Plenary, 25 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, September 25, 2003

Official Report 693KB 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-215)

I welcome Ms Cunningham to First Minister's question time. I hope that she enjoys the experience, and we all genuinely hope that Mr Swinney is back in his rightful position next Thursday.

Next week, the Cabinet will discuss our progress in implementing the partnership agreement and the legislative programme.

I see that the First Minister is trying to deploy some of his allegedly legendary charm.

This morning, the chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, Sir Roy Cameron, was asked whether he could see custody services being owned and operated in the same way as private prisons. He replied in the affirmative. Will the First Minister take this opportunity to say that the privatisation of police custodial services is not, and will not become, the policy of his Government?

The privatisation of custodial provision in police stations and that sort of environment, which I believe may have been covered by the reference made by the chief inspector of constabulary this morning, is not currently the policy of the partnership parties, nor of the Government.

I am glad that the First Minister is saying that that is "not currently the policy". I also asked him whether he would rule it out for the future. Contracting out police custody services means contracting out what we in the real world call police stations. That was explicitly dealt with during the interview with the chief inspector this morning, so the First Minister must today rule out for any time in the future the privatisation of Scotland's police stations.

This is a diversion from the Scottish nationalist party. We have an absolutely excellent chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland. He has been one of our most respected police officers, with an excellent record in the force and an even better record since he became chief inspector. He has been at the forefront of the initiatives that are now being driven through the system to ensure that police officers who join the force for a career—serving the public, catching criminals and ensuring that they are convicted when that is the right thing to do—spend their working time on those activities, and not doing things that should be done by somebody else. Roy Cameron has been innovative in his thinking at times and, through a number of proposals that he has made, has been at the forefront of that drive. I welcome his involvement.

We have no plans at all to contract out police stations in Scotland, but we support, and will continue to support enthusiastically, ways in which we can divert activities and work responsibilities from police officers to civilian staff and companies—where appropriate—when that is safe and the right thing to do. That is how to ensure that more police officers are on the beat in Scotland.

The difficulty for the First Minister is that the chief inspector of constabulary was asked explicitly about the privatisation of custody services this morning, and replied in the affirmative. If the First Minister's denials are correct, I ask him to explain why the Deputy Minister for Justice is on the record this morning as welcoming the comments made by Sir Roy Cameron. He said that Sir Roy's comments

"are very much in tune with what we are talking about."

Either the First Minister is repudiating the Deputy Minister for Justice—which I would gladly invite the First Minister to do—or he is repudiating HM chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland.

Not at all. It is wrong to misinterpret in that way the totality of the remarks made by the chief inspector this morning. He is an independent assessor of the way in which our police force operates in Scotland. When he makes a suggestion—even one with which we might disagree—he has a right to be heard and we should listen to him seriously. When the Deputy Minister for Justice makes a sensible contribution at the launch of the report this morning and says, in a general way, that the original remarks made by the chief inspector are to be welcomed—before the chief inspector was asked any specific question—he is right to do that too. It is wrong to come to the chamber and misinterpret those comments.

We need to ensure that, where police officers are currently wasting their time on administrative tasks, those tasks should properly be carried out by civilian staff and not by police officers. When police officers are sitting around courts, wasting their time waiting for cases to come up that might not be heard, we must reform the court system so that they can get back on the beat and back to conducting investigations, which is the job that they signed up to do. We should transfer responsibility for transferring people or documentation from one place to another, when police officers are doing that rather than being out on the beat or carrying out investigations. I hope that the nationalist party will support us on all those measures when they are debated in the chamber in due course.

---

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 raise. (S2F-216)

I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland next week in Bournemouth, and I am sure that we will have some interesting discussions.

I hope that the First Minister and the secretary of state get round to discussing the flagging performance of the Scottish economy, as opposed to the flagging performance of the Labour party.

One of the problems that business organisations identified in relation to our economy is that some small businesses are facing increases in their water bills of between 25 per cent and more than 500 per cent, when their consumption of the product consists of little more than boiling the kettle for their morning cuppa or flushing the loo.

The Executive recently announced an underspend of £394 million. It also received a £196 million stock transfer windfall from the Treasury. Out of all those millions, will the First Minister consider introducing a transitional relief scheme to ease the burden of water charges on our hard-pressed small businesses? I am told that such a scheme would cost less than £10 million over a three-year period.

No. My views and those of Mr Finnie and other Executive ministers about the way in which Scottish Water handled the increased water charges over last winter and into the spring have been expressed over recent months in this chamber and elsewhere and are on the record. We have had assurances from Scottish Water that future decisions—not just increases, but decisions—on water charges, particularly for businesses, will be better handled, with more consultation and clearer analysis in advance of the impact of decisions.

At the same time, it is right and proper that we invest in the water supply and ensure that the service can pay for itself. It is also right that we ensure that we meet international standards, which I believe all Scots, including those who own businesses, want us to meet. That is the right thing to do and I believe that we can do it inside the public sector. I know that the Scottish Conservatives' policy is to privatise the water industry. We believe that that would be wrong. It would lead to higher charges and an even worse relationship with businesses. We want to see an efficient and effective public water service in Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Perhaps we might explore some of those issues. First, I am pleased to hear his acknowledgement that Scottish Water mishandled the latest round of increases. We have had transitional relief schemes in the past when there were substantial increases in business rates, so, given the acknowledged mishandling, why cannot we have such a scheme now for small businesses at a relatively modest cost?

There is a broader issue, which the First Minister rightly identified, about the ownership and structure of our water industry. Contrary to what the First Minister said, by comparison with our nationalised industry, private water companies in England and Wales have lower charges for domestic and business customers. In addition, the water that they supply to their customers is of a higher quality.

In the face of that incontrovertible evidence concerning the quality and cost of the service, why will the First Minister not consider taking Scottish Water out of the public sector and turning it—at the very least—into a mutual company that is owned and run in the interests of its customers? According to all the evidence, that would allow it to deliver a more efficient and cost-effective service than it delivers at present.

The deputy leader of Scottish Labour is looking forward to receiving Mr McLetchie's application to become a member of the Co-operative Party on the basis of his conversion to mutuality.

This is an important issue. For the record, I make it clear that I did not say that Scottish Water had mishandled this year's price increases. However, we have had assurances from Scottish Water that it will handle price increases better in future. That is the right approach to take, and it is right for ministers to intervene in that way.

It is also right that we ensure that Scottish Water has a charging scheme that can properly finance the investment levels that the water industry in Scotland urgently requires. It needs those investment levels because of the years of underinvestment under a Conservative Government that was not interested in the quality of Scotland's water and that had a pointless debate about ownership some 10 years ago, instead of genuinely investing in the service and ensuring that it met the national and international standards that we would expect it to meet.

We are determined not only to have a public water service in Scotland, but to have one that meets those standards and that is run efficiently. That will involve some tough decisions. It will involve people having to pay for the service, and the service will have to become leaner and more efficient. However, we believe that that is the right solution, not the privatisation of Scotland's water.

In the context of a question about the economy, can I have the First Minister's assurance that, in his discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will emphasise the importance of a healthy UK defence industry, in particular for the continued viability of the Govan shipyard and for the people and prosperity of that area of Glasgow?

That is an important point, which I have discussed with Alistair Darling since his appointment as secretary of state in the summer. I am sure that we will have more discussions about it in future.

A healthy UK defence industry is vital not only for our national defence, but for jobs in Scotland. That is particularly the case in Gordon Jackson's constituency, which covers the Clyde and the shipyards, where the number of apprenticeships is increasing dramatically 20 years on from what appeared to be a terminal decline in the number of apprenticeships in Scotland. Young people are being given the opportunity to get back into that industry and to learn the skills that will help them in future.

We are also securing jobs in regiments and support industries for defence elsewhere in Scotland, especially in Perthshire. I hope that those who will vote—at a conference somewhere else this week—on whether to shut down the Scottish defence industry will think again, think twice and back it instead.

Following the publication yesterday of the findings of the UK Government's national debate on genetically modified crops, which concluded that the majority of the public never wants GM crops to be grown under any circumstances and that only 2 per cent of people would be happy to eat GM foods, will the Executive use its devolved powers over agriculture to respond favourably to the public debate?

Mark Ruskell makes a serious point. The public consultation was a serious exercise, not only in hearing the views of the public, but in holding a dialogue with the public. I understand from yesterday's report that that dialogue, and the way in which it was conducted, was commended by the independent person responsible as a way in which the Government could develop consultations in the future. We, too, have a good record on consultation, including, for example, the consultation on antisocial behaviour that was conducted over the summer, which was more of a dialogue with the public than a straightforward paper exercise.

On the specific issue of GM crops, we have said consistently that we will take a straightforward, scientific approach. We will analyse the evidence and make announcements about our policy once we have that evidence. We believe that that is the right way in which to handle the matter, and that is what we are going to do.

---

Council Tax

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is on the fairness of the council tax, particularly in relation to pensioners. (S2F-233)

Under the current system, council tax benefit is available to those who have difficulty paying, including pensioners.

The partnership parties agree that the council tax system could be improved. That is why, following consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we will establish an independent review of local government finance.

Our pensioners are being hammered by the unfair Tory council tax. Commenting on a recent report, Help the Aged stated:

"rises in council tax continue to increase the financial misery faced by the least well off pensioners. … Our research shows that council tax is not just a property tax, but a pensioner tax."

A bill for the abolition of that pensioner tax has now been proposed to the Parliament. The Labour party's partner in Government believes not in improving the council tax, but in replacing it. Will the First Minister change his position and stand up for the pensioners, instead of standing up for the wealthy?

I do not believe that the Labour party's policy in the May election, which was to improve and extend council tax bands, is in any way protecting the wealthy or not looking after pensioners. It is no secret that two different views on the issue were expressed in the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos for the election. We have taken the right decision to refer not just those views, but the views of other members, to an independent review of local government finance. That is the right way of handling this matter.

I hope and expect that the independent review of local government finance will place under scrutiny and find wanting the plans of the Scottish Socialist Party for a Scottish service tax, which would penalise a significant number of people in our society who are not at all wealthy and would centralise local taxation in Scotland, instead of giving local authorities more power and responsibility.

I thoroughly welcome the opportunity to debate our and other ideas for replacing the council tax. Seven political parties are represented in the chamber, five of which want to replace the council tax. The old Tories and the new Tories still defend that system. Is it not time that the First Minister supported a system, based on personal income, that starts to fleece the fat cat's wallet, instead of continuing to plunder the pensioner's purse?

In Scotland we already have a system of local government finance that is derived largely from personal income tax. Under the current system, the largest proportion of local government expenditure is financed by national Government grants to local authorities. National Government taxation is based largely on a variety of systems of personal taxation.

I do not accept that local government finance in Scotland is largely property based. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise by an independent review of local government finance but—as I have said before—like socialists throughout the last century in Scotland I believe that there is a role for property-based taxation, because property is related to the ability to pay. I am disappointed that Mr Sheridan does not see that link. I hope that he can be persuaded that it is wrong to penalise doctors, dentists and others whom we want to recruit into the health service, and other professions in Scotland, just so that he can grab the sort of headlines that he tries to get by claiming that he wants to abolish local taxation. He does not—he wants to replace it with a far worse system.

The First Minister was elected on a programme that did not include proportional representation for local government, but he plans to introduce it. When can we expect the First Minister to abolish council tax and to introduce the increase in income tax that his Liberal colleagues recommend?

We will be happy, following discussions with colleagues in local government, to initiate our independent review of local government finance. That is the agreement that we have made, and that is what we will do. I hope that the level of discussion in the independent review will be slightly higher than that which sometimes takes place in the chamber on this subject.

---

Skills Shortage

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to combat the skills shortage in Scotland by welcoming people who wish to come to live and work here. (S2F-227)

To deal with Scotland's population decline we need to retain talent within our borders, to attract ex-Scots back home and to attract talent from all over the UK, Europe and further afield.

We are preparing plans to take forward our fresh talent initiative, which includes improved promotion of Scotland abroad and the establishment of a one-stop relocation advisory service for those who wish to live and work in Scotland.

As part of the next stage of the fresh talent initiative, will the First Minister consider ways in which we could improve the collaboration among Scottish universities in large international markets where people want to come to study in Scotland? In particular, given that a common Scottish brand proved so effective 20 years ago in the field of inward investment, will he consider whether there might be lessons there in how we promote Scottish higher education internationally?

That is a sensible idea. Scottish universities have an excellent reputation world wide. They have a lot to sell at home and abroad and if they do so in a collaborative way, they will maximise their impact and we will maximise the number of people from all over the world who want to come here. I hope that we are able to convince many of those people to spend longer in this country and to live and work here as well as studying here.

The First Minister is encouraging people to come here for higher education, but does he agree that when we get people to come to Scotland we have to give them good reasons to stay? Will he spell out some of the ways in which he thinks that we, in an underpowered, devolved set-up, can keep as many people who want to stay here as possible? For example, we could release the many asylum seekers who take a long time to get their asylum confirmed in this country and get them into our economic system.

Let me be clear about this. As Mr Gibson knows, I do not believe in a separate immigration policy for Scotland. Having a single immigration policy for the whole United Kingdom would make sense to any logical person in Scotland.

I also genuinely believe that we can intervene in that system to the benefit of Scotland's economy and our society in the years to come. We can do so not only by ensuring that more Scots stay here, which is part of what our initiative must try to achieve, but by improving the chance that people from elsewhere in the world will choose to make Scotland their home and to work here. We can do that now.

We have an amazing opportunity. Scotland is back in the international limelight. We have an opportunity because the UK is increasing the number of people who get work permits. We have an opportunity because of the number of people who seek, and get, asylum or refugee status in Scotland. We have an opportunity to say to them that we have one of the best education systems anywhere, we have a world-class higher education system, we have scenery and a countryside that is almost second to none, we have cities that are increasingly cosmopolitan, metropolitan and successful and we have potential in our economy. If we go out and sell that message across the world, rather than talking Scotland down, we will see more people wanting and choosing to live and work here.

---

Identity Cards

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Home Office regarding the introduction of identity cards. (S2F-223)

Our partnership agreement commits us to evaluate local pilot projects in order to assess the desirability of creating a national voluntary citizen's entitlement card—that was quite a mouthful—for appropriate public services, while taking care to protect individual privacy. Independent of that, the Home Secretary has been consulting on options for a UK identity card. He has kept ministers in Scotland up to date with the UK Government's emerging proposals and we intend to continue that dialogue as discussions continue towards a conclusion.

I am sure that the First Minister is well aware of the fears that are expressed by many people, including the UK information commissioner, that entitlement cards might represent the start of a slippery slope towards a compulsory identity card, without which it would be impossible to gain access to health care or other benefits. Will he give an assurance that, should the Executive move towards voluntary entitlement cards, there will always be alternative methods for people to access services? Will he assure us that entitlement cards will not simply be a pilot for a UK identity card scheme?

In all our discussions with the UK Government in the past 12 months, both we and it have been absolutely clear about the fact that it will not make proposals or bring in legislation to introduce a compulsory element in relation to those Scottish public services that we are responsible for and that would come under the jurisdiction of an identity card system. Any decision of that sort would be a decision for this Parliament to make. We are clear about that, and the Westminster Government has been clear about that too.

In the meantime, we must make progress on our plans to have a voluntary entitlement card in Scotland. In this information age, it will afford an opportunity for Scots to have better and easier access to public services. In the longer term, if the UK Government does produce plans, the right place to assess their impact on Scotland and their impact on access to public services in Scotland is here. We should have an open and honest debate about that.

Given the discussions with the Home Office, can the First Minister indicate how the costs of the introduction of identity cards would be met by the Scottish Executive or whether they would be met out of Treasury funds? Can he indicate what the costs of such an introduction might be in Scotland? Bearing in mind the reservations, on civil liberties grounds, that many of us have about the introduction of compulsory identity cards, does he feel that the costs can be justified?

I have a sneaking feeling that the costs associated with an identity card scheme might be one of the reasons why we do not yet have a decision for the long term from the UK Government. I know that the proposals that have been under discussion—which have been widely reported in the press—have included the suggestion that perhaps people will pay for identity cards when they first receive them. I am sure that that is part of the discussion that the UK Government will continue to have. There has been absolutely no suggestion anywhere in those discussions that, for a UK identity card that was for reserved and not devolved issues, there would be any financial contribution whatsoever from the budget of this Parliament and our Executive.

---

Universities (Top-up Fees)

To ask the First Minister what the impact of the introduction of top-up tuition fees in England and Wales will be on Scottish universities. (S2F-211)

Mr Fraser will be aware that no decisions have yet been taken by the UK Government on the possible introduction of top-up fees, or on its other proposals for funding higher education. In Scotland, the partnership has agreed not to introduce top-up fees in this Parliament, and our ambitions are to raise both the quality and the competitiveness of the sector in the short and long term.

We are currently working in collaboration with key stakeholders in the higher education sector to establish whether or not there will be any implications for Scotland from any new funding system implemented in England.

The key stakeholders to whom the First Minister referred are all on the record as saying that top-up fees in England and Wales will have a seriously detrimental effect on the Scottish universities. In light of that, if the First Minister bumps into his friend the Prime Minister in Bournemouth next week, will he have a word with him and ask him not to proceed with top-up fees in England and Wales? If the Prime Minister refuses, will the First Minister, as leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, ask his colleagues representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster to vote down top-up fees for English universities in order to protect the Scottish higher education sector?

I should refer Mr Fraser to comments made by Mr Brian Monteith when he was the Conservative education spokesperson this time last year, when he said that he thought top-up fees in Scotland might be a good idea. There is a debate to be had in England and Wales, and there is a debate to be had in Scotland.

In Scotland, we have made clear our position on fees for the next four years, but we need to ensure that the way in which we finance higher education in Scotland is properly thought through for the long term. We must be able not only to service the successful access to higher education that exists in Scotland—we have a far higher number of graduates than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, and a quality of provision that we can be proud of internationally—but to ensure that it continues into the future. We also need to ensure that we have the best opportunities for research. Currently, excellent research is taking place in both our large and small universities. We want to ensure that whatever funding system we put in place, it will maintain, improve and extend that situation in the years to come.

The First Minister said that he has plans to fund universities adequately. Could he spell that out, because whatever happens about tuition fees, we must retain good staff and good facilities? In recent years the focus has been on student finance, which is quite right, but the focus has to be on university finance. Can the First Minister assure us that there will be adequate finance?

That is a relevant point. The importance of our continuing to have a good level of funding for higher education in Scotland cannot be underestimated.

We also need to be careful that we do not end up in a debate that simply compares figures for Scotland with figures for England and Wales that have different bases. For example, figures for higher education spending in England that include spending in the further education sector are quoted regularly. In Scotland, we refer to higher education spending on its own.

We need to ensure not only that higher education spending in Scotland remains at its current high level, but that it is well used, properly targeted and invested for the long term in the sort of capital equipment and facilities that will allow our best researchers to make the most of their talents. I hope that we will be able to do that.

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming our distinguished guests from the Saxony Parliament, whom I know he will meet later on.

Does he agree that the proposal on tuition fees might have implications, not just for universities, but throughout Scotland's further education sector and that any discussions that we have should encompass those areas, which are vitally important for social inclusion and our economic prosperity?

I am sure that we will take on board all the relevant factors in the discussions that are taking place, including the implications for elsewhere in the education system.

In all those discussions, we must acknowledge that the systems north and south of the border are very different. In England and Wales, the level of access to higher education is significantly lower than it is in Scotland and funding is lower. New funding needs to be injected into the system in England and Wales and access needs to be improved; innovative ways of doing that are being considered.

In Scotland, the challenge is different. That is why we will take time to make the right decisions. There will be no knee-jerk reaction. We will implement those decisions with the consent of the Parliament and—I hope—the sector.

We started late, so we will have one last supplementary question.

When will the First Minister's review of higher education report? Will it rule out top-up fees in Scotland in the long term and will it restore the spend on higher education as a percentage of total education spend, which is now required?

I can be certain of the fact that the review will report before we get independence for Scotland. I am referring to an interesting debate that is taking place elsewhere.

We will ensure that the review reports when it is ready to report and when it has carried out the right analysis on the decisions that will make sense to the Parliament. We will also ensure that it reflects the issues that I have tried to address in my answers today—the key challenges for the Scottish higher education sector, nationally and internationally. We do not have tuition fees in Scotland at the moment, so we are not even debating the prospect of having top-up tuition fees. We have a system that is well funded and that already has high levels of access and quality. We want to maintain and improve that quality in the years to come.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—