Plenary, 11 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, January 11, 2007

Official Report 731KB 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-2641)

I wish the First Minister a happy new year.

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

I wish Nicola Sturgeon and you, Presiding Officer, a happy new year.

Since Parliament last met, Malcolm Chisholm has been forced to resign from the Cabinet. Will the First Minister explain why?

I think that Mr Chisholm explained his reasons for his decision in his letter to me of—I think—21 or 22 December. I want to put on record my gratitude to Mr Chisholm for his work as a minister during the years when I have been First Minister. He has served this Parliament well as the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Minister for Communities, in which posts he made a real difference. I wish him well in his constituency and on the back benches of the Parliament.

That begs the question, if Malcolm Chisholm was such a good minister, why was he given, in his words, "no choice" but to resign from the First Minister's Cabinet? Is not Malcolm Chisholm's sacking from the Cabinet just one more example of the First Minister's words not being worth the paper they are written on? I remind the First Minister that, on 7 December, he said that there is no collective responsibility among ministers on the issue of Trident. He continued:

"I expect people in my own party as well as in the Executive to speak from their consciences and to speak their own minds".—[Official Report, 7 December 2006; c 30168.]

However, two weeks later, when a minister took him at his word and did just that, that minister was sacked. For clarity, what is the position? Are Labour members and ministers free to follow their conscience on Trident or are they now all expected to ignore their conscience, ignore what is best for Scotland's schools and hospitals and meekly toe the London Labour line, just as the First Minister has done?

Although, due to bronchitis, I was absent on the day of the debate on Trident, I was proud of the way in which Labour members openly and honestly expressed a variety of views on the subject. I welcome that and continue to encourage it as part of the national debate on this issue.

The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have differing positions on this issue. It is, therefore, correct that there should not be an Executive position on the issue. However, the individual political parties are perfectly right to hold their own positions in this chamber. We should all do so and we should do so vocally.

On the more general issue that Ms Sturgeon moved on to, this major debate that faces our country demands a degree of consistency among us all. That consistency is absolutely clear in relation to my position and in relation to the position that encourages Labour members and others to express their view. It is not evident on the part of the Scottish National Party, which, again this week, has expressed a different view about what it would do with the money that it claims would be saved as a result of not renewing Trident. It is simply not acceptable for the SNP to continue to say different things in different months or—occasionally—in the same week in order simply to win votes. That is something for which we will expose the party in the months to come. Indeed, I will do so today if Ms Sturgeon wants to give me the opportunity.

The First Minister's answer might make some sense if he had not sacked a minister for voting against Trident in this Parliament. He talks about consistency, but is it not the case that no one can believe a word the First Minister says? He promised to listen to the debate on Trident before making up his mind but he fell into line with Tony Blair on day 1 of that debate. He promised that ministers would be free to speak their own minds, but sacked the first one who did that. He said that he respected those who demonstrate against Trident but is now totally silent when those on the extremist wing of his party condemn peaceful protest. Is it any wonder that, according to yesterday's newspapers, senior members of the First Minister's party now think that he has "completely lost the plot"?

The first assertion is simply not true. I think that the Government is making the right decisions in reducing the number of warheads; in ensuring that, at the next Westminster Parliament, there will be a vote on the replacement of the entire warhead system; and in ensuring that, in the meantime, there will be a debate before the vote in the Westminster Parliament. I support that position on the basis of the announcement that was made, and I do so absolutely consistently.

What Ms Sturgeon says on the second issue is not true. No one was sacked.

On the third issue, I say to Ms Sturgeon that there is a world of difference between people genuinely having a consistent view—on Trident or on any other issue in Scotland today—and expressing that view peacefully in protest and politicians deliberately setting themselves up to get arrested at a military base and wasting police time. Police officers, who could have been used elsewhere in Scotland far more effectively, had to waste their time at a military base to prevent politicians who wanted to get themselves arrested from disrupting legal activity.

That is sheer and utter hypocrisy. If Labour was not going to replace Trident, there would be no need for any police at Faslane and we would have £25 billion more to spend on police, schools and hospitals. Is it not the case that the First Minister is in disarray on Trident and now presides over a Government that is in total disarray? Is it not clear that sacking a minister of principle and replacing him with a minister who is immediately rubbished by the First Minister's own back-bench and front-bench colleagues is not a sign of strength, but a sign of weakness? Is not that why so many people think that it is time to get rid of a Labour Government that is tired, divided and negative and replace it with a new SNP Government that is united, ambitious and positive about Scotland?

Where do I start? I repeat that there is a world of difference between supporting peaceful protests that are designed to make a point and to influence Government decisions, and politicians from the nationalist party, the Green party and the Trotskyists deliberately setting out to create and attend a demonstration at which people will be arrested and police time will be wasted.

In relation to consistency of approach on the issue, there is a world of difference between listening to the decisions of the UK Government and expressing a view on them and saying something different this week from what was said back in the autumn. Back then, Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence spokesperson, made it absolutely clear that the SNP would spend any money that was saved from nuclear weapons on conventional defence forces in Scotland. However, this week, in this chamber, Ms Sturgeon claims that the SNP would spend the money on health, education and police. The truth is that SNP members will say anything to win votes in Scotland. They will say anything to anybody, depending on what they think will be popular from one week to the next. That is why the SNP is unfit to be the Government of Scotland.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2642)

I wish the First Minister a happy new year.

I have not met the Prime Minister yet this year. When I do so, I will wish him a happy new year.

I wish Ms Goldie a happy new year and I wish her all the best.

On Monday—a working day for most Scots—a group of MSPs, who are paid by Scottish taxpayers to represent them on the issues that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, chose to mount a demonstration on an issue that is reserved to Westminster.

Of course Scots have the right to protest, and I might add that a nuclear deterrent helps to retain that right. Does the First Minister agree with his Labour colleague, Duncan McNeil, as I do, that those MSPs are self-serving self-publicists and that they owe an apology to Scottish taxpayers?

I will be very clear. I support the right of peaceful protest and the right of politicians and others to demonstrate their views and to seek to influence Government by doing that. I do not support elected politicians who have a responsibility for the criminal justice system of this country deliberately seeking to waste police time by making and then carrying out the obvious threat that they will try to get arrested. The parties in this Parliament that actively encourage such protest should be ashamed of themselves, particularly as it directly contradicts what they say in public at other times. They should be consistent and stand up for the police and the communities of Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. He well knows the true cost of the actions of people such as the leader of the Scottish branch of the SNP, Miss Sturgeon. While her main aim is to get her picture in the paper, the true cost of her actions and those of her socialist brothers and sisters is a multimillion-pound policing bill. That means diversion of police resources, increased vulnerability for victims of crime, an unnecessary use of precious court resources and more overcrowding of our prisons. Does the First Minister think that that is a good advertisement for the Parliament?

Not at all, and perhaps it shows what might happen if one of the coalitions that the SNP is fantasising about was ever to run the Government in Scotland.

I repeat my position; I do not want to add any more to my views on the subject. I support the right of peaceful protest. I encourage people across Scotland to express their views on this subject. However, I object to elected politicians disrupting the legitimate activities of others in Scotland with the sole aim of getting themselves arrested and wasting police time in order to get publicity. They should be condemned for that and they should think about doing it again.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will let Miss Goldie ask her third question, so that there is a sequence, and then I will take your point of order.

I am delighted to say that no Conservative MSP protested at Faslane and no Conservative MSP will. The priorities of the Scottish people are not submarines. They are to tackle crime and offences, which are up under the Executive; to reduce drugs abuse, which is rising under the Executive; to provide more affordable housing for those who are struggling to get a foot on the ladder, which is an increasing problem under the Executive; and to save local health and dental services from being cut by the Executive. Does the First Minister agree that whatever our political differences on those issues, they are the issues and they are why we are here?

I certainly agree that they are the issues. However, I will be very clear with Miss Goldie. First, crime has come down considerably since the dark days when the Tories were running Scotland. Secondly, the action that has been taken by the Executive to support affordable housing in Scotland is delivering houses for young families who need a first step on the property ladder, and we need to do more of that. Thirdly, in Scotland today there are more drug treatment centres and more people getting drug treatment than ever before. Fourthly, across Scotland, at long last we have seen improvements in the provision of dental services following the disastrous decisions of the Tories in the mid-1990s to close down dental schools and reduce the amount of dental training in Scotland. I agree that all those areas are among the priorities for this Parliament, but I also say that Scotland is now moving in the right direction and we intend to build upon that.

Frances Curran may make her point of order now.

Will the Presiding Officer give us the right to reply, given that our conduct is being questioned in the chamber by several members, including the First Minister? In a democracy, we should have the opportunity to reply.

We took part in a completely peaceful protest. No criminal charges were brought against any of those who took part in that protest, making it clear that we were upholding the right to protest in this country—a right which the First Minister and others would like to prevent us from having. I ask the Presiding Officer to give us the right to reply.

You have just taken that right by making your point of order. I was considering you for a supplementary question, but you have given a clear statement of your position, so I intend to move on. I will take two further supplementaries.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With the greatest respect, I suggest that if we had less argy-bargy and more accountability and more questioning rather than commenting, we would not have reached the situation in which Frances Curran had to do what she did.

Is the First Minister aware of the discussions that are taking place as we speak with the workforce at NCR in Dundee about the future of its plant? Although we are not yet sure about the extent of the redundancies that may be announced, it is possible that the impact will be severe, especially given that there could be knock-on consequences for hundreds of jobs in the supply chain.

At this stage, will the First Minister commit to using all the powers at his disposal, including regional selective assistance, to minimise the impact of any jobs that may be lost and the devastating blow that that would be for Dundee? Will he ensure that the Deputy First Minister visits NCR as a matter of urgency to discuss what assistance can be provided?

I understand that the situation, which is potentially serious, is being discussed with the workforce at this very moment, so it is difficult to provide a precise response other than to say, first, that NCR is a valued employer in Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland; that we wish it to retain a maximum presence; and that we will continue to work with it to secure that. Secondly, over the past 10 years, the company has contributed to the 15 per cent increase in employment in Dundee since 1997 and it is very important that we maintain that improvement in employment and in the Scottish economy. Thirdly, it is important that we also look to new employers and expansion in new industries. I was delighted by the Deputy First Minister's announcement on Monday of this week about the expansion of the employment base of Alliance Trust in Dundee and I hope that that will be the first of a number of announcements that will help to alleviate any difficulties that are caused by any announcement that might be made later today.

I give an absolute commitment to the people of Dundee and the surrounding area that I and fellow ministers take the matter and the future prosperity of the city seriously. Of course there will be early meetings to discuss the situation. I expect to speak to Kate Maclean, who is the local constituency MSP, on the issue within the next half hour. She is in Dundee at the moment and expects to be briefed on the spot.

I thank the First Minister for the reassurances that he has given to Shona Robison. Kate Maclean, who is the local constituency MSP, is on her way to Dundee to meet the workers and unions after the noon meeting.

I express the hope that if today's meeting at NCR is followed by an announcement of job losses, the First Minister will do everything in his power to ensure that the workforce has a smooth transition into alternative employment. Given that some members of the workforce have been employed by NCR for decades, I ask that special consideration be given to Dundee.

We should reserve our position on special consideration for Dundee until we see details on the scale of any announcement. It is clear that if a significant impact on jobs is announced, we would want to make special arrangements to help the city of Dundee.

However, it is important that we do not lose sight of our overall strategy for Dundee and for Scotland. The manufacturing export results that were announced yesterday show that year-on-year improvements have been made in manufacturing exports, following all the problems that we had in electronic engineering just six or seven years ago. It is important that we continue with our strategy of supporting and commercialising research and development. As well as attracting companies into Scotland, we must build up Scottish companies that can employ Scottish workers.

---

Pensioner Poverty

I offer my best wishes for the new year and say that things can only get better.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied that the present method of measuring pensioner poverty provides an accurate picture of its extent. (S2F-2652)

Yes. Our low income estimates are statistics that are collected independently by the Office of National Statistics. The headline measures that we use are accepted by academics across the world and by campaigners, and are comparable to those that are used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

I thank the First Minister for a well-researched answer. He has announced that the new Minister for Communities will draw up a strategy for older people. Could she include in that strategy a unit that will assess pensioner inflation more objectively? According to Norwich Union, pensioner inflation is running at 9 per cent, but next April pensioners can expect an increase in their pensions of only 3.6 per cent. That means that pensioners are often left to choose between heating and eating.

I am conscious of the on-going debate across the UK about the level and nature of the state pension, which is an important debate for everyone in the country. However, it is important that we take steps right now to reduce the number of pensioners in poverty and to assess that number accurately. Since 1997 more than 120,000 pensioners in Scotland have been removed from relative poverty. The measures that the UK Government has introduced on income for pensioners and the measures that we have introduced on central heating, free bus travel for pensioners and so on are making a real contribution to the quality of life of pensioners in Scotland.

It is important that those measures should continue. It is also important that our statistics should reflect reality. I understand that the independent statistics that we use take account of the different factors relating to pensioner income and expenditure that would allow the picture to be accurate. I am happy to give Margo MacDonald further information on the detailed issues that she raises.

I thank the First Minister for his offer—I will take him up on it. I put it to him that the figures are just a few months behind the reality of the struggle that many pensioners face because of rising fuel prices and council tax. I repeat my first request—for a unit to be set up to measure accurately the difference between pensioner inflation and inflation generally.

The statistics that we currently use include council tax as one measurement of income and expenditure. Many of the factors to which Margo MacDonald refers are already included. That is why our statistics are respected internationally and are consistent with the work of academics, campaign groups and others across the board in the UK and Europe. We want, of course, to maintain that position. I am happy to explain the issues further to Margo MacDonald following First Minister's question time. I apologise to the member for not previously wishing her a happy new year.

---

Tobacco Purchasing (Age Limit)

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made towards setting a date for raising the age limit for buying tobacco to 18. (S2F-2647)

I wish Duncan McNeil a happy new year. I hope that he enjoys the rest of it as much as he enjoyed the first 10 days.

The Executive is consulting on a draft order to raise the age for purchasing tobacco to 18. The consultation will end on 28 February. Subject to its outcome, we will be ready to move quickly to lay the order before Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

I am delighted that the Executive is taking decisive action to stop our children making the worst mistake of their lives. Following the smooth introduction of the smoking ban, thanks largely to joint working with publicans and hoteliers, will he assure me that we will co-operate fully with retailers, especially those with smaller shops, when implementing the change? Will the Executive examine whether provision of a proper national proof-of-age card, free of charge to those on low incomes, could be helpful in that process?

I recognise Duncan McNeil's long-standing passion on this issue and his desire to raise it with the Executive. We thank him for that and hope that we will reach a conclusion in the very near future. We will obviously want to work with retailers to implement the change effectively. In addition, we will work with the relevant authorities to ensure effective enforcement of the law.

We want to encourage proof-of-age cards. There should be no sale without proof to youngsters. In achieving that, we congratulate Young Scot, which has somewhere in the region of 150,000 or 160,000 Young Scot cards out there in Scotland today. The cards help to prove people's age and provide young people who use the card with many material benefits. I thank Duncan McNeil, congratulate Young Scot and urge other young people to take up the offer of the card.

I welcome the First Minister's comments on enforcement of the age limit. The low level of enforcement of the current age limit has been a particular problem in recent years. I hope that enforcement is improved if there is a change in the age limit.

Given that the First Minister has adopted SNP policies on the smoking ban and other smoking-related matters, I suggest to the First Minister that in his last few months in government, he adopts a number of other SNP policies on the scourge of tobacco addiction, including plain packaging, photo warnings and point-of-sale advertising. Although we have come a long way thanks to many members throughout the chamber and many campaigners outside, I suggest that in his last few months, the First Minister not only raises the age limit at which people may buy tobacco but commits his party to our measures that would assist in moving the matter forward.

Among others, we are looking at the range of issues mentioned towards the end of that question to continue our work to discourage people in Scotland from smoking.

As regards party politics and the member's claiming credit for smoking-related measures, I could have said in the past two years that the first MSP to raise the issue was Hugh Henry and not Stewart Maxwell and that I congratulate Hugh Henry on that. However, I have never once done that in this chamber; I have never mentioned here that a Labour MSP was the first person to campaign on the issue. I did not mention that because I wanted to secure the widest-possible consensus on the policy. The people who deserve the most credit for the implementation of the policy are the people of Scotland who have worked with it since 26 March last year.

---

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will commission a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, in light of recent events in England and reports that there may be up to 200 dogs being kept illegally in Scotland. (S2F-2646)

First of all, I express my sympathies to the friends and family of EIlie Lawrenson, who died in such terrible circumstances on new year's day.

Scottish ministers have powers to amend the dangerous dogs legislation and to create new legislation in this area. The law is kept under constant review and we will, of course, consider representations from the police or other interested parties. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police. Anyone who suspects that a dog is being kept illegally in Scotland must report the matter to the police so that the appropriate action can be taken.

I join the First Minister in sending condolences to Ellie Lawrenson's family.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the recommendations of bodies such as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which, like many others, regards the current legislation as inadequate in three respects. First, it concentrates on the breed rather than the deed—there is a need to tackle aggressive dogs that are not of the breeds defined in the legislation. Secondly, there is no provision in the legislation for what happens in the home. Thirdly, there is a need to look at making mandatory the registration and microchip identification of dogs. Will the First Minister look at those three proposals as a way of tightening up the legislation before another tragedy happens anywhere in Scotland?

As someone who grew up on a sheep farm where there could be up to a dozen dogs at any time, I have a lifetime interest in the matter. I understand completely the importance of the issue, getting the law right and ensuring that when the law is in place, it is properly enforced by the authorities and respected by dog owners and their families. Although Alex Neil makes constructive points, we have no current plans to review the legislation on the matter. However, a new committee of the new Parliament after May might well take an interest in the matter.

---

Coastal Erosion

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will make a commitment to additional provision to address coastal erosion caused by an increased incidence of severe storms. (S2F-2643)

Resources are available to support local authorities' coast protection and flood prevention programmes, and they will increase from £33 million in 2006-07 to £42 million in 2007-08. It is clearly for local authorities to come forward with suitable schemes to take up those resources.

I thank the First Minister for his interesting answer. As well as some of the high-profile problems that there have been around Scotland in recent years, there is increasing evidence to support the belief that coastal erosion is increasing as a result of increased storms caused by global warming.

Will the First Minister take the example of the problems that are currently faced in Montrose? The dunes that protect the town are under threat, as is the golf course—which incidentally will host qualifying for the British open this year. Will he consider the situation in which the good work that has been carried out so far by Angus Council and a local stakeholder group seems to be so limited in ambition that it is unlikely that the necessary work can be organised to prevent coastal erosion of the dunes at Montrose? Will he examine the policies and funding that are available to see whether it is possible for local authorities to utilise them more effectively where it perhaps cannot be argued that a cost-effective response can be achieved?

Obviously, it is difficult to comment on a specific local instance until we are able to study the details of any proposed scheme. Ultimately, we will have to make a judgment on whether it is adequate, correct technically and therefore suitable for resources.

What I would say clearly is that the amount of resources allocated to coast protection and flood prevention has increased considerably in the past four or five years. I think that back in 2001 it was something like £9 million, and in the next financial year funding will go up to £42 million. The resources exist at national level, and local authorities should be ambitious and speedy in developing their proposals for decisions.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—