Plenary, 14 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, November 14, 2002

Official Report 775KB 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. (S1F-2243)

Next week, Cabinet will discuss a number of important issues and, as at this week's Cabinet meeting, I will provide colleagues with an update on the fire service dispute.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer and associate the Scottish National Party with the Lord Advocate's comment in Parliament this morning that hoax callers during the fire dispute, or at any other time, must be pursued with absolute vigour.

Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister told Parliament:

"fire service pay and conditions … are matters for local authority employers."—[Official Report, 13 November 2002; c 15310.]

If that statement is true, why did the Government intervene to block a 16 per cent pay deal, which was proposed by the local authorities and discussed at a meeting with the Deputy First Minister in June? Is it because the Government is not prepared to make available any new money for fire service pay?

First, I welcome the fact that John Swinney has applauded what the Lord Advocate said in this morning's debate. It is important that we all condemn the making of hoax calls at any time, but particularly when there are not the same resources available. People should be made aware that calls can be traced and that both the police and fiscals will pursue the perpetrators with vigour.

The simple answer to the second question is that a 16 per cent offer was not blocked. As Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of the Local Government Association, has made clear repeatedly, the Government at no time intervened to prevent the local fire authorities from making a pay offer to the Fire Brigades Union.

It is clear from that answer that there is no new money available from the Government. [Interruption.]

Order.

I have in front of me a document that was made available to the fire service employers, which says:

"Bain states that the proposals should be self-financing. The Government agrees and will make no new money available."

The document says that the pay package must be paid for by savings, including reductions in fire engines and cuts in night staffing. Is it not the case that the only way in which the Government plans to deliver the pay deal that the Deputy First Minister lauded in Parliament yesterday is by making cuts to the quality of our fire service?

I have often thought, when listening to the exchanges between Mr Swinney and the First Minister, that Mr Swinney just comes out with his next scripted question regardless of the answer. Given what I have already said, there was absolutely no logic in the opening part of the question that he just asked. I made it clear yesterday that I believe that the Bain working paper provides the basis for further negotiation on a range of issues, including modernisation of the fire service and pay. I do not believe that that need lead—indeed I do not wish it to lead—to any diminution in the quality of service. We are trying to achieve not only a fair pay deal for our firefighters, but a modern and efficient fire service. I think that both can be achieved.

I am holding the paperwork that has gone to the employer side of the negotiations—the internal papers of the employers organisation. The papers contain the advice that those people are receiving in order to judge what the Government is bringing to the party. I am trying to get the Deputy First Minister to spell out clearly what the deal means to the public. Yesterday, he implied that new Government money would be given to firefighters in return for reform. Today, it is clear that there is no new money and that the Government's reforms are really cuts in the quality of our fire service. Is it not the case that our firefighters are being asked to accept a pay package that jeopardises public safety?

I totally refute that. The increase in Executive expenditure on fire services in recent times—both grant-aided expenditure and capital expenditure—shows our commitment to the fire service. The white paper that we published earlier this year, which the Parliament supported, shows our vision of the way forward for a modern fire service that is fit for the 21st century. It wrong for John Swinney to assert that there will be a diminution in the quality of service—to do so amounts to scaremongering.

The Bain paper not only mentions potential percentage pay increases, but discusses how to pave the way to the future for a modern, reformed fire service in a way that will allow us to improve quality and to ensure that our firefighters receive decent pay.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-2244)

The First Minister has plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland later this month, when, among other issues, they will discuss ways of protecting Scotland's fishing industry and the promotion of Scotland abroad.

I hope that, when the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland get together, they will agree that the fire engines, protective clothing and specialist equipment that are locked up in our fire stations are owned and paid for by the general public, not by the firefighters. Does the Deputy First Minister accept that our servicemen and women, two of whom died and 325 of whom were injured in the 1977 strike, should be able to use modern equipment this time round, as they risk their lives while attempting to save the lives of others?

I acknowledge David McLetchie's point, which his colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made yesterday. As I indicated then, such matters are kept under review. Important issues are involved. The situation is not as simple as Mr McLetchie makes it out to be. The contingency planning has been based on the use of military equipment and other resources that are available to the armed forces. The military have been trained on the available equipment, such as the green goddesses.

I share David McLetchie's concern for the well-being and safety of the military personnel, who, in the hours since 6 o'clock last night, have responded very well to the challenges that have been posed. However, I do not believe that it would be in the interests of their safety if they were to try to use complex equipment that they have not been trained to use. That applies not only to the vehicles, but to some of the other equipment. It would not be safe for them to use such equipment without proper training, which cannot be done overnight.

The Deputy First Minister is right—such training cannot be done overnight. According to the Retained Firefighters Union, it takes five days to learn the basics of driving a modern fire engine, seven days to learn how to use specialist cutting equipment and 10 days to learn how to use breathing equipment. I remind the Deputy First Minister that there are 24 striking days between now and Christmas.

The Executive's approach is nothing to do with an inability to train people to use such equipment; it is about cowardice and a failure to stand up to the public sector unions. Does the Deputy First Minister, who is in charge of fire services in Scotland, acknowledge that saving people's lives is far more important than not crossing picket lines?

Mr McLetchie's comments are most regrettable. He has sought to belittle the importance of training. The training times that I have been told about at the fire colleges are considerably longer than the times that he has cited. He must face up to the fact that the firefighters will return to their normal work tomorrow evening. Unless we were to withdraw some of the equipment that the fire service uses in the ordinary course of its work, there would not be sufficient equipment for that training to be carried out in the next seven days.

Is it better for service personnel to tackle fires with the equipment that they have been trained to use or would it be better for them to use complex equipment that they have not been trained to use? Mr McLetchie should reflect on that. I am sure that the best option would be for the firefighters to use the equipment that they have been trained to use. That is why it is so important that people get back around the negotiating table to try to settle the dispute.

Does the Deputy First Minister accept that the firefighters' dispute will not be resolved by the nationalists' scaremongering or by the Tories' war rhetoric? As in every dispute, there are two sides to the argument. [Interruption.]

Order. Please stop interrupting, Mr Sheridan. The member has the floor and is asking a question.

I am—

Mr Sheridan, please sit down.

I thought that the big boy could take it.

Let the questioner continue as a matter of courtesy.

This gives me the opportunity to say once again that I have been heckled by boilermakers and Tommy Sheridan ain't no boilermaker.

There are two sides to any dispute. The dispute will not be resolved in the Parliament. The sooner that the two sides get together to resolve the dispute, the better.

I am not sure that that was a question, but I will allow the Deputy First Minister to comment on it.

I agree with the point that Mr McNeil has made. The dispute will not be settled on the picket line; it will be settled by the parties getting around the table. I believe that the Bain paper provides the basis for a successful negotiation.

We will benefit all round if members appreciate what question time involves and ask questions.

---

Public-private Partnerships

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will take forward its plans to end the two-tier work force for public-private partnership projects. (S1F-2248)

On Monday, we announced a protocol that will end the scope for a two-tier work force in future PPP projects. It will also ensure that fair employment policies and practices are followed by public authorities and contractors when considering, setting up and operating PPP contracts.

Will the Deputy First Minister spell out how all stakeholders—public authorities, private companies, users and local communities, as well as employees—will benefit from the ending of the two-tier work force in new PPPs? Is the protocol, which has delivered the end of the two-tier work force on those projects, the first fruit of the continuing dialogue on the modernisation of our public services?

Des McNulty is right to highlight the fact that many stakeholders are involved and will benefit from the protocol. Workers will all be treated on an equal basis, which must be good for employee morale. That will in turn benefit the public in terms of the quality services that are delivered. The protocol will help to attract high-quality staff. The contractors have also bought into it. The protocol represents a genuine partnership and flows from our approach of attempting to achieve reform by building consensus. It demonstrates that agreements, such as our memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, can help to deliver tangible benefits and it is indicative of our commitment to improve the quality of public services.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the simplification of pay scales should not affect the ability of PPP schemes to deliver high-quality and value-for-money public services for Scotland in partnership with the private sector?

The simplification certainly should not inhibit the ability of PPPs to deliver. I believe that it should enhance it. As I have indicated, I think that it will lead to the delivery of high-quality public services, which will benefit not only employees, but contractors and, above all, the customers who use the services.

---

Fishing

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will respond to European Union announcements on fishing made on 11 November 2002. (S1F-2262)

I will repeat what has been said before. The protection of the industry and fishing communities across Scotland is of paramount importance. As Mr Stevenson will be aware, the European Commission was unable to publish its proposals on 11 November as anticipated. Commissioner Fischler appears to recognise that wholesale closure is not acceptable and efforts continue, in discussions with the industry and others, to identify suitable alternatives. I know that that approach has the overwhelming support of the Parliament.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that at this time of crisis we need unity of purpose among fishing communities and the elected politicians of all parties? Will he join me in welcoming the Fraserburgh fishermen's wives' campaign in this regard?

In addition to speaking to the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the Deputy First Minister speak to the Prime Minister about having Mr Finnie appointed as a UK minister—I say this in a genuine cross-party spirit—so that the Prime Minister has the benefit of having a minister at his elbow who has at least been out listening to fishermen? That would avoid the Prime Minister, as at column 28 of Hansard yesterday, running up the white flag for fishing in these islands.

I agree that the issue should be approached on an all-party basis, as has been the case. The meeting that my colleague Ross Finnie—and, indeed, other colleagues present from all parties in the Parliament—attended in Aberdeen on Monday was indicative of that coming together not only of politicians, but of the community and of the fishing industry on the catching and processing sides.

I would welcome any positive contribution that the Fraserburgh fishermen's wives make. I am getting somewhat used to delegations of and representations from wives of those employed in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that the Fraserburgh wives are as effective in their campaign as the Peterhead wives were in theirs.

On Stewart Stevenson's other point, it might be taking coalition politics too far to suggest that Mr Finnie might replace Mrs Beckett. The industry and our fishing community need concerted effort to ensure that we get the right answers. They do not need navel gazing about who sits in which chair in the Council of Ministers.

Does the Deputy First Minister accept that Franz Fischler's delphic mutterings on Monday were no great progress? Does he accept that the Scottish fishing industry needs a long-term recovery plan for stocks and for fishing communities, which will face considerable crisis if the European Commission's plans are allowed to proceed? Does he accept that that is a better way to approach the matter than is a policy that is based on the political virility of Herr Fischler, who fails to understand the realities of cod in a mixed fishery?

I would not want to dismiss gratuitously what Herr Fischler said. There may not have been a road-to-Damascus conversion, but a glint of light is a step towards the blinding flash that might yet come to him.

I agree with Tavish Scott that we need to develop a longer-term strategy for our fisheries. That is important. However, the more pressing need is to ensure a successful outcome for the current round of negotiations. I know that my colleague Ross Finnie is making every effort to that end. He is making extensive representations to try not only to take forward the argument among those at home, but to engage our European partners in that argument.

Tavish Scott is right about the importance of our fishing communities. The sustainability of the stocks and of the fishing communities is far more important than the fate of one European Union commissioner.

Will the Deputy First Minister try to ensure that, in 2003, technical and management measures are uniform in all areas of the North sea and west coast to stop the present discrimination against Scottish fishermen? When he speaks to the Prime Minister, will he tell him that we have 30 days to save our fishing industry and that the clock is now ticking?

Proper account should be taken of the steps that have already been taken in Scotland, not least the decommissioning of the white fish fleet and the developments in mesh sizes as technical conservation measures. It is vital that full and proper account is taken of those when discussions take place with regard to the kind of measures that will be introduced. I hope that what Jamie McGrigor said was consistent with the all-party consensus on trying to achieve a successful outcome.

Mr McGrigor indicated agreement.

Jamie McGrigor is indicating that it is. That is welcome.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, as a matter of urgency, we must strike a balance between fish stocks and catching capacity and that we must reduce the amount of immature fish that are being caught? Do he and his ministerial team believe that we could learn from our Faeroese and Icelandic colleagues, who are not reducing the number of boats that are going to sea, but are ensuring that their fishermen do not use catch-all nets? Does he agree that we must safeguard the west coast prawn fishery in constituencies such as the Western Isles from any mass diversion of effort from areas of the United Kingdom where restrictions are imposed on vessels that have been fishing for cod?

I accept that there has been a serious need for some time to address the mismatch between capacity and stocks. That is a structural problem, which we have been discussing within the context of the on-going review of the common fisheries policy. It is important that we get that right. Lessons can and should be learned from the experience of fisheries management not only within the EU, but elsewhere, as Alasdair Morrison indicated. As Ross Finnie has made clear, we believe, based on the health of the stocks, that the nephrops fishery is sustainable. We agree that that fishery needs to be protected from the impact of any cod recovery measures.

My apologies to Donald Gorrie and Trish Godman, but we need to move on to the next item of business.