Plenary, 06 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, December 6, 2007

Official Report 701KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

We come now to First Minister's question time. I call Wendy Alexander. [Applause.] Order.

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-326)

Later today, I will have a range of meetings, particularly concentrating on the energy sector. This morning, I have been working on the implementation of the decision by the Scottish Government fully to implement the police pay award—a decision that I am sure is widely welcomed throughout the chamber. [Applause.]

Order.

I think that everybody in the Parliament should always be willing to help the police with their inquiries.

Will the First Minister tell the chamber what meetings he has had with representatives of disability groups prior to the publication of the Scottish budget, and what meetings he has had with them since the publication of the budget?

The ministerial team will be pursuing meetings with all sections of Scottish society, including the important disability groups, which are held as a high priority by the Government.

I will take that as a no.

In October, the United Kingdom Government allocated an extra £340 million to provide after-school and respite care for families whose children have disabilities. Scotland's share of that money was £34 million, which was to fund a step change in respite care and accessible child care, and to help young disabled people leaving school. Last month, when the Minister for Children and Early Years was asked how the £34 million would be spent in Scotland, he said that the money

"will become part of the total funding available to the Scottish Government."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 6 November 2007; S3W-5613.]

Parents of children with special needs are now concerned that that money will not be spent on their children. Will the First Minister today give an early Christmas present to the 50,000 disabled young Scots and their families by guaranteeing that that money—which they campaigned for—will indeed go to them?

The Government is fully committed to supporting children with special needs. Of course, if Wendy Alexander cares to look at the outcomes and indicators in the budget process, she will see that that is identified. This area is very much part of the discussions that we are having with every single local authority in Scotland as part of the new relationship between central and local government in Scotland.

The disability organisations are clear. The review was in May, and the Government received the cash in October. The Government promised an answer by mid-November, but we are now into December and, as of today, there is no clear indication of how the £34 million will be used. The parents of vulnerable children are waiting. I ask the First Minister again whether he will guarantee that the £34 million that his Government received from the UK Treasury to go into respite care for those families will indeed be used for that purpose.

The concordat and outcomes are quite specific about increasing respite hours. Labour members in the chamber will have to accept at some point that the historic deal between the Scottish Government and local government throughout Scotland means that shared outcomes will work to the benefit of all the people of Scotland, including disabled people and children with special needs.

The parents of those 50,000 disabled children, from throughout Scotland, have written to MSPs of all parties, asking us to raise the issue directly and personally with the Government. The Government promised an answer in mid-November. We have still not had it. I give the First Minister a final opportunity to give those parents and children the reassurance they need that the £34 million will not be diverted to other purposes, and will be spent on the respite care that those families campaigned for and which they were promised.

The increase in respite care is specified in the concordat and in the outcome agreements that will be negotiated with all local authorities. I know that Wendy Alexander did not have that answer before she went through her questions but perhaps, now that she has had it three times, she will finally accept that disabled children and children with special needs are covered by the respite care increase that is specified in the agreements. That is part of the new relationship between central Government and local government that will work to the benefit of all the people of Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-327)

I hope to meet the secretary of state before long to discuss how to take forward the recommendations of the Gould report.

Amidst all the recent turmoil, we must not forget what we are here to do, which is to hold the Government to account. I remind the First Minister of another pledge from his party's manifesto:

"it is time that we dealt firmly and effectively with the crime and anti-social behaviour that disrupts the lives of … our citizens."

That was the rhetoric; what is the reality? Will the First Minister please explain how making early release even earlier and putting more criminals into the community is dealing "firmly and effectively" with crime? Surely the sentence should fit the crime, not the available prison space.

I got the impression that, yesterday, the Conservatives saw the wisdom in what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice proposes. Making home detention curfew available for long-term offenders who are assessed by the Parole Board for Scotland as safe to be released on licence is a policy that carries substantial merit.

On the subject of law and order, given all that Annabel Goldie has asked me about in the past, I thought that she might take the opportunity to welcome the decisive Government action on the police pay award, which will greatly increase morale in the police forces of Scotland.

The last lot were bad enough, but this lot are beyond the pale. The First Minister is failing to uphold the most fundamental obligation of government—the protection of the public—and he is blatantly breaking another pledge from his already tattered manifesto. He mentions police; by Jove, he has a brass neck. Let us go back to that manifesto. On police numbers, the Scottish National Party's pledge has gone from 1,000 plus to 500 maybe. On early release, the SNP has stuck with the Lib-Lab pact's scheme for even earlier release and made it even earlier release plus. There are get-out-of-jail-free cards for all.

The First Minister wants to empty our jails and the SNP believes in convicts in the community, not prisoners in prison. The SNP is soft on crime and softer on criminals. Is the sad and simple truth not that the First Minister, Alex Salmond, and his SNP minority Government are now the law breaker's best buddies and the criminal's new best friends? [Interruption.]

Order.

Let us see what the Scottish Police Federation says. Joe Grant, the general secretary of the SPF—someone whom Annabel Goldie has been keen to quote in the past—said today:

"I would like to congratulate the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on their independent stance on this important issue"

of police pay. [Interruption.]

Order.

Joe Grant continued:

"This decision reflects the co-operative and constructive approach towards policing that the Scottish Government has demonstrated since coming into office."

That is what the Scottish Police Federation thinks, but I wonder what the voters think of Annabel Goldie's assessment of the Government's performance. The YouGov poll that was released today shows not only that an overwhelming majority of Scottish people approve of the Government's record, compared with that of the Westminster Government, but that a decisive majority of the remaining Conservative voters in Scotland think that the Government is doing a great job.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-328)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Yesterday, on the steps of the Parliament, carol-singing students, who came to protest about the Scottish Government's real-terms cut in higher education spending next year, were met by ranks of paid SNP researchers and MSPs armed with placards and megaphones. Is that what we can expect from Alex Salmond's 21st century nationalist party?

The vast majority of Scottish students approve of the abolition of the student endowment and the restoration of free education in Scotland.

On the subject of the YouGov poll—[Interruption.]

Order.

I think that this information should be widely disseminated throughout Scottish society. A mighty 4 per cent of the population are impressed with the performance of Nicol Stephen as an Opposition leader.

I have seen that poll and I am pleased that support for the Liberal Democrats has gone up three points since the election—even in an SNP poll. I have here the last poll that was not paid for by the SNP in Scotland. It shows that, of the views expressed about all the leaders of all the parties, the most common was that Alex Salmond is "arrogant" and "patronising". [Interruption.]

Order.

Why does the First Minister think that people say that?

The First Minister might try to brush off what was a serious incident yesterday, but does he agree that it was an ugly development? It is one thing for ministers to stand here and be evasive about figures, make the numbers up and generally fail to give straight answers to straight questions; it is another thing completely for them to order paid SNP staff out to disrupt and shout down student campaigners. Will Alex Salmond give a guarantee that, in future, young students and all other peaceful campaigners who come to the Parliament will not be jostled, barracked and abused through megaphones by state-funded supporters of his Government?

Nicol Stephen should try to get serious about the issues, and the issue is the restoration of free education for the Scottish people.

The poll shows that SNP support is at 40 per cent, whereas Liberal Democrat support is at 13 per cent. I agree that that Liberal Democrat performance is a triumph in comparison with Nicol Stephen's personal rating. I suppose that, on the basis of what he says, it must be a triumph for the SNP that it can overcome the deficiencies of my leadership to have such substantial support in Scottish society.

Can the First Minister tell us why his Government is forcing the Scottish Arts Council to end the highly regarded cultural co-ordinators scheme, which has ensured wider access to the arts for a large number of young people and which has massive support from the artistic community and local authorities throughout Scotland? Why do we have to read about that on the front page of a national newspaper this morning when I specifically asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth about the future of the scheme in questions on the spending review statement on 14 November? Following the Government's rejection of cultural rights and entitlements, which were at the heart of the previous Administration's ground-breaking work on extending access to culture, will the youth music initiative be next for the chop? Will there be no end to the Government's destruction of the wider access agenda?

There is substantial support for arts and culture, including the youth music initiative. I hope that Malcolm Chisholm accepts that, in the expanded budget for arts and culture that was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, there is substantially more opportunity to encourage the development of arts and culture throughout the country. I could list the Government's substantive moves in that direction. The youth music initiative is not under any threat whatever. Malcolm Chisholm should desist from scaremongering on that issue.

Given the SNP's alleged commitment to reducing class sizes, will the First Minister arrange to meet East Ayrshire Council to talk about the closure of rural schools, particularly Crossroads primary school in Kilmarnock, as a matter of urgency, and take at least some positive steps towards ensuring that, unlike so many others, that commitment is not broken?

The deployment of schools policy in relation to individual schools is a matter for individual councils. The commitment to class size reductions is enshrined in the historic agreement between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and it will be reinforced by individual outcome agreements with every local authority across Scotland. I would have thought that even Hugh O'Donnell would have welcomed that approach by the Scottish Government.

Will the police pay rise about which the First Minister was boasting earlier during question time apply to the 1,000 extra officers that the SNP manifesto promised, or only to the 500 maybe that we are apparently now getting?

As David McLetchie well knows, there will be recruitment, retention and redeployment. I know that increasing the morale of the police force in Scotland will help enormously with the SNP's progressive measures to make communities in Scotland safer and more secure.

Before we move to question 4, I am sure that members will wish to join me in welcoming from the Isle of Man Mr Steven Rodan MHK, the Speaker of the House of Keys, and a parliamentary delegation of members of the Tynwald. [Applause.]

---

Trump International Golf Links Project

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that the opportunity presented by the Trump international golf links project is not lost to Scotland. (S3F-344)

I heard some members say that the Isle of Man Parliament has some very impressive financial powers that this Parliament might well envy.

On Tuesday of this week, the Scottish Government called in the outline planning application by the Trump Organization for future determination by ministers. That was done in recognition of the fact that the proposal raises issues of importance that require scrutiny at a national level. Calling in the application has given the Government the opportunity to give consideration to the various issues raised before it reaches a final decision.

I am, of course, familiar with the proposal, because the site is in my own constituency. As such, I am personally debarred from any involvement in the Scottish Government's consideration of the proposal. It would be inappropriate for ministers to debate the merits of a planning application that they are currently considering

Although I understand that the First Minister is restricted in what he can say, those restrictions do not apply to back benchers such as me. Will the First Minister ensure that his ministers give speedy consideration to this project, which could be positive for the north-east region and the country as a whole?

The reporter who is appointed will give proper consideration, in the normal manner, to the variety of options that are open to him. Nigel Don is quite correct: restrictions on speaking about this issue do not apply to individual back benchers. I am sure that his contributions, and those of all others, will be heard and considered by the reporter as part of the normal process.

What about the implications of the decision—which is unprecedented in the circumstances—for the wider planning system? What criteria has the Government used to apply the distinction of "national significance" after the fact in this case? What criteria might be applied in future to other proposed developments? Given the lateness of the determination that the development is of national significance, is there not a clear and pressing need for a public inquiry to allow those who have opposed the development to have their say?

Without saying anything that would put me on either side of the debate, there has been full debate and consideration of the issue in the north-east of Scotland. The terms under which the Scottish Government calls in planning applications are well known and not unusual. In relation to my earlier answer, it is well within the Government's competence to call in this particular development. I note that the decision was widely welcomed across parties and by many groups in Scottish society.

Does the First Minister agree that the situation arose only because the planning authority in Aberdeenshire had so far delegated its powers that it no longer had authority over vital decisions in its area? Does he agree that the best way to protect the local decision-making process in future would be for the council urgently to review its rules so that never again will a project of regional and national importance be rejected on the say-so of barely 10 per cent of its elected members?

I have noted a variety of concerns that have been expressed, in particular about the fact that many Aberdeenshire councillors did not get an opportunity to vote on the proposal. However, Lewis Macdonald should accept that our whole approach to planning is under substantial review following the legislation that was passed last year. When we come down to looking at the detail of various statutory instruments, I am sure that, across the planning process, there will be lessons that we will all want to learn to bring about an improved planning system throughout Scotland. I do not think that it is helpful to attack an individual local authority or that there was any intent in terms of the procedures to arrive at a situation that has caused widespread criticism.

---

Council Tax Freeze

To ask the First Minister which household income deciles will benefit most from a freeze in council tax at its 2007-08 level. (S3F-334)

The most substantive examination of the impact of council tax was provided in the Burt report, which was commissioned by the previous Administration and published in November 2006. The authors of the report showed that the burden of council tax falls most heavily on those with modest incomes. They concluded that they could not recommend the retention of the council tax in its present form, nor could they recommend any way in which it could be reformed. The fact is—Elaine Murray should accept this—that most people in Scotland will be better off in real terms as a result of the council tax freeze, which is incredibly popular across Scottish society.

I say with respect to the First Minister that my question was about the effect of freezing council tax at its current level. He may be aware of a research paper that was published a week ago by the Finance Committee's independent budget adviser, Professor David Bell of the University of Stirling, on the effect of freezing council tax. Professor Bell advised not only that those in council tax bands F, G and H would gain most from a freeze in council tax but that the poorest 20 per cent of households would not gain at all from freezing council tax. How does the First Minister reconcile that policy with his Government's objective of making Scotland fairer? Would it not be fairer to use the £70 million that has been allocated to freezing council tax to help Scotland's pensioners instead, for example by discounting their water rates?

Elaine Murray should accept that many people of very modest incomes bear the full burden of council tax and are not eligible for council tax benefit. If she looks in detail at the evidence in the Burt report, she will find two statements. The first is:

"Help the Aged in Scotland also expressed strong concern about the effect of council tax on many pensioner households, particularly … ‘asset rich but income poor' households".

The second is:

"The burden of council tax appears to be high in the lowest income decile compared with the second decile."

One of the advisers to that report was Professor David Bell.

I know that members from across the chamber have expressed concern about the onerous burden that the council tax places on people in Scottish society. For example, just a few weeks ago, Wendy Alexander said:

"The problem is it has become unduly onerous. That's one of the things I want our virtual think tank to do some creative thinking about."

John Swinney did not need a virtual think-tank; he has taken decisive action to relieve that substantial burden, which has been oppressing the people of Scotland.

Can I draw the First Minister's—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, if Labour members listen, they will learn. Can I draw the First Minister's attention—[Interruption.]

Order.

For the third time, I draw the First Minister's attention to the evidence that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, led by Labour's Pat Watters, presented to the Finance Committee on Tuesday. COSLA confirmed that the council tax freeze will save the average family more than £70 in year 1 and more than £200 a year by the end of the three years.

Quickly please, Mr Neil.

Is it not the case that if the Labour leadership's attempt to sabotage the agreement with COSLA succeeded, average families would not benefit from that money?

I always listen closely to Alex Neil and I suspect that other members should do the same. There are two important points. The council tax is—to quote—an "onerous" burden, because it increased by 60 per cent during the Labour Government's term. If it is an onerous burden on relatively poor people, freezing it should benefit those people.

Time and again, the SNP has portrayed the concordat with local government as a deal to freeze council tax for three years, but will the First Minister confirm that Alex Neil's new-found friend, COSLA president Councillor Pat Watters, was right to say unambiguously in evidence to the Finance Committee and other parliamentary committees this week that no deal exists with local government to freeze council tax for three years? Who is right—Pat Watters, who says that there is no deal, or the First Minister, who says that there is?

Councils throughout Scotland set their council tax levels annually but, in the budget, John Swinney as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has provided finance over three years to freeze council tax.

It is wonderful when other parties rail against the policy of freezing the council tax. My goodness—how will members explain to their constituents that their answer to every problem is to increase the council tax level even further?

Given that only local authorities can deliver the council tax freeze, if a freeze were, in cash terms, to benefit disproportionately the upper deciles of the income scale, would the appropriate resolution for councillors who feel that that is inappropriate be to vote against a council tax freeze and for a council tax increase?

I am not certain whether I fully followed the question, but I take it as a criticism of the Labour and Liberal parties, which seem unduly anxious to have even more council tax rises. That proposition will be difficult to sell to the Scottish people.

---

Tackling Anti-Semitism

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle anti-Semitism. (S3F-332)

The Government is committed to tackling all forms of bigotry and intolerance, including anti-Semitism. We are working with all of Scotland's faith communities to develop a balanced and holistic approach to ridding Scotland of religious bigotry once and for all.

Scotland's Jewish communities contribute enormously to our civic life. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of revisiting Calderwood Lodge primary school in Newlands—the only Jewish faith school in Scotland—after which I met representatives of Scottish Jewish communities. That meeting was informative and I look forward to continuing our close working relationship.

The First Minister's visit yesterday to the Jewish community in Glasgow's south side was hugely appreciated.

Although it was not specifically anti-Semitic, the terrorist attack at Glasgow airport led Strathclyde Police to recommend to Scotland's Jewish community—most of whose members reside in the west of Scotland—that it review security at synagogues and other Jewish community facilities. Given that few places of worship of any faith have been designed in anticipation of such a threat, it is not surprising that that review showed the need to take prudent action that it would be irresponsible to ignore.

Will the First Minister undertake to give sympathetic consideration to providing financial support to the Jewish community as it acts on Strathclyde Police's recommendation to review security, which would allow him to blow his trumpet not just three times on police pay, but in support of police recommendations?

I pledged yesterday to give sympathetic consideration to requests that the Scottish Government receives. Security is important, as is dealing with any religious, sectarian or bigoted attack in Scottish society. The criminal law of Scotland pays particular attention to racially and religiously motivated attacks, of course, and it is right to do so. Therefore, yes, the Scottish Government will indeed give sympathetic consideration to requests as they come forward.

We should compliment the Scottish Inter Faith Council for its work. It is not simply a matter of responding to events and ensuring that our communities are safe from harm. Scotland's faiths have taken a positive approach, which every member endorses as we seek to bring about one Scotland with many cultures.

I add my support to Jackson Carlaw's request.

Does the First Minister agree that it is important that all of Scotland—not just its Jewish community—commemorates national holocaust memorial day and learns the lessons that can be learned from a horrific period in our history? Will he continue to support the efforts of East Renfrewshire Council and the Jewish community to establish a permanent memorial and a learning centre in Scotland to provide a centrepiece for that national and annual remembrance and a source of information to counter and combat the vicious and destructive prejudices of anti-Semitism?

The member makes a fair point for consideration. He may be aware that the Deputy First Minister has accepted an invitation to a special debate to mark holocaust memorial day. As a result of yesterday's meeting, we have agreed to consider how more members of the Scottish Parliament could take part in the United Kingdom national holocaust memorial day initiative. We will certainly sympathetically consider the points that the member has made.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—