Plenary, 08 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, February 8, 2007

Official Report 653KB 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-2701)

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

What are the Executive's plans to reform the council tax?

The Executive commissioned a report, which is currently being studied, on the future of local government finance and taxation. One of the outcomes of the report was to expose a £1 billion black hole at the heart of Ms Sturgeon's policy of capping local government finance. The report was a very useful contribution to the debate in Scotland.

I remind the First Minister that, five years ago in his manifesto, he said that he would reform the council tax to make it "fairer". In November last year, in the chamber, he said that he would

"reform the council tax to make it a far fairer system."—[Official Report, 9 November 2006; c 29086.]

The question that people want to know the answer to is, "How?"

At a press conference yesterday about SNP policies, Labour said that, with less than 90 days before the election, people have a right to see the detail. If that is the case, will the First Minister spell out in detail what specific changes he proposes to make to the unfair council tax to make it fairer?

As Ms Sturgeon knows, the two parties in the coalition have different policies on this issue. We agreed that the right way ahead was to commission a proper study of the future of local government finance, to study that study, and to come to appropriate conclusions. That is an entirely proper, open and transparent way in which to conduct ourselves on the issue of local government finance. It is unlike the approach taken by the Scottish National Party, which not only promises a £1,000 million cut in local government finance but is unable to answer basic questions about that. Scotland's four city council leaders wrote to Mr Salmond on 21 December with detailed questions and—as has happened with questions that were asked of Ms Hyslop about education and public-private partnership funding, and as has happened with questions on a range of other SNP policies over recent months—there has been no answer to the questions after more than six weeks. While we conduct ourselves in an open and transparent manner, finding a way forward where there are legitimate differences between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—a way forward in which we engage in a proper dialogue with Scotland—the SNP runs and hides from the figures every time, making promises that it cannot possibly keep. The SNP will say anything to try to win votes in Scotland but, increasingly, it is being exposed for that approach.

I yet again explain to the First Minister the concept of First Minister's questions: they are his opportunity to answer questions about his policies and about his record. I am delighted that the First Minister seems so keen to talk about SNP policies—it makes me wonder why he runs a mile every time he is asked to have a head-to-head debate with Alex Salmond.

The reason why, five years after promising to reform the council tax, the First Minister still has not delivered on that is that he knows that he cannot make the council tax fairer. It has gone up by 60 per cent, it is inherently unfair and it is not based on the ability to pay. Is the First Minister aware that, according to Help the Aged, council tax eats up 13 per cent of the average pensioner's income? That is the reality that the First Minister is trying to ignore.

If the First Minister cannot or will not say how he will make council tax fairer, is it not time that he let someone else get on with scrapping the unfair council tax and putting in its place a fair system that is based on the ability to pay?

The truth is that the SNP would put in place a system that would cut £1 billion from local taxation and local services in Scotland. The truth is that there is a way to ensure that my party's policy of reforming the council tax can be further pursued in the Parliament and that is by voting for it. However, at the moment, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have an agreement to take forward this debate. That is the right and proper thing to do when the coalition parties do not agree. However, we agree about the fact that the SNP cannot afford its plans and promises and that it is trying to cover up a £1 billion hole in its finances.

On the point about debates, let us be clear that Alex Salmond had a chance to stay in this Parliament and debate with all of us. He was the one who ran off to London the first time he had a chance. He is the one who does not even have the guts to resign his Westminster seat before he stands in the election in May. He is the one who changes his policies every week on monetary policy, on whether to have a separate interest rate for Scotland or to stick with the United Kingdom's interest rate and on a series of other issues in the past few months, which means that people do not know what they are debating with. Let us have some consistency and truth from the SNP and from Alex Salmond. Then we will have a proper debate.

Is it not the truth that, after that bluster and waffle, the First Minister still does not have the guts to debate with Alex Salmond and is running scared? However, on council tax, the First Minister can run but he cannot hide.

Let me remind the First Minister of this hard fact: people are paying £400 a year more under Labour because of the 60 per cent hike in council tax. I can understand why the First Minister wants to divert attention from that, but his bluster will not hide that hard reality. Is that not why people in Scotland now want to see the back of the First Minister, the back of Labour and the back of the unfair council tax and want a new SNP Government that will put fairness back into local taxation?

The truth is that all three SNP councils in Scotland had higher than average council tax increases last year. The truth is that, every time this issue arises, the SNP makes a promise without stating where the money is going to come from to pay for it. Further, the truth is that council tax increases have got lower and lower and will be lower again this year. However, there still needs to be further reform. That is consistency—something that the SNP would never know anything about.

In 2000, who said,

"I will continue as the MSP for Banff and Buchan as long as people wish me to do so",

before announcing his resignation just weeks later? Who also said that Westminster MPs are

"an endangered species with increasingly obsolete roles"?

Alex Salmond did, just before he ran off to London to become a Westminster MP.

Truth and consistency are what this Parliament should stand for. Alex Salmond might want to gamble with the voters of Gordon and Banff and Buchan, but I will not be gambling with Scotland's future.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2702)

I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister again soon.

This morning, the Lib-Lab pact made it abundantly clear that it believes that the Forth and Tay bridges should continue to be tolled. There is more than a whiff of political dogma in those decisions. Scotland's taxpayers have already paid for their roads, and it is utterly unfair to expect residents and commuters to pay to cross the Forth and Tay bridges when others can drive over toll-free bridges in the west and north of the country. Can the First Minister tell me why what is good enough for the west and north of Scotland is not good enough for the east?

I will treat the matter seriously, as it is a serious issue for the economy of the whole of the north and east of Scotland. A case is being made by some members and some organisations for a proper review of the tolls on both the Tay and the Forth bridges. That case needs to be heard and studied by Government. To that end, we have commissioned a survey of the economic impact in Fife, in particular, of the tolls and of their potential abolition. A number of options might be open to us, such as maintaining the existing toll schemes or having suspended or differential toll schemes. All sorts of possibilities might be open to Government in the future.

However, we know one thing to be true above all else: the current road crossing over the Forth is in danger of coming to the end of its life. It would be entirely irresponsible of any Government to make a decision on the future of the toll regime on the Forth bridge in advance of making a decision on a replacement crossing. That would be irresponsible, and we will not do it.

I listened with interest to that answer. The debate is not just about tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges; there is another agenda altogether, about tolling drivers generally. We know that the Labour Government at Westminster favours a tolling system all over the United Kingdom that will charge motorists to drive on roads that they have already paid for. Can the First Minister confirm that, before any such road toll scheme could operate in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament would have to agree to it?

I imagine that any road user charging scheme that replaced existing charges on motorists in the future would cover the whole of the UK and would need to be piloted in different parts of the UK first. There are currently no plans to pilot such a scheme in Scotland. However, if we all believe in preserving our environment and ensuring a fairer system for road users in different parts of the country—especially in rural areas in comparison to congested urban areas—it is appropriate to consider such schemes, which could give us the opportunity to have fairer systems of road taxation. That is a legitimate debate that the people of Britain should have with all political parties over the next decade or so. There are no plans whatever to introduce separate systems in Scotland.

I am not sure that I feel reassured by that answer. The facts are stark. We know what the Lib-Lab pact wants to do about tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges, and we know that the Lib-Lab pact previously backed an absurd road tolling scheme for Edinburgh. Two successive secretaries of state for transport and Scotland at Westminster—both of whom represent Scottish constituencies—have expressed their desire for a national road tolling scheme. I cannot be the only one who smells a rat. Can the First Minister give us an unequivocal answer: is he in favour of tolling Scotland's roads—yes or no?

I point out that it was the Tory Government that introduced the tolls on the motorways down south that have since been implemented as part of the current contracts. It is a bit much for the Tories to start blaming other people for tolls that they introduced. It is, frankly, a bit rich for the party that introduced the Skye bridge tolls to start lecturing others about tolls.

I believe that the people of Fife—who have far too much common sense, honesty and decency to be taken in by the Tories—will reject this opportunist populism from the Tories and ensure that we hold to our word and consider properly a replacement crossing over the Forth. We will do that in a way that is considered and rational, although as speedy as possible. At that stage, we will consider how that crossing will be financed and think about the future of the toll regime. That is proper, responsible government, not the ridiculous, hypocritical populism of the Tories, which will be seen through.

---

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-2713)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly and will do so again soon.

Does the First Minister believe that the interests of Scotland's people and environment are best served by Scottish Water remaining under public ownership and public finance?

It is important that Scottish Water stays in public hands, because of the good job that it has done in recent years of reducing charging and to ensure that the investment that is required to improve our water supply and make it cleaner is continued. Although we always insist on further improvements, the current management of Scottish Water is doing a good job in ensuring that charge increases remain low over the next few years and that, at the same time, a massive investment programme takes place.

I thank the First Minister for that reply, but it sheds little light on the Scottish Executive's position on the future ownership and, in particular—the First Minister did not answer this part of my question—the financing of Scottish Water. To help to clarify the Executive's position, does the First Minister agree with Ross Finnie, his Minister for Environment and Rural Development, that we should

"free Scottish water from the constraints of the public sector"?

Different parties are going to put across different ideas between now and the election and the Liberal Democrats are perfectly free to do that, just as the Labour Party and other parties are free to do it. We will debate those issues in the election campaign.

However, what is important in relation to Scottish Water is that the investment programme is improving our water supplies, cleaning up our water supplies, which in the past were a disgrace, and ensuring that water charges in Scotland are not only increasing far less significantly than they did in the past but coming below the levels elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those significant improvements have been maintained while Ross Finnie has been the Minister for Environment and Rural Development in this Executive and this coalition, which has delivered for Scotland.

---

Avian Flu

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the United Kingdom Government about the recent outbreak of avian flu in Suffolk. (S2F-2708)

Although the incident itself had no direct implications for Scotland, the Scottish Executive has been involved in numerous discussions and meetings with UK Government officials as the situation has developed over the past week.

I appreciate that the Suffolk outbreak poses a negligible risk to the human population and that it has been effectively contained, but it is a timely reminder of the need for on-going vigilance and preparations for a possible outbreak of pandemic flu. Are there any plans to update contingency planning in Scotland, such as increasing the stockpile of anti-virals and considering urgently the case for building up a stockpile of pre-pandemic vaccine as a crucial first line of defence in the event of an outbreak? Is the First Minister satisfied that there are sufficient face-masks available for use by the national health service should such an outbreak occur?

Contingency plans are reviewed and updated continually as a result of developments, not just in relation to specific incidents but, crucially, in relation to the advice that we receive from the experts whom we commission to provide it.

In making preparations, we take medical advice on what would be most effective. Avian flu is unlikely—certainly in developed countries—to be transmitted to humans, although we should always be aware of that possibility in certain remote circumstances. However, given the length of time that has elapsed since the previous pandemic flu in the world, there is the potential for there to be a flu pandemic at some point in the early years of the 21st century. That is what we are concentrating our preparations and contingency plans on.

We cannot know what particular strain of flu could cause such a pandemic until the pandemic starts. That makes vaccination incredibly difficult. There can be vaccination perhaps to deal with the early stages and to help to minimise the impact, but it is not possible to develop the vaccine until we know the strain that is involved, and the vaccine will then of course have to be rolled out quickly across the whole country. That is what our preparations are concentrated on. I understand that there is sometimes legitimate public confusion on this issue, so I wanted to make that point clearly today.

I welcome what the First Minister has said about the public health issues that are associated with this matter. He will also appreciate that significant elements of the poultry industry in Scotland, not least in the Coupar Angus and east Perthshire areas of my constituency, face a difficult economic climate as a result of some of the public information that is available. Does the Scottish Executive plan to issue further information to the public on the quality of poultry and the consumption of poultry, which should not be affected by the issues that have been raised so far?

Mr Swinney might be surprised to learn that I have some knowledge of the poultry industry. My grandfather was a poultry farmer and delivered eggs in the town of Beith in Ayrshire, so I know a lot about the industry and I understand the concerns that exist in the industry at the moment.

It is important that we maintain close liaison with the industry, that it is involved in our preparations and that we have clear communication with it on any steps that it requires to take. I have to say, in praise of the industry, that its co-operation has been exemplary. I am sure that if that co-operation continues, we will be able to respond in kind with clearer and clearer communication and preparations.

---

Mobile Phones (Schools)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any plans to issue guidance or legislate to make schools mobile phone-free zones. (S2F-2715)

Guidance was contained in the handbook "Safe and Well: Good Practice in Schools and Education Authorities for Keeping Children Safe and Well", which was published in June 2005. However, the Minister for Education and Young People wrote to all directors of education yesterday, making it clear that all schools should have a policy on mobile phone use and that it should be clearly communicated to pupils, parents and staff. He also announced that he is convening a meeting of the discipline stakeholder group to look further at the issue. He plans to invite representatives of the telecommunications industry to the meeting so that they can converse with head teachers and others with a view to considering what precautions and preparations can be put in place.

I speak as one former secondary school teacher to another. Does the First Minister agree that what is of growing concern is not just the shocking incidence of violence that is filmed on mobile phones but the fact that such material is widely circulated among pupils? Does he welcome Glasgow City Council's initiative to ensure that phones are put away during lessons and that they are not used to film staff or other pupils without permission?

I certainly welcome Glasgow City Council's initiative, which is not just timely but right and proper. On behalf of the Executive—and, I am sure, the Parliament—I make it clear that every school in Scotland should have a policy on the issue. Such policies should make it clear to pupils that mobile phones should not be used in classrooms or for the purpose of circulating such filmed material. Mobile phones should be confiscated when there is any potential for that to be happening. Every school in Scotland should apply that policy consistently and should have parents' support in doing so.

Some pupils carry mobile phones to school for safety reasons, but they do not need to have them switched on in the classroom or in school. We will support all schools in Scotland in taking the necessary action.

Given the shambles that has been created in our justice system by the European convention on human rights and the cost to taxpayers in this country of the implementation of the convention, will the First Minister guard carefully to ensure that any controls on mobile phones in schools do not contravene or compromise the requirements of the European convention on human rights?

I am impressed by Mr Gallie's ability to bring the issue of Europe into almost any subject that is discussed in the chamber and I am touched by his concern for the ECHR in relation to the matter. My understanding is that there is no legal impediment to prevent head teachers from determining a policy for their school, to prevent local authorities from ensuring that every school has a policy, or to prevent head teachers from penalising pupils who break the rules inside the school grounds.

I hope that every school will hear the call from the chamber and make sure that pupils, teachers and visitors to schools are not affected by the abuse of mobile phones, some examples of which were reported in recent days.

---

Level Crossings (Safety)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will conduct an urgent review of safety at level crossings without barriers. (S2F-2706)

Responsibility for rail safety regulation lies with the United Kingdom Government, not with the Scottish Parliament. The UK Department for Transport recently commissioned a review of level crossing safety, including level crossings without barriers, the findings of which are being considered by the Office of Rail Regulation. I am sure that we would all want to express our condolences to the families of those who have died in recent accidents. I assure them that, although the responsibility for such matters lies elsewhere, our agency, Transport Scotland, continues to work closely with the UK Department for Transport in developing safety policy and legislation that are relevant to Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his kind remarks, which will be appreciated by the families concerned. We must do all that we can to ensure that there is no repeat of that truly tragic accident.

I have received a number of representations from constituents that echo my view that the Delny level crossing does not inspire confidence among its users. That issue must be addressed. After all, road users should not only be as safe as possible but be aware that they are safe. One issue that constituents have consistently raised with me is the lack of barriers not just at the Delny crossing, but elsewhere. Will the First Minister undertake to work as closely as possible with Westminster colleagues to ensure that the issue is examined as soon as possible?

I certainly give that undertaking. Level crossings, particularly half-barrier and open level crossings, raise real issues and must be kept under constant review. As I have said, although the responsibility for such matters lies elsewhere, we take an active interest in the matter because of our responsibility for road and rail in Scotland. We will continue to participate in the discussions on this matter and hope that, if progress can be justified, it will be made.

Having witnessed the aftermath of last Friday's accident at Delny, I wonder whether the First Minister is prepared to lobby the UK minister with responsibility for this matter with the suggestion that a system of red, yellow and green lights similar to the traffic lights on our roads would give people who use crossings a far better idea of what they were approaching. After all, part of the problem with the 700 ungated crossings in Scotland is that, because of infrequent traffic, people are not used to the current system. Will the First Minister add his weight to the argument that the review should consider such a proposal?

Jamie Stone and Rob Gibson have made legitimate and worthwhile suggestions and we are certainly happy to ensure that Transport Scotland officials include them in the discussions on the review. In fact, those suggestions might already be covered in the report that the Office of Rail Regulation is currently studying. I have not seen that report, so we will check whether they are. If not, we will ensure that they are injected into the discussions as quickly as possible.

I wonder whether local authorities can also be included in the consultations, because rumble strips or sleeping policemen on the approach to barrier-less level crossings can help to slow down traffic, particularly people who are in a hurry. I know, for example, that people approaching the three level crossings in Dingwall try to dodge around them if they think that it is safe to do so, and such measures might make them think again.

All the suggestions that have been made are useful, and I am trying to think how best to take them forward. Given the interest that has been shown on this matter after the recent incident, I suggest that the Minister for Transport convenes a meeting with Highland members to discuss any proposals that have been made by local communities, particularly those in rural areas that might be more affected. We can then collect the various ideas and pass them on into the current discussions.

I share all the concerns that have been expressed and agree with all the suggestions that have been made. However, will advice from Transport Scotland also cover half-barrier level crossings?

As I said in my first reply, the Office of Rail Regulation is considering a UK Department for Transport-commissioned review of level crossing safety, which includes half-barrier crossings. Moreover, through the office of the Minister for Transport and Transport Scotland officials, we will discuss with Highland members and others the best way of including and taking forward their suggestions in the current discussions.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—