Plenary, 07 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, September 7, 2006

Official Report 704KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

At the risk of tempting fate, I know that we will all want to congratulate Scotland on an excellent start to the Euro qualifiers.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2407)

In addition, it would be good for us to congratulate all those in Scottish sport and in Scottish culture who have had such a successful summer. Ms Ferguson mentioned the UK school games, which take place in Glasgow this weekend. I wish all the Scottish schools competitors who are taking part all the best.

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

Is the First Minister aware that the civil war that is currently engulfing his party has a big impact on the governance of Scotland and that people in Scotland expect their First Minister to have a view on the matter? Yesterday, he was given the opportunity to back the Prime Minister but he refused to do so. I ask him again: as First Minister of Scotland, does he think that Tony Blair should stay as Prime Minister for another year, or should he go?

As I have said before, not only is Tony Blair the most successful Labour Prime Minister ever, but Gordon Brown is the most successful Labour chancellor ever. I am very proud of both of them. However, despite the fact that they have provided the stability and growth in the United Kingdom economy that have helped us in Scotland to secure the resources that we need, it has actually been the decisions of this Parliament that have led to the improved school results, the reductions in health waiting times, the increase in growth and in jobs and the reductions in crime that we see in Scotland today. Therefore, for this Parliament and for MSPs, the discussions and debates that take place in this Parliament are far more important.

It is remarkable that the First Minister even manages to sit on the fence on the question of Tony or Gordon. He has turned prevarication into an art form.

The First Minister said in this chamber on 11 May that Tony Blair

"is the most successful leader of my party ever".—[Official Report, 11 May 2006; c 25548.]

Is it not the case that Tony Blair has lost the trust of people in Scotland and throughout the UK on issues such as the illegal war in Iraq, slavish support for George Bush's foreign policy and support for nuclear weapons and nuclear power? Does the First Minister accept that on each and every one of those issues the Prime Minister has had the full support not only of Gordon Brown but of the First Minister himself? Does the First Minister agree that the problem is not just Tony Blair—the problem is Labour?

These are issues on which the First Minister must have responsibility but also on which he has taken a position.

The UK Government has had my full support as it led the world on climate change and secured the agreements at Kyoto. It also led the world in tackling poverty through the G8 summit in Scotland last year, the doubling of the UK's aid budget and the way in which the international community now treats issues in Africa and elsewhere far more seriously. The UK Government has played a leading role on those and on many other matters, including the writing off of debt for Malawi last Friday, which we should all welcome.

I am very pleased that the Scottish National Party wants to talk about the question of leadership. The SNP had a leader in the Scottish Parliament in the early days of this Parliament, but after a year he could not hack it and went back to London. He cut and run and went away back to the other Parliament in the south. The SNP then had another leader, in whom there was so much confidence on his back benches that members were leaving the SNP group in droves. He had to call a vote of confidence and ultimately had to resign. The SNP had a leadership contender who lasted for only half the campaign and gave up because she did not want to stand any more. Now it has a leader who says that he wants to come back, but he was not prepared to come back as soon as he became the leader. Next year, he wants to do the job part time, alongside his other job in Westminster.

We will take no lessons from the SNP on leadership. Both in the United Kingdom and in Scotland it is real political leadership that is delivering the goods for the people, not the SNP's idea of part-time leadership or the failed leadership of the past.

I say to the First Minister that he will be leaving office at the same time as the Prime Minister next May because my leader is coming to replace him. We know that Gordon Brown is coming to Parliament today, supposedly to give the First Minister a pep talk on how he should run Scotland. Instead of taking a lecture from Mr Brown, is it not time that the First Minister gave Mr Brown a message? When the First Minister meets Mr Brown today, will he simply be pledging his allegiance to him, or will he tell him to stop the backbiting that is so damaging governance in this country?

I will be absolutely clear. Whoever is Prime Minister of this country, my job as First Minister is to stand up for Scotland to ensure that they know what is needed here. However, let us return to the issue of leadership again just for a second, Presiding Officer—I can assure you that it will be worth it.

Let us have a wee look at how many elections the new leader—or rather, perhaps, the old leader—of the SNP has been through. He lost the 1992 general election, the 1992 district elections, the 1994 European elections, the 1994 regional elections and the 1995 single-tier local authority elections. He also lost the general election in 1997, the Scottish Parliament election in 1999—despite leading by 15 per cent in the polls about 12 months beforehand—the 1999 European elections and the 2005 general election. He has a record that is unsurpassed in modern electoral history. While Ms Sturgeon might have been disappointed about his return—Ms Cunningham certainly was—I can assure her that we are all delighted.

For a First Minister who says that he does not feel threatened by Alex Salmond, he certainly talks about him enough. However, is it not the case that it does not matter who holds the keys to number 10—whether it is Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or whoever—because the same bad old policies will stay? Is it not the case that Scotland is scunnered with Labour? Is it not the case that in Scotland it is time for a change, not just of Prime Minister but of First Minister and of Government?

This is fun, so I will reluctantly be brief. I will just be very clear about what real leadership is all about. It is about making the right decisions for the country, and the right decisions in the United Kingdom have led to Britain's longest period of sustained economic growth and the highest economic growth that we have enjoyed in modern times. Further, here in Scotland the right decisions have led to decreases in health service waiting times, increases in good school results, decreases in crime and increases in jobs and growth. That is what the people of Scotland want from their Parliament and from their Government, and that is what they are going to get as long as we are in charge.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the current Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2408)

I had a very enjoyable lunch with the Prime Minister last Saturday, but I do not have any more immediate plans to meet him.

Well, that may prove to be auspicious.

The First Minister, along with many others, may have asked the Prime Minister about his retirement plans. However, as much as the First Minister might like to blame the Prime Minister for all his woes, he cannot hide behind the Prime Minister's pinny strings for ever. For example, he cannot blame Tony Blair for the violence in Scottish schools. This morning, my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton highlighted figures he received under freedom of information that show that attacks on school staff have gone up a horrific 14 per cent in a single year. Indeed, in the Minister for Education and Young People's home area of Moray, the number of physical assaults on staff rocketed from 34 in 2004-05 to 188 in 2005-06, which is more than a five-fold increase.

Does the First Minister agree with the Educational Institute of Scotland that the Scottish Executive should provide as a matter of urgency additional off-site facilities for children and young people who display particularly challenging behaviour?

We are, of course, doing that, but it is also important to recognise—as the Conservatives refuse to do, but as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education does—that the vast majority of Scottish schoolchildren are well behaved and the vast majority of Scottish classrooms are orderly classrooms where results are improving and educational attainment is on the increase. At the same time, any violence or disruption in school classrooms is a serious matter. That is precisely why we are providing resources for on-site and off-site facilities, depending on the appropriate choice in each school, and additional support staff to ensure that teachers are able not just to cope better but to succeed more in the classroom.

The First Minister will also be aware of the CBI Scotland manifesto that was issued yesterday, which attacked the education system, claiming that Scottish businesses were having to foot the bill for remedial lessons for school leavers because too many pupils lacked the basic skills needed for the workplace.

Does the First Minister accept that while violence is rife in the classroom, the standard of teaching and quality of education will inevitably be affected? Does he accept that unless head teachers have the powers necessary to exclude permanently the small number of persistently disruptive pupils who are driving valued staff away from the profession and disrupting schools, that unacceptable situation will continue?

There we have another Tory misrepresentation. It is not the case that teachers cannot exclude children from the classroom or that such exclusions have any time limit on them, apart from that designated by the school or local authority. Teachers, head teachers and local authorities have the right to manage their schools and classrooms to ensure that any disruption is properly tackled. Any Tory misrepresentation of that fact is wrong and should not be repeated.

I hear what the First Minister is saying, but just as alarming as the growing problem with discipline in our schools is his irresponsible attempt to cover up the truth by refusing to publish the annual statistics. We can address the problem only if we know the full facts. Will he therefore now give a commitment to publish this vital information annually, however bad the figures are?

My understanding is that this year's survey is due to be published this month. I am sure that when it is, we will be able to debate it with Miss Goldie.

---

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-2409)

I have regular meetings with the Secretary of State for Scotland at which we discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

When the First Minister meets a certain influential Fife MP this afternoon, perhaps he might take the opportunity to raise an issue of grave concern to the people of Fife and the whole Firth of Forth region. I am talking about the behaviour of Forth Ports plc. Forth Ports is about to award itself permission to operate ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Firth of Forth. It acts as judge, jury and executioner by regulating the marine environment while benefiting financially from a decision that it will make that will seriously threaten that environment. Does the First Minister agree that that is an entirely unacceptable conflict of interests?

Forth Ports is not able to operate independently of all the regulations that exist on the matter. The marine agency responsible, in addition to Forth Ports, has a responsibility to ensure that any such transfers are safe, and we in the Executive have a responsibility to ensure that Forth Ports takes on board any representations that we make, particularly in relation to the implementation of the habitats directive. We have both taken those entirely appropriate courses of action.

I hope that the Executive pursues energetically the powers that it will have under the habitats directive. However, this is about a conflict of interests, which, in the case of Forth Ports, extends to the company's refusal to comply with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Unison has joined the Green party in condemning such unaccountable profiteering and all those public-private partnerships that hide the facts by claiming commercial confidentiality. If a private company is delivering a public service, is it not right that it should be just as transparent and accountable as a public body? What is the First Minister going to do about the situation?

Of course arrangements should be transparent and accountable. However, when contracts are being negotiated and sums of money—particularly from the public purse—are involved, it is entirely sensible that there is a degree of confidentiality around that. It would be nonsensical to have a situation in which such negotiations could not take place in private. Although decisions have to be transparent and accountable and public agencies or those who act for them have to be answerable for their actions—and the freedom of information commissioner has a role to play in that—at the same time, when contracts are involved, there are things that have to be confidential. Anybody who has ever done any business with anybody anywhere knows that to be the case, no matter what the Green party has to say about it.

On the simple matter of the environmental impact assessment that was carried out on the practice of transferring oil from ship to ship in the Forth, does the First Minister think that that information should be in the public domain, under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002?

I am not sure what the legal position is on that. I am happy to take advice and ensure that the member has a written answer as soon as possible.

---

Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill

To ask the First Minister whether the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill in any way contravenes the European convention on human rights. (S2F-2415)

No. Both the Executive and the Parliamentary authorities scrutinised the provisions of the bill in detail before its introduction and agreed that they were within the legislative competence of this Parliament. That scrutiny process included a determination that the bill's provisions comply with the European convention on human rights.

I thank the First Minister for that assurance. However, he will be aware of the Law Society's concerns about the situation with regard to the opt-out provision in relation to fiscal fines, where silence is equated with guilt. Given that the maximum fine will rise to £500, does the First Minister recognise my concerns about the fact that the range of offences that are included under fiscal fine extension will widen, meaning that victims who expect to get their day in court might not and that repeat offenders might not easily be recognised? Further, does he agree that procurators fiscal should have the power to refer to appropriate services offenders whose drug or alcohol problems contribute to their offending behaviour, so as to deal with the causes of criminal behaviour and not just the crime?

I know the level of priority that Mary Mulligan gives to tackling issues on behalf of victims and witnesses and I want to reassure her on the matters that she raises.

Fiscals will be expected to report repeat offenders or those who have those problems in the same way that we would expect our courts to do. While the range of offences that might be affected by the new orders will widen, it will not include violent or serious crimes. Of course, it will be important for the fiscals to ensure that repeat offenders appear in front of the courts.

Does the First Minister agree that, since the incorporation of ECHR directly into Scots law, it has become impossible to return to the same level of protection that bail regulations in Scotland afforded prior to that taking effect?

The Parliament is aware that we are tightening up the bail provisions by ensuring that the new bill, which will deal with that issue, states clearly the matters that our judges and sheriffs will have to take into account when making relevant decisions. That will ensure that the public interest and, in particular, public safety are to the fore in those decisions. That is an important change and clarification in the law that, I hope, is being welcomed on all sides of the chamber and will be supported. I am certain that the change has the full support of the public.

Is the First Minister aware that some individuals who will be subject to notices or orders will have learning disabilities or difficulties? What support will there be to ensure that those people will be able to understand and appreciate their rights, given the fact that the system will feature an opting in provision rather than an opting out provision?

I would be happy for Jeremy Purvis to receive a detailed answer to that point from the Solicitor General for Scotland or the Minister for Justice. However, because this is an important point, I want to stress that the new system will allow a person who has missed the initial 28-day period to come back at a later date and request that the matter go to court. Although the new system will kick in after 28 days, it will always be possible for someone to say that they made a mistake or did not understand the process and that they want to implement the procedures that will result in the case being heard in court. That is an important caveat to the new system. It is a safeguard that will help those individuals who have any difficulties with correspondence or other forms of communication. I hope that that will be borne in mind by everybody when the Parliament considers the bill and the amendments that the Executive lodges.

---

European Union Enlargement (New Workers)

To ask the First Minister how many new workers are expected to come to Scotland when Bulgaria and Romania join the European Union. (S2F-2416)

It is important, in order to reverse population decline and have a more dynamic economy, that Scotland welcomes legal migrants, particularly those whose skills can help our economy. Although it would not be appropriate to speculate in advance of final decisions on further enlargement of the European Union, we remain in close contact with the United Kingdom Government on the matter. Those discussions continue.

Does the First Minister agree that migrant workers from eastern Europe have brought numerous benefits to Scotland, particularly in the underpopulated Highlands and Islands, where skills are scarce, to say the least. Does he agree that if the United Kingdom Government introduces a restrictive, work-permit immigration system for the new accession states, that would be an unjust reversal of the previous open-door policy and would be potentially damaging for Scotland?

Discussions on the issue are on-going at a UK level and we are participating in them. It is important that those discussions are able to take place without my pre-empting them in that particular way. The one thing that I would say is that it will be important, across the European Union, to ensure that the accession of any further states is carried through in a way that maintains popular support for the European Union and does not destabilise the nations of the European Union.

At the same time, I share John Farquhar Munro's enthusiasm for the way in which the new legal migrants in Scotland have come here, worked very hard and made a contribution to our economy. That is perhaps particularly true in John Farquhar Munro's constituency, where, earlier this summer, I had the pleasure of being served in the Glenfinnan House Hotel by young people from at least three different eastern European countries. They were a pleasure to meet and were working to a very high standard. I hope that perhaps they were having an impact on many of the indigenous Scots who could work in that industry as well.

Notwithstanding what the First Minister had to say about those pleasant young people, is he aware of the concerns that Citizens Advice Scotland raised in June about the working conditions of migrant workers? They often live in poorly maintained caravans, work excessive hours and are exploited by employers who make illegal deductions. I think that the First Minister recognises Scotland's low population base and its very different requirements from England, but after seven years of Liberal-Labour coalition Government, where is the population strategy that balances fairness to migrant workers and also helps us to keep Scotland's young people here? They are so burdened with student debts that they often migrate to escape them.

The member is so miserable that it is hard for me to get out of my seat to answer the question.

The reality is, first, that Scotland is a country with good employment laws. They are far better than they used to be, and individuals who work in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK are protected by them. We also have new laws to protect against illegal gangmasters who were exploiting people, leading to the mass deaths that we have seen on a number of occasions in recent years.

However, Scotland is also a country where young people do things flexibly from time to time. I remember living in a caravan when I worked in a pub when I was 18—in Arran, back in my student days. Young people sometimes make that choice. If they are not making that choice but are being exploited, it is clear that the employers should be tackled by the authorities. That is why we have a legal system in Scotland that does that.

I cannot let Ms Grahame's final assertion pass. The truth is that, in the seven years of devolution, the number of young Scots graduates who leave our universities and stay in Scotland has increased from 79 per cent to 89 per cent. In 2004, net in-migration to Scotland increased by 26,000—the highest figure since records began. That was followed in 2005 by net in-migration of 19,500. One of the best parts of that is that the majority of those people are coming from elsewhere in the United Kingdom rather than from elsewhere in the world, which means that we have reversed the brain drain. No amount of negative moaning by the Scottish National Party will cover up those facts and run Scotland down.

Despite the First Minister's words, I draw his attention to Scottish Enterprise's report today, which emphasises the great need to attract more of Scotland's graduates back to Scotland. Perhaps there is a degree of conflict there.

I point out to the First Minister that the fresh talent initiative was brought out at the same time as European expansion. At that time, we on this side of the chamber forecast a far greater number of eastern European immigrants to Scotland. That immigration has occurred, and it has been far greater than has ever been estimated by the Executive. We welcome the immigration, but we also have concerns about pressures on our social services, our health service, our education services and other such services. Will the First Minister undertake to ensure that our social services can meet the demands of further immigration from Romania and Bulgaria?

I am dismayed by the tone of the question but I will answer the substantive point. We are providing additional resources for the teaching of English as a second language and are assisting those authorities that are welcoming new people to ensure that gaps in skills and employment in the authorities' areas can be filled by people from elsewhere.

One other point that I would make is this: I hope that the next eastern European migrant who serves Phil Gallie in a pub or restaurant in Edinburgh or anywhere else is a lot more courteous to him than he is to them.

Does the First Minister agree that, as well as offering opportunities to new migrant workers, enlargement provides opportunities for Scottish business and manufacturing industry to expand into new export markets? Those opportunities would be put at risk by the policies of the Opposition parties on withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and withdrawal from Europe.

I could not agree more. Irene Oldfather makes outstanding points very clearly, as she does so often on European matters. The policies of the Opposition parties would greatly damage Scotland's interests in Europe, whereas the policies of this devolved Government are enhancing Scotland's opportunities in Europe.

---

Scottish Food (Promotion)

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to promote Scotland's excellent food produce at home and abroad. (S2F-2420)

I thank Richard Lochhead for his very positive question about a very positive subject.

In this Scottish food fortnight, I am happy to say that Scotland has many high-quality food products. We can justly be proud of them. Ministers actively support trade organisations and individual companies in the promotion of those products. In addition to providing assistance for market development, we recently helped to relaunch Scottish beef into export markets, and whenever I am promoting Scottish companies at home or abroad, I take every opportunity to promote Scottish produce.

This being Scottish food fortnight, I know that we will all want to celebrate Scotland's food industry.

Is the First Minister aware of the increasing concern that the frequent abuse of power by some supermarkets is crippling some of our food and drinks companies and the farms that supply them? What is his message to the supermarkets today? Irrespective of the Competition Commission's current inquiry—it has a poor track record on this matter—will he pick up cudgels on behalf of Scotland's food producers and meet personally the supermarket bosses in order to fight for Scotland's food producers and consumers?

In recent months I have discussed this matter with NFU Scotland and others. The matter is of course of great concern to Scotland's food producers, although there is always a balance to be struck between the interests of the producers and the interests of the consumers of the produce. It is important that the Competition Commission concludes its inquiry as quickly as possible.

The Minister for Environment and Rural Development met the commission yesterday and put forward a number of important points. We look forward to the commission concluding its investigation and taking those points on board, thus ensuring both that Scottish producers have a stable industry through which they can contribute to our wider economy and that consumers are protected with good-quality produce at a decent price.

I declare an interest as a farmer before asking this question.

The First Minister will be aware that there are now more than 70 farmers markets in Scotland, with many more farm shops selling local food to local people. Does he agree that those markets and farm shops also offer an opportunity to promote local food to tourists from all over the world and to support our growing tourism industry in Ayrshire, Arran and Scotland as a whole?

John Scott is tempting me with a little mention of Arran—he is trying to get me onside. I regret not having been able to visit the farmers market here in the Parliament last night, because of other business. I hope that it was a successful occasion. Farmers markets have been a great success throughout Scotland over recent years. Not only do they help to promote the produce of local producers, but they are a very enjoyable experience for those of us who visit them regularly. I want us to do all that we can to encourage the growth of farmers markets and to encourage local people to use them, as well as tourists to enjoy them.

As we started late, we have time for one last supplementary question.

The First Minister missed himself at last night's event in the Parliament, which was a superb display of what Scotland has to offer in the way of food. I ask for his assurance that the Executive, in various departments, is doing its best to iron out ambiguities in food labelling, which can get in the way of people exercising their choice to buy local produce.

The issue of food labelling is tricky. It is important that we find a way to highlight Scottish produce clearly, while at the same time not overregulating the industry, particularly in a way that would be unhelpful to the tourism industry. Ministers are currently trying to ensure that we strike the right balance between improvements in labelling and not having overregulation or excessive bureaucracy. If we can find a solution to that challenge, we will be happy to introduce measures to achieve that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The First Minister accused me of discourtesy in the chamber. I take great exception to that. I try not to be discourteous to anyone. If my words are analysed in the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I actually welcomed the immigrants to whom he referred and that I was at no time discourteous to them or to anyone else. Would you ask the First Minister to apologise?

You have made your point clearly and loudly. The First Minister will no doubt read the Official Report. Parliament is suspended until—

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.

You were just on the bell, Mrs MacDonald.

My point also concerns the matter of discourtesy. As an ordinary back-bench member, I consider it discourteous for front-bench members to take up so much of the short period in which we may call the Executive to account by acting out their internal, internecine party squabbles. Could we have less of that and more questions next week?

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—