Plenary, 06 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, November 6, 2003

Official Report 758KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

I ask members to join me in welcoming to the public gallery Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado. [Applause.]

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-317)

Next week's Cabinet will receive a report on the success of tonight's MTV Europe music awards, which will take place in Edinburgh. Maybe I will suggest to the Cabinet that, rather than telling the Brits to get off, we will campaign to get the Brits to come to Scotland, too.

I am sure that the First Minister will enjoy his evening of entertainment at the MTV awards.

In an article that appeared on Tuesday in The Shetland News under the masthead "Great is the Truth and it will Prevail", Tavish Scott, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services, states:

"Fishing is not a main priority of the UK Government. It hasn't been under successive Tory or Labour governments."

Is that the Scottish Executive's position and, if not, why is Mr Scott still a minister of the Scottish Executive?

Mr Scott clarified that position yet again this morning. The issue is not about personalities or trying to misquote people; it is about the importance of the Scottish fishing community and industry and the work that is under way to ensure that they have a sustainable future. The priorities that we have for that remain in place and will be pursued relentlessly by Mr Finnie and other colleagues in Scotland and London in the coming weeks. We are fully determined to secure an outcome at the Brussels council meeting in December that will sustain the future of Scotland's fishing industry.

The problem with that answer is that it does not square with what Mr Scott said in the newspaper. Over the years, the First Minister has told members that Scotland's fishing industry is a priority for the UK Government, but his view has been fundamentally undermined by a member who remains in his Government.

If Mr Scott's humiliating rebuff to the First Minister's policy is not enough, I inform the First Minister that the Liberal Deputy First Minister, the Liberal Minister for Transport and the Liberal fisheries minister believe that, contrary to what the First Minister has told Parliament, giving the European Union exclusive control over Scotland's fishing industry

"is both undesirable and unworkable".

Will the First Minister explain why half of his Government believes that his policies on fishing are undesirable and unworkable?

In the middle of last year's fishing negotiations, the Scottish nationalist party tried to misrepresent the position of the Executive and the interests of the Scottish fishing community at the heart of Brussels. That was a shameful episode that Mr Swinney has yet to repudiate. It now looks as if the same pattern is emerging all over again.

The priority for the Executive and for ministers in the coming weeks is to ensure not only that we have the strong negotiating position that we require at the Brussels council meeting in December, but that we pursue the issue relentlessly and win some success. Those, like Mr Swinney, who advocate a complete end to any common fisheries policy are fundamentally wrong. The end of the common fisheries policy would mean the end of the Shetland box and the protection that it provides and the end of the Hague preference and the minimum guarantees that it gives to Scottish fishing communities. It would also mean that Scotland would be involved in a free-for-all in which we would have as much to lose as to gain.

We will continue to work, within the framework of the common fisheries policy, for a fundamental change in that policy—we secured changes last December and further changes are to come—to ensure that Scotland has a sustainable fishing industry for a long time to come.

This morning, the First Minister has accused me of misrepresenting and misquoting Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrat party. Let me give him the details, chapter and verse. In The Shetland News, under the masthead "Great is the Truth and it will Prevail", Tavish Scott says:

"Fishing is not a main priority of the UK Government. It hasn't been under successive Tory or Labour governments."

That is the quote, with not a word deleted and not a word inserted.

Secondly, I quote from the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference, which took place in Dunfermline on 1 November:

"Conference however believes that: making the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy an exclusive competence of the EU is both undesirable and unworkable".

That is the position of the First Minister's junior coalition partners.

Let us be clear. The First Minister tells us that the United Kingdom Government will make the protection of our fishing industry a priority and Tavish Scott says that it will not. The First Minister supports the handing of exclusive control of our fishing industry to the EU and the Liberal Democrats do not agree with him. Will the First Minister now do the right thing and change his policies and fight to save the Scottish fishing industry? So far, he has failed to do that.

I state again that Mr Scott has clarified his position. He stated very clearly again this morning that simply to repatriate the CFP to the UK or to Scotland would not be in the best interests of Scottish fishermen and would put at risk features of the current policy, such as the relative stability in the Shetland box, that we want to preserve. The partnership agreement and the work of this Executive have been absolutely consistent on the matter.

On a day when representatives of Scottish fishing communities are in Edinburgh to put their case to us—I do not always agree with what they say, but I respect their right to come here to argue on behalf of their families and communities—it is wrong simply to score political points again.

We need a strong Scottish position in the debate and we need to argue hard, not just for fishing but for sustainable fishing in the North sea and in the rest of the waters around Scotland. We need to ensure that Scotland does not take all the pain in any decisions that are made in December and we need to use scientific evidence to back up our position that other countries, in particular those that are involved in industrial fishing, should take that pain as well. We need to see through the fundamental changes that were agreed last December as speedily and effectively as possible. That is in the best long-term interests of Scotland's fishing industries and all parties in the chamber should get behind that.

---

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-323)

I expect that I shall meet the Prime Minister at least twice before Christmas. I have not yet decided whether I will ask him to support our campaign to bring the Brit awards to Scotland.

The First Minister seems to have an obsession with popular music today. If he is looking for something to wear to the MTV awards, I suggest a Shetland isles jumper.

This week I was amazed to hear a minister agree with the Conservatives that the common fisheries policy should be scrapped. Well, he said that, then he did not say that, and then he said that again, all in the space of 36 hours. From a typical two-faced, all-things-to-all-men Liberal Democrat back bencher, that would be perfectly acceptable behaviour—even normal or, frankly, mandatory behaviour. It should not be acceptable behaviour for a minister in the First Minister's Government but, astonishingly, Mr Scott remains a minister. I am sure that, like me, many people will be confused about the situation. If Mr Scott will not resign of his own volition on this occasion, will the First Minister explain why he does not dismiss him?

As I said earlier in answer to Mr Swinney's questions, Mr Scott has clarified this morning that he wants us to negotiate hard within the framework of the current common fisheries policy—as he should, and as everyone in the chamber should—to ensure that we move towards the regional management system for EU fisheries policy that we have consistently supported.

The difference between the coalition parties and Mr McLetchie—on this issue as on so many other European issues—is that he does not believe that there should be a fisheries policy at all. In advocating that position, he must think very hard about what he supports. Mr McLetchie is advocating a policy that would lead to the ending of the Shetland box, the Hague preferences and the guarantees that Scotland has under the current common fisheries policy. He is advocating the creation of a free-for-all in the waters of the North sea and elsewhere in which Scotland would have as much to lose as to gain. That is the dangerous route that Mr McLetchie would like us to take. We will not take it.

As the First Minister knows perfectly well, there was no free-for-all before 1973. These matters were well regulated on an independent, bilateral basis. I have no doubt that they could be regulated on a similar basis in the future, without a disastrous common fisheries policy.

It is interesting that the First Minister is in such difficulty on this issue with Mr Scott. The First Minister failed to deal with the then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Mr Watson, when last year he publicly disagreed with the Executive's policy on the Glasgow hospitals review. At the time, the ubiquitous Mr Scott described that dispute as having "a corrosive effect" on Government. How does the ministerial code differentiate between a minister speaking as an individual MSP and a minister speaking as a member of the Government? Have we reached the stage at which the ministerial code is simply not worth the paper on which it is written? Is it not time to put an end to the double standards and mixed messages that are bringing the Administration into disrepute?

I do not accept that analysis. I recall that, rightly, last year Mr Watson supported the Executive's position in the debate in the chamber on the Glasgow acute health services review. Contrary to all the predictions that Mr McLetchie made at the time, Mr Watson went on to win his constituency seat again handsomely in the election in May this year. I congratulate him on doing so.

As I have said before in the chamber, we need a mature democracy in Scotland in which individual MSPs, including ministers, represent their constituencies, but in which the Government acts in a united fashion and ensures that it represents Scotland's interests at home and abroad. That is exactly what we intend to do. Despite distractions from Conservative members, between now and December we will pursue the long-term interests of the Scottish fishing communities. We will ensure that the outcome of the fisheries council is fair and equitable and that other countries bear the pain of preserving stocks in the North sea as much as Scotland does. We will ensure that we in Scotland have the appropriate international agreements in place and that we retain those agreements, to avoid the free-for-all that can only damage rather than assist Scotland's long-term interests.

Will the First Minister join me in welcoming the creation of a joint school campus in Dalkeith in my constituency of Midlothian, which brings together St David's High School, Dalkeith High School and Saltersgate School? Will he join me in congratulating the staff, parents and pupils of the schools and Midlothian Council on having the vision to create an integrated campus and for working so hard to break down the barriers that still too often divide us?

Shared campuses are right in certain circumstances, where they are appropriate for local communities, have support and would lead to improvements in the education of the youngsters involved. Shared campuses will not be right in all circumstances, but where they work they should do so in the best interests of the children. In all of their management arrangements, they should put the interests of the children first. I hope that in the course of the next few days and weeks any difficulties that have been experienced in Midlothian over the past few days can be not just ironed out, but turned around to ensure that the community makes a positive contribution to the future of the youngsters involved.

Does the First Minister share my concerns about recent events regarding the firefighters' pay settlement? Can he confirm that the Audit Commission has stated that

"the pay award remains a matter for the employers to consider individually and collectively"?

First, I condemn utterly the attacks in certain parts of Scotland last night on firefighters who were doing their jobs in dangerous and difficult circumstances. I am sure that the whole chamber will agree with me on that.

Secondly, as I have said before, the negotiated agreement that was achieved between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union on the future of fire service pay and conditions should be implemented by all sides, which should move forward in the way in which they have agreed. I hope that current difficulties will not result in prolonged action over the next few weeks.

---

Hate Crimes

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made by the working group on hate crime. (S2F-334)

We are determined to send out a clear signal that crimes that are rooted in prejudice are unacceptable in 21st century Scotland. The Minister for Communities announced the establishment of a working group on hate crime in June. The group has met four times since then and we expect to receive a report from it soon.

On Friday, in The Independent, it was revealed that the Labour Government in London will introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill for England and Wales to include as hate crimes homophobic crimes and crimes against people who are suffering from disabilities. Can the First Minister reassure us that the report of the working group on hate crime will be brought to the chamber for discussion, for us to formulate legislation, and that he will not introduce yet another Sewel motion by the back door to incorporate the forthcoming Westminster legislation into our legislation?

I am happy to do all that I can to ensure that, when Patricia Ferguson brings the next Sewel motion to Parliament, she does so by the front door rather than by the back door. The Sewel motion procedure is a transparent way in which to ensure that, should Westminster ever make a decision that covers our responsibilities, the Scottish Parliament agrees to that in advance. That procedure has worked well for us, as a Parliament. There are no plans to introduce a Sewel motion on this issue. There are, however, plans for the working group to complete its business and for its report to be widely debated.

The First Minister has still not reassured us that the Executive intends to introduce legislation on the matter. Does the Executive intend, subsequently, to introduce legislation?

With respect, that was not the question that Mr Harper asked me, so I could not give that reassurance. I am happy to say again that we have established a working group that has wide representation on it. It is right and proper for that working group to conclude its business before we make any decisions or further recommendations.

Has the First Minister made arrangements to ensure that the legal system and the police are dealing well with hate crimes involving, for example, racial and sectarian hatred, for which there is existing legislation?

Yes. I am just checking the figures that are involved. My understanding is that more than 50 cases involving an aggravation of religious prejudice have been brought since the commencement of the relevant provision that was agreed in the Parliament last year. We said at the time that that was a key element of our long-term strategy for tackling sectarianism in Scotland. I believe that the police and the authorities have taken that seriously.

Such motivation is not easy to prove in a courtroom and I am sure that, in individual circumstances, we will need to ensure that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pursues the cases in a thorough way. It is appropriate that we now have that law in Scotland and I hope that, in the years to come, it will not only have an impact on those who carry out such crimes, but—much more important—prevent those crimes.

Can the First Minister confirm that the working group will address the issue of homophobic hate crime, and does he agree that there can be no place for homophobia in a modern Scotland? Does he agree that, although work on that area in the criminal justice system is to be welcomed, the key issue is to reduce the incidence of such crimes? Will he, therefore, set out what steps the Executive is taking to tackle homophobic attitudes wherever they occur?

A whole package of work is under way, and I will be happy to ensure that the Minister for Communities writes to Susan Deacon with the detail of that. We have included that very important issue in the remit of the working group and we expect the group to produce recommendations on it.

---

MTV Music Awards

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to ensure that Scotland gains the maximum benefit from the MTV music awards in Edinburgh. (S2F-327)

The MTV music awards were worth attracting to Scotland just for the worldwide audience of 1 billion and for the contribution that they will make to the local economy. We have maximised the benefits for Scotland by also working with MTV and agencies of local and national Government to develop many supporting projects—including video advertising to promote Scotland and Edinburgh; ensuring that over half of the suppliers for the event are Scottish; and distributing an information pack promoting Scotland to those who attend the awards.

I am confident that tonight's awards will provide Scotland with invaluable global exposure and will boost our reputation as a high-quality destination that delivers excellence. I wish all those involved the very best.

Ask him for a ticket.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and I could not help but overhear the leader of the Scottish Conservative party mention tickets. Should the First Minister happen to have a spare one about his person, I would be very grateful for it.

The First Minister has mentioned, quite correctly, the economic benefits of these awards. Will he share his thoughts on how those benefits can be spread more widely throughout Scotland, rather than just to Edinburgh city centre, welcome though that is?

The financial benefit to Edinburgh and the Lothians has been estimated to be in the region of £4 million. However, as we can see from the fact that at least one star is staying in Gleneagles, the benefits are already being spread elsewhere in Scotland.

This was an opportunity for us to showcase Scotland, not just Edinburgh. That is why we have done something that has not been done on similar occasions in the past. We have been involved in television advertising and a video promoting Scotland and Edinburgh across the globe. We have also ensured that, in the run-up to the event and afterwards, we will convince people that not only can they come to Edinburgh and have one of the best parties in the world, but they can come to Edinburgh and see a very professional and properly organised event that others should follow.

The First Minister will doubtless be tucking into a dinner tonight at the MTV awards while the rest of us tuck into our fish and chips. Why is that dinner being produced by a south British company when there are so many excellent catering companies in Scotland?

I was not even aware that there was a dinner tonight, but I am delighted that more than half the suppliers supporting the event are Scottish. That is good news for the local economy and good news for the reputation of those suppliers in the years to come.

---

Vaccinations (Measles, Mumps and Rubella)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will now review its policy of not allowing NHS Scotland to provide single vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella. (S2F-319)

Expert medical advice, both here and internationally, confirms that the MMR vaccination remains the safest and most effective way of protecting children from these very serious and potentially fatal diseases. We have no plans to change current policy and I urge parents to ensure that their children are vaccinated to protect them and any others with whom they may be in contact.

I draw the First Minister's attention to Executive figures that came out last week. They show a 27 per cent increase in the incidence of mumps, a 22 per cent increase in rubella and an 18 per cent increase in measles. At the same time, there has been a 3 per cent drop in vaccinations. As long as some parents believe that there is a possible connection between MMR and autism, the figures will continue to show that trend. We should recognise that fact. Rather than take the risk of causing an outbreak or epidemic of measles, mumps or rubella, would it not be safer, as well as potentially more cost-effective, to offer parents the possibility of single vaccinations for their children?

We debated this issue during First Minister's question time about 18 months ago. It was a serious issue then and it is an even more serious issue today. We are better informed today. One of the authors of the scientific paper that sparked off this whole debate and created many of these concerns—Dr Simon Murch—has made his position absolutely clear in recent days. He says:

"There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism—this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis … No other vaccine has ever been studied in such depth, and the evidence for its overall safety is comprehensive."

He understands, as I do, the genuine concern of parents about immunising their children. However, all the medical evidence throughout the world is that providing the joint vaccine is the right thing to do. By not taking the joint vaccine, parents put not only their children in danger, but other people's children, specifically those who cannot have the vaccine for reasons of their own, for example because of other conditions that they have. Those children are then left in a position where they might develop measles, mumps or rubella, which might be fatal. The issue is deadly serious and I urge parents throughout Scotland to take it seriously and to take the vaccine.

Does the First Minister accept that the way in which he answered the previous question illustrates the problem? He said that this was a serious issue 18 months ago and it is an even more serious issue now. The overwhelming majority of parents in Scotland want their children vaccinated, but an increasing number do not have enough confidence in the triple vaccination. The First Minister promotes choice in many other areas of Scottish life. Is it not time to promote vaccination of all children, but to provide choice for parents on whether they select the MMR vaccination or single vaccinations?

That always sounds like an attractive option. However, the evidence and the advice that we have taken from those in the scientific community and, more particularly, those in the Scottish medical community who are responsible for this issue is that to go down that route would be more dangerous, would put more children at risk and would ultimately be counterproductive. It is vital that we maintain the current policy, not for some dogmatic reason but for real evidence-based reasons why that is the right thing to do for children and particularly for those children who cannot have the vaccine but need everyone else to have it. There is a critical level at which the vaccine must be in place and it is vital that we return to that level as quickly as possible.

---

Comprehensive Education (Reform)

To ask the First Minister how the plans he announced on 3 November 2003 regarding reforms to comprehensive education will affect equality of opportunity. (S2F-332)

I want real equality of opportunity to realise ambitions, nurture talents and motivate all to work hard and succeed. Greater flexibility between and within schools, encouraging and empowering head teachers, staff, parents and pupils will help to achieve that.

Does the First Minister agree that offering diversity and a broader curriculum in our schools is possible only if there is a significant reduction in class sizes? Will he give us the assurance that there will be no break-up of our comprehensive education system?

I reiterated on Monday my absolute commitment to the principles of the comprehensive education system and my strong belief that that system needs to be reinvigorated for the 21st century. It cannot be a uniform system in which the same standards, conditions and curriculum are applied to all; it must be a system in which each child is allowed to prosper and reach their full potential. Flexibility in the classroom, in the curriculum and in the choices that children and their parents are offered is fundamental to achieving that goal. In certain classes, the size can make a difference.

However, I also believe that what happens in the classroom makes a big difference. One of the liberating features of Scottish education in recent years has been the massive increase in the number of classroom assistants in primary schools. They have transformed the classroom atmosphere and the opportunities and support available to youngsters, who get much more from a room in which there are two adults than they would from a room with slightly fewer children, but only one adult. We have to be flexible about how we staff our classrooms to reduce class sizes where possible and to make education in the classroom as good as it can be.

Does the First Minister agree that part of the flexibility that children should be offered includes the proposal that older pupils in particular should have the opportunity to get work and college experience in the context of the overall school umbrella? That is one of the biggest moves towards enhancing the educational opportunities that are available. Will the First Minister make that aspect of the partnership agreement a priority for his Administration?

That is an extremely important part of the education section of the partnership agreement, as Mr Brown is aware; it is one to which I am absolutely committed and that the Executive is pursuing with some pace. It is important not only that some children have the opportunity to exercise options at college, but that, even more successfully, children are able to exercise the opportunity to access college lecturers and others in the school environment, with their peers, and to exercise more options for courses. That good practice is working successfully in many Scottish schools, and I want it in many more.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—