Plenary, 09 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, September 9, 1999

Official Report 770KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Concordats

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-886 by Donald Dewar on 24 August 1999, what the current position is in respect of the development of concordats. (S1O258) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): The texts of the overarching concordats have now been received and, as I have made clear on many occasions, they will be published in due course and debated in the chamber.

On 31 March last year—18 months ago—in the House of Commons, Henry McLeish said that the single reason why the concordats had not been published was that work was at an early stage. Work cannot still be at an early stage. Can the First Minister give us a date when we can expect the concordats to be published?

Work was certainly at a very early stage when my colleague made that statement. Mr Salmond will no doubt remember— and this is a serious matter—that these are the overarching concordats, so there are four parties to them. That means that there is a good deal of consultation and consideration. We are getting there, and I hope to have something positive to say shortly.

The important thing is that these are working documents between administrations. They are ground rules to allow good co-operation over a wide range of areas, whether it be the formation of European policy or the correlation of statistics. It is important that we get them right, but they are agreements between the Whitehall departments and the various administrations party to them.

Surely one of the parties to those concordats is this Parliament. One of Mr Dewar's other colleagues, Mr McAllion, suggested in that same debate in the House of Commons that the concordats could be, as he put it, "completely revised" once they were put before this Parliament. Is that the position? Does he agree with his colleague that, one by one, the concordats will be put before this Parliament and will be subject to amendment if members of this Parliament believe that they are worthy of amending?

No. I do not see the concordats as being documents that can be amended in the way that Alex Salmond suggests.

They are, as I said, administrative ground rules. They are not legally binding. They lay down good practice between the Scottish Administration and the Whitehall departments; they build on co-operation at official level and underpin present good relations. That is the right way to approach them. That is their status.

I hope that this will not be seen as gratuitous good advice that is resented, but it is important for Mr Salmond to realise that if he approaches the concordats on the assumption that he will apply an inappropriate test to them, he will no doubt be disappointed by them. If he sees them as do the vast majority of the people of Scotland who voted for the devolution settlement, he will see them as a sensible, useful and progressive way of ensuring that the new settlement works well.

Let us test a couple of the leaks that we have had over the past 18 months. In November 1997, a leak of the concordat on inward investment suggested that Locate in Scotland's ability to attract inward investment would be restricted. Is that still the position, or has the concordat been amended?

In March 1998, a leak of the concordat and attendant papers on agriculture suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would be the lead department in European negotiations, even on matters such as fisheries where the Scottish industry dominates. The question is quite simple. If that is still the position in the MAFF concordat, will this Parliament have the right to seek to amend it to ensure that this Parliament and this Executive are in the lead in European negotiations on the fishing industry?

I apologise for repeating myself but, as I said a few minutes ago, those agreements are not legally binding. However, they are important in an administrative sense to the Scottish Executive and to Whitehall departments. I do not deal in leaks. As far as inward investment is concerned, Locate in Scotland was never likely to be victimised. It is extremely important that there are ground rules that prevent the component parts of the United Kingdom bidding against one another to the advantage of incoming industry and to the disadvantage of us all.

I am very much in favour of debating the concordats thoroughly, but they are not documents that are open to amendment in the way that I think Mr Salmond envisages. Old habits die hard. I see that he has been rummlin through his old cuttings from Westminster. Perhaps old habits die hard with him as well.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many times the First

Minister has met with the Prime Minister since 1 July 1999 to discuss matters relating to the governance of Scotland and whether further regular meetings between them have been scheduled. (S1O-263)

I met the Prime Minister on 3 September when he visited Scotland. I talk to him on a fairly regular basis and will continue to do so. It is evidently in all our interests that that level of contact and co-operation is built into the system.

I agree entirely with the First Minister and I welcome his answer. I am glad that there is a degree of concord at this level of government.

Will the First Minster tell us whether, at his meeting with the Prime Minister on 3 September, they discussed the future of higher education funding in Scotland? Will he let us know whether the Prime Minister, as the architect of tuition fees, is happy for tuition fees to be abolished for Scottish students, if that is what the Cubie committee recommends?

That decision will be taken in this Parliament. We have not seen what the Cubie committee will recommend. I will go so far as to say that, when we look at how we organise those affairs, what happens to the 20 per cent of the undergraduate population in Scotland that comes from England is a matter of some importance and sensitivity. That is not a reference to any specific conversation with the Prime Minister, but is a general point of importance. It is right that we try, at least, to keep our colleagues in touch with what is happening, so that they can consider the implications. I would certainly expect a similar courtesy if things were the other way round.

I am glad that the First Minister confirms that we are free to develop a Scottish solution to the problem. Having been teased this morning about filling in his pools coupon, will he demonstrate that he really is a gambling man?

Mr Donald Gorrie has said that he would happily bet a year's pay that tuition fees will go. Is the First Minister prepared to bet a year's pay on Mr Wallace abiding by the principles of collective responsibility should the Executive decide otherwise?

I will not say this. I was going to say that—[Interruption.]

Go on, get your money out.

Mr McLetchie's question was lodged as a very clever question, but it has not reached first base.

In my gambling activities I give ground to the leader of the nationalist party who is, I gather, a confirmed player of the tables.

Only horses.

Only fools and horses. [Laughter.]

As for Donald Gorrie, he is far too stylish and rakish a figure for me to compete with.

Further to that lesson from Mr Dewar's charm school, and as Mr McLetchie's question was confined to meetings between the First Minister and Mr Blair, will the Scottish Executive say how many times the Prime Minister of England telephones the First Minister of Scotland about the governance of Scotland?

We can look at it two ways: either it adds to the gaiety of the nation or it is a cross to bear—I am not quite sure which. I have made it clear that I keep in close touch with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair. I am glad to do so. I count him as a friend and, more important, as a player of some significance. However we organise our affairs in this Parliament and in this country, I can assure Dorothy-Grace Elder that that will still be the case.

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

To ask the Scottish Executive what resources, in terms of funding and expertise, are being made available to tackle the algae responsible for amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), and to ascertain the threat to public health represented by ASP, and what time scale it has set for lifting the ban on scallop fishing currently in place on Scotland's north-west coast. (S1O-262) The Minister for Health and Community Care (Susan Deacon): Mr Lyon's question covers a number of points; I will address each one briefly. The monitoring and research programme on marine biotoxins is funded by the Scottish Executive and amounts to approximately £600,000 per year. Amnesic shellfish poisoning is a naturally occurring toxin that causes illness in humans.

The current ban on scallop fishing will be lifted as soon as toxin levels are consistently below the specified legal limit.

Will the minister ensure that fishermen's leaders and the local communities that have been badly affected by the bans are kept fully informed when decisions are taken, and that they are closely consulted as part of that decision- making process?

The Scottish Executive has worked hard to keep fishermen's representatives

informed and will continue to attempt to do that. The results of the testing and monitoring programme are faxed weekly to the fishermen concerned. Additionally, as soon as the orders were made, we ensured that fishermen's and trade organisations, local authorities and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency were alerted. I am mindful, however, of the point that George Lyon has made and I will continue to be active in that area.

Is the Executive aware of the laudable responsibility shown by Scottish scallop fishermen in complying with the ban despite the great financial loss to themselves? Can ministers give some idea of the lead time between the results of monitoring being ascertained by the scientists and those results being made public?

I am glad that Mr McGrigor mentioned the scallop fishermen's approach to the ban. They have been very responsible, recognising that our imposition of the ban is in the interests of public health. I am grateful to them for having adopted such a positive approach in their discussions with us. As I indicated earlier, we keep in regular contact with the fishermen about the test results and have partly lifted the ban where it was safe to do so. We will continue to take the right precautions in the interests of public health while remaining mindful of the interests of the scallop fishermen.

In recognising that ASP is a major public health issue, how close is the Minister for Health and Community Care to setting a time scale for lifting the other important ban—on beef on the bone?

I am sorry, but that question is on a different subject.

If the Executive is so keen on consultation, why did Susan Deacon's colleague, the Minister for Rural Affairs, refuse to meet fishermen on Mull last week, on the ground that it was "not his responsibility"? If it is not his responsibility, whose is it?

As Mr Hamilton knows, we discussed the entire issue at some length—for an hour and a half—at the Health and Community Care Committee meeting earlier this week. He raised the same point then. I have spoken to the Minister for Rural Affairs about the matter and, if I may speak on his behalf, the claim that Mr Hamilton makes is not accurate. If he wishes to discuss it further with the Minister for Rural Affairs, I am sure that the minister would be pleased to do so.

I restate the point that I made earlier: both I, as health minister, and the Minister for Rural Affairs are pleased to engage in dialogue with local representatives, whether it be on public health issues, for my part, or on wider industry concerns, for my colleague's part.

Does the minister agree that the scientific advice provided by the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen is soundly based, but that scientific understanding of the related issues is at an early stage? The laboratory needs more support to progress that understanding.

I acknowledge and concur with Lewis Macdonald's views on the role played by the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen. It is engaged in research not only in the Scottish interest, but as part of a worldwide research programme. We give a good degree of support to the Marine Laboratory, which does an excellent job. We must continually consider how such matters can be investigated further, and take the necessary action in the future.