to the local newsagent for their preferred alternative.

---

Commonwealth Games

To ask the First Minister what economic benefits there would be from a bid to bring the Commonwealth games to Scotland in 2014. (S2F-422)

We know that hosting major events brings significant benefits for the Scottish economy and an invaluable profile for Scotland.

I am keen to see the Commonwealth games return to Scotland. However, the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland will take the decision on whether to bid for future games, and it will take the lead on any bid and any analysis that is required in the meantime. No decision has been made by the council on 2014 or on any subsequent games. When it makes a decision, it will have my full support.

Does the First Minister agree that events such as the successful MTV Europe awards that took place in Edinburgh recently demonstrate the worldwide impact that Scotland can have when hosting such international events, and does he also agree that if we are successful in a bid to host future Commonwealth games, it is essential that we try to ensure that the facilities and the economic benefits are spread throughout Scotland, and that it is essential that we ensure that we have the developed transport infrastructure that can support such events?

Bristow Muldoon managed to raise a number of points in one question. It is clear that we want an improved transport infrastructure and that we want to ensure that the benefits are spread throughout Scotland. I believe that the Commonwealth games is the sort of event that we in Scotland can host, and that we can host it well. I think that we could do it significantly better than we did in 1986, to be frank, but the matter will require proper analysis in advance. It will require not only Government support and Government money, but the right site, location and preparation that would ensure that the games were a success for all concerned. That would be the objective of the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland. We have supported the council in improving the Scottish team and we now want to ensure that, when it does finally bid for a future Commonwealth games, it will be successful.

I am sure that a present-day Labour politician such as the First Minister will not want to be reminded of the involvement of past-days Labour politicians in Commonwealth games bids. Can he assure us that we will not have a crook like Robert Maxwell involved in any future Scottish bid for the Commonwealth games?

I have neither met nor had any dealings with Robert Maxwell and given that he is now—I believe—dead, it would be quite hard to involve him in any future Commonwealth games. On politicians and the Commonwealth games, perhaps I should say that the decision of the then Conservative Government not to back the Edinburgh Commonwealth games was a major contributory factor to those games' being chaotic in preparation and disappointing in execution. Should the Commonwealth games come to Scotland in future, we shall ensure that they are much better organised and financed and that they do Scotland proud.

Does the First Minister agree that, in addition to the Commonwealth games, other international events such as the G8 summit could be welcomed to Scotland as an opportunity to boost the country? Does he agree that those who want to see Scotland at the top table should stop trying to stop the top table's being brought to Scotland?

I am looking for Roseanna Cunningham, but I do not see her in the chamber. She is opposed even to the prospect of the G8 summit's coming to Scotland. It is interesting that the Scottish National Party appears to want a seat at the top table but does not want the top table to come to Scotland and benefit our country.

---

Free Bus Travel (Strathclyde)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to ensure the continuation of free bus travel for elderly people throughout the Strathclyde area. (S2F-412)

Free local travel for older people and people with a disability is one of the great successes of Scottish devolution. We are committed to funding it and to creating a Scotland-wide scheme by 2007. However, there must not be blank cheques for operators and bus companies, so all funding requests are properly scrutinised.

I welcome the runaway success of the scheme. However, the scheme is supposed to be revenue neutral as far as the bus companies are concerned. Does the First Minister accept that there is rather a large uncovenanted bonus going to the bus companies without their having necessarily to run any more buses or any more routes? Will the Executive, with the bus companies, examine the funding formula and the arrangements to ensure maximum advantage to public transport and the public purse in Scotland, rather than to the bottom-line profit levels of the bus companies?

It is important that the claims that are submitted by the bus companies and operators be properly scrutinised. I believe that now would be a good time for us to review the systems that are in place, in order to ensure that claims are being properly scrutinised and that there is neither too much money going to bus companies nor that any scheme is left in danger through lack of finance. It is important that the bus companies claim only those journeys that are actually made, and it is important that the operators claim only those journeys that the bus companies can justify. We are examining the systems for that to ensure that they are properly in place. If changes are required, we will have them in place in advance of the national scheme, whose introduction by 2007 we are committed to.

Does the First Minister agree that we should be ensuring not only that the bus operators run their buses on time, but that they serve their communities rather than serve their own profits?

That is a wider issue than the concessionary fares scheme, but I have no doubt that the bus services of Scotland still require significant improvement, particularly in communities that are poorly served on what might be seen by the bus companies as low-value routes, or in the evenings and at weekends, when many elderly people are left without the ability to use the scheme that we all believe is such a success.

That is why we have introduced quality bus contracts. They have not yet been taken up throughout Scotland in the way that we would like them to be, and that is one of the reasons why we have proposed a national transport agency for Scotland. I believe that such an agency could have a serious impact not only on dealing with our major transport infrastructure projects and improving integrated transport, but on improving bus services. I hope that we will get a chance to make that impact.

The First Minister will be aware that many disabled and disabled elderly people are unable to use the free bus services in Strathclyde because many of the buses are unsuitable for disabled access. Will he tell us how he intends to address that problem, given the impending full implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?

That is essentially a matter for the bus companies, but it is one that they must address. In areas in which the use of full-size buses could not be justified, there are a number of innovative schemes that use smaller modes of transport to ensure access and services for people with disabilities. However, it is also important that the bus companies take on board the message from this Parliament and our colleagues in Westminster, and that they act in relation to the quality of services that they provide for all our citizens, not only those who can climb on and off buses.

Given that the first motion on the issue was lodged in December 1999—it was signed, incidentally, by the current Minister for Finance and Public Services—and that, in a parliamentary answer last week, I was told that discussions are taking place on a national free concessionary fares scheme for our pensioners, why on earth will it take another four years to deliver?

It is important that we ensure that a national scheme has the sort of safeguards that Robert Brown addressed in his supplementary question, and that that national scheme is properly organised and can be financed. It was important to get that process under way by establishing the local schemes and ensuring that they were a success, which they have been.

One reason why it will be important to have a national scheme is that we will be able to ensure that we have a bit of consistency throughout Scotland in the delivery of, and the comments that are made on, the service. Earlier this week, the Scottish National Party's official transport spokesperson, calling for the Executive to finance the Glasgow bus concessionary fares scheme said that it was

"a mess of the Executive's own creation and they need to sort it out now".

The same person said in an Edinburgh newspaper on Tuesday:

"the West of Scotland Executive is looking after the West"

and that those in the east

"are not getting as good a deal as Strathclyde."

We will have a consistent bus fares scheme throughout Scotland; let us have some political consistency from the SNP.

---

Holyrood Inquiry

To ask the First Minister how the Holyrood inquiry will now obtain potential evidence from BBC Scotland, in the light of the recent decision by BBC governors to endorse the decision by BBC Scotland to withhold the tapes of "The Gathering Place" from the inquiry. (S2F-433)

As I have said before, Lord Fraser's investigation is independent of Parliament and of Scottish ministers. It is therefore entirely a matter for him to identify and seek evidence that he feels might be helpful to his investigation, but it is also right for us to continue to urge everyone who is involved to assist him with his investigation and with the evidence that he wants to see.

Lord Fraser, John Swinney and the First Minister have all urged the BBC to co-operate and yet it continues to refuse to do so. Indeed, its response, to plagiarise the vocabulary that Margaret Thatcher used when talking about Scotland, has been no, no and no. Will the First Minister therefore now grant Lord Fraser the legal powers that are necessary to force the BBC to hand over the tapes? Does he agree with me that the BBC's refusal to co-operate and hand over the tapes is based on a false assertion; namely, that all contributors received an undertaking? That assertion is patently untrue.

I remind colleagues of what I said the last time we discussed the matter in Parliament: the Hutton inquiry that has just taken place in London had powers that were identical to those of the Fraser inquiry. The Hutton inquiry had the BBC's co-operation in relation to material that I am sure was sensitive, and I strongly urge the BBC to co-operate with Lord Fraser who, in his questioning and attempts to seek evidence, seems to be doing an excellent job even without the tapes. We should all continue to support him in the work that he is doing. I also hope that Lord Fraser and the BBC can reach a proper solution to the matter according to what I believe is his responsibility and the BBC's duty.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—