³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Plenary, 03 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, June 3, 2004

Official Report 771KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

I welcome the Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland, Alastair Darling, to the distinguished visitors gallery.

---

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-903)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, but if I speak to him within the next few days, I am sure that he will wish to share with me the good wishes that the Parliament will send to the D-day veterans who left Scotland this morning to go to Normandy, not only to meet old friends and comrades, but to remember those who did not come back. We owe those veterans a great debt of gratitude and I am sure that the whole Scottish Parliament will want to send them our best wishes. [Applause.]

I associate the Scottish National Party with the First Minister's remarks and extend our good wishes to the veterans who will be in Normandy this weekend.

Last week, the First Minister said that he did not support hikes in fuel duty and that such increases do not help the environment. In the light of those remarks, will the First Minister join me in condemning the hike in fuel duty that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed for this September as being nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with raising more taxes?

No, I will not. It is important that the Scottish Parliament supports the United Kingdom Government's efforts at this time to put pressure on those who are responsible for the production of oil and, largely, for the international price of oil, in order to secure lower prices. It is misguided to suggest that sole responsibility for that lies somehow with the British Government and that British taxpayers should pay for any attempt to reduce the international oil price as it relates to Scotland or the rest of the UK. It is right for the Government to continue to put pressure on the oil producers to secure a decrease in price that will be more sustainable in the long term, as well as more significant than freezing the fuel duty this summer would be.

I welcome what the First Minister has said and I agree with it, but it was not the answer to the question I asked. I asked whether the First Minister would join me in condemning the chancellor's proposed hike in fuel duty this September.

He said no.

Absolutely not.

On 25 May, the First Minister went to Aberdeen and gave an interview to The Press and Journal in which he said:

"I am not an instinctive supporter of across-the-board hikes in fuel duty. For environmental purposes, I think we would do far better focusing on larger vehicles and congestion in the towns and cities."

If the First Minister can go to Aberdeen and tell The Press and Journal that hikes in fuel duty are not acceptable, what is making him so coy about standing before Parliament and condemning a hike in fuel duty that will damage the Scottish economy? Will the First Minister reiterate his opposition to hikes in fuel duty this September and will he say so before Parliament today?

If there were a hike, I would be opposed to it, but I say to Mr Swinney that 1.92p on a more-than-80p litre is not a hike, but an increase. This September's increase in fuel duty—if that is the decision of the chancellor—will be nothing compared to the possible decrease in the cost of a litre of fuel that will come through international negotiations and pressure on those who produce oil.

It would be far more significant for those who use cars and those who need to use the roads of Scotland for their businesses if all of us in the chamber maximised pressure on the international oil community to reduce the price of oil in a way that would be sustainable and which would be significantly more than that 1.92p per litre. That is the significant challenge that faces us all.

On the general point of policy, I ask Mr Swinney please to be in no doubt that I believe strongly that the best way to reduce over-use of cars in this country, particularly in our towns and cities, is to ensure that those who use the most fuel in areas where cars are not as necessary as they are in our rural areas pay more for that fuel. I hope that when a referendum finally takes place in Edinburgh, Mr Swinney will take the same approach.

We now have the First Minister making a difference between a hike and an increase. Perhaps we should tell him to take a hike, with semantics like that.

The First Minister has said that he is opposed to increases in fuel duty and that he is opposed to the higher price of oil coming from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. I agree with him that we should get a lower oil price through those discussions, but surely the UK Government could do something to help the Scottish economy and the economy of the Highlands and Islands—which we debated this morning—by not imposing a hike in fuel duty this September. Is it not time that the First Minister, having failed to stand up to the Westminster Government on whisky strip stamps, stood up to the Westminster Government on fuel duty? Is it not time that we had a Scottish Government that was prepared at long last to defend the national interests of Scotland?

Let me be very clear. This devolved Government makes regular representations on fuel duty and the impact of fuel prices in Scotland—especially around budget time each year—to the chancellor. We have done so since 1999 and we continue to do so. If the international negotiations are not successful in bringing down the price of oil, the chancellor should look, of course, at the position in relation to the standard increase that is due this September. However, I say to Mr Swinney that it would be far more effective for us—and far more honest of him to say so—to secure a larger decrease in the price of oil internationally that is more sustainable in the longer term. If we achieve that, the saving for Scottish car users and the road haulage industry in Scotland will be significantly more than any political point scoring that Mr Swinney might achieve through attacking the one increase in the fuel duty in September.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-914)

The agenda for next week's Cabinet meeting will be agreed tomorrow.

I hope that the Cabinet will consider tolls and taxes on our motorists. I wonder whether I can explore with the First Minister an answer that he gave to Mr Swinney a few minutes ago. Do I take it from the First Minister's remarks on a referendum in Edinburgh on so-called congestion charging or tolls that the First Minister favours that proposal and the introduction of a £2-a-day charge on motorists coming into our city? How does he reconcile his position with the whole-hearted opposition to the tolls that has been expressed by every Labour council that surrounds Edinburgh? Midlothian Council, West Lothian Council, East Lothian Council and Fife Council have all recognised that our motorists are paying quite enough, thank you, and that they do not need any further encouragement or additions from the First Minister or the Scottish Executive.

Mr McLetchie will know that we cannot, as an Executive, take a position on that issue until nearer the time, when we will be asked to take a formal position on it. Therefore, we are careful about what we say about the specific proposals that will go to a referendum in Edinburgh. What has been important all along, however, is our insistence that the City of Edinburgh Council test public opinion in the city and that that become part of the final decision-making process.

Let us also be very clear about this: we cannot sit in the chamber month after month and year after year—as we have done over the past five years—and talk about reducing car use, which every party in here has done, about protecting the environment, which every party in here has done, about reducing congestion, which every party in here has done, but then not be brave enough to take the measures that might actually reduce congestion and deal with protection of the environment, which we all seek. That will mean that Scotland must at some point face up to the issue of charging on some of our roads. That will be the right thing for us to do. It will be the right thing in the right local circumstances. When somebody locally is brave enough to do it, we should back them and not just score points by opposing them.

The First Minister seems to be swinging all over the place. First, he tells Mr Swinney that basically he backs tolls, then he tells us that the Scottish Executive cannot take a position on the matter because the matter has to come to the Executive for a decision. He then rounds off his remarks by saying that he is in favour of the tolls again. So what is it? The First Minister should appreciate that people in Scotland are sick of the high levels of taxes that we pay—we pay the highest fuel taxes in Europe, thanks to Gordon Brown. The primary responsibility for the price of petrol is not with OPEC or the Sheik of Araby; it is with the Kirkcaldy con man, Gordon Brown. That is the fact of the matter.

The Scottish Executive, with its support for tolls and congestion charging, is compounding the problem for our motorists in the city and making life difficult for our motorists and hauliers in rural communities. Will the First Minister finally take the opportunity to fight the increasing tax burden on Scotland's road users and tell the chancellor that enough is enough? While he is at it, will the First Minister reject the absurd tolls plan that has no friends in Edinburgh or anywhere else in Scotland?

I am happy to deal with both issues as one question and in one answer. No, I will not do as Mr McLetchie asked. I believe that the chancellor should examine fuel duty after the outcome of the international negotiations. If those produce a reduction in the price of oil, that reduction will be more sustainable and will be much more significant for Scottish road users and for the road haulage industry in Scotland than will simply taking away the 1.92p September increase. If the international negotiations are not successful, the chancellor should of course examine that increase.

On tolls, can we just be clear about this? Mr McLetchie is happy to quote a few Labour-run councils on the outskirts of Edinburgh that have commented on the tolls scheme, but he did not mention the fact that the Scottish Borders Council, in which the Tories are the largest political party, has not rejected the scheme for Edinburgh. I presume that that is because the council realises that there is a serious issue that has to be dealt with. We in Scotland have to be aware that, if people in London are prepared to run a scheme that is a success, are brave enough to make the difficult decision to do that and have been able to win public support for it, at some time, somewhere in Scotland, somebody has to do something about city congestion. Whether it is proposed in Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen or on our motorways, I am prepared to consider those options and to put the environment and the long-term interests of Scotland's car users first.

Following the recent inspector's report on Cornton Vale prison, will the First Minister comment on two of the most worrying findings, which were first, that the number of women who are admitted to Cornton Vale with mental health problems, addiction problems and a history of being abused is alarming, and secondly, that there has been no improvement in night-time toilet access in some parts of the prison?

Those findings are alarming. The inspector's report was helpful and constructive in noting both the improvements that have been made and the improvements that have still to be made. Members of all parties have regularly expressed concern about the situation of women prisoners in Scotland. It is right that those who are a danger to society are given custodial sentences, but there is still serious cross-party concern that far too many women in Scotland are given unnecessary custodial sentences, and that there are other ways of improving those women's future, and the future of those who live near them, by giving other forms of treatment and support.

The First Minister will be aware of the decision of the Scottish Premier League's members to refuse the admission of Inverness Caledonian Thistle to that league, although the team has qualified on merit in winning the first division championship. Does he consider it to be appropriate that existing members of the Scottish Premier League should have control over the promotion of teams from the lower divisions, and will he be prepared to make representations to the Scottish Football Association to rectify that absurd and unfair situation?

I have to make it clear at the outset that the rules that govern Scottish football organisations and any other private sporting associations have to be a matter for those private sporting associations, which must take responsibility for their own rules. However, where I come from, and in the football that I have always watched, the team that wins the league goes up and the team that loses the league goes down. Somehow, somewhere, somebody has to start to recognise that.

---

Rape (Legislative Plans)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive plans to introduce legislation to amend the current law on rape. (S2F-911)

This is a serious matter and one that has recently received public attention. Let me make it clear that we want to see effective prosecution of rape and other sexual offences in Scotland. The time is right to consider clarification of Scotland's law on those matters, so I can announce today that the Minister for Justice has spoken with the chair of the Scottish Law Commission, who has agreed to consider the issues that surround the law on sexual offences, including rape, and to report to her in the near future.

I think that I speak on behalf of the whole Parliament in welcoming that announcement from the First Minister.

In the light of recent judgments, we are almost in a position from which it is very difficult to obtain successful convictions in rape cases in Scotland. Will the First Minister include two specific points in the remit of the Scottish Law Commission: first, the need to consider reform of the law with respect to intent to rape; and, secondly, the issue of whether we need a specific offence relating to male rape in Scotland? Finally, can he give us any indication of the timescale for the Scottish Law Commission's review?

The timescale is a matter that I am sure the Minister for Justice will be able to clarify to Parliament following further discussions with the Scottish Law Commission.

On the specific points that Mr Neil made, it is important that the Scottish Law Commission review cover all aspects of definition and proof in relation to sexual offences, and to rape in particular. I believe that the review should include specifically the issue of male-on-male rape, which is a matter of concern to many members in the chamber and many members of the population of Scotland.

Recently, there has been publicity about any clarification of the law that might be required following the Scottish Law Commission's review. If clarification is required, we will look at further legislation. I do not want any woman in Scotland, however, to get a message here and now from the Scottish legal system or the Scottish Parliament that it would be inadvisable to report a rape or a sexual offence. It is very important that we maximise people's confidence not only in our courts—and in the sentences and prosecutions that are available to them—but in how the system deals with those who report such offences. That is one of the reasons why the Solicitor General for Scotland has made such a priority the improvement of how the system supports those who have reported such offences and who need support in order to appear in court to put their case.

I welcome what the First Minister has said. I seek his assurance, however, that recognition will be given to the need to clarify whether the problem arises from legislation or elsewhere. Does the First Minister agree that it is not enough to look at legislation alone?

Will the First Minister ensure that the action that is being taken by the Scottish Executive will make women less, rather than more, vulnerable and that it will encourage women to report rape and not deter them from coming forward? Finally, will the First Minister ensure that, in examining the issue, the Executive will work with organisations like Rape Crisis Scotland, which has an especially important perspective on how survivors of rape are treated in the legal system, and which also understands the nature of male violence against women?

Not only are we now involving directly organisations such as Rape Crisis and Scottish Women's Aid in a working group that the Solicitor General has established to examine handling of all cases in the system, but we are providing new financial support for Rape Crisis for its centres and the support that it gives to women in the community. Those are important measures that acknowledge the important role of the voluntary sector and of those who are committed to assisting women who are in such circumstances.

The outcome of the work of the Scottish Law Commission review might be that further legislation is required or that clarification by other means is needed. Whatever the outcome, it is important that we ensure that women have full confidence in the system, both in respect of how it treats them and how it prosecutes effectively those who are found to be guilty.

Like other members, I join in welcoming the First Minister's announcement. Does he agree that the specific—or potential—offence of male rape to which Alex Neil referred would be more usefully thought of in terms of actions, rather than in terms of the gender of the victim, given that the offence is one of anal and, indeed, oral rape as opposed to male rape?

That is a valid point. I am sure that it will be part of the remit for the considerations that will take place.

---

Pensioner Poverty

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive is addressing pensioner poverty. (S2F-905)

To complement the financial measures that were introduced by the UK Government to reduce poverty among older people, we have improved access to services and acted to tackle fuel poverty in particular.

As a result of devolved Government, older people in Scotland now have the right to free personal and nursing care, free local bus travel and proper central heating in their homes.

I am grateful. However, in the week in which all of us are considering the achievements and sacrifices that were made during the D-day landings, does the First Minister agree that it is utterly intolerable that any people from that generation should be living in poverty now? Will the Executive take a further initiative to encourage all pensioners to claim their full entitlement to the full range of benefits? Specifically, is the Executive considering any changes to the council tax banding system to address the particular problems that face older people? Surely all older people, especially the survivors from the D-day generation, must be entitled to live in dignity, security and comfort. [Applause.]

I believe that there is a case for examining the council tax banding system. That is one of the issues that will be looked at in the independent review of local government finance. I believe that it is important that we provide every assistance to older people to ensure that they claim the benefits to which they are entitled and for which their taxes have paid down through the years. In fact, this morning the Minister for Finance and Public Services, Andy Kerr, launched a dedicated helpline for that purpose for Scotland's older people, which will be managed by Age Concern Scotland and part-funded by the Executive.

Presiding Officer, if I may I will abuse my position briefly. I met D-day veterans this morning in Edinburgh. In a week when all of us are involved in other activities that might lead to a very low turnout in next week's European elections, we need to remember that 60 years ago this weekend people from all over western Europe and elsewhere, including North America, fought and died on the beaches of Normandy in order that we would have the right to vote today in Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. I hope that Scots remember that next Thursday and exercise that right, which was fought for so bravely by those who left our shores at that time. [Applause.]

Does the First Minister agree that means testing is not only uneconomical to implement but acts as a deterrent to saving? Will he use his influence at Westminster to have means testing abolished, because it is detrimental to senior citizens in particular?

There is a place for comprehensive benefits and services that are available to all, either at the same price or at no cost, but there is also sometimes a basis for targeted benefits and targeted measures. It is precisely because there have been targeted measures since 1997 that something like 170,000 older people in Scotland have been lifted out of poverty. Without those targeted measures, the gap between them and even some other pensioners might have increased rather than decreased. There is a place for means testing and targeted action, and there is also a place for comprehensive benefits and services.

The First Minister knows well that pensioners throughout Scotland, including the veterans of the D-day landings, are up in arms about the unfairness of the council tax that they must pay and the huge amounts that are involved. He mentioned Age Concern Scotland in a reply to John Home Robertson. Does the First Minister accept its figures, which suggest that a pensioner in Scotland who is on an average pension of £8,500 a year would benefit to the tune of £600, or £12 a week, if the council tax was abolished and replaced by an income-based scheme? Is not scrapping the unfair council tax a commitment that the First Minister should make towards providing dignity in retirement, which is the full entitlement of every Scot?

Considerable numbers of pensioners in Scotland currently access council tax benefit and therefore do not pay council tax. It is right that they should be able to do that. Taxpayers, homeowners and those who work in Scotland would lose that benefit under the proposals of the Scottish Socialist Party, which would give £300 million back to the Westminster Government because, as the SSP claims, we do not want or need it.

Our job is to ensure that Scotland's pensioners use the benefits system to maximum effect and that they claim the benefits that are available to them. The Minister for Finance and Public Services encouraged them to do that this morning. It is also important that we have a strong economy to support the benefits and services that pensioners receive. I am sure that Mr Fox would regret his proposal for a service tax when it caused jobs and taxpayers to be lost from Scotland, and therefore led to smaller incomes for pensioners.

---

Heroin Use (Edinburgh)

To ask the First Minister how the increase in heroin use in Edinburgh is being addressed. (S2F-909)

We are increasing investment in drug treatment services in order to deal with the demand for drugs, and we are tackling their supply through the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and Lothian and Borders police force. As recently as 1 June they seized approximately 2kg of heroin that would otherwise have reached the streets of Edinburgh.

What progress is being made to extend the availability of drug treatment and testing orders throughout Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh, as a method of reducing drug-related crime?

Drug treatment and testing orders now cover about 70 per cent of Scotland's population. Other parts of the country, in addition to Glasgow, Fife, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Tayside, Renfrew, Inverclyde, Ayrshire and Lanarkshire could benefit from DTTOs.

We have also set a target of mid-2005 for full implementation of drug treatment and testing orders throughout Scotland. To my knowledge, in Edinburgh and the Lothians, the number of DTTOs that were implemented in 2003 was 68; so far in 2004, the figure is 37. That shows that the orders are now being used in appropriate circumstances. However, we need to remember at all times that although the orders have a place in the system to ensure that those who would benefit from treatment get it and are on a programme that insists that they take it up, there are others for whom treatment is a secondary part of their sentence and who should also receive a custodial sentence, which they do.

---

Obesity

To ask the First Minister whether any additional emergency measures are planned to combat the advance of obesity among the general population and, in particular, children. (S2F-918)

Among the measures that are being taken forward to combat the advance of obesity, in particular childhood obesity, are: promotion of walking and cycling, with the appointment of new staff in schools to organise and encourage physical activity; healthy food initiatives in schools, such as breakfast clubs, salad and fruit bars, and healthy tuck shops; the removal of fizzy-drink branding from vending machines; and access to drinking water in and around classrooms.

I thank the First Minister for his reply and congratulate the Executive on the measures that he outlined. However, there is a need for more drastic action to be taken quickly. The University of Edinburgh's school of physical education has a one-year postgraduate course ready and waiting to go, which would allow the recruitment of more gym teachers from primary schools, but it lacks the funds to put it into effect. I suggest that that additional measure might be welcome.

The Minister for Education and Young People's officials are in discussions with the University of Edinburgh and others about releasing more places. We are committed not only to the measures that I outlined, but to improvement of physical education in our schools. We have received the report from a working group that was established some time ago and we will comment publicly on it and on our decisions in the near future. We are determined to see an improvement in physical education in our primary and secondary schools in Scotland, and to make available the teaching staff to back that up.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—