Plenary, 11 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 11, 2001

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-762)

I begin by wishing the First Minister a happy new year. In his capacity as First Minister—or perhaps Scotland's Prime Minister—when will he next meet his London counterpart, the British Prime Minister, and what issues does he plan to raise?

I thank John Swinney for his kind wishes for the new year, and I reciprocate them—not only to him, but to you, Presiding Officer, and to all colleagues in the Parliament. I benefited from four good days in Mr Swinney's wonderful constituency, and I thank him and the hoteliers for that privilege.

I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the British-Irish Council summit meeting on 23 January.

I am glad that the First Minister makes better decisions about his holiday destinations than about his press announcements. I read in the media this morning that, on the issue of calling the Scottish Executive the Scottish Government, the First Minister does not have a friend in the world. I can assure him that he has loads of friends in the SNP if he wants to strengthen the Scottish Government.

As the First Minister is obviously fond of using the term Scottish Government—he used it in his new year message, and he used it in, of all places, the Sunday Post last week—will he, in the face of all the bile from the Westminster sources who have been briefing against him overnight, continue to refer to his Administration as the Scottish Government? Yes or no?

In talking about friends in the world, I am conscious that, in the two elections in Anniesland and in the other by-election in Falkirk West, the Labour party has many friends. At the end of the day, it will be the Scottish people who will make some decisions.

I am pleased to have the opportunity for the first time to put my comments on the record. In devolved matters, we are governing in Scotland. That has always been so. In September 1999, in our first programme for government, we said:

"This document turns our agreement into a programme of work for this first Scottish Government."

I can tell the chamber today that we will publish our second programme for government later this month. However, let me go further and make it clear that we have no plans to change the name of the Scottish Executive, as it stands in the Scotland Act 1998, because we do not need to—we are a Government.

We have just seen the Minister for Parliament hung out to dry with that answer.

In the newspapers this morning, a senior Labour minister said:

"They can call themselves the White Heather Club if they want, but they will never be the Scottish government."

Does the First Minister agree that that is evidence of a contemptuous attitude towards his Government by unnamed Labour ministers who obviously do not have a real job to do at Westminster? Will the First Minister join me in condemning those unattributed and spineless remarks by Labour ministers? Yes or no?

The reflections on Westminster remind me of the best story this week. In response to the suggestion that Alex Salmond might stay at Westminster, Mr Stan Tennant, the convener of the SNP's Banff and Buchan constituency party, said that Mr Salmond

"is obviously more comfortable with Westminster."

We get all the lectures from the SNP about the quality of the Scottish Parliament and the drive towards the word that the SNP will not use—independence. It is important to stress that, as I have said, we have embarked on a new phase of devolution, in which we will move from the mentality of a Whitehall department to that of a responsible Government. I want to underline that.

I make no apologies for the fact that over the next few years we will have some tough choices and hard decisions to make. That means being mature as devolution progresses—we must be mature as a Government in making new priorities or resetting existing priorities, and we must be prepared to say where the money is coming from to do so. Let me emphasise that by confirming that decisions about Scotland on devolved matters will be taken here, supported by the coalition Government. We serve for Scotland. We have a Government in Scotland that deals with devolved matters. Let us end all the political froth. The nationalists like to use that as a smokescreen, because, despite their protestations, they still have no policies.

If Westminster sources can say that there is no question of the Scottish Executive's calling itself the Scottish Government, is not it now an open question whether Henry McLeish governs Scotland or whether London governs Henry McLeish?

There is a dictum that the old ones are the best, but that question was slightly pathetic. We hear again that the Government at Westminster leads. I do not think that John Swinney is adapting his script as question time progresses. He is following the script that he brought into the chamber.

I reconfirm that we are making decisions on devolved matters in Scotland for the Scottish people. I have said the words "Scottish Government" three times. We govern for the whole of Scotland. That is crystal clear. If SNP members want to take advantage of this storm in a teacup, that is up to them.

I want to tell the Scottish people that we will put record numbers of police on the streets, that we have an NHS plan with which the SNP cannot compete, that we have taken unemployment to its lowest level for a generation and that employment is at its highest level for nearly 30 years. What do we get from the nationalists? More constitutional machinery. The people of Scotland want sound policies and the coalition will deliver.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-752)

The Cabinet will meet on 16 January, when we will discuss issues of importance to the Executive—or the Government of Scotland, if Mr McLetchie so wishes—and to the people of the country.

I am surprised that the First Minister does not want to rename the Cabinet, just in case people think that it is a drinks cupboard.

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will no doubt—[Interruption]. Could I have some order?

Order. Let us hear the rest of the question.

Thank you.

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will no doubt take stock following the First Minister's disastrous attempt at a rebranding exercise. As we all know, that will not work. The team strips may change, but the results will still be shocking. Instead of all the dangerous and divisive squabbling between London and Edinburgh—all that political froth—done at the First Minister's bidding, why does not the First Minister stop preening himself, get on with the job and concentrate on what really matters to people in Scotland?

It is with great apprehension that I reply to that mauling. One of the great novelties of my position is that I often want to ask the leader of the Tories in Scotland when he last met William Hague, and what they discussed. Alas, Sir David, you would not allow me to do that. We will not find out about David McLetchie's discussions—he is now writing away furiously at his next response.

The coalition is delivering for the people of Scotland and delivering on policies. The Tories have an enormous problem. They cannot decide to say whether they are making £16 billion of cuts at the next election—£24 million in each constituency that is covered by the regional list in which David McLetchie is involved. In addition, whoever one speaks to gives different estimates of how well the Tories are doing at clawing back that £16 billion.

We need no lectures from David McLetchie about delivering policies for people. We are picking up the mess that we inherited from 19 poor years at the hands of the Conservatives. I hope that David McLetchie has some notion that, if he is part of the Parliament and of devolution, he should start to support it.

From the events of the past 48 hours, it is obvious that I speak to Mr Hague a good deal more often than the First Minister speaks to the Prime Minister and, moreover, that our relationship is a good deal more cordial. The record that the First Minister describes is, quite frankly, not one that the public recognise. Indeed, even the Secretary of State for Scotland was forced to acknowledge that Labour has failed on many counts. The record makes pretty grim reading: taxes are higher; hospital waiting lists are longer; serious crime is rising; and school standards are falling. Is it not the case that the only one of its 1997 election pledges that Labour has met is the establishment of the Parliament, which, through his vanity, the First Minister is doing his level best to discredit?

To inject a bit of solidarity with our colleagues south of the border, let me say that I was intrigued by the comments of Mr Nigel Hastilow, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Edgbaston, who claimed:

"For many voters and most of the media, the Conservative Party is a lost cause."

Not only that, but it is suggested that we have never had it so good: people are prospering, unemployment is falling and interest rates are low—there is nothing much to worry about. Everybody in the coalition would agree with that assessment.

If we are going to exchange blows on policies and commitments, let us remember that in Scotland this year we are spending £0.5 billion extra on the health service—delivered by the coalition. We will give Scottish police forces—which Mr McLetchie sometimes talks about—a record amount of finance to have record numbers of police officers. We have abolished tuition fees and we are working with the unions and the local authorities to give a 21st century deal to our teachers, who deserve it. We will take no lecture from Mr McLetchie. I want to know where the £16 billion is coming from.

Will the First Minister confirm to his Cabinet and to the chamber whether the European Commission minutes from last week's fishery talks in Brussels are accurate? They suggest that the London-led team agreed to a cod recovery plan that will devastate the Scots fishing industry.

Will the First Minister give a commitment to the chamber and to the Scottish fishing industry that his Government will support our own industry's proposals at next week's talks? In return for the sacrifice that will be made by our fleet to regenerate fish stocks and to save the industry, will he give an undertaking that he will match in this country the support that other states give to their fleets?

The fishing industry is very important to our country, which is why, over the past two or three question times, we have given absolute guarantees that we want to work with it to secure what is best for our fishermen, at an extraordinarily difficult time, given the Commission's proposals on stocks.

We are also working, through Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin, to ensure that the current proposals from the Commission are effectively scrutinised. The Parliament is united in wanting the best deal, in difficult circumstances, for the fishermen of this country. I hope that no one would demur from that and I give the reassurance that we will do everything possible at the highest levels to ensure that it is delivered.

Without wishing to spoil the First Minister's excellent afternoon, I offer my unqualified support for his honesty in pointing out that Scotland has an elected Government as well as an elected Parliament. Does he agree that Scottish democracy is multi-layered, with Government operating at European, UK, Scottish and local government levels, powered by the principles of shared sovereignty and subsidiarity? Does he further agree that, while absolutist ideas such as independence—investing all political sovereignty in one place or one institution—continue to be of historical interest, they are of no relevance whatever to the new Scotland in the new century?

Give him a job.

I know how to deal with this.

As a long-time colleague of John McAllion in the other place that some people do not like, I am often apprehensive when he gets to his feet. However, I am pleased to respond to his question and to echo the sentiments that he has always made about the need for a Scottish Parliament to deliver at the heart of Scotland for the Scottish people. It is important in the coalition of interests in Scotland—whether it is local government, Europe, Westminster or Edinburgh—that we work together in the common interest that we serve.

This point is also worth making: despite the carping of SNP members, we have the benefit of being part of a devolved settlement that delivers from Westminster to Scotland—and from Edinburgh—the best partnership and the best balance.

---

Farmed Salmon

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's response is to recent reports that farmed salmon poses a health risk to consumers. (S1F-756)

On questions of food safety, the Scottish Executive is advised by the Food Standards Agency. The agency has advised that there is currently no evidence to indicate that farmed salmon poses a health risk for consumers. All new research is assessed as part of the agency's continuing review of contamination levels across the food chain from agents such as dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls. It is important that consumers are fully informed on food safety issues, and the Food Standards Agency will ensure that scientific evidence is made public. The Executive believes in open government and we will do all that we can to give the public the information that they need.

The First Minister will be aware that the Scottish salmon farming industry produces a top-quality product that earns a premium in the European market. Most important, it provides nearly 5,000 jobs in remote parts of the Highlands and Islands such as Mull, Islay and the Argyll coast. Those rural communities are incensed and angry at the misrepresentation on the BBC programme "The Price of Salmon" of the facts surrounding PCBs. They are also incensed by the refusal to allow the industry a chance to respond. Will the First Minister support the representations that are being made to the BBC demanding that in future it ensures the highest possible standards of accuracy and balance in its programmes, as the general public expect from a public sector broadcaster?

George Lyon has raised an important issue, which should unite the Parliament. I share his concern about the impact on employment in remote rural areas, where the industry provides jobs, prosperity and investment. When dealing with those issues in Parliament or in the media, we must be very careful about what we are saying.

It is always useful to have information. Salmon has innumerable health benefits. It is full of protein and rich in valuable omega 3 essential oils, which are recognised as vital ingredients in a healthy diet. Although concerns have been voiced—and I recognise the anger expressed by George Lyon and those in the industry—I hope that broadcasters dealing with sensitive issues will go to the maximum lengths to ensure objectivity. If they are dealing with surveys, they should do so from a wide survey base so that the figures that they are using have something positive to say to the public.

The Government has received a large number of representations from the industry and through the auspices of a former Conservative minister. We welcome that and we want to work with the industry to ensure that no one is undermined by the actions and discussions that have taken place. We will work with the industry to promote the benefits that it brings to Scotland and to the health of individual Scots who eat its product.

Will the First Minister order an investigation into the practicality of salmon fishing in the open sea, which has been done successfully off County Antrim? In such cases, the gunge under salmon cases is swept away and dispersed, thus reducing any possible health risks.

I am sure that Winnie Ewing will forgive me for the fact that my expertise does not extend to that level of detail. However, the Minister for Rural Development, Ross Finnie, was listening to her question and I am sure that he will want to record and acknowledge what she says and perhaps take action on it.

I am glad that Winnie Ewing has asked an intelligent question, because playground behaviour does not behove an issue as serious as this one. Jobs in north-west Sutherland are very scarce indeed, and the salmon farming industry is absolutely vital. Does the First Minister agree that public confidence in Scottish farmed salmon is essential and that, to that end, it would be useful for the Scottish Executive to work still more closely with organisations such as Scottish Quality Salmon and the Shetland Salmon Farmers Association?

I am sure that Jamie Stone was not suggesting for a moment that Dr Ewing ever asks questions that are not sensible.

This issue should unite the Parliament. Jamie Stone is absolutely right to mention the fact that we need advocacy for such an important Scottish industry. That must be done properly, no matter what the medium is. I can assure members that the Scottish Executive, through its various departments, will work closely with the industry to tackle the issues that have been raised in all parts of the chamber today.

---

Transport (Travel Information)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to ensure that accurate travel information is provided during periods of adverse weather. (S1F-744)

The national driver information and control system provides continuous information on the condition of many of the major roads in Scotland. Information on disruption to public transport can be obtained from the relevant operators. Up-to-date weather and transport information is also provided by the broadcast media.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that this matter is of particular importance to the travelling public? Does he appreciate that, during the recent bad weather, members of the public would have been able to establish whether a local hospital was open but not whether there was road access to it, unless the hospital was situated on a trunk route or motorway? Will he undertake to investigate who owns information on whether roads are passable, so that there is a clear and coherent system, particularly given that many members of the public are reticent about contacting the police to find out travel information?

The final point is important. The police have many tasks. We should have sources of proper information. It is vital for an efficient transport system that we have information. I am happy to look into the points that David Mundell has raised. I recognise that he takes an interest in such matters. It is right not only for his area but for the rest of Scotland that information is provided so that the efficiency of the transport system can be enhanced.