Plenary, 08 Feb 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, February 8, 2001

Official Report 701KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-840)

The Scottish Executive Cabinet will next meet on 13 February, when it will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

It has been reported this morning that the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Bertie Ahern, a good friend of Scotland, has been deeply offended by the events of the past 24 hours concerning his visit to Scotland. Will the First Minister, on behalf of Scotland and with the full support of the Opposition, extend to Mr Ahern an apology on behalf of the people of Scotland for the offence that he has been caused?

I agree with John Swinney's sentiment that any visit of the Taoiseach would have been warmly welcomed. We have strong links with Ireland, which we want to maintain and develop. Suffice it to say that, in view of what has happened in relation to the private visit of the Taoiseach, I have discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been in touch with the Department of the Taoiseach. I am pleased to be able to announce that, this afternoon, through the consul in Edinburgh, I will be extending a formal invitation to the Taoiseach to visit me and the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss not only issues of importance to the two nations but a possible sports visit. I also hope that at that time the Taoiseach will be able to conduct the visit that he had planned for this weekend. I hope that that will get the support of the chamber in what John Swinney recognises as a delicate and sensitive matter.

I want to send this strong message from the chamber: we value visits from heads of state. We will do everything possible to ensure that there is no ruffling of our relationship with Ireland and we want to make sure that this matter is dealt with in a positive and dignified way.

I welcome the First Minister's remarks and hope that he will be able to go that little step further and apologise to the Taoiseach for the way in which this matter has been handled.

Let us consider for a moment how we have got into the mess that we are in. It is clear that a Labour MP in Westminster has been in direct contact with the Irish Government to say that it is unsafe for the Taoiseach to come to Scotland. It is also clear that Strathclyde police have made it absolutely plain that it was perfectly safe for the Taoiseach to undertake the visit. However, it is unclear whether the Scottish Executive was telling the Taoiseach that he was perfectly welcome to come. Was the Scottish Executive telling him that it was safe for him to come to Scotland on Sunday and that he would have been a welcome visitor to the important event that he was to attend?

I can confirm the point that John Swinney has just made in what was an understandably angry but constructive question: the police raised no objections over the arrangements for the visit. I also want to make it clear that the Executive was not involved in what was a private visit, nor did we have anything to do with its cancellation. I say those words merely because they are factual. The key point is that, when visits such as this one are being organised, a host of lessons have to be learned. It will never be the intention of the Executive to deal with the heads of foreign Governments in any way other than one that follows the protocols.

As I said, this was to have been a private visit. I sincerely hope that, as I—with the Secretary of State for Scotland—am now formalising our invitation, any of the difficulties that have been experienced in the organisation of the private visit will not occur. We will extend the offer to the Taoiseach as soon as we can set an early date.

I welcome the First Minister's answer, but I am perplexed as to why the views of a Westminster Labour MP are superior to those of Strathclyde police on an issue of safety. Why, when the issue was obviously under discussion, was the First Minister not representing the views of Strathclyde police—for whom he has ministerial responsibility—and making it perfectly clear that it was safe for the Taoiseach to come to Scotland?

A source in the Irish Government tells us:

"If people are paranoid about unveiling a statue, it doesn't say much for the so-called ‘Brave New Scotland'."

Does the First Minister recognise that damage has been done to the reputation of Scotland? Does he agree that the sooner he tells Westminster Labour MPs to mind their own business in relation to the affairs of the Scottish Parliament, the sooner the reputation of Scotland will be enhanced?

Order. We have been on difficult ground here. I should point out that the First Minister is not responsible for what Westminster MPs say.

Let me build some common ground with John Swinney—to the extent that we are all concerned about Scotland's image in the world. SNP members do not have a monopoly of wisdom on that. Although I disagree with Frank Roy, he is a constituency MP, with every right to speak up on behalf of his constituents. I cannot make this any clearer—I say factually and honestly: we were not involved in the private visit.

Why not?

I am responsible for many things, but I am not responsible for things that are organised completely outwith the Executive and outwith the Parliament and that are concerned with a personal visit.

There was a Celtic v Rangers game yesterday. David McLetchie and I were there, not, perhaps, to share the benefits of a great football match, but there was some good comradeship. There is another match on Sunday. I would not want anything to be said in relation to that that would foment any problems.

Let me make it clear: there is no room in our society for religious bigotry or intolerance. Each player on the pitch on Sunday, each fan who attends and the whole of Scotland will, I hope, support what I have said. If so, we can ensure that there will be a tough, competitive game of football with no bigotry and no sectarianism.

We will ensure that, when the Taoiseach comes here—I hope that he will want to visit the Parliament—everything is done following the proper protocol and procedures that a head of state would expect, which is also what this Parliament and this Government would expect.

Does the First Minister agree that it would have been wrong for a constituency representative—particularly for a constituency in Lanarkshire, which has experienced divisions in its communities—not to have expressed concerns that were based on his knowledge of his constituency? Whether or not we agree with his analysis that there would have been problems on Sunday afternoon, does the First Minister accept that it is even worse for people to use this matter as a political football? That could create even greater divisions in the communities that we represent, where great work has been done to bridge the gaps.

I understand the concerns, as expressed by the SNP leader. However, it is important that we move forward from this point—the image of Scotland can only be enhanced if we do so. I would hope that any MP has a right to speak up and comment. I said that I disagreed with Frank Roy, but that in no way undermines the right of any individual in this Parliament or at Westminster to make their comments.

If we want to be a confident and civilised Scotland in the 21st century, we must have no room for bigotry and we must ensure that any guest or intended guest who feels offended soon benefits from a warm welcome. Last Friday, Alasdair Morrison was in Belfast working on Gaelic issues with our colleagues from the north and the south. That is the way it is. That is how it will continue. I want the Parliament to move forward today.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-832)

I last spoke to the Prime Minister on 25 January and we have no immediate plans to meet.

I hope that the First Minister's next meeting with the Prime Minister will be more than the 30-seconds politics-free encounter that voters can expect from Labour candidates during the general election.

The First Minister will no doubt recall that he put his head on the block in the chamber on 13 December, when he gave a personal guarantee that

"no child, young person or adult who will sit examinations next year should face the chaos that we faced this year."—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol 9, c 863.]

However, as he will know, many head teachers have expressed concern, including in the press this morning, that a repeat of last year's chaos is inevitable because of the Scottish Qualifications Authority's refusal to change its assessment system. As matters stand, is the First Minister prepared to repeat today the personal guarantee that he gave to parents in December?

Yes.

It must be very welcome to everybody to have that guarantee and it must be a great comfort to the First Minister to know that the preservation of his neck and head lies in the hands of Mr McConnell. [Laughter.] As the First Minister has such a personal interest in this matter, will he assure the chamber that Mr McConnell will, if necessary, use his powers under section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 to give directions to the SQA to ensure that there is no repeat of last year's crisis?

I am pleased to rise to answer that. When I met Mr McLetchie in the environs of Hampden last night, he reminded me that my good colleague Mr McConnell had won a prize yesterday. I am sure that the whole chamber will join him in celebrating that award. I am also pleased that, after a few weeks, David McLetchie has raised some laughter in the chamber.

The situation is clear. People can take comfort from the excellent parliamentary answer that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs gave on the SQA. There was little point in moving to a simplified assessment procedure if it undermined our intention to have a successful 2001 diet for every child, young person and adult who is involved in the qualifications system.

Let us not keep talking things down. We had a moment last year. We have given commitments. We must not undermine morale. We must move forward so that, in August, every child and parent can be satisfied that the results have been delivered on time. That is our aim and we are on track to achieve it.

I certainly hope that there is no repetition of last year's problem. I draw the First Minister's attention to what was said on behalf of Mr McConnell by a Scottish Executive spokesman, who is reported this morning as saying that the minister and his deputy were very disappointed by the SQA's decision on the change to the assessment procedure. Given that degree of disappointment at ministerial level, is it not appropriate that the ministers should consider exercising their statutory powers to take the steps that they think are necessary?

No. The Executive is right to express its disappointment about the fact that a possible change has not happened. However, we are underlining the fact that we cannot risk the 2001 diet by insisting on a change that could cause technical or procedural problems. The commitment is to have a successful diet. If it takes a bit longer to simplify the system, so be it.

Will the First Minister speak to the Prime Minister about the extent of the immediate crisis facing our fishing industry? Does the First Minister appreciate that boats are already being diverted from the cod fishery to the haddock fishery and that fish processors are already concerned that the report that is due to be delivered to the Deputy Minister for Rural Development will bring with it no new money?

Does the First Minister accept that 25,000 people in Scotland—the equivalent of five Ravenscraigs—are directly or indirectly employed in fishing? Does he accept that, around the coast of Scotland, 20 per cent of jobs in some constituencies are fishing related? In my constituency, that figure is 40 per cent—[Interruption.] There was a time when Labour members listened when people talked about jobs in their constituencies.

Order.

Will the First Minister offer encouragement to the fishing communities by saying that the response of the Scottish Government will be proportionate to the extent of the crisis that we face?

On the point about members not listening, they are waiting for questions rather than statements.

Alex Salmond is very inexperienced.

With respect, Alex Salmond will have a new training ground to get back to quite soon. That might help him to hone his skills.

Alex Salmond has raised a serious issue and I will respond to it as such. We have made it clear that the industry is facing pressures and challenges. A number of steps have been taken, such as the setting up of the fish processors working group. We are working with colleagues at Westminster and looking at the implications of the reductions in stocks.

I assure Alex Salmond that we are working very hard on a number of initiatives that are supported by the industry. We are looking at decommissioning—that is important for the short-term and long-term future of the industry. I would be happy to give him a more comprehensive response, but that would take a few minutes. Suffice it to say, the issue is vital not only for parts of Scotland but for the whole of Scotland; it is also very important to the Executive.

---

Organ Removal

To ask the First Minister what safeguards are being put in place to ensure that children's organs are not removed and retained without the consent of parents. (S1F-842)

We will be seeking urgent changes to the law to make it an offence to remove or retain an organ at post mortem without actively seeking relatives' consent. We are also setting tough new standards on post mortem practice, which will be monitored by the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland.

Yesterday, I spoke to a parent in my constituency who was distressed because she had not understood that consent for a post mortem included consent for the retention of organs. I am sure that she and others will welcome the announcement by Susan Deacon and the First Minister on amendments to the law to establish the principle of free and informed consent. However, it is obvious that such amendments will take time. Will the First Minister give an undertaking that best practice in what is a sensitive area will be put in place forthwith in all Scottish hospitals?

I am happy to respond by saying yes. The maximum urgency will be shown; the Minister for Health and Community Care has confirmed that changes are already taking place. Legislation is being considered both in Westminster and in Edinburgh, and a further part of the McLean report has yet to be prepared and published. The key is that parents must be involved in consent and that parents and relatives must have trust in the system. We are doing everything humanly possible to ensure that that happens.

We are all concerned about the confusion between organ retention and organ donation. It is critical that we ensure that organs are available for transplant. We must ensure that potential patients have confidence in the system and that organs for transplant will be forthcoming. We make a general plea to people in Scotland to continue to consider donations, which are vital to the health service and to the lives of the many patients who desperately need those organs.

Will the First Minister join me in praising the Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs and parents for their dignified and positive support for the continuation of organ donation? Will he ask the Minister for Health and Community Care to join Alan Milburn, who has called for a summit to promote organ donation for transplant, in ensuring that any unintended adverse effects that may arise from the organ retention report do not damage the transplant programme?

I endorse Richard Simpson's points on this sensitive issue. I confirm that, within the Scottish Executive, Susan Deacon is taking up the same idea as Alan Milburn is in relation to a summit. It is vital that the flow of donations should continue. I hope that the remarks in the chamber today will have reinforced people's confidence and that they will continue to come forward.

---

Water and Sewerage (Charges)

To ask the First Minister whether the recently announced increases in water and sewerage charges will be affordable for those on council tax benefits. (S1F-841)

The Scottish Executive's proposed water and sewerage affordability scheme is directed at those in receipt of council tax benefit and is intended to take effect in 2001-02. We are currently considering the results of the recently completed consultation and will announce decisions soon.

Is the First Minister aware that all 30,000 band A and band B houses in the Scottish Borders—the households with the lowest incomes—will benefit not one penny from the proposed water and sewerage relief scheme? Is he also aware that the money raised from those households alone will benefit East of Scotland Water by £3 million? Does he therefore agree with his Westminster colleague, Brian Wilson, who said that an increase in water charges is an "assault on the poor"?

That is why Sam Galbraith and Sarah Boyack have been looking at the whole question of the impact of the water charges on the lowest-income groups in our society. Consultation has ended. An announcement will be made in mid-February and we will make a start on addressing some of the problems on 1 April.

Does the First Minister agree that, beside curbing the liability of those in receipt of council tax benefits, another good way of protecting the interests of low-income consumers is to have an equitable scheme of water charges—charges that are the same throughout Scotland? Does he agree that one way of pursuing that would be to consider seriously the proposal for a single Scottish water authority?

Discussions on that issue are continuing and they will be a basis for policy discussions. I certainly would not rule out Mr Macdonald's suggestion, if it could be proved that disruption would be minimal.