Plenary, 13 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, January 13, 2005

Official Report 707KB 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-1335)

At next week's meeting of the Scottish Cabinet, we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland.

The First Minister has said in the past that he wants to be open and transparent. With hindsight, does he think that he was as open and transparent as he should have been about his holiday with Kirsty Wark in January 2003?

Yes.

I invite the First Minister to focus on the central issue of concern in this matter. He enjoyed the hospitality of an individual who, I accept, is his friend, but who also happens to be the director of a company that earns thousands of pounds in contracts from the Scottish Executive and who has been embroiled in the controversy about the withholding of evidence from the Holyrood inquiry. Does not the First Minister understand that it is those circumstances that turn a private holiday into a matter of legitimate public interest and an interest that should have been openly declared?

If Ms Sturgeon is suggesting that a civil servant broke the rules in awarding contracts to a company in Scotland, she should say so. If Ms Sturgeon is suggesting that any company in Scotland asked me for favours and that I did favours for it, she should say so. If Ms Sturgeon is suggesting that at any time in this job I have given preferential treatment to any company in Scotland because I happened to know it at some point in the past 20 years, she should say so.

However, what I think is wrong is the innuendo and the insinuation that a private family holiday is in some way wrong when the two families have known each other for over 16 years, when they have, quite properly, holidayed together before, and when everybody who knows them—and many who do not—know that they are good friends. It is wrong to bring that to this chamber, it is wrong to use it in the media, it is wrong to divert our attention away from more important issues and it is certainly wrong in relation to the members of those families who, like everybody else, deserve some privacy when they are on holiday.

I hope that the First Minister is not deliberately missing the point. I draw his attention to the ministerial code of conduct, which states that if a minister accepts hospitality

"from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action, it should be declared".

If accepting hospitality from a source that has a significant financial relationship with the Scottish Executive does not fall within the ministerial code, will the First Minister tell us what on earth would?

I will be very clear: there is absolutely no question that I received a gift or, in my view, hospitality, from Alan Clements, Kirsty Wark and their family. I do not accept that two families sharing a house that is owned by one of those families, who have been friends long before any of them were the national public figures that they are today, is in any way wrong. I do not accept that that represents a gift or hospitality, but it was in the public domain and everybody knew that it was taking place.

The issue to question is not a private family holiday in which friends share a house that one of them owns, but those who attack successful, Scottish professional women and the integrity of this Parliament through attacks on the integrity of my office. Much more seriously, the issue to question is those who employ photographers to sit in bushes and photograph children when they are on private family holidays. Those are the serious issues: they should be addressed as much by Opposition leaders as they should be by me as the First Minister.

I want to say, on the record, that Kirsty Wark and Alan Clements are two of the most decent, hard-working, honest and caring people whom I have ever known. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to question either their or my integrity on the issue. I also believe that the people of Scotland know that.

Does the First Minister accept that the purpose of the ministerial code is to ensure not just that the First Minister is above influence, but that he is seen to be above influence? Does he further accept that for him not to declare hospitality from this source is contrary to the code? Will he concede that he made an error of judgment, agree to register the 2003 holiday together with the one at the turn of this year—and any other holidays—and allow us all to move on to other issues?

If Ms Sturgeon had an ounce of decency, she would have moved on to other issues long before now. I assure her that I am probably more aware than any other member is of the demands of not only our code of conduct but the register of interests and the ministerial code. I am more aware than any other member is of the demands on the position of First Minister and of the need to ensure its absolute integrity.

I am also absolutely clear that my family and the family of Kirsty Wark and Alan Clements have a right to a private holiday in a home that is owned by one of our families. I do not believe that that holiday was the same as my having borrowed a house from somebody or as my going on a holiday that was paid for by somebody else. The elements of the holiday that had to be paid for were paid for by me and my family. The holiday was not even booked by me; it was booked by my daughter. A private family holiday does not deserve to be in the public domain. The Parliament would be better served if we had an Opposition that cared about issues instead of running down people in Scotland.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1336)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.

If I may, I will pursue some of the other points that arise from the affair that the First Minister has just discussed with Ms Sturgeon. The First Minister will be aware that Lord Fraser was quoted the other day as saying:

"at the time I had understood that Jack McConnell genuinely was using his best endeavours to get the tapes"—

the BBC interview tapes with Donald Dewar and Enric Miralles—

"I am bound to question that now."

That is the same Lord Fraser who was appointed by the First Minister and the Presiding Officer to lead the Holyrood inquiry; the same Lord Fraser whose inquiry was frustrated by the BBC's failure to hand over the tapes—as a result of which the inquiry remains formally open—and the same Lord Fraser whose inquiry had the First Minister's declared full support.

If Lord Fraser questions whether the First Minister's relationship or holidays with Kirsty Wark and Mr Clements affected his inquiry, is it really any wonder that the public are doing the same? How can the First Minister not see that?

First, Mr McLetchie of all people should know that it is possible for people to meet on holiday and for that not to compromise their political or professional integrity. When he and I played golf in Lamlash on the Isle of Arran two years ago on holiday, it did not compromise him and it did not compromise me. I assure Mr McLetchie that, when I played golf with Alan Clements in Majorca last week, it did not compromise him and it did not compromise me—I just enjoyed taking some money from him when I won.

Secondly, and much more important, there is an issue about the failure of the BBC to hand over the tapes to the Holyrood inquiry. I made it absolutely clear in the chamber—as I did in private to the BBC/Broadcasting Council for Scotland and in private and public to the previous controller and the current controller of BBC Scotland—that the BBC should hand over the tapes. When it came to a vote in the chamber, however, the Conservatives did not even vote for the motion that demanded that that happen. We all remember that, but the Conservatives have conveniently forgotten. We have been consistent and we remain consistent to this day.

I have rarely heard such nonsense in my whole life: that was a complete rewriting of the history of the Parliament. The facts in relation to the tapes, as the First Minister and everybody else in the chamber well know, are that this party lodged a legally competent motion by means of which the Parliament could have demanded the publication of the tapes to the Parliament, and that the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and, to its members' shame, the Scottish National Party voted down that motion.

Since we are on the subject of the tapes, has the First Minister made any further efforts since the publication of the Fraser report to persuade the BBC to hand over the tapes of the interviews with the late Donald Dewar and Enric Miralles?

The BBC is well aware of my views on the handing over of the tapes. Those views have been made clear to the new controller, just as they were made clear to the previous controller.

I remind Mr McLetchie that, at the end of the debate to which he refers, the Parliament divided only because he chose to lead the Conservatives in voting against the motion that the other parties present here voted for, which urged the BBC to hand over the tapes. Mr McLetchie said:

"The First Minister and the Scottish Executive deserve credit for the level of co-operation that they have given to the Fraser inquiry."—[Official Report, 31 March 2004; c 7230.]

He made it clear in that debate that he believed that we were making those efforts with regard to the BBC. We did, and we do, and there has never been any question about that.

I believe that to use that matter to question a private family holiday and to question whether people who have been friends for more than 16 years should go on holiday together is wrong. It is an intrusion into private family life. This is a questioning of someone's motivation, like Mr Aitken's calling last week for a BBC broadcaster to be sacked because she had gone on holiday with me, and I believe that that is fundamentally wrong. It is typical of the attacks that the Tories have made on the BBC over recent years.

The First Minister seems to fail to understand that the person who was calling the matter into question was Lord Fraser, as I made perfectly clear in my opening questions. The First Minister has failed to address that. Is the First Minister calling into question the integrity of the man whom he appointed to head the Holyrood inquiry? If so, why does he not say so in plain terms before the Parliament? If he is not calling into question Lord Fraser's integrity, why does he not answer the charge that Lord Fraser made this week—that the First Minister's conduct has compromised his position and affected the conduct of the inquiry?

Let us be clear about what is happening. What is being questioned is my integrity and that of Kirsty Wark and Alan Clements, and our right to have a private family holiday with friends whom we have had for more than 16 years, in their house. That is the question of integrity that Mr McLetchie puts. He should be more honest about that.

If the Conservatives believe that we should charge friends for staying in our own houses these days, and that we should register that in some way, that is ridiculous—it would be like replacing the poll tax with a pals tax. We have reached the ridiculous stage of the Conservatives questioning whether people can have holidays with friends whom they have had for more than 16 years. I do not believe that it is right to question the integrity of either those who have been my friends or my own family in being part of that holiday. If Mr McLetchie believes that that is right, he should be more honest and say that that is the issue that he wants to address.

We have two urgent constituency questions.

In the absence of Alasdair Morrison, I ask the First Minister and the Parliament to join me in offering our condolences and concern over the loss of three generations of a family in South Uist at the height of the recent storm. That loss will have a profound effect on such a close-knit community. Alasdair Morrison has returned to his constituency today because of the tragedy and the devastation that was caused by the storm.

What practical help does the Executive propose to give to communities that have been affected by the storm, in the Western Isles, the northern isles and on the Highland mainland?

Will the First Minister join me in commending the emergency services and all those who have worked hard to restore normality, from joiners boarding up shattered windows in the middle of the night to engineers struggling to restore power to communities throughout the country?

I echo those concerns and condolences and that sympathy to not only those who have lost family and friends because of adverse weather conditions in Scotland in the past few days but those whose property has been damaged as a result of the storms on the west coast and the flooding elsewhere. I can confirm that, following discussions with Alasdair Morrison, we hope that Cathy Jamieson, as the minister responsible for dealing with such emergency situations, will visit the Western Isles and other affected areas. We are also looking to give the proper assistance to Western Isles Council and others to repair the damage as quickly as possible and support the families concerned.

The First Minister is aware that, despite the intervention of Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, receivers were called into Stoddard International plc in my constituency last week. Yesterday the receiver delivered devastating news, which resulted in 266 employees being made redundant and a further 90 being laid off for two weeks. The receiver has indicated that he believes that the company has a fighting chance of securing a buyer. Will the First Minister give an assurance that he will undertake to ensure that those who are charged with providing support to any prospective purchaser of that quality company do so and secure the employment of the remaining loyal workforce?

Of course we regret any job losses at that company, as we would elsewhere, although we are obviously pleased with the news that there will at least be a base for the company to build on for the future. There was indeed an effort by the deputy minister and me over the Christmas and new year period to try to secure the future of the company. Clearly, Jim Wallace and Allan Wilson will continue to ensure that the agencies for which we are responsible give every assistance to both the existing management and any prospective buyers who might secure the company and the important industry for Ayrshire in the years to come.

---

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-1351)

I have no plans for a formal meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan Nobel prize winner, told Gordon Brown earlier this week that corruption is unacceptable. What is the First Minister's view of the embarrassment that a Mr Hugh Grant—not the actor—who was in charge of Monsanto's Asia Pacific division at the time when Monsanto was bribing Indonesian officials, is now an adviser to Scottish Enterprise?

Anything that Hugh Grant is questioned on in his dealings with that company in the past is a matter for him to answer for in relation to any suggestions that have been made. As is the case with the other members of our international advisory board, Hugh Grant gives his time voluntarily, as an expatriate Scot who cares deeply about this country, to help Scottish companies grow their global businesses and markets. He does that very effectively and I welcome his intervention and assistance.

During the period 1997-2002, $700,000 was given in illegal payments to Indonesian Government officials. During 1997-1998, Mr Grant was managing director of Monsanto's Asia Pacific division and was promoted to having global responsibility for agriculture. He was not on holiday with Monsanto; he had overall responsibility during most of that period of corrupt practice. Is not that an embarrassment and does not the First Minister intend to do anything about it?

I will not comment in the chamber on any allegations that should be dealt with properly by the courts and the international agencies that have those responsibilities. However, I am clear that the members of our international advisory board in Scottish Enterprise, who give their time freely and voluntarily to come to this country and assist Scottish businesses to grow their international markets, do so willingly and with my support. As long as they do not have convictions against their names for international business practices, they will do so again.

---

Sectarianism

To ask the First Minister what the next steps will be in addressing sectarianism following the recent meeting with football supporters associations. (S2F-1347)

I held a constructive meeting with the supporters associations of Celtic and Rangers football clubs last Friday. The Minister for Justice and the Scottish Federation of Football Supporters Clubs were also present. The associations have agreed to attend our summit meeting on tackling sectarianism, which will also be attended by the football clubs, local authorities, the police, religious faith representatives and march organisers. The summit, perhaps appropriately, will be held on 14 February.

I hope that the proposed meeting allows progress to be made towards addressing the cancer of sectarianism, which affects too many of Scotland's people and communities.

Does the First Minister agree that the vast majority of communities that are affected by religious hatred are the poorest in our country and that any finger wagging and lectures from chattering-class organisations will have little impact on them? Does he further agree that the eradication of hatred will be a long process based on the development of understanding between different religions and traditions and that our religious institutions will have a much more important role to play in achieving tolerance in our society than will any football clubs or their supporters, given the fact that football-related sectarianism is only a manifestation of the religious hatred that existed in Scotland long before football did?

I agree that the behaviour of a minority of football supporters is only one manifestation of the problem in Scotland and that the problem will not go away overnight but needs concerted, consistent action over a longer period. That is why we are working not only with the football clubs, but with the education authorities, in providing new resources for use in our schools, and with the police, in changing the law to ensure that tougher action is taken against those who carry out acts of religious hatred. Towards the end of this month, we will publish the report by Sir John Orr on marches and parades, which involve an element that is affected by sectarianism on our streets in far too many communities over the summer months.

Does the First Minister hope that the issue of the parades and what can be done to improve the situation, as well as the issue of football and the other, deeper issues that have been raised by Michael McMahon, can all be dealt with together in the conference that he will have? Will it be possible for all those who are involved and interested—for example, the churches—to make a constructive contribution following that conference?

I certainly hope so. The invitations will be diverse and I am sure that we will get a positive response. We have already had indications that those who organise some of Scotland's perhaps more controversial marches and parades are willing to take part in those discussions. That is a positive sign that we may be moving in the right direction.

There has been a particularly positive signal from Scotland's churches throughout my time as First Minister and there have been several positive discussions with church representatives, who seem to be closer and more interested in interfaith activity than they have ever been before. That has been exemplified in the actions of the churches in coming together so quickly after the recent tsunami disaster to hold a multifaith service. I hope that, in the months and years ahead, the churches will pull together behind our crusade to end sectarianism in Scotland. I am sure that, if they are closely involved, they will have a significant impact.

---

Flooding

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive is addressing incidents and threats of flooding across Scotland. (S2F-1349)

I reiterate what I said earlier. I am sure that the thoughts of all MSPs are with the families of those who have died as a result of the adverse weather conditions in Scotland this week and with those families whose homes and properties have been damaged.

We have increased the resources that are available to support local authorities' flood prevention schemes to £89 million over the next three years. We have coupled that with an increase in the rate of grant support to local authorities from 50 per cent to 80 per cent of eligible costs.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and I welcome the Executive's £14 million investment in flood defences along the Braid burn in my constituency that was announced on Monday. Does the First Minister agree with the chief executive of esure, who said:

"There has been an exceptional response to the problems of flooding in Scotland… We believe that Scotland has in place many of the key elements that England and Wales are lacking in terms of planning and co-ordination."?

Does the First Minister further agree that it is better to reduce the impact of flooding by restricting new developments in high flood risk areas?

I echo Mike Pringle's first comments. At times, Scotland's public servants suffer an incredible amount of abuse, particularly from some sections of our national media. During the past fortnight, our public servants have shown how good they can be in a crisis by pulling together and ensuring that local people are properly looked after. They deserve our thanks and support for doing that at a time of year when the rest of us were enjoying our Christmas and new year celebrations.

Although it is important that we take note of those lessons, the national flooding framework that we have put in place is an important tool to deal with the emergencies that take place at the moment, and to predict and prepare for future difficulties. Further work is being done on that and we will make the appropriate announcements in due course about the action that we will take.

The First Minister is aware of the impact of recent flooding in Perthshire, particularly of the homes and businesses in Dunkeld and Birnam in the constituency of my colleague, John Swinney.

Given that the development of flood prevention measures in the city of Perth was a product of co-operation between the then Perth and Kinross Council and the Scottish Office, will the First Minister give sympathetic consideration to ensuring the same level of co-operation in order to facilitate appropriate flood prevention schemes for the communities of Dunkeld and Birnam?

There is a substantial increase in the resources that are now available for such schemes; there will be something like a trebling of those resources during the next three years. When local authorities come forward with their plans, there will be greater capacity to deal with those plans than there might have been in the past.

The First Minister is also aware of the flooding that took place in and around the Stirling area, part of which happened near where I used to live. I welcome the resources that the First Minister mentioned, but I wonder whether he might be able to promote a more proactive working arrangement between local authorities and the agencies. In my area, local flood plans have been developed but there does not seem to be any progress with them.

The resources that we have made available will help more local authorities to implement more flood prevention schemes. However, local authorities need to put together those schemes in consultation with local communities and bring them to us. I urge those in the affected areas who have not yet begun to prepare such schemes, or who do not yet have them at a stage where they can come to us, to do so as soon as they can.

---

Youth Crime

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive proposes to take to address the issue of youth crime. (S2F-1339)

We have delivered new laws to crack down on antisocial behaviour, new improvements with fast-track children's hearings and youth courts, and substantial new resources to support programmes that prevent youth crime, or are designed to reduce reoffending.

Does the First Minister agree that those initiatives are not working so far? Will he confirm that Monday's article in The Herald, about a leaked report that has been suppressed by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration since August, shows that there has been a 10 per cent increase in youth crime compared with the Scottish Executive's target of a 5 per cent reduction, which makes a 15 per cent gap between the promise, the target and the performance? What will he do to close that gap?

First, like certain journalists, Mr Neil should check his facts before he comments on the issues. It would be instructive for me to read out bits of a letter that has not yet been published by that newspaper, despite the fact that it ran the story—and, I understand, was sent the letter—on Monday. The letter was sent by an independent person from the SCRA, which, as we all know, is an independent body that is charged with these responsibilities.

The letter, which refers to factual inaccuracies, states:

"SCRA could not verify the figures and the figures quoted were not accurate. I am certain that your readers, like me, will wonder why you chose to ignore this response from SCRA."

It describes the article as

"misleading, factually incorrect and extremely poor journalism."

That is probably why the newspaper has not published the letter, which continues:

"What we don't need is misleading articles, based on data neither validated nor confirmed as accurate by the source organisation."

That is from an independent body that was vilified—I think wrongly —in the press on Monday.

Secondly, on the issue of the figures, we must be one of the first Governments in history to be criticised for having a new set of figures that increases the figure to make it more accurate and to ensure that we have more accurate data. Persistent young offenders have been redefined to include those who have committed fewer offences rather than more, so that more people are caught in the net and we are therefore able to target the issue even more effectively.

We would have been able to target the issue more effectively if there had not been opposition from the Scottish nationalists and the Tories to our proposals to target antisocial behaviour and youth crime. They come into the chamber month after month to protest about crime and youth crime, but when laws are proposed to tackle crime and youth crime in Scotland they do not have the bottle to support them.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—