Plenary, 30 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, October 30, 2003

Official Report 707KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

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-288)

I talk regularly with the Prime Minister and expect to speak with him again shortly. Among the issues that I will raise with him will be the success of the conference of Commonwealth education ministers that was held in Scotland this week and, in particular, the success of the Commonwealth's first ever youth education summit. I believe that 40 or 50 of the delegates from that youth summit from all over the world are with us in the public gallery today. I welcome them to Scotland and I hope that they will come back. [Applause.]

I associate my party with the First Minister's remarks about the Commonwealth education conference and the involvement of young people.

The opening days of the Fraser inquiry, which was established by the First Minister and the Presiding Officer, have heard from the late First Minister's closest ministerial colleagues and advisers: Sam Galbraith, Brian Wilson, Henry McLeish, Wendy Alexander and Murray Elder. They all gave their interpretation of the views and actions of the late First Minister in relation to the choice of the Holyrood site. Does the First Minister agree that it is absurd for the BBC and its film producers to know at first hand the views expressed on the issue by Donald Dewar, but for the Fraser inquiry and the people of Scotland to rely on the second-hand opinion of former ministers and advisers?

The investigation that is being conducted by Lord Fraser is independent of both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish ministers. It is entirely a matter for Lord Fraser to identify and seek evidence that might be helpful to his inquiry.

The independence of that inquiry is important for two reasons. First, it is right and proper that Lord Fraser is able to get to the truth with the powers that he has and to help us learn the lessons about what has taken place. Secondly, that independence ensures that we in Government and in the Scottish Parliament can get on with our job of ensuring that we tackle antisocial behaviour, that we deal with improvements in education and health and that we grow our Scottish economy. That is what we should be doing; the inquiry should do its job too.

The problem with that answer is that it ignores the reality of the difficulties that the inquiry now faces. The First Minister told the Parliament earlier this year what he would do if there were a difficulty in attracting information. He said:

"If that requires me at any time to intervene to talk to anybody, I will do so."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; c 731.]

The First Minister also told the Parliament that Lord Fraser would have

"the right to request any documents, and any documents that he requests, he will have."—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; c 952.]

Lord Fraser has requested documents and information from the BBC, but he does not have them. Does the First Minister now accept that he should not have given those assurances to Parliament without giving Lord Fraser the powers to get the information that he requires?

I have been looking forward to this since Sunday, when the Scottish nationalist party started putting out the misinformation that the inquiry that was established under Lord Fraser does not have adequate powers, and comparing that inquiry directly with the inquiry that is currently chaired by Lord Hutton in London. I make it absolutely clear to the chamber and to anybody anywhere who wants to misrepresent the inquiry—with malicious intent or because of ignorance—that the Fraser inquiry has exactly the same powers as the Hutton inquiry that is now meeting in London. The Hutton inquiry has had full access to all the evidence that it required; there is no reason for Lord Fraser not to get that access as well. Misrepresenting the inquiry and its powers in this way is simply unacceptable and will bring the inquiry into disrepute. That should not be happening.

One would think that I was the only person calling for the inquiry to have more powers. In the House of Commons on Tuesday, George Foulkes, a former minister of state in the Scotland Office, and a political colleague of the First Minister, asked the Advocate General for Scotland whether she would argue that the inquiry should have more powers in order to guarantee that the BBC material could be handed over. Yes, the inquiry has the same powers as the Hutton inquiry, but it does not have the information that Lord Fraser requires. That is the critical difference. Does the First Minister not accept that, if the BBC can get away with this, the companies on the gravy train of this project will think that they can get away with it too? Will the First Minister now put right his original mistake and give the Fraser inquiry the powers that it requires to complete the job that we all want it to undertake?

When someone receives an answer that they were not expecting, and that perhaps clarifies the situation, they should change their previously scripted response on the powers of the inquiry. This inquiry has exactly the same powers as the Hutton inquiry, as the Denning inquiry into the Profumo affair many years ago, and as the inquiry into the Paddington rail crash. All those inquiries had exactly the same powers as this inquiry. This inquiry has the powers that it needs. Contrary to the constant attempts by the nationalist party to undermine the inquiry from the very beginning by saying that it would not get all the evidence from Government that it required, 1,500 pages of evidence from this Government have been handed over to the inquiry. In the past 24 hours, the inquiry has also received tape recordings that were available to our Government of conversations that involved Donald Dewar and Enric Miralles. We have made those tapes available to the inquiry. We have made sure that we have offered full co-operation to the inquiry. We have made sure that the inquiry is able to do its job. Others should do the same. Those who misrepresent the inquiry should stop doing so and should build confidence in it. Let us learn lessons from this debacle and ensure that it never happens again.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-292)

The next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet will discuss our progress with implementing the partnership agreement and the legislative programme. In particular, we will discuss how to build confidence in Scottish education, confidence in the Scottish economy and confidence in the Scottish identity—and how strong leadership helps to build such confidence.

If the First Minister is seeking a model for that, he need only look here.

Is that a bid?

No. At 33:1, the odds are too short.

Will the Cabinet look more closely into some of the issues arising from the Fraser inquiry that Mr Swinney has already explored with the First Minister today? The First Minister refers to previous inquiries and the powers that they had relative to the powers of the Fraser inquiry. The salutary difference between the other inquiries and the Fraser inquiry is that the other inquiries did not have to deal with a BBC Scotland that was refusing to co-operate and support the inquiries in their work. That is the key difference.

In the context of the First Minister saying that he would talk to anybody at any time to help to facilitate the progress of the inquiry, could the First Minister tell me what representations, if any, he has made to John McCormick, the controller of BBC Scotland, or to Lord Fraser for that matter? If any discussions have taken place, what progress has been made?

I think that I have made my view clear. When we establish an independent inquiry—to operate independently of Government—it would be wrong for Government to intervene in the inquiry. That is the right position for us to take. The powers that are available to the inquiry allow Lord Fraser to carry out his duties well. I notice that Lord Fraser's assistant, John Campbell QC, has said this clearly on the record:

"I wish to counsel those who legitimately hold strong views to be patient in waiting for the inquiry's findings, to avoid unnecessary speculation as to what this type of inquiry process can, or cannot achieve, and to consider the whole picture rather than just a detached part of the jigsaw."

I have confidence in Lord Fraser and in John Campbell QC. I believe that they have shown this week that they are carrying out their duties well and are doing so independently of Government and this Parliament. That is the job that they have been set and we should support them in their work.

The Conservatives value the independence of the inquiry and I, too, have confidence in Lord Fraser and in Mr Campbell. I refer the First Minister to what Mr Campbell said in his opening statement to the inquiry on Tuesday, where he called the interview tapes "primary evidence" and said:

"I believe that it is important that the Inquiry has access to the material"

held by BBC Scotland

"so that further decisions about its relevance can be made."

BBC Scotland is not handing over the tapes.

Yesterday, Presiding Officer, I raised a point of order and asked you, with whom the First Minister jointly commissioned the inquiry in the first place, whether you could offer to assist in breaking the impasse and finding a solution. You indicated your willingness to do so. Given that the First Minister's co-convener of the inquiry is willing to assist in coming to a solution and brokering a way out of this unfortunate situation, why does the First Minister persistently refuse to do so? He is letting the inquiry down and damaging its credibility in the eyes of the Scottish people.

I fundamentally disagree with that point. There are those who, this week, have jumped on a political bandwagon—that can lead only to the inquiry's being undermined. It is vital that we give the inquiry the space and the remit that it requires, that we ensure that the inquiry is able to work without political interference and that the inquiry, in producing its conclusions, is listened to by the Parliament and by Governments now and in the future to ensure that this never happens again. That was the purpose of establishing the inquiry. I believe that the inquiry is best placed to do that work itself and it has my full support in trying to achieve that.

I have heard the First Minister's answers but we have still not got to the bottom of the matter. In what way would helping Lord Fraser and Mr Campbell by changing the powers of the inquiry to insist that the BBC hand over the material undermine the independence of the inquiry? Surely that would show the leadership that the First Minister referred to earlier.

I repeat the point that I made earlier. It is absolutely wrong for the nationalist party—and for the Tories occasionally this week as well—to claim that the powers of the inquiry are inadequate. The inquiry has exactly the same powers as the Hutton inquiry in London, it has exactly the same powers as the inquiry into the Paddington rail crash, and it even has exactly the same powers as the inquiry into the Profumo affair many years ago. They are the right powers. Lord Fraser has the powers to ensure that he can complete his inquiry properly. Those who seek to undermine the inquiry in its first week should stop doing so and encourage everyone to co-operate and ensure that the inquiry is a success.

According to the press this week, Greg Dyke, the director general of the BBC, has lent his support to the actions of BBC Scotland controller John McCormick in refusing to hand over the tapes of "The Gathering Place". The First Minister has previously expressed his disquiet at United Kingdom figures interfering in Scottish politics. Despite broadcasting being a reserved matter, does the First Minister believe that the intervention of Mr Dyke was appropriate on a matter so closely related to the Scottish Parliament? Will he be writing to Greg Dyke to express his displeasure?

I am glad that Mr Brocklebank has the dignity at least to smile at the end of his question and to recognise the hypocrisy of the so-called unionist party of Scotland for somehow regretting that there is any UK context to broadcasting. I saw Mr Brocklebank on the BBC the other evening, and he is one of the people who has misrepresented the inquiry this week. It is wrong for him and Mr Ewing and other members to misrepresent the inquiry. It has all the powers that it requires to do its job and people should co-operate with it. The inquiry will be a success if it is not undermined by parties in the chamber from the word go.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

No the noo.

I would not normally take points of order during question time unless they were absolutely urgent. Is it absolutely urgent?

I believe that it is.

On you go then.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister has been asked two questions in succession, but on neither occasion has he made any attempt to answer them. Have you any powers to deal with that?

That is a political point, as you well know.

Does the First Minister recall that, in offering my total support for his choice of this form of inquiry under Lord Fraser in preference to a full-blown and very expensive judicial inquiry, I reminded him that, should some people prove shameless when named by Lord Fraser, this Parliament has the ability under section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998 to convene a special committee of the Parliament to ensure that tapes are made available to Lord Fraser? The justification for that is that the First Minister and the Scottish Executive will pay for the inquiry. As they have the duty of disbursing public funds as efficiently as possible, if it can be shown that Lord Fraser will expedite his inquiry more efficiently by having access to the tapes, I suggest that that is justification enough under the Scotland Act 1998 to make it plain to the BBC that the Parliament does have the power to compel the production of that evidence.

I believe that there is absolutely no reason why Lord Fraser cannot get to the bottom of the matter with the powers that he has and with the co-operation of everyone involved. I do not remember agreeing with Margo MacDonald the last time that she made that point about section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998, but I hear what she has said again today. I repeat that the inquiry has had the full co-operation of our devolved Government and of the UK Government, contrary to the suggestions that were made at the beginning that it would not have such co-operation. In the past 24 hours, the inquiry has had tapes from the devolved Government that involve both the architect and the former First Minister, and I hope that they will be of assistance to the inquiry.

The Fraser inquiry has exactly the same powers as the Hutton inquiry, which has been used all week as a comparative example. I believe that, no matter what their political position or how much capital they want to draw from the issue, people should support the inquiry, not undermine it and not try to run it down in its first week. They should give Lord Fraser a chance to get on with his job. I have every confidence in his succeeding.

The First Minister will be aware of the recent publication of the report into the death of Caleb Ness in Edinburgh. Can he assure me—and, more particularly, the people of Scotland—that the overview of child protection services and the warning call already issued to local authorities will be acted upon and that the lessons of Caleb Ness's death and the child care tragedies of the past will be learned?

We all share Scott Barrie's concern not only about the case of Caleb Ness but also, unfortunately, about many other cases that have led over the years to equally disastrous and tragic results. We said a year ago that the services responsible for child protection in Scotland had three years to get their act together and to work together to ensure a seamless service that puts the interests of the child first and professional barriers and departmental interests second, and the sharing of information first and the professional prejudices that have led in the past to a lack of sharing of information second. I reiterate today that we meant what we said and we meant that we would see that process through and implement it. It will not be a matter of abandoning or abolishing social work in Scotland, as was wrongly reported two weeks ago. It will be a matter of ensuring that, at the local level, social work and education services, the police service and other agencies that are involved are all managed properly by putting the individual child at the centre of the service.

---

Local Government Finance Review

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will establish its independent review of local government finance; who will be involved in the review body; how long the review will take, and whether the replacement of the council tax with a personal income-based alternative is now a realistic option. (S2F-301)

We are discussing the timing, remit and format of the review with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I expect that the remit will include local taxation and we will consider carefully any recommendations that may come from the review.

First, given the unfairness of the council tax and that pensioners suffer most from that Tory tax, will the First Minister agree to invite Help the Aged or another pensioners' organisation to sit on the review body? Secondly, does he accept that, in the Parliament, only his party and the Tory party defend the council tax and that he is increasingly out of touch with Scotland's citizens in continuing to defend such an unfair tax?

Mr Sheridan's party is the only parliamentary party that defends his solution—a highly expensive and penalising Scottish service tax, which has been dismissed by the Parliament more than once in the past and is still dismissed by it.

We will ensure that the review is comprehensive, takes a variety of views on board and deals with the facts of the matter. I hope that it will propose good solutions and recommendations that we can take on board.

Perhaps the First Minister should consider the comments of Edward Davey, who is a Liberal Democrat local government spokesperson. Last week, he said:

"Labour inherited this unfair tax from the Conservatives, so what is stopping ministers addressing the council tax problem directly? Council tax is now so unfair to millions of pensioners and people on low incomes, that it must be scrapped."

The First Minister's partners in Government seem to be clear about what they want.

System 3 asked the people of Scotland whether they support the replacement of the council tax by a system based on the ability to pay. Some 71 per cent said that they would support that. Indeed, apart from Tory supporters, a majority of all parties' supporters in Scotland supported replacement of the council tax. Does the First Minister accept that he is isolated not only from Scotland's citizens, but from his party's supporters in respect of scrapping the council tax?

People throughout Scotland would shout "Yes!" if they were asked whether they would like a tax to be abolished and would leap in the air and start to celebrate. Of course they would say such things about any tax. [Interruption.] We will not take lessons about taxes in Scotland from the Scottish Conservatives. A certain poll tax will always stay in our memory.

Mr Sheridan claims to want to abolish the council tax, but he wants to replace it with a far more penalising and destructive system of taxation. That is wrong and is a deception. I am sure that different perspectives on the matter will come out in the course of the review and that when those perspectives are debated, they will lead to a proper set of recommendations and—I hope—solutions that will help us to move forward with a degree of consensus. There should not be such deceptions in the future.

I welcome the forthcoming review of local government finance. However, does the First Minister agree that there has already been substantial reform of local government finance through three-year budgeting, the prudential borrowing regime and the commitment of additional resources in the existing spending review, which has helped local government to stabilise local taxation levels? What priority would the First Minister expect local government finance to receive in a future spending review?

The Parliament and the devolved Government have been consistent in their support for local government services, in expanding resources that are available to local government and in expecting that services are delivered under regimes that operate best value for money. Sometimes in Scotland we get carried away with how unfair life is, but the reality is that, since devolution, increases in council tax in Scotland have run at around a quarter of the level of increases in England and around a third of the level in Wales. Furthermore, increases in business rates are running at a lower level than in England and Wales. In Scotland, we are running a low-tax policy that funds massive investment in public services. That can only be good for Scottish taxpayers and for those who use the services.

I am delighted that Tommy Sheridan relies so much on the wise words of my Liberal Democrat colleagues south of the border—if only he would also adopt Liberal Democrat policies.

Does the First Minister agree that it is unfair that constituents of mine in places such as Elie and Crail are paying twice as much in council tax as those in neighbouring houses that are second homes? Will he tell us when the Scottish Executive will make an announcement on the results of its consultation on the abolition of council tax discounts for second homes?

My understanding is that we are finalising the details of that announcement and plan to confirm our position soon.

Given that, on 30 January this year, the Scottish Parliament agreed to consider and investigate the contribution that land value taxation could make to the cultural, economic, environmental and democratic renaissance of Scotland, will the First Minister confirm that the independent review will consider all alternatives to the council tax?

As I said earlier, we are discussing the remit of the review with Scotland's local authorities at the moment. I anticipate that the remit of the review will be wide enough to allow us to consider systems of local taxation and to have a proper debate on those systems in the course of the next few years.

---

Fireworks

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive will take to deal with misuse of fireworks. (S2F-297)

The irresponsible use of fireworks can seriously affect the quality of people's lives. We are committed to stamping out the injuries and upset that can be caused by their irresponsible use.

In June, the Parliament and the Scottish ministers supported the Fireworks Bill, which has now become law, and we plan to consult widely with the police and local authorities on its implementation.

In March, the Minister for Finance and Public Services wrote to each local authority drawing their attention to the good practice identified in the report produced by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and has written to them again this month to remind them that they should implement that good practice.

A joint working group on fireworks has been established by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and others to enable proactive policing and problem-solving initiatives. Further, this morning the Lord Advocate reminded shopkeepers and others selling fireworks to children that they will be caught and prosecuted and will face fines or imprisonment.

Joint working with Westminster has produced legislation that, by next year, should solve many of the problems caused by the misuse of fireworks. However, will the First Minister join me in roundly condemning those shopkeepers who, this year, are selling fireworks to children under 18? Further, will he join me in congratulating the shopkeepers in Oban who, Oban police tell me, have voluntarily agreed not to sell fireworks to anyone under 21 so that it is less likely that irresponsible older teenagers will supply children with fireworks?

The initiative in Oban, which I discussed with the Oban police when I visited the town for the Royal National Mod earlier this month, is excellent and I strongly recommend that it be adopted elsewhere in Scotland. It will certainly help to reduce the irresponsible use of fireworks in that town. I want to reiterate that the fines, which can be as much as £5,000, and the imprisonment, which can be for as long as six months, are a serious threat to those who irresponsibly sell fireworks to children. I further repeat that, across Scotland, our police forces are targeting those who are selling illegal fireworks from their homes or out of the boots of their cars. I assure them that, over the next fortnight, the police will do all that they can to catch them. We are determined to work with our colleagues in Westminster to stop this menace in Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware of the British Fireworks Association's statement that, in 2003, more than 2,000 tonnes of fireworks will have found their way to illegal premises for the purposes of being sold illegally? That figure constitutes approximately 10 per cent of the total UK fireworks market. Does he believe that the legislation and the powers that the police have at the moment are adequate to deal with that situation? If not, what further measures does he think need to be taken?

I spoke with ACPOS and the Lord Advocate this morning. They are working together with trading standards officers and other agencies not only to minimise the sale of illegal fireworks and the sale of fireworks to children, but to tackle those responsible. They have my full support in doing so.

The Department of Trade and Industry is about to publish regulations following on from the Fireworks Act 2003, which has received royal assent. In trying to implement those regulations, in co-operation with our colleagues in London, I will welcome the support of the Scottish nationalist party if it is now available. It is unfortunate that it was not available in the chamber earlier this year when we debated the Sewel motion that allowed the legislation to be effective in Scotland.

---

Concorde

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had on the provision of a Concorde for the National Museums of Scotland. (S2F-306)

The Scottish ministers have fully supported the bid by the National Museums of Scotland to secure one of the retiring Concorde fleet and we have undertaken to provide up to £2 million from the existing culture budget for the development plans for the Museum of Flight.

Does the First Minister agree that the bringing of a Concorde to the Museum of Flight would be a tremendous triumph for Scotland and a tribute to the Scottish contribution to Concorde and to aviation in general? As a statement from British Airways is imminent—I understand that it will be early this afternoon—will the First Minister highlight the supreme importance of obtaining a favourable decision on the matter?

I am delighted to say that I expect that British Airways will confirm later today that one of the Concorde fleet will be allocated to the NMS for the Museum of Flight at East Fortune. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and John Home Robertson in securing that positive announcement. I hope that the Parliament will join me in praising them and in welcoming the fact that we have secured a Concorde for our country and our people.

That is good news for East Lothian and for Scotland. I thank the First Minister and the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport for their support for the bid. I also thank members of all parties, including Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, for their support.

Is the First Minister aware that the Concorde's last journey on the minor road to Athelstaneford will be rather slower than mach 2, which will highlight the fact that, at present, East Fortune is not the easiest place in Scotland to get to? Can we look to the Executive for support for better public transport so that people from every part of Scotland can enjoy the magnificent new visitor attraction at the museum?

While I admire the creative and imaginative way in which John Home Robertson engineered that question, today we are paying tribute to one of the greatest feats of British engineering of the past century. I hope that, in years to come, people in Scotland will have the chance to enjoy learning about and from it.

Fergus Ewing has a point of order.

I fear that Concorde is temporarily departing. Thank you, Presiding Officer for the opportunity to make this point of order. Of necessity, I gave you brief but immediate notice of it. In response to questions from Mr Swinney, the First Minister stated that the Fraser inquiry has exactly the same powers as the inquiry into the Profumo affair and the Hutton inquiry had. Is it not a matter of fact that that can be true only in the sense that neither of those inquiries had any power whatever?

What is the point of order, Mr Ewing?

The First Minister went on to state that Lord Fraser's inquiry has all

"the powers that it needs."

The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 gives inquiries the power to require the production of tapes, but Lord Fraser has no such powers. Therefore, it appears that the First Minister has, perhaps inadvertently, misled Parliament.

Finally, Presiding Officer—

Briefly.

Is it not the case that Lord Fraser has about as much power to require production of the tapes as King Canute had to hold back the tide?

At such short notice, it is impossible for me to make such a judgment. The BBC may yet reach an agreement with the Fraser inquiry—we do not know. The First Minister's answers were based, properly, on his interpretation of the inquiry's effectiveness. Therefore, Mr Ewing, I do not judge your point to be a point of order.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—