Plenary, 09 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, June 9, 2005

Official Report 810KB 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-1696)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland. Undoubtedly, we will congratulate VisitScotland and the other organisations that are involved in our tourism industry on the outstanding figures that were announced yesterday, which are a credit to the industry and to the successful policies that we have pursued.

I remind the First Minister that, following the tragic death of two-year-old Andrew Morton, he said:

"in irresponsible hands, an air-gun is a lethal weapon."

Three months later, why has next to nothing been proposed to stop air-guns falling into irresponsible hands?

That is outrageous and completely and totally untrue. The Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which the Home Secretary announced yesterday, will legislate specifically on one of the most dangerous loopholes in existing law, as a result of which it is unclear whether shooting from inside one's property to outside is an offence in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is not possible for me to comment on specific cases, but we are all perfectly aware of how often such incidents occur and that they occur in too many communities, which shows why legislation on the matter is important. We have said that we do not believe that the bill will go far enough, which is why we need to find a workable system that will reduce the availability and use of air-guns even further in Scotland's communities and reduce the potential for similar incidents in the future. We will find such a solution, but we will do so properly and in discussion with the Scottish police forces and the Home Secretary.

Given that, in the three months leading up to yesterday's publication of the UK bill, the First Minister manifestly failed to persuade the Home Office to take tough action to restrict the sale of air-guns, what makes him think that he will be any more successful in the few weeks following the publication of the proposals?

If he thinks that he will be successful, I have a further question. In March, the First Minister said that he wanted either a ban on air-guns or a licensing scheme. Will he give a personal guarantee that measures will be announced either to ban air-guns outright or to license them strictly? Will he deliver on his promise, or does he just talk tough and act soft?

I absolutely refute the suggestion that nothing has been done. Extremely constructive discussions are taking place with the Home Office. We have the clear objective of reducing the availability and use of air-guns in Scotland in a way that the police forces and others believe is workable in practice.

We have received firm recommendations from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland—as the Home Office received recommendations from the Association of Chief Police Officers south of the border—which is against even a licensing scheme. We are not yet at all convinced by that argument, but if there is to be a scheme that limits the availability of air-guns or in some way registers their use and allows us to monitor their ability and deal with those who would misuse them, we must ensure that it is practical and that it can be operated properly with the full support and assistance of police forces and, almost certainly, local authorities.

That is exactly what we will do: we will put in place a workable scheme, reasonably and sensibly and in a way that is sustainable for the longer term, but without using the sort of rhetoric that Miss Sturgeon seems to want to use.

It was the First Minister who engaged in rhetoric in March when he promised action on air-guns. He can talk as tough as he wants to, but the reality is—as we saw yesterday—that the Home Office has already made up its mind. The Home Office's consultation paper states:

"We do not … believe that there should be a system of licensing or further restrictions on the sale of air guns".

Why is the First Minister softening his position to suit the Home Office? Why does not he demand powers for the Parliament to act to clear our streets of lethal air-guns and to protect the communities that need us most?

If there was ever rhetoric—and shameful rhetoric at that—it was in the contribution that Miss Sturgeon has just made. It is absolutely shameful to use the death of youngsters and incidents that damage the lives of youngsters and others in Scotland to return—as Miss Sturgeon did at the end of her questions—to the issue that matters most to the Scottish nationalist party: the United Kingdom's constitution and how further tension and dispute between the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament in London can be created. That should not happen—we should treat the issue more seriously than that.

We are absolutely determined to take the action that is required to ensure that Scotland has a registration or licensing system that ensures that fewer air-guns are available and that their availability is monitored or that people cannot have air-guns unless they have a legitimate use for them. We will pursue the matter rightly and properly in discussions with Scotland's police forces, which have made strong representations against the scheme in question. We do not agree with them and we are determined to find a solution in discussions with them. We will also try to find a solution with the full co-operation of the Home Secretary and those in the Home Office, who will hear our arguments, listen, learn and take our arguments seriously.

What matters to me is that the Parliament should act to stop any more children being killed by air-guns. Why is it okay for the Scottish Parliament to have power to restrict the sale of knives but not air-guns? The First Minister must answer that question. He promised an outright ban or a licensing system. Will he give a guarantee today that he will deliver on that promise rather than go soft on the yobs who terrorise our community with air-guns?

The Scottish National Party's conversion to treating the issue seriously is synthetic and shameful. It could not be bothered even to respond in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster to the Home Office's consultation on air-guns. Even its central desire to make air-guns into an argument about the Parliament's powers rather than to take action on them was not mentioned in any representations to the Home Office by the party's members of Parliament or its members of the Scottish Parliament. Rhetoric alone is the SNP's answer. The Minister for Justice and others are working with the Home Office to deliver a scheme that will ensure that the availability and use of air-guns in Scotland will be further limited, as we promised, and to ensure that such a scheme will be in place with the full co-operation, assistance and support of Scotland's police forces and those who would have to implement it.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1697)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister at Gleneagles in July at the very latest.

The rising security costs in connection with the G8 summit are a matter of legitimate public concern, but does the First Minister agree that we have two responsibilities in that regard? One responsibility is to ensure that the Prime Minister and other world leaders can debate important issues, such as international aid and the removal of tariff barriers, and the other is to ensure that the public in Scotland—our citizens and visitors—are adequately protected. Does he agree that one factor that is driving up policing and security costs in connection with the G8 summit is the possibility that 1 million people will descend on Edinburgh at the behest of Sir Bob Geldof? Does he agree that such a call is irresponsible and that people should come to Scotland only if they have somewhere to stay and are intent on peaceful protest?

I agree that the G8 is very important for the issues that Mr McLetchie identifies. I welcome the continuing conversion of Conservatives to those issues and hope that their support will be maintained beyond the publicity around the G8 summit and will not just be evident in the run-up to it.

I absolutely agree that we need to ensure that any demonstrations, protests or events in advance of or during the summit are well organised and peaceful. I absolutely agree that anyone who comes to Scotland to demonstrate or to voice their opinion in advance of or during the G8 summit should come with peaceful intent. I implore anyone who wants to come to Scotland to cause trouble, create disruption or deflect attention from the vitally important issues that will be debated at the summit to stay away so that we can ensure that we strike the right balance between peaceful protest and making the right decisions for the long term for Africa and the rest of the world.

I am sure that the First Minister will acknowledge that one of the earliest international initiatives on debt relief for developing countries was taken by Mr Major when he was Prime Minister of this country.

To return to the issues of security and policing, I hear what the First Minister says and agree with his sentiments—we do not want violent protest in this country at the time of the G8 summit. However, does not the First Minister agree that it might be naive to assume that all will turn out well? Can he assure people in Scotland that although we do not want to turn our country into an armed camp for the duration of the G8, plans are in place to deal with the type of violence, rioting and looting that we have seen at previous G8 summits?

We must differentiate between different organisations and different kinds of people. The people who are involved in the make poverty history campaign are peaceful, law-abiding people who care desperately about the situation in Africa and elsewhere and who want the leaders of the eight richest countries in the world to take action on that situation. I believe that, right up to the G8, they will want to lead and organise peaceful protest that is well co-ordinated with the authorities in Edinburgh and elsewhere. All the evidence so far suggests that that is the case. A considerable number of discussions are taking place behind the scenes and even in public about the required arrangements. The level of co-operation is increasing by the day, so it is perfectly possible for us to welcome peaceful protesters with open arms and to ensure that they can voice their opinion to the leaders of those countries.

On the other hand, at an international summit of this sort there is always the threat of a very small minority—perhaps even a small handful—of people who want not only to disrupt the event or the country in which it is being held but to cause significant damage. All our preparations, even those made more than 12 months ago, have been designed so that the potential for that is minimised and we are as well prepared as we possibly can be and so that we use the intelligence and the professionalism of our police and security services to ensure that Scotland is well protected, the summit is well organised and the reputation of Scotland is enhanced and not damaged by the event.

We all share the First Minister's aspirations and hopes for a peaceful outcome to the summit and for substantial progress in the decisions that are made at it. However, I refer to the situation that might pertain in Edinburgh not at the make poverty history march on 2 July, but at the events during the following week that are the primary source of concern to civic leaders. We cannot expect individual businesses or shops to decide whether it would be appropriate for them to close when such large numbers of people are present. The Institute of Directors is reported to have said that it believes that much of central Edinburgh will, in effect, shut down for the week of the summit. What is the Scottish Executive's advice to city-centre businesses and shops? Should they close or not? If the First Minister is, understandably, unable to give us a direct answer to that today, will he assure us that those businesses and the people who work in them will receive guidance on such matters immediately before the start of the week's events?

We need to get this into perspective. As I said in the chamber last week, we need everyone, especially the Scottish media, to calm down and to stop winding up people's fears when it is completely unnecessary to do so. Edinburgh receives hundreds of thousands of visitors every year. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that someone who attends the pop concert in London on the Saturday afternoon and then comes to Edinburgh on the following Wednesday will be any different from any of the young people from elsewhere in the United Kingdom and from across the world who come to Edinburgh every year for the hogmanay celebrations. There is no reason to suggest that the church attender in Sussex who has read about the make poverty history campaign and decides to come to Edinburgh for the week of the G8 summit to attend events here and to watch what is happening will be any different from the person from the same village who comes to Edinburgh in August every year to attend the world's greatest cultural festival.

We must get the issue in perspective. Yes, there may be a small minority who—not because of anything that has been said by Bob Geldof or the make poverty history campaign but because of the international organisations to which they belong—want to do what they have done at other summits, where they have caused disruption and damage. However, everything is being done, and has been done for months now, to ensure that the prospect of that happening in Scotland is minimised.

I do not believe that businesses in any part of Scotland should see the G8 summit as anything other than a massive opportunity to increase their trade at that time of year and to showcase their goods and the great benefits of coming to Scotland. I hope that businesses across Scotland will see the summit for the fantastic commercial opportunity that it is. At the same time, I hope that everyone in the Parliament, in the Scottish media and in the Scottish population will see the summit for the fantastic opportunity that it is to change Africa and to change the rest of the world.

Will the First Minister inform us whether we will receive more than the £20 million that has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cover the extra policing costs? Is he now satisfied that the Foreign Office is picking up the tab as it should have done in the first place?

The Foreign Office and other United Kingdom departments will pay the bills for those elements of the summit for which they are responsible; we will pay the bills for those elements of the organisation of the summit for which we are responsible. We will use the resources that we receive, and have received every year since devolution, from the UK Treasury for such events—for which we get a formula share from the rest of the UK. This year, we will also have the additional £20 million that the chancellor agreed to back in March to help us with the costs for what is a particularly extraordinary and important event.

---

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-1701)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland formally.

This week, the Royal Society and scientific academics from all the G8 nations issued a statement that pressed the G8 leaders to take urgent action on climate change. The Parliament's Environment and Rural Development Committee has also recommended that the Scottish Executive should set targets for reducing climate-damaging gases. Ahead of the G8 summit, will the First Minister take this once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity to set an example to the world, especially George Bush, by announcing a Scottish target for reducing climate change gases?

I call the First Minister.

I do not want to hear that a review is in progress. We are looking for statesman-like commitment from the First Minister.

You can hardly answer the question for him.

I am afraid that the member is about to be disappointed.

First, we already contribute to a target that includes Scotland, as we contribute to the United Kingdom target for the Kyoto agreement. We have worked hard towards meeting that target and we will continue to make our contribution. We are open to the idea of having some specific Scottish target or targets as well, which is why we have instituted a review of our climate change programme. The review is now under way. Such a serious subject requires proper analysis, so those who contribute to the consultation need to be taken seriously. We will not suddenly make an announcement before the end of the consultation to tell people that their responses have been worthless. We will listen to the responses and announce the outcome of the review, on the basis of the consultation, as soon as possible.

I accept that we must take a considered approach to the subject. However, the people of South Uist and equally low-lying communities elsewhere in Scotland are facing devastating consequences for their lifestyle. In the next few weeks, we will be at the forefront of the world's media and would like to show that we can lead the way. Will the First Minister consider making a statement to Parliament about the robust targets for reducing emissions of climate change gases that Scotland intends to set? Is he prepared to do that before the recess and ahead of the G8 summit?

I will be happy to discuss with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development how he intends in advance of the G8 to promote the work that we are already doing to deal with climate change here in Scotland. On Monday, Mr Finnie made a speech on the subject, and I am sure that he will make many others in the course of the month. I will need to discuss with him whether he will be able to make one to Parliament.

---

Road User Charging

To ask the First Minister what impact the road user charging scheme, proposed by the Secretary of State for Transport, will have on Scotland. (S2F-1703)

Nicol Stephen has already announced that we see merit in the concept of road pricing in Scotland, as part of a United Kingdom approach that could involve restructuring and reducing taxes on motoring. However, there is a considerable amount of work to be done on the practicalities and on the implications for Scotland of any UK scheme. We will continue to engage with the UK Department for Transport as its analysis develops.

Does the First Minister agree that, if congestion charging replaces the tax on petrol, people in rural areas, where cars are a necessity for travel, will benefit and the socioeconomic prospects of areas such as the Highlands and Islands will be boosted? Will he assure us that, where congestion charges bite, there will be sufficient investment in public transport and cycle paths and encouragement for park-and-ride schemes, so that people who must travel to cities and larger towns for work and services have a real alternative to the car?

The member raises two important issues. The Secretary of State for Transport has initiated a debate on road user charging. The proposal relates to the very long term—there will be a 10 to 15-year lead-in time for decisions and implementation—so we have considerable time ahead of us in which to consider a road user charging scheme. I see further improvements in public transport systems in Scotland as an absolute prerequisite for any such scheme, and I am sure that the same is true elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

When we debate road user charging, I would like us to recognise the great benefits that it might have for those who live in rural areas. Undoubtedly, the current system of motoring taxation, which places a greater penalty on petrol use than on car ownership, has a bigger impact on rural Scotland than on urban Scotland. For rural Scotland, the scheme could be a very good idea, but I want us to think through carefully the impact that it might have on businesses and individuals in urban Scotland and the main networks. We should not rush into implementing such a dramatic proposal without thinking through all the consequences.

Does the First Minister agree that, although a road user charging scheme may be introduced in 2020, many businesses, especially in the haulage industry in Scotland, face a serious threat in 2005? I invite the First Minister to play the role of Baldrick to Westminster's Captain Darling and to ask him to send to Field Marshal Blair back at Chateau Downing Street a simple message—that too many Scottish businesses are being sent over the top, too many Scottish jobs are being sacrificed by General Brown and it is time that we had a cunning plan.

That is probably one of the daftest and most incomprehensible questions that we have had at question time for quite a while. It is hard to know where to start in picking out bits that can be answered.

I will say one thing to Fergus Ewing. There is a genuine debate to be had about urban and rural areas and the road user charging proposal; about the practicalities of such a scheme and whether it would be workable and desirable; and about the levels of pricing that might be involved. Fergus Ewing's constituents in Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber will be surprised to hear that he is so opposed to a proposal that would benefit them directly and very surprised to hear that, for the sake of an Opposition press release, his instinct was to say no right away.

Does the First Minister accept that there may be advantages to rural Scotland from such a scheme, but only if it is revenue neutral over the piece and if it replaces in their entirety fuel duty and road tax?

Clearly the scheme will be much more acceptable, certainly to road users, if it is revenue neutral or if it offers a gain or an incentive to motorists. That would make it much more attractive. The issue will have to be raised in the debate that the Secretary of State for Transport launched this morning.

---

Euro (Economic Impact)

To ask the First Minister what effect the downturn in the value and stability of the euro will have on the Scottish economy. (S2F-1699)

Exchange rates are one of a number of factors that impact on open economies such as Scotland's. The impact of changes to rates will be influenced by other factors too.

My question also referred to stability and I do not think that economies are stable when countries such as Italy and Germany are querying the value of having the euro.

Does the First Minister agree that the strength of the Scottish economy parallels the strength of the United Kingdom economy? Does he recall the words of Mr Blair in 1997, when he boasted that the UK's economy was the strongest in Europe? Does he welcome the fact that that boast was based on our currency—the pound sterling—and is he grateful to the Major Administration that ensured that that was the case?

I was not going to do this, Presiding Officer; I was going to be charitable and not mention it, but I have to mention it now. Mr Gallie was a member of Parliament who supported the Major Government when black Wednesday happened and the British economy lost thousands of millions of pounds because of the mismanagement of the economy by the Government and the Cabinet—a Cabinet that Mr Gallie supported time and time again.

The British economy is currently more stable and successful than it has been for decades; we have the lowest and most consistently stable interest rates and inflation rates that the country has seen for decades; and we have the lowest rates of unemployment and the highest rates of employment that the country has seen for decades. Success in the UK economy is giving Scotland a chance to prosper. That is happening on the back of the stability of the UK economy and on the back of the innovation, knowledge and skills of the people of Scotland.

I want to ask the First Minister about the impact of the instability in euroland, which was highly predictable, on employment and growth. In particular, I want to ask about the state-aid action plan that the European Commission announced yesterday. Will the First Minister ensure that the new rules on state aid help rather than damage jobs in Scotland?

We continue to have discussions with ministers in London and at European level. We have discussions not only on individual state-aid issues but on the overall strategy and on the consistency of application of state-aid rules. We want to ensure that we in Scotland are not disadvantaged by those rules; that is clearly a central part of our case.

It would be interesting for us all to find out what the Scottish National Party's policy is today. I know that establishing a position on the constitution, the treaty, membership of the European Union, the euro and all of those big, important issues can sometimes be a bit difficult for the SNP, but finding out whether the view is the same in the front row of the Opposition benches as it is in the second row would be particularly interesting.

Does the First Minister agree that membership of the European Union provides substantial benefits to the Scottish economy, which would be put at risk by the pick-and-mix attitude of the Opposition parties on Europe? In particular, does he agree that the tariff-free access that Scottish business enjoys to 455 million consumers across the European Union provides substantial benefits for Scottish manufacturing, jobs, tourism and exports? Does he agree that, whatever the difficulties experienced during the treaty negotiations, peace is a prize worth fighting for?

If I had been asking the questions and Irene Oldfather had been answering, I could not have given a better answer. I absolutely agree with everything that she has just said, but I would like to make two points.

First, those who are responsible in the European Union need to respond to the outcome of the referenda in France and Holland on the proposed treaty. They must recognise not only that having an enlarged European Union is important for the future of the continent and that consistency of decision making is sometimes important at European level, but that people have powerful identities and strong national democracies that must also be recognised inside the union. Getting the right balance is a challenge to which we will continue to make a contribution.

Secondly, the difficulties around the constitution, the treaty and the decision-making structures for an enlarged European Union should not be an excuse for people in this country to call for Britain or Scotland to pull out of the European Union. Nothing could be more damaging for Scottish jobs and the Scottish economy, and any such plea should be rejected.

---

Fresh Talent Initiative

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to measure the success of the fresh talent initiative and how the Executive will make the resulting information available to MSPs. (S2F-1710)

Population statistics are already published on an annual basis by the General Register Office for Scotland.

I will not thank the First Minister for that answer. If the number of lame excuses that the First Minister gives this Parliament were matched by the number of people settling in Scotland each year, I am sure that we would not have a population crisis.

How satisfied is the First Minister that the low targets that he set for bringing fresh talent to Scotland—only 8,000 a year—will be met? At what stage is he prepared to put his hand up, face reality and say that the fresh talent initiative is dead in the water, blocked by London, thwarted and emasculated?

I suspect that Christine Grahame was absent the last time Sandra White asked the same question, otherwise she would know what is coming. The reality is that Scotland's population statistics have not been better since the 1950s, and that is one of the great marks of Scotland's success. I know that the nationalist party wants to run the country down, make everybody miserable and make us all feel inferior, as if we are all failing, but the rest of us in Scotland want to be cheery about our country. We want to recognise when success is happening and celebrate it. Unlike the picture that Christine Grahame and Alex Salmond paint, the truth is that, in 2004—the last year for which statistics are available—we had a population increase in Scotland of 21,000, and a net gain from the rest of the United Kingdom of 15,000 for the first time.

I am not talking only about inflation, employment and interest rates when I say that we now have the best figures that we have seen in my adult life. In the whole of my life since the early 1950s, Scotland has never had population figures such as we have. We should be celebrating the statistics and telling people what a great country this is. If the nationalist party would do that, it would not be in decline.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—