Plenary, 01 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, December 1, 2005

Official Report 736KB 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-1956)

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

The First Minister has said that there will be no approval for new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the issue of waste disposal has been resolved. For clarity, is the unresolved issue of waste his only objection to new nuclear power stations, or does he—like me and, I think, like his coalition partners—think that there are other reasons to reject nuclear power?

A whole range of issues must be taken into account in the United Kingdom Government's energy review and in any consideration that we may give in Scotland, both during that energy review and afterwards, to the long-term decisions that are required. It is a fundamental point that waste issues need to be resolved in advance of any consideration of further development of nuclear power stations in Scotland, but I am sure that there are a number of other issues that we will also want to consider, not least of which is the financial implications.

I am glad that the First Minister accepts that waste disposal, although very important, is only one factor in the debate about nuclear power. Does he realise that the Prime Minister's energy review—starting right now—will look at the other factors, including cost, safety and whether nuclear power is needed at all to meet our energy needs? Does not the Scottish Executive have a duty to take a view and to make a submission on those other issues as well? What are the First Minister's views on the cost effectiveness of, the safety of and, indeed, the necessity for new nuclear power stations?

There is a need for a reasoned and balanced debate on those issues. We cannot ignore the fact—it would be foolish to ignore it in the debate—that nearly 40 per cent of our electricity generation currently comes from nuclear power. We should, however, never ignore the fact that those nuclear power stations in Scotland produce waste for which there is, at the moment, no firm solution or resolution. It is therefore important not only that we examine the issue of waste but that we take part in the wider debate. I know that that is not necessarily accepted by the Scottish National Party as a legitimate or adequate role for us, but Parliament and the Executive have significant powers over the development of any further nuclear or other electricity-generating stations in Scotland. We have significant powers over the planning conditions that might be imposed on any such developments, and we should use those powers reasonably, following a decent period of debate about all the issues.

I did not ask the First Minister what the issues were; I asked him for his view on the issues. I know that he wants to sit on the fence on all those issues, but cannot he see that Tony Blair has this week kicked the fence down? Cost, safety and necessity are up for discussion right now—they cannot be ducked until some later stage.

Let me make my position clear to the First Minister. I think that nuclear power is costly, dangerous and—with the right investment in other clean technologies—completely unnecessary. Charles Kennedy has said that he cannot envisage the circumstances in which the Liberal Democrats would vote for new nuclear power stations. What is missing is the First Minister's view on all those issues, so I shall ask him again: what is his view on those central issues of cost, safety and necessity?

I think that there are issues that need to be looked at in terms of the historic costs of nuclear power in Scotland and elsewhere. I think that there are serious issues in relation to the disposal of waste from nuclear power, but I also think that there are serious issues about the long-term security of the energy supply in Scotland and the cost to customers. It may be adequate for the nationalists to have a simplistic solution for all of that, but when one is in Government one has to have a reasonable response that looks at all those issues.

We know that the SNP has difficulty in making even the simplest of hard decisions and that there are about 18 different policies on its back benches and front benches about wind farms, depending on the location of the individual wind farm or the lack or otherwise of a strategy. That is not good enough when one is in Government. One has to have a proper, thought-through policy that takes into account all the options and the reality of today's situation, and that is exactly what we will do.

The First Minister misrepresented the SNP last week. Before his relationship with the facts becomes any more strained, I will make the SNP position clear. The following statement sums up our position. We

"support the development of alternative sources of energy",

but

"they need to be situated in the correct place."

That was a quotation from Tony Blair when he objected to a wind farm in his constituency last year. If the First Minister has a problem with that sensible position, why does he not take the matter up with his boss? It is one of the biggest issues that the country faces. Should not the First Minister engage with the debate instead of hiding behind a form of words? Will the First Minister break the habit of a lifetime and show some leadership?

Look at the SNP. Let us talk about quotations—I have some great ones here. The SNP's 2003 manifesto said that it wanted Scotland to become

"the green powerhouse of Europe".

Rob Gibson has suggested that there should be a wind tax—a tax on renewable power. Roseanna Cunningham says that there should be

"a more time-limited suspension of applications"—[Official Report, 6 November 2003; c 3104.]

for onshore wind farms. Fergus Ewing says that wind farms are "visually obtrusive" and, therefore, not

"a truly green form of renewable energy".

Richard Lochhead—who has had a few policies on this over the years—says that Scotland should aspire to be

"the world leader in renewable energy",

whereas Angus MacNeil, in the Western Isles, has said:

"The wind will always be there and there is no need for a headlong rush into this without enough forethought."

Never were so many policies held by so few.

When the Executive partnership discusses energy policy, we discuss it seriously. We will take a reasoned opinion for the long-term benefit of Scotland—for Scottish consumers and for the security of the Scottish energy supply. We will do so in relation to nuclear power only after the issue of waste disposal is resolved; however, we will take part in the national debate. We accept the responsibilities of Government, not the irresponsibility of Opposition.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1957)

I met the Prime Minister on Monday evening and we discussed a range of issues that were interesting and, of course, important to the people of Scotland.

I ask the First Minister how many drug rehabilitation places there are in Scotland.

I do not have that number with me. However, the announcements that were made by the justice ministers this summer will secure a significant increase in the number of drug rehabilitation places in Scotland. In particular, there will be an increase in the number of places that encourage abstinence to enable people to withdraw from reliance on drugs and on forms of drug substitution in a way that helps them to rebuild their lives in the community. That is a specific commitment that the Executive gave when we launched the review of our drugs policy. It is a commitment that has been delivered with additional resources and clarity of direction in policy that has not always existed. We will ensure, through allocation of resources, that we deliver better services for drug users and—which is more important for Scotland—get more drug users off drugs completely and back into the community.

That response was McConnellspeak for, "I haven't a clue." That is not surprising; I have not got a clue either and, as previous parliamentary answers have disclosed, no one knows how many rehabilitation places there are in Scotland because the information is not held centrally. To help the First Minister, I will move to an area in which we have some facts.

According to a parliamentary answer that was given to me on 15 November, 411,399 methadone scripts were issued in Scotland during the year to March 2005. We know, from previous parliamentary answers, that the figure is increasing rapidly. The projection is that in 2012—only seven years away—we will be issuing more than a million such scripts a year. How can the First Minister possibly be content with that situation? Is he aware that, if we continue down that road, we will have to provide not only care for the elderly, but old people's homes for methadone addicts, such as exist in Holland? Does the First Minister agree with Professor Neil McKeganey, of the University of Glasgow, that that is something

"that we should seek to avoid at all costs in Scotland"?

A variety of views have been expressed about Annabel Goldie's recent expressions of policy on drugs, methadone and drug rehabilitation. Most of the views that I have read have been extremely critical and although I do not have them with me today, I would be very happy to ensure that they are passed on to Miss Goldie so that she can have a good look at them.

When we consider the issue, it is important that we take a serious and responsible attitude. I do not want people in Scotland to be on drugs or on methadone, and I certainly do not want to see their numbers increasing. I also want to make sure that we take advice from experts. If it is the case that in some instances, as part of a rehabilitation programme—and I stress that—a move from drugs to methadone is a step on the right road for a drug addict, we should not ask them not to take that step.

We need more rehabilitation places. We have allocated the resources for those and they will be delivered. We need more places where drug addicts in Scotland can get off drugs completely and be supported not just in rehabilitation but when they are back in the community. We also need to provide several routes for people to make their way back into the community. To achieve that, methadone will sometimes be part of the solution. However, we should not rely on it for the long term.

We should not assume that the number of people in Scotland who use methadone will increase. I agree with what I think are the principles behind what Annabel Goldie has been saying about the issue, but I do not agree that we should adopt a simplistic approach to it.

If the First Minister had given that answer during the first six months of devolution, it might not have been acceptable, but it would have been understandable. Six years down the line, that answer is utterly intolerable. The fact is that we need a sea change in our attitude to drug abuse so that instead of managing drug addiction, we help addicts to become drug-free. Surely that must start with a new attitude towards the resources that are deployed for drugs rehabilitation places.

Will the First Minister give a very simple commitment? Will he find out what facilities exist in Scotland and, as has been done in England, set up a central directory so that addicts and their families can find out where the facilities are?

As I said earlier, I do not have the information with me but I would be happy to provide for Miss Goldie the detailed information that we have, as well as the recent announcements that were made to Parliament about the extension of resources that will allow for more rehabilitation places in more parts of Scotland in the years to come.

That is only part of the answer. Yes: we need more rehabilitation places and more of those places need to encourage an abstinence-based approach. More of those places also need to ensure that people are supported when they go back into the community. Some of those programmes will involve methadone and we should not deny that it is part of the solution.

We are doing a number of other things. The drugs courts, drug treatment and testing orders, and the new arrest referral and mandatory testing regime that we are bringing in will all ensure that we identify drug addicts earlier and that we are able to insist that they receive treatment and work towards rehabilitation. To suggest in any way that the issue is not being taken seriously is very misleading, and I hope that if I am able to provide Miss Goldie with all the information about all the activities and actions that are currently being pursued, she will be more reassured that our policies will be more effective in the future.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1969)

I met the Secretary of State earlier this week and discussed a range of issues.

This week, the nations of the world are meeting in Montréal to discuss climate change. The message is loud and clear: Government leaders need to stop making climate-wrecking decisions and to move away from unsustainable development that is centred on burning more and more fossil fuels. How can the First Minister and his Liberal Democrat Minister for Transport and Telecommunications possibly justify this morning's decision on the Aberdeen western peripheral route? How can that decision be consistent with sustainable development?

I genuinely think that, in order to deliver sustainable development in Scotland, we must reduce congestion in our cities. One of the primary reasons for developing the new bypass in Aberdeen is to ensure that there is less congestion in the city centre. I hope that that will have a positive impact on the climate not just of Aberdeen but elsewhere.

All the evidence to date shows that road building generates more traffic and pollution. Indeed, the M74 inquiry proved that. It sounds as if the First Minister has made up his mind on the Aberdeen peripheral route. Given the way he swept aside the independent inquiry report on the M74, what confidence can anyone have that he will not do the same again after the proposals for the western peripheral route go through a costly publicly funded inquiry?

The minister with responsibility for transport and his predecessor were both involved in wide consultations on the route, and Tavish Scott has now come to a reasoned judgment on the route for the road. We made a firm commitment on the bypass in our capital programme for transport improvements in Scotland over the next few years. I believe that the route is important for the north-east's economy and that it will reduce congestion in Aberdeen, thereby improving the environment and the quality of life of people who live and work in the city.

I disagree with the Green party on this matter. Sometimes its opposition to all road improvements and road building in Scotland runs counter to the environmental objectives that it claims to have. I make it clear that we will build roads in Scotland only where they are justified, where they will improve the economy and where they will be part of the sustainable development programme. I should also point out that this is all part of a wider integrated transport policy in which more money is being invested in rail and other forms of public transport than has been the case for a very long time.

---

Army Recruitment

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will make representations to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the retention of hackles, in the interests of Army recruitment in Scotland. (S2F-1958)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and other members know that, last year, we made a number of representations to the Ministry of Defence on that. The ministry took those representations into account in its final decisions, which were also announced last year.

On Tuesday, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton announced that he will retire from Parliament in 2007. If you will allow me to do so, Presiding Officer, I wish to take this opportunity to say publicly that he has been an outstanding member of this Scottish Parliament. I am delighted that he chose to serve here and wish him all the very best in serving in the House of Lords. [Applause.]

I thank the First Minister very much for his reply, but I ask him to recall that on 28 October 2004 he said in the chamber:

"the identities of the six Scottish regiments should be preserved, because they are important for Scotland and for local communities throughout Scotland."—[Official Report, 28 October 2004; c 11304.]

Does he agree that, whatever modern operational requirements might be, to wipe out some of the last vestiges of Scottish identity will damage local recruiting and will lead to some severe murmurings among people like me, who once had the honour to wear the black hackle of the Cameronians along with—if I may say so—a great many of the First Minister's constituents from Motherwell and Wishaw?

Last year, when the Ministry of Defence announced its decisions, I said that although I was pleased that some of the regiments' identities would be retained—I know that the current objective is to retain the hackle in combat dress—the outcome was disappointing because the affected regiments' original identities would not be retained completely.

However, I stick by another comment that I made last year. It is important that, once such decisions are made, the regiments are prepared for their duties and are able to move forward, regardless of what anyone on any side of the chamber feels about the decisions that should have been made. I hope that we can support the new Scottish regiment, whatever members feel about the decision to create it.

I am sure that I speak for the rest of the Scottish National Party group in associating myself with the First Minister's warm wishes to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for his future.

I also want to associate myself with Lord James on the substance of his question to the First Minister on the regiments. In an exchange at First Minister's question time last year, the First Minister said:

"We will defend those identities strongly."—[Official Report, 28 October 2004; c 11305.]

In view of the recent announcement, has the First Minister seen the comments by Lieutenant General Sir Alistair Irwin, who drew up the blueprint for the merger and is now speaking of his "despair" and utmost "dismay" at the decision that has been announced. He makes the clear comment that, in effect, the distinctive nature of the regiments will be banished from the streets of Scotland. No more will Perthshire see the red hackle, because the Black Watch will not be permitted to use it in ceremonial dress. Does the First Minister believe that that decision in any way defends the distinctive nature of our historic regiments? If he does not, what will he say to the Secretary of State for Defence and to Westminster to get them to reverse the decision?

Representations were made last year during the debate on the issue. Those representations—not just from me, but from many other members—were crystal clear. This time last year, I expressed in the chamber our disappointment at the extent to which the identities of the historic regiments would be retained in the new regiment. However, I understand that the hackles will be worn when the soldiers are in combat gear, which they are for the majority of time that they spend both at home and on active duty. The hackles will be used for dress in Scotland.

My final important point relates to the future of the regiment. Whatever any of us thought about the creation of the super-regiment and the retention of the Scottish regimental identities, the reality is that there will be one Scottish regiment. It is important that that regiment is successful, is able to recruit enough troops and is able to be effective for Scotland and the United Kingdom wherever it is asked to serve. It is not wise for us to continue the debate for much longer, because at the end of the day it is important that British Army regiments are able to serve their country effectively. I remind Parliament—as I did on occasion last year, if we want to hark back to those debates—that there would be no British Army regiments in Scotland if the Scottish nationalist party had its way, as it described this week.

Roseanna Cunningham may ask a supplementary for clarification.

Is the First Minister saying that Lieutenant General Sir Alistair Irwin is flat-out wrong when he writes that

"in the future when the Battalion parades ceremonially anywhere in your constituency the Red Hackle will not be worn"?

I do not want to be facetious, but I would expect the member of the Scottish Parliament for Perth to know that, when soldiers are in Scotland, they are not just in ceremonial dress and that there are times when they are in combat dress. When they are in combat dress, they will wear the hackle.

I do not want to defend the decisions that have been made, because they are decisions that are not for me or for the Scottish Parliament. Last November I expressed my reservations about those decisions, but I do not want members of the Parliament to misrepresent those decisions. Whatever we thought in advance about the creation of the new regiment, I want us to get behind it and to support it. One way of not supporting it is to advocate the breaking up of the British Army and having no British Army regiments in Scotland, and to advocate that Scotland and Britain should pull out of NATO so that there would be no NATO or British Army bases in Scotland. The SNP cannot come here as the great defender of the British Army to talk about regiments. One day after it got into Government in alliance with the Trotskyists, it would break up Britain and have no British Army at all.

---

Water and Sewerage Infrastructure

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's plans are for investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. (S2F-1962)

Ministers announced ambitious objectives for Scottish Water on 9 February, including the connection of an estimated 15,000 homes a year to new infrastructure, in addition to those that will be connected to existing infrastructure. The Water Industry Commission announced yesterday that, in its view, all those objectives can be delivered in full without customer charges having to rise in real terms over the next four years.

In the light of the sharply differing estimates of the cost of the water and sewerage infrastructure programme from the Water Industry Commission for Scotland on one hand and Scottish Water on the other, what reassurance can the First Minister give Parliament that urgent steps to remove development constraints will not be delayed by that disagreement? Will the First Minister give Parliament a commitment that there will be sufficient flexibility in the investment framework to avoid the emergence of further development constraints in the lifetime of the programme, which would be a clear impediment to the supposed top priority of the Scottish Executive, which is the growth of the Scottish economy?

We gave a commitment last year to review the strategic objectives of Scottish Water and the long-term investment plans, and we have done that. We set clear objectives that are on target. The target for estimated additional housing outwith the existing areas where there is water infrastructure has been met.

The Water Industry Commission for Scotland has made it clear in its expert analysis that Scottish Water can deliver all the objectives with less-than-real-terms increases in water consumer charges in Scotland over the next few years. That is good news for the consumer, for Scottish business and for people who are waiting for homes in areas of Scotland where there is high demand and where there have been constraints in recent years.

If the constraints and development plans change over time, the objectives will be reviewed. However, we need to get on with the process now. If Scottish Water has concerns, there is a process that it can follow. There should be no reason why new developments are delayed.

ln the light of the reduction in the amount of sewage waste that is being used in land remediation and the subsequent backlog of sewage, will the First Minister say what funding has been allocated to address the problem? Will that money be in addition to existing budgets?

I am happy for the appropriate minister to provide a written answer to that question.

---

AIDS

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive is helping to combat AIDS both at home and abroad. (S2F-1965)

Ministers are supporting the HIV health promotion strategy with £9 million per year to prevent HIV and other blood-borne viruses. We have also provided an extra £15 million a year over the next three years to implement the national sexual health strategy, which aims to reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Abroad, we provide financial and clinical support for a number of initiatives in Malawi and Zambia towards the G8 goal of universal access to treatment by 2010.

On world AIDS day—the theme of which this year is "Stop AIDS. Keep the promise"—is there anything more the Executive can do in partnership with the authorities in Malawi to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in that country and to improve access to treatment for people who have been infected, in line with the 3 by 5 campaign? Does the First Minister believe that the time has come in Scotland for a more proactive approach to health education and early diagnosis targeted at those who are most at risk from sexually transmitted disease, who are no longer just drug-injecting users, but are increasingly heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, women as well as men, and young people in particular?

First of all, our sexual health strategy and our other efforts at health promotion are designed for early identification and prevention. I hope that the increased resources and focus on the matter locally will have an impact.

Among the other things that we can do for Malawi, we will continue to discuss with the UK Government and the Department for International Development their roles. I noticed this morning that significant additional resources to tackle AIDS in Africa have been announced; we will ask how much of that might benefit our friends in Malawi.

Secondly, we will continue to raise with international organisations the efforts that they put into Malawi in relation to HIV/AIDS. Thirdly, here in Scotland there is expertise, enthusiasm and energy among professionals and volunteers to help with the growing problem of HIV/AIDS in Malawi and throughout Africa.

On Des McNulty's final question, we know that in Africa more than 50 per cent of people with HIV/AIDS are women or children. Younger women are being added most quickly to the list, which consists not just of the traditional and largely male groups that were perhaps publicised more in the United Kingdom and elsewhere back in the 1980s. The epidemic is spreading and is devastating communities across the whole of Africa. We in Scotland should do our bit to help, given our fantastic history in medical research and medical science.

I thank the First Minister for his response; it was very detailed and is in the context of a severe problem, as we all know well.

Do members realise that 2,400,000 people will die this year in Africa alone as a result of AIDS? That is 8,500 people every day. The efforts that are being made by Parliament are hugely appreciated in Malawi and beyond. Will the First Minister tap into the rich source of expertise in Scotland, especially in medicine? Through research and development, and with the backing of the pharmaceutical industry, which has a strong base in Scotland, there may be ways of finding alternatives and offering a generic derivation of some of the drugs that, at the moment, are way beyond the budgets of many of our colleagues in the African continent.

That is clearly a big issue and one that extends far more widely than Scotland and Malawi and our partnership. People internationally are making real efforts to reduce the cost of those vital drugs and to increase their availability. We are working with them where we can to ensure that access can be widened in Malawi in particular.

We in Scotland, given our history and the expertise that exists here, have a particular responsibility to the rest of the world in relation to medical science. I know that many people in the Scottish health service want to give of their time to make that contribution. We will continue to do all that we can to facilitate that.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—