³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Plenary, 09 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, March 9, 2000

Official Report 640KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Executive Cabinet (Meeting)

To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the most recent meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-183)

We discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.

Does the First Minister accept as a matter of fact that the increase in water charges that was announced yesterday will, in most areas of Scotland, take up the entire paltry 73p pension increase for old-age pensioners, and that in some areas of Scotland it will be twice the pension increase? Whom does the First Minister blame for that deplorable situation? Does he blame the Labour placepeople on the water boards or does he accept responsibility on behalf of an Executive that has cut funding to water year by year?

As Alex Salmond knows, council tax bands are geared, which provides a rough correlation with income. That is important. It is true that, this year, the uprating of the pension was modest—for the best of all possible reasons: inflation was low. As many old people have savings, low and stable inflation at between 2 and 2.5 per cent is an important safeguard for them.

It is vital that we get the very substantial investment that is needed—something like £1.6 billion, if I remember rightly, over the next three or four years—into our water system. If we do not, the high opinion that we have always had of Scottish water and its supply will be sadly misplaced. We must get the investment in, and it is right that the water boards should face up to their responsibility to do that and to the impact of European directives in this area.

I am not sure that old-age pensioners around Scotland will be satisfied with the knowledge that they are getting a 73p correlation from the First Minister.

I know that the First Minister does not excel at controlling budgets, but this is his budget. It shows the Executive's support for the water boards as declining from £221 million this year to £194 million. If so much investment is required, why is central support declining?

Today is budget day around Scotland for local councils, and Labour councils are cutting jobs and services, including in education. Will the First Minister tell us who is responsible—is it Labour councillors, or does he accept responsibility on behalf of the Labour Executive?

Of course I accept responsibility for the budget and for the allocation of the budget. As Alex Salmond will know, the North of Scotland Water Authority has had a very considerable extension of its external financing limits; we are trying to help in that area of real difficulty.

On local government, I ask Alex Salmond to look at the facts. We have expanded local government services quite considerably in a large number of areas. People will say that statistics cannot be trusted, but for politicians statistics are important tools. Government supported expenditure is up by 3.7 per cent next year in comparison with this year and guideline expenditure is up by 3.4 per cent. In key areas, such as education, there was a rise of 6.2 per cent in comparison with last year. Next year, expenditure will again rise by 3.87 per cent.

During question time, Sam Galbraith gave figures for education; 1,500 classroom assistants are already in place. If one considers the building programme, the 800 extra teachers and the early intervention scheme, it is possible to see how we are spending and how we are improving local government services. That does not mean that there are no tough decisions for councils to take, nor does it hide the fact that they must take decisions about their own allocations within the budget, but for the second year running, the budget is well above the rate of inflation. We hope to repeat that next year.

The First Minister is out of touch with what is happening around Scotland. If salary rises and the new obligations on local government are included, the local government settlement has been cut by £225 million.

To bear out the First Minister's arguments, he should look at a council at random—such as South Ayrshire, which is facing a cut of £5 million. Who is responsible for that—South Ayrshire's Labour council or the Labour Executive?

The Deputy First Minister has just called for Gordon Brown's war chest to be opened to help fund local services in Scotland. Will the First Minister support his deputy, or will he continue to wash his hands while councils cut services around Scotland?

I am afraid that this is becoming a rather repetitive exchange.

On occasion, Alex Salmond has been known to claim that he is a first-class economist. I therefore presume that he likes to examine the figures and the statistics. I repeat that Government supported expenditure is rising by 3.7 per cent.

What about the war chest?

I remind Alex Salmond that inflation is between 2 and 2.5 per cent and that there is an increase of 3.4 per cent in guideline expenditure.

I have mentioned the education figures. Taking South Ayrshire Council, to which Alex Salmond referred, as an example, the grant-aided expenditure for 1999-2000 was £58 million. This year, the GAE is more than £60 million. As I said, that does not mean that there are no tough decisions to be taken, but they will be taken against the background of a general increase in local government finance.

What about the war chest?

Alex Salmond probably knows this—although he does not mention it. The GAE for 2000-01 will be the highest level ever in real terms in the history of Scottish local government.

I do not know the secrets of the budget, but I think that we will hear some reasonably good but responsible news that will allow us to continue with that steady and sensible growth in local public services.

---

Labour MPs (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to meet back-bench Labour MPs to discuss the performance of the Scottish Executive to date. (S1F-178)

I do so every day.

I am glad to hear that and I hope that the First Minister will have another opportunity to do so at his party's conference this weekend. However, given his track record, I recommend that he avoid dust-ups in the bar. A long list of Labour members are queueing up to have a go: Brian Donohoe, Ian Davidson, George Galloway and Michael Connarty all use terms such as "frivolous" to describe the Executive's agenda.

Can we have a question?

They accuse the First Minister of having "lost the plot".

Has it ever occurred to the First Minister that those MPs might be right and that his Executive must really be on the rocks when even George Galloway has a greater grip on reality than the First Minister?

Seldom has the word "even" had more comic overtones.

Mr McLetchie really is a trier, but his attempt to establish my reputation as a bar-room brawler—[Laughter.] All I can say is that he sure is going to have to work at that.

In all seriousness, I will give to the views of the gentlemen Mr McLetchie mentioned the due weight their views deserve.

The First Minister is magnanimous to his colleagues. Considering the backstabbing of his colleagues at Westminster, he must be thankful for the loyalty of his back benchers in this Parliament. [Members: "Hear, hear."]

Of course, that does not apply to the Liberal Democrat partners in the First Minister's coalition. Last week, half the Lib Dem back benchers rebelled on the financial settlement for Scotland's councils that he has just discussed with Mr Salmond. Although there is supposed to be some partnership in Scotland's Government, there does not seem to be any collective responsibility or discipline. Labour back benchers are whipped into line, but Liberal Democrat members can pick and mix as they choose. How long does the First Minister intend to put up with that? When will he and Jim Wallace get a grip on it?

The prospects become more fearsome by the minute.

I will worry about the partnership—Mr McLetchie need not. The partnership will last for a long time, and although that will be a great disappointment to him, he will have to put up with it.

I can understand that two Westminster MPs must seem a very large number to the Scottish Conservatives, but is not it the case that there are 56 Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster and that approximately 54 of them can tell the difference between the significant achievements of the Executive and the transient froth of many newspaper headlines? Will the First Minister take this opportunity to reassure Labour's traditional support and everybody else that the social justice agenda is at the heart of the Executive's programme and that further significant progress will be made in the next few months and years?

I was a little worried about where that "transient froth" was coming from, but it turned out to be the newspapers, so that is all right.

I thank Malcolm Chisholm for his question. I was in Westminster the other day, and I had some friendly and positive discussions with colleagues there.

The social justice agenda is, of course, at the centre of the Executive's programme. That is a theme that I will try to develop in a speech I will make on Saturday, which I hope Malcolm Chisholm will hear.

---

Drugs

To ask the First Minister whether joint working across geographic boundaries is necessary in order to combat the problem of drugs. (S1F-187)

I agree with Karen Whitefield on that point. As the Prime Minister said in his address to members of the Scottish Parliament, drugs do not recognise boundaries. There is a great deal of work going on to try to ensure that we co-operate internationally and within the United Kingdom with all the authorities that are involved. Joint action and sharing of ideas and techniques will benefit everybody and is something to which the Executive intends to give a great deal of attention.

I thank the First Minister for his response. I agree with him that those who peddle drugs in our communities do not recognise geographical boundaries.

Does the First Minister agree that the most effective way in which to tackle many of the most serious social problems—including drug misuse, which blights many parts of my constituency—is to play a full and active part in the United Kingdom, and to co-ordinate the approach of all the relevant agencies? Does he further agree that an integrated approach would be threatened by the divorce of Scotland from the United Kingdom—the objective that was recently re-invigorated by the Scottish National party?

I believe strongly in co-operation. As has been widely noted, there will be a meeting this afternoon between the Prime Minister, Keith Hellawell—who is in charge of drugs strategy at Westminster—and Jim Orr, who has just been appointed as head of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. Sensible discussions are already under way. Minimum penalties throughout Europe and co-ordination of European courts and authorities are important. I agree with Karen Whitefield's fundamental point: it is important that we work well with agencies such as HM Customs and Excise, which operate throughout the UK. They must also work well with other areas within the United Kingdom in which there is interest in such matters.

I welcome the Prime Minister's visit to Phoenix House—the residential drug treatment centre in Glasgow—this afternoon, but is the First Minister aware that its current waiting list is nine months? That is far too long. Services there could be developed relatively cheaply and easily if the centre did not continually have to face bureaucratic difficulties and insecurity about funding. Will the First Minister personally undertake examination of the problems that the centre faces?

I will get a report on the matter that Keith Raffan raises. The Executive is looking carefully at how to improve and strengthen rehabilitation and treatment in the campaign to limit drug damage in our communities.

The Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency, as its name suggests, is on the enforcement side, but the Administration is conscious that that is only one part of the broad range of measures that we must strengthen and introduce. Phoenix House is an interesting and successful place, although I have to say in passing that treatment is an area that raises great controversies and differences of opinion, so it can sometimes be difficult to get a unified approach. Perhaps there is a case for trying many different methods to make progress; I agree with Mr Raffan's point.

---

Depopulation

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any plans to tackle potential depopulation in parts of Scotland identified in the recent population projections released by the registrar general. (S1F-174)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that are made about depopulation. It is worth reminding David Mundell that the population movement projections since 1991 in Scottish Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lothian, South Ayrshire, East Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire—all important rural areas—show an increase in population. However, that does not mean that there is room for complacency. Through extra funding for local enterprise companies and other initiatives, we are trying to ensure that food, tourism and forest products industries move to those areas. As he will know, there have recently been some important developments in forest products.

Mr Mundell may also be interested to know that Scottish Borders is one of the areas of Scotland in which the registrar general predicts a welcome increase in population during the next 20 years or so.

In conclusion—because I cannot resist offering my genuine thanks—I must thank Mr Mundell for his intervention during last week's question time, in which he suggested that I should take upon myself the role of Che Guevara. That is a creditable effort of imagination on his part.

Not only do I want the First Minister to take on the role of Che Guevara to lead an e-revolution, I want him to take on that role in leading the revolution of the economy in South of Scotland. Despite the figures that he has quoted, he may not be aware that Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders have the lowest percentage of people between the ages of 15 and 29 of any part of the United Kingdom. Does he agree that that is a cause for concern and is inextricably linked to the economic prospects of South of Scotland?

Is the First Minister aware that, only today, Seacat has announced that it is pulling out of Stranraer—with the loss of 19 direct jobs—citing lack of transport links as the reason? Will he undertake to put on the Scottish Executive's agenda those things that will genuinely improve the economic prospects of the south-west—improving the A75 and improving the timber extraction routes from the area?

I understand the importance of the A75; Sarah Boyack has it very much in mind. We have to make priorities. The amount of money that is available for major road improvements is limited, but we always try to keep in mind strategic requirements and priorities. I mentioned that there have been substantial forest product developments in the south of the country—in the Dumfries and Galloway area and in the Stewartry—and I am glad of that.

Another important development, which is rather less relevant but which keys in with what Mr Mundell said, is the big investment in the harbour at Ayr, which was announced the other day. It will allow timber from the west coast to be brought into Ayr by water and to be taken on from there. We are trying to make the most of the indigenous industries of the area, but we are also working hard to ensure that new industries are brought in.

I know that David Mundell is a genuine champion of new information technology and its possibilities. It is encouraging to see new jobs being created, because of fibre-optics and broadband technology, in areas in which it would once have been inconceivable. I hope that such jobs will be created in his part of the world in the not-too-distant future.

Is the First Minister aware that one of the main reasons for depopulation rearing its ugly head again is the increase in net emigration from Scotland? Last year, the net civilian migration was –5.4 per cent. Many of those who leave the country are young people, whom we need for the future of Scotland—the people whom Miss Jean Brodie would call la crème de la crème. Will the First Minister take measures to encourage young people to stay in Scotland?

As someone who has not left Scotland—a feature that I share with Alex Neil—I am not sure that I want to assume that the crème de la crème are those who are not with us, but no doubt that is a matter of opinion.

I want not so much to hold people as to offer them the attractive jobs that will tempt them to stay. We are all united on that. I like to think that the present healthy state of the Scottish economy—with the lowest unemployment claimant count for 24 years and pressure on the jobs market in some parts of Scotland—will create opportunities for people to return. I would like that. An economy that is in good nick, as it is at present, is the best way in which to encourage such a trend.

I do not want, in anything that I have said, to underestimate or talk down the problem of population loss. In reply to David Mundell, I was simply trying to make the point that if one looks at the figures for, for example, Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway over the past eight or nine years, there has been a population build-up. It is a modest one, but it is an increase. That does not mean that we should not take seriously the population profile. Nor does it mean that we should stop the efforts to make things better.

Does the First Minister agree that the figures released by the registrar general are for a worst-case scenario, because they do not take into account issues such as the opportunities that are presented by the manufacturing strategy, which we discussed this morning? In Dumfries and Galloway's case, no account was taken of such issues as the development of the Crichton university site and the possibilities that arise from the world-class new technology that is being installed there. Indeed, many of us here hope that the Scottish university for industry will be based at that site. The registrar general's figures give us a baseline above which we have to perform. Instead of being pessimistic about the opportunities for areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, we should be moving ahead optimistically and making the most of all the new opportunities that exist in those areas.

Elaine Murray has made an important point, which I should have stressed. Most of my colleagues will recognise the point. The figures from the registrar general that I have been quoting are projections on the present population line, assuming that no further action is taken. I hope that we will be able to do better. I am delighted that she mentioned the Crichton site; I know it well.

The co-operation between Bell College of Technology, the University of Glasgow and the University of Paisley has opened some extraordinarily exciting gateways. It was great to be on the campus and talking to students who have been attracted there from other parts of Scotland and, indeed, other parts of the United Kingdom. It is bound to be a growth point. If it does as well as the sponsoring organisations believe it can, it will, I hope, have a considerable impact on the population projections.