Plenary, 13 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, November 13, 2003

Official Report 705KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

I ask members to join me in warmly welcoming to Parliament members of the Palestinian Legislative Council and their chief clerk.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-336)

I plan to meet the Prime Minister on at least two occasions between now and Christmas and I am sure that at those meetings we will discuss a number of important issues for Scotland.

The First Minister said in March this year that he was opposed to compulsory identity cards. In the light of the Home Secretary's announcement this week, is that still the Scottish Executive's position?

The position of the Executive and the partnership has consistently been that we would be opposed to the use of compulsory identity cards for services that come under our devolved responsibilities in Scotland. That remains our position and not only have we agreed and properly implemented that position, but the Home Secretary and the United Kingdom Cabinet have accepted it in full. It forms an integral part of the UK Cabinet's scheme, as it has no intention whatever of using its card for any devolved services.

The First Minister had better clarify exactly what the Scottish Executive's position happens to be.

He just did.

Oh no: there is massive uncertainty in what the First Minister has just said. On 27—[Interruption.]

Order.

I do not know whether members of the Executive parties are interested in listening to what I have to say, Presiding Officer, but on 27 March, Pauline McNeill asked the First Minister:

"Will he assure me that all our citizens, including asylum seekers, will not be forced to carry any card that might be seen as an identity card"?

The First Minister replied:

"I am not in favour of compulsion."—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; c 20113.]

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary said:

"the Government have accepted the principle … and we are clear that to achieve the full effect … we would have to move to compulsion."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 November 2003; Vol 413, c 179.]

In March, the First Minister said no to compulsion and on Tuesday, the Home Secretary said yes, so will the First Minister now tell Parliament clearly and specifically whether he is in principle opposed to compulsory identity cards?

As I have said, the position in the Executive and the partnership parties that form it has been absolutely consistent: we have consistently advised the UK Government that our policy position is that any proposals for voluntary, compulsory or any other form of identity card system in the United Kingdom that might be used for any matter that comes under the United Kingdom Government's remit should not and will not be compulsory for use in relation to devolved services in Scotland. That will be the position for the whole of the next four years of the session, and it will be for the people of Scotland to decide in 2007 whether that position should change.

I will give the First Minister a quotation from what David Blunkett said in the House of Commons on Tuesday—[Interruption.]

Order.

David Blunkett said:

"the Government have accepted the principle … and we are clear that to achieve the full effect—on illegal working and the illegal use of free public services—we would have to move to compulsion."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 November 2003; Vol 413, c 179.]

If the First Minister is serious about his words that the British Government is to be told that there is no question of compulsory ID cards being used to access public services that are this Parliament's responsibility, will he place before the Parliament—before January, when the process starts in the UK Parliament—a motion that makes it clear that this Parliament is determined not to have identity cards in Scotland? Will he give us that commitment?

I am not interested in flag waving or symbols in the Parliament; I am interested in action and influencing the decisions that are made. That is precisely what Scottish ministers have done.

As I have explained twice now—and will try very hard to explain again—we have taken the consistent position that any ID cards introduced by the UK Government in any shape or form, whether voluntary, compulsory, partly compulsory or partly voluntary, in any year between now and 2007 would not, should not and will not be compulsory for use of services for which we have responsibility in Scotland. Using our influence, we have had that position fully accepted by the UK Government. It has no problem with our position and, indeed, this week has stated again that that is the case. The situation could not be clearer and I hope that Mr Swinney will at some point accept that and move on.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-344)

The Cabinet will discuss progress on the implementation of the partnership agreement and our legislative programme.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. I am sure that the Cabinet will also want to congratulate him on his elevation to the post of president of Regleg, the conference of devolved Administrations within the European Union. [Applause.]

This week, in the course of his grand tour of Europe, the First Minister did a radio interview for "Good Morning Scotland" in which he claimed—and I quote him accurately—that there were

"thriving fishing communities in many parts of Scotland".

Will he name some of them? [Laughter.]

The Conservatives might find that funny, but my remark was very serious. If Mr McLetchie took the opportunity to visit certain parts of Scotland, he would find not only that we have a very strong and successful shellfish industry in large parts of the north-west and in other parts of the country, but that the industry is growing and is competing well in international markets.

Mr McLetchie should also study the scientific research that was published just last month. He would find that, although we might have a case to make about how we want some of that research to be interpreted at the European fisheries council meeting in December, it confirms that stocks, and therefore parts of the industry, are recovering. In fact, stocks are stronger than they were a year ago. It is not the case that the whole Scottish fishing industry is in crisis, disarray or serious trouble. Parts of it are extremely strong and are competing both at home and abroad. We should be proud of those parts of the industry, rather than simply run them down.

There was a distinct lack of specifics in that answer. Perhaps I could give the First Minister some basic information. Today, there are 605 fewer fishermen in Fraserburgh than there were in 1997; 250 fewer in Shetland; and 162 fewer in Peterhead. In fact, in Scotland as a whole—in virtually every port of registration—there are nearly 2,500 fewer fishermen today than there were in 1997.

It is the ultimate irony that the First Minister made his comments in landlocked Austria, which is a country that highlights the absurdity of the common fisheries policy. Fish might well be able to swim in the North sea but, unlike the First Minister, they cannot get to Salzburg. Instead of patronising our fishermen and telling them that they are doing terribly well when they are manifestly not, why does the First Minister not shake off his complacency and use his new position in Regleg to fight for our fishermen's interests and to lobby for the scrapping of the CFP, which has ensured that there are no "thriving fishing communities" in any part of Scotland today?

I will leave it to Alasdair Morrison and others to make the absolutely clear-cut case for those parts of the fishing industry in Scotland that are very successful at the moment and which can be and should be more successful in future.

Although Mr McLetchie's comment about fish going to Austria was flippant, I must say that our ambitions for our fishing industry should include ensuring that the fish that we process in Scotland go all over Europe. The issue is not just about the management of fish stocks in the sea, but about how the fish that are caught are processed and how we then export the product successfully on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry. The management of the stocks in the sea is only one part of the equation. We have a thriving fish-processing industry in large parts of Scotland and fish stocks that are recovering largely because of some of our actions.

The fish industry in parts of Scotland is still successful even though it is smaller than it was a few years ago. We should boost that industry by negotiating on its behalf and by ensuring that there is regional management of fisheries and that the new regional advisory councils that we were promised last year are properly implemented. We should also ensure that the Commission sees through its commitment to ensure that no new money is spent on new boats in Spain or elsewhere and that everyone throughout the European Union takes their fair share in the management of fish stocks. Those will be our objectives in December and I am confident that we will succeed.

I believe that yesterday, as part of the First Minister's new role to which David McLetchie referred, he signed the declaration of Salzburg, which calls for Parliaments such as the Scottish Parliament to have direct access to the European Court of Justice and for a reaffirmation that regional and devolved Governments can lead EU delegations on behalf of member states. Does the First Minister intend to pursue those two issues with the UK Government so that we can protect our fishing communities and give this Parliament some power to defend them?

We were centrally involved in the decision-making process that led to the commitment in the new draft EU constitution that will ensure that the Committee of the Regions, on behalf of devolved Administrations in Europe, can make representations to the European Court of Justice. That is a positive step and, if the measure is ever required, it could be used to good effect.

Mr Lochhead is well aware of the position on delegations, which is that United Kingdom delegations are led by the United Kingdom. The key point for us is to influence the UK position and to use the UK's power in the European Union, in which the larger countries now have more power, influence and strength. When we lead in discussions, in effect, we lead for Scotland and for the United Kingdom as a whole.

The First Minister will be aware of the proposal to set up a European agency to promote language learning. Will he use his new position to advance the case for any such agency to be based in Scotland? Does he believe that the use of new technology in language learning, such as that used in the innovative project in my area—which the First Minister has visited—would be helpful in establishing the case for any such agency to come to Scotland?

I am sure that the use of that technology would be helpful. We are always keen to attract public agencies whose powers go beyond our borders to locate in Scotland. While the location and establishment of such an agency in Scotland might help to improve language teaching and development here, we must ensure that we accept that responsibility and that we improve the number of people in Scotland who are fluent in more than one language. The projects in North Ayrshire Council and Argyll and Bute Council, which have worked successfully, use technology to twin classrooms in Scotland and to twin Scottish classrooms with classrooms in France and elsewhere. I am sure that that technology can be used in other areas, too.

---

Nursery Nurses

To ask the First Minister how often the Scottish Executive's Cabinet has discussed the on-going industrial action involving nursery nurses; how often the Executive has contacted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in relation to that dispute; and what value it places on the contribution of nursery nurses to the early education and development of children. (S2F-348)

Cabinet regularly discusses issues that are related to meeting our partnership agreement commitment to secure the highest standard of education for our children and young people. COSLA, the Scottish ministers and officials are in regular formal and informal contact on that and a range of other issues. We do not hold central records of how many contacts are made in relation to any specific issue. We recognise the important contribution made by all early-years and child care workers. However, it is extremely regrettable that industrial action is being taken by nursery nurses across Scotland, and I urge all those involved to continue with or to resume negotiations to reach a settlement.

The First Minister suggests that nursery nurses should continue negotiations. As he well knows, nursery nurses are responsible for the crucial early-years education, development and care of Scotland's children, but their jobs or salaries have not been reviewed for 15 years. They lodged a salary claim three years ago, but COSLA has ignored it, which gives them no alternative but to take action.

Does Mr McConnell not think that it is time that he, as First Minister of Scotland, got off the fence on the issue and stated categorically that Scotland's nursery nurses are worth more than the £10,000 to £13,000 a year that they are currently paid?

I do not have any doubt at all that Scotland's nursery nurses are worth more than the money that they are currently paid, which is why we have supported an increased offer to them and why we have not only consistently funded more child care and early-years workers, but have ensured that they are better paid, too.

However, responsibility for the negotiations and the pay and conditions of nursery nurses in Scotland lies with local authorities, the nursery nurses and their trade union representatives. They should be meeting and discussing a settlement, not using strike action in a way that affects the education of youngsters. I hope that that message can be taken out of the chamber. It is vital that we reach a settlement to the dispute as quickly as possible and that we put the interests of the children first.

I do not know whether the First Minister listened to the last point that I made. The nursery nurses have tried negotiation. They have held meetings and demonstrations and have organised marches and petitions. They have been ignored by their employers.

The First Minister thinks that the nursery nurses are worth more than what they are being paid now. During the debate on the issue in September, one of the First Minister's colleagues, Margaret Jamieson, said:

"We now need the minister to ensure that there is one Scottish grade, one Scottish career structure and one Scottish salary scale for those who deliver a valued start in education to our children".—[Official Report, 24 September 2003; c 2032.]

The First Minister's colleagues believe that there is a role for him to intervene. Why will he not intervene on behalf of a group of low-paid women workers who need his assistance?

Because, as I have said over the past 12 months in relation to rail, fire and other industrial disputes, I do not believe that we as a Government should intervene in negotiations that either are or should be taking place between employers and union representatives. In this case, the union representatives and the councils, whether at national or local level, should be sitting round the table, discussing settlements and putting the interests of the children first.

Does the First Minister agree that a central and welcome element in the tackling of poverty and exclusion in our communities has been the willingness of the Labour Government and the Scottish Executive to invest in child care and pre-school education? Does he agree that, as a consequence, the sector has expanded, putting increased burdens, responsibilities and training demands on the people—predominantly women—who work in the sector?

I accept the obvious position that it is the responsibility of COSLA and the trade unions to negotiate a settlement to the dispute, but does the First Minister agree that there is a compelling case for a full review of the sector, which, in my view, would reveal the sharp contrast between the level of responsibility that is being placed on the sector and the level of pay that is awarded? Will the First Minister consider how such a review might be established?

I understand the passion with which Johann Lamont makes her remarks, but we have no plans at the moment for such a review. As for the present dispute, it is important for the immediate future that the negotiations take place, that settlements are reached and that those who work in and manage the sector can move on from the current position.

---

Glasgow (City Vision)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to support the city of Glasgow in achieving its city vision. (S2F-341)

A successful, thriving Glasgow is critical to the success of the west of Scotland and of Scotland as a whole. It is essential that central Government, local government, agencies and the private and voluntary sectors work together in partnership, not only for economic prosperity, but to tackle the severe social problems that still exist in parts of the city.

We whole-heartedly endorse Glasgow's city vision, which has been drawn up in partnership between Glasgow City Council and its neighbouring local authorities, with support from the city growth fund. We are backing our commitment to Glasgow by supporting and funding the completion of the central Scotland motorway network, the airport rail link, the modernisation of Glasgow's public housing, the renewal of school buildings in the city and so many other developments.

All the measures that the First Minister mentioned are welcome. They reflect the great need for investment and partnership working that must be met if Glasgow's deep-seated economic and social problems are to be tackled correctly.

The First Minister will agree that this week's announcement of £126 million of investment in the development of the Clyde waterfront represents a great opportunity to create perhaps up to 25,000 jobs in Glasgow. However, as he knows, if the still unacceptably high number of Glaswegians who are unemployed long term, especially in areas such as Drumchapel and Yoker in my constituency of Anniesland, are to benefit from a growing Glasgow economy, appropriate skills training is paramount. Will the First Minister tell the chamber what action the Executive is taking further to develop skills training and other support to enable jobless Glaswegians to access new job opportunities?

We welcome in general terms the plans to develop the Clyde waterfront. There is no doubt that the River Clyde is a national asset and should be used more constructively, for the long-term economic benefit not just of Glasgow but of the whole of the west of Scotland. However, we must also ensure that the appropriate skills are available in the Glasgow area to enable people to take up the job opportunities that might result from that or other projects.

There are two issues for us to address. The first is the skills that may be developed in younger people. That is why Glasgow City Council has been pioneering in ensuring that youngsters in schools have more access to vocational options and other opportunities through pilot projects. The council is now looking to spread those opportunities across the city.

Secondly, I think that I am right when I say that Glasgow remains the worst location in the whole United Kingdom in terms of the number of people who are economically inactive as a result of long-term unemployment or sickness. That is a serious challenge, both for the UK Government and for the Scottish Executive. That is why there are plans to pilot in Glasgow a scheme that will allow flexibility in the benefits system and provide people with an easier transition into work. That is exactly the sort of idea that we need to pursue if we are to meet the social challenges that exist, especially in the east end of Glasgow.

Does the First Minister agree that progress on such matters is prejudiced by the apparently poisoned relationship between the Executive and Glasgow City Council? Does he accept the recent criticism of the Executive's attitude to Glasgow by Councillor Charles Gordon, the leader of the council?

The evidence is in the detail. We have the most comprehensive package for a long time of investments in public services and economic projects to benefit the city of Glasgow. The examples that I gave in my answer to Bill Butler's original question—the largest housing modernisation project in the whole of Europe, the largest school modernisation project in the whole of Britain and long-overdue investment in the motorway network and rail links, which will now happen in Glasgow—show what an excellent relationship ministers in the Scottish Executive have with Glasgow City Council and other partners.

Does the First Minister support the view of the chairman of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority that trends showing an increase in transport and traffic in Glasgow will soon require as part of the city vision a second Clyde crossing, including public transport provision, somewhere in the vicinity of the Clyde tunnel? Such a crossing is particularly necessary in the light of the proposed centralisation of hospital services at the Southern general hospital. Will the Scottish Executive support such a proposal as a matter of urgency?

As I have stated in response to earlier questions, we are supporting a number of projects. The immediate priorities are to secure and complete the motorway network in the west of Scotland and to secure the Glasgow airport rail link, which is fundamentally important for the city, for the west of Scotland as a whole and for Glasgow airport. As those projects get under way, we will have to consider what projects should come next on the priority list. I hear the case for a second Clyde tunnel, but I also hear the case for a crossrail scheme in the city and for a number of other projects that also appear to have high priority. Choices will have to be made.

---

Whisky Industry

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to support the Scotch single malt whisky industry. (S2F-339)

Scotland's whisky industry makes an enormous contribution to the economies of Scotland and the United Kingdom, and the Scotch single malt in particular is a prestige product that contributes to Scotland's international image and reputation. The industry supports more than 50,000 jobs in Scotland alone and is the UK's fifth largest export earner. Specifically we support the industry by helping to promote it abroad through Scottish Development International and by investing in innovation to increase productivity, as I experienced during my recent visit to Edrington's plant in Glasgow, which now has the fastest whisky-bottling line in the world, I believe. That was partly funded by a grant given under our new arrangements for regional selective assistance to boost Scottish jobs and a great Scottish company.

I thank the First Minister for that enthusiastic reply. Does he agree that a single malt, such as Cardhu, is unique and quite different from a combination of selected malt whiskies, even if they are from the same area? Does he agree that a blend of malt whiskies should be clearly labelled as such so that changes to the product are fully understood by the trade and customers alike?

The Scotch Whisky Association does an excellent job in representing the industry and in ensuring that it works cohesively to maintain the international reputation of Scotch and that the highest standards are always applied to the production and marketing of Scotch whisky. As part of that, it is important that the way in which the product is described is crystal clear. I hope that any current issues can be dealt with properly by the Scotch Whisky Association in consultation with the companies involved, and that they ensure that whatever happens at the end of those discussions, the world-wide reputation of the industry remains high.

Does the First Minister agree that if any litigation was to arise due to the immediate problems at Cardhu and other aspects of the whisky industry, there could be massive repercussions for the Scotch whisky industry and the reputation about which he spoke could be severely damaged? He obviously agrees that there should be discussions within the Scotch Whisky Association, as various options are being proposed by all parts of the industry. To that effect, will he make a point of meeting the Scotch Whisky Association either before or after its council on 4 December when those options will be discussed? Will he give a commitment that, if necessary, he will propose legislation to change the Scotch Whisky Act 1988 and its subsequent orders? Will he also discuss with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs some of the European directives that impact on the labelling of Scotch?

I urge caution; we must tread carefully and get the right balance between resolving the current issue and maintaining the reputation of the industry at home and abroad. The industry operates in a competitive environment. It is doing very well, but it needs to maintain its competitive position.

The Scotch Whisky Association has a key role in ensuring that the right standards are met throughout the industry. My office has, of course, been in contact with the Scotch Whisky Association as a result of recent developments and it will continue to be so until the issues are resolved. I have spoken to some of the participants in the current discussions and I believe that there will be a resolution. I do not believe that we should do anything in the meantime that might add to the possible difficulties with the reputation of the Scotch whisky industry. We should support the association and the industry in maintaining standards and in solving the current difficulty.

---

Schools (Performance Information)

To ask the First Minister what changes the Scottish Executive proposes regarding public information about the performance of schools. (S2F-345)

Ministers are committed to providing more and better information for parents about how their child's school is performing. From next month, we will publish information on performance against the national priorities, exam results, school-leaver destinations, and attendance and absence rates. In total, that will be the most comprehensive and comprehensible package of information for parents on individual schools ever made available in Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware that, in Wales and Northern Ireland, national sets of data relating to examination results are no longer produced, and that in England additional information, including value-added data, is published to give a more accurate assessment of how schools perform in raising pupils' attainments?

Why is it taking the Scottish Executive so long to implement a similar practice, given that a commitment to do so was made more than five years ago, when Helen Liddell was Minister for Education at the Scottish Office?

Because there have been more important priorities in the meantime. If Mr Canavan recalls, there was a substantial difficulty in the education sector in Scotland when the national negotiating machinery completely broke down three or four years ago. The conditions of service—the most detailed and prescriptive conditions of service for any group of public sector workers anywhere in Europe—became far too cumbersome and required radical modernisation. There were also escalating problems of indiscipline and, in some cases, violence in our schools. Those problems required action through a series of new measures and policies. Furthermore, our exam system fell into utter chaos and had to be sorted out so that its credibility at home and abroad could be renewed.

This Executive tackled those and other issues as priorities. Successive ministers with responsibility for education were right to do that, and the Executive is right now to resolve the issue of providing information for parents and others on individual schools. We will do that. We will continue to publish exam results, but we will do so with other added-value information. Mr Peacock is working on that and he will make an announcement soon.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—