Plenary, 15 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, February 15, 2007

Official Report 691KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2719)

I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister this afternoon, not least because I will be able to present him with a tie like the one I am wearing, which was designed by the children of Mulbuie primary school in the Highlands—they designed the golden broom tartan for the year of Highland culture. [Applause.]

The tie looks very nice. We, too, look forward to seeing the Prime Minister this afternoon.

When the First Minister took office, he said that he would always listen to the people of Scotland. When he meets Tony Blair later today, will he tell him what the former First Minister, Henry McLeish, had to say—that Scotland is sick of Labour's "negative", "extreme" and "London-based" approach to politics?

I think that the nationalists might be in for a surprise this afternoon. It beggars belief that Ms Sturgeon is prepared to come here and talk about leaders from London. There is only one group in this Parliament that is led from London, and that is the Scottish National Party.

Is it not the case that the First Minister still does not have the courage to say those things to Alex Salmond's face? Referring to Alex Salmond on 23 November, the First Minister said:

"I will be delighted to debate with him over the next five months."—[Official Report, 23 November 2006; c 29651.]

Is it not the case that, every time the First Minister has had the opportunity since then, he has run away?

When the First Minister sees Tony Blair this afternoon, will he tell him some hard truths? Will he tell him that four out of five Scots are opposed to his plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system? In the words of the First Minister, that decision will have a huge impact on Scotland. Will he tell Tony Blair what 100 top scientists, academics, lawyers, church leaders and MPs—many of them Labour MPs—have said today: that if the decision to replace Trident goes ahead, the United Kingdom will lose all moral authority to tell other countries to disarm or to desist from developing nuclear weapons? Or will he simply continue to toe the Trident line, proving that he is just as out of touch on the issue as Tony Blair?

I am sure that there will be a continuing debate on that issue. I will be delighted to talk to the Prime Minister this afternoon about how we take forward our shared agenda, building on the fact that, yesterday, with employment at 76.1 per cent, Scotland had the highest level of employment since records began—and a quarter of a million new jobs since 1997. I will be delighted to talk to the Prime Minister about the fact that, here in Scotland, we are leading the rest of the UK in reducing child poverty; more than 100,000 youngsters have been taken out of poverty since 1997. Here in Scotland, we are also leading the rest of the UK in reducing pensioner poverty; more than 120,000 pensioners have been taken out of relative poverty since 1997.

Those improvements and others are thanks to the partnership between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and the economic stability that the nationalists could never deliver, but which is here for us in the fifth-largest economy in the world. At the same time, the dynamism, innovation and power of the Scottish Parliament is making a difference here in Scotland, which is leading the UK and, in some areas, the rest of Europe.

I am sure that the First Minister will be happy to tell the Prime Minister what he wants to hear; the question is whether he will have the guts to point out some hard realities in Scotland.

I hope that the First Minister and I agree on the need to give every child the best possible start in life. For that reason, if for no other, will he tell Tony Blair in no uncertain terms that when 250,000 Scottish children still live in poverty, a decision to spend £25 billion on weapons of mass destruction would be absolutely indefensible? Will the First Minister speak up for Scotland when he meets Tony Blair, or will he just go along to listen to his master's voice? [Interruption.]

I do not want to return to a theme, although I realise that members are enjoying it, but it is a bit rich for a member of the party that is led by the Dick Whittington of Scottish politics—someone who goes looking for the bright lights of London at every chance he gets—to talk about her master's voice.

What Nicola Sturgeon says about the money that she claims would be saved by not having Trident is contrary to her party's stated position. Angus Robertson—in London—who is her party's spokesperson on defence and foreign affairs, made it clear last October, on behalf of Alex Salmond and the whole Scottish National Party, that all the savings the SNP claims would arise from not having Trident would be spent on conventional defence forces. If the party that flip-flopped on a Scottish currency, flip-flopped on a deficit and an oil fund, flip-flopped on public-private partnerships and tried to flip-flop on higher education expenditure is now flip-flopping on defence expenditure, Nicola Sturgeon needs to be more honest in the chamber and say so.

It is absolutely clear that the best way to tackle child poverty in Scotland is, first, to be part of the fifth-largest economy in the world and to have the economic stability and strength of the United Kingdom as our foundation. We are using the powers of devolution to put children first, to give them a chance through education and to ensure that their parents have child care. We are using the resources and imagination that are at our disposal to ensure that Scotland continues to lead the rest of the UK in taking children out of poverty and giving their families the best possible and most prosperous quality of life.

If Trident is a benefit of the union, it is no wonder that more and more people in Scotland support independence. Is it not the reality that whereas our priorities are health, education and crime, the First Minister's priority is weapons of mass destruction? Is it not the case that the more often Tony Blair comes north to talk Scotland down, the more people are reminded of why they want to see the back of Labour? I remind the First Minister that people are sick of the scaremongering, the sleaze, the illegal wars and the weapons of mass destruction, and that they are deeply disappointed in a First Minister who will stand up to none of that. I suggest that, instead of attacking the SNP, he should concentrate on getting his house in order.

What matters to me is the fact that the United Kingdom has a minimum wage for the first time. We should be proud of that. The Labour Government delivered that and the SNP did not even turn up to vote for it against the Tories. Scotland has between 30,000 and 40,000 modern apprenticeships, which are funded by a strong UK economy but delivered in Scotland, which is leading the rest of the UK. We have had increases in child benefit and improvements in child care. We have the highest employment rate in the UK and the second-highest rate in the whole of Europe. That is an economic union and devolution dividend for Scotland that ensures that our country is more prosperous than it was and on which we can build a better future for Scotland. Even though that is happening, the SNP will not talk it up, because all it wants to do is talk Scotland down. The devolved Government is not only talking but building Scotland up. We will have a further chance to do so.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2720)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Last week at First Minister's question time I asked the First Minister whether he was in favour of introducing road tolls throughout Scotland—whether he will carry out the wishes of the Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Transport, who wants tolling on roads throughout the UK. In character, the First Minister entertained us with his usual bluster and waffle, so I will try again: is the First Minister in favour of tolls on Scotland's roads?

Last week I said that there were no plans to have even a pilot project in Scotland. However, the Government's debate on road user charging is important. It is worth having that debate if it could lead to a fairer distribution of charging for motorists on our roads and could help rural motorists in Scotland, by the scheme being right. At this stage it is only a debate, and it is right that it should take place.

It is all very well for the First Minister to pretend that he has made his position on road tolling clear, but he should speak to the Minister for Transport, the self-styled viking. Last week the First Minister told me:

"There are currently no plans to pilot such a scheme in Scotland."—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31953.]

That is fine, but this week Tavish Scott said:

"We need to make it happen more quickly in Scotland."

Is that the official policy of the Lib-Lab pact? If not, will he seek Mr Scott's resignation as Minister for Transport?

No, and no.

I think that the First Minister's tie has gone to his head. The answer is simply not good enough. The people of Scotland look for and should get clear political leadership. It has been an interesting week. On Wednesday Tavish Scott announced that there will be a new Forth crossing. On Monday he announced that we need to make quicker progress on road tolling in Scotland. The people of Scotland are now expected to believe that one of the announcements is Government policy and the other is not. The coalition Government is shambolic. The Scottish Conservatives oppose any additional nationwide charges for using Scotland's existing roads. The public want to know what the position of the Lib-Lab pact is.

I hesitate to say that Annabel Goldie is tying herself in knots, but the position is absolutely clear. The UK Government has begun a debate on road user charging. In my view it has done so quite legitimately, because of the technology that exists in this country today, because motorists have genuine concerns about the way in which they are currently charged to use Scotland's roads and to own and use their vehicles, and because we have international obligations on emissions and a commitment in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole to tackle emissions. We need to take a radical look at how motorists will be charged in the future. It is right and proper to begin that debate, not least because the Conservatives introduced motorway tolls in the United Kingdom when they were in government and it is incumbent on the rest of us to decide what to do with the system they introduced.

As I have made absolutely clear in the chamber, there are no current plans to pilot road user charging in Scotland. The Executive has no position in support of road user charging or against a debate taking place on the issue. The point that I made last week—that we in Scotland have a particular interest in the matter—remains. That interest is in rural Scotland, where road user charging would have to be implemented very carefully so as not to have a detrimental impact on those who have to use their vehicles to get about their area, because they have no public transport alternatives. I make that point clearly, as a sensible injection into the discussion. I hope that we can get away from posturing on the issue and look 10 years ahead, and that the political parties in Scotland and throughout the UK will adopt a position that encourages genuine debate and leads us to a conclusion that may be sustainable beyond one party being in power.

There are two constituency supplementaries.

Is the First Minister aware that the court of the University of Glasgow decided yesterday not to admit any undergraduate students to the Crichton campus in Dumfries in September? Does he recognise and value the particular contribution that the University of Glasgow makes to the courses on offer to students in Dumfries? Will he do whatever he can to facilitate negotiations between the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council with the aim of enabling Glasgow to retain its presence at Crichton?

Ministers are committed to the Crichton campus on at least its current scale and to encouraging and enabling discussions to take place towards ensuring that the campus has a continuing, viable and increasingly successful future. In fact, this week, the Deputy First Minister spoke to the funding council and others to keep the discussions on the right track.

However, we live in a country where politicians do not instruct universities what to do, so, initially, the decision on student places is for the University of Glasgow—I want to make that clear—but we are determined that any reduction in University of Glasgow student places at the Crighton campus must be taken up by other universities to ensure that the provision of higher education in the south of Scotland at least remains at its current level.

As Elaine Murray will know, part of the complication in the decision is that the nature of the courses offered by Glasgow is not always available from the other university that is currently active on the campus. That is why sensible discussions have to take place to ensure that we get the right provision in the future. We are determined that there will be provision and that the number of places will at least remain at their current level.

Will the First Minister update the Parliament on the announcement today by Diageo plc of a £100 million investment to expand its Scotch whisky operations in Scotland, including a preferred location at Roseisle on Speyside for a new malt distillery? When he meets the Prime Minister later today, will he buy him a dram to celebrate the decision?

I would be delighted to do that. I congratulate Diageo. This is the biggest investment in the Scotch whisky industry for many years, and it will result in new jobs in Speyside, Fife and Glasgow. There will be £100 million investment in total, which will include the establishment of a brand new malt distillery on Speyside and significant expansion, particularly at Leven. That is good news. It is a great investment by Diageo, which is to be congratulated and supported in making the announcement today.

---

Public Sector Workforce

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive capitalises on the experience of, and rewards, the public sector workforce. (S2F-2721)

Recent pay modernisation has ensured that pay policies are fair and consistent and provide incentives for staff to join and stay in the national health service. Throughout the public sector, employers are encouraged to provide incentives for performance, and in many areas reform has delivered more rewarding career structures.

I would like to draw attention to the nurses in the health service whose experience is important considering all the changes that are taking place. Many think that the agenda for change has been an agenda for misery—nurses with 20 to 40 years' experience have found themselves being downgraded. They are in financial misery and feel extremely undervalued. How can the First Minister capitalise on those nurses' experience and turn around their lack of morale?

I must say that I do not recognise that picture. There are always strains and tensions when a new pay structure is implemented, but there is no doubt among the nurses I have spoken to that the more flexible pay structure and arrangements in the health service give them new career opportunities and new opportunities to develop their skills.

Alongside that, we now have nearly 20 per cent more medical consultants, 12 per cent more qualified nurses, 23 per cent more qualified allied health professionals and nearly 10 per cent more dentists than we had at the time of devolution.

There have been significant improvements in the health service in Scotland during the Parliament's lifetime. We must recognise that the health service ultimately survives and thrives on the hard work and skills of the workforce. It is vital that we do all that we can to encourage and support those who work in it.

That sounded good, but the First Minister and I must speak to different nurses. Many nurses have told me that they feel undervalued. If a nurse with 43 years' service can find that their pay has suddenly been docked by £200 a month, which can affect their pension, a message will be sent to nursing staff coming into the service that sincere and hard-working people who are constantly upgrading their skills through personal development plans are being undervalued. Nurses have told me that it could take two years to review decisions that have been taken. How can the First Minister help such nurses in the unfair situation in which they find themselves?

I would be happy to ensure that the Minister for Health and Community Care provides Jean Turner with a detailed outline of the various measures that are in place.

The commitment to improve the knowledge and skills of nurses and other health service professionals is absolute and is in place as a result of the actions of the devolved Government. How individual nurses are affected by the agenda for change is clearly a matter to be dealt with by the arrangements that have been put in place. People will have concerns about individual cases, but appeals mechanisms exist to deal with those concerns. The changes in grading systems, the injection of additional resources, the new career structures and the opportunities to develop and then use new skills is good news for the vast majority of people in the health service—not just nurses—the health service itself and patients. Not only should we continue to travel in that direction, we should speed up our pace in that direction.

---

Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to ensure an effective emergency response in the event of an oil spillage resulting from ship-to-ship oil transfers around Scotland's coastline. (S2F-2729)

The approval of oil pollution emergency plans is a matter that is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, but the Scottish Executive would take a leading role in any response to an actual or potential oil spill incident in Scotland. In that regard, the Fisheries Research Services maintains an all-year-round initial point of contact for Her Majesty's Coastguard, harbour authorities and other interested parties.

It has been alleged that last year's clearwater Forth exercise highlighted significant communication difficulties and that if those difficulties were replicated following an actual oil spill they would result in unacceptable delays and confusion in any response. Regardless of whether that is the case, does the First Minister believe, as I do, that to reassure my constituents and other people who live around the Forth, this year's exercise, which is due to be organised and led by Fife Council, should simulate an emergency following a spillage from a ship-to-ship oil transfer operation, as such an exercise has never been carried out?

Those who must deal with emergencies should determine what exercises to undertake as part of the clearwater exercises, which take place each year. Christine May's idea is useful and constructive, but those who are involved at the front line should determine their contingency planning each year. That said, I urge them to consider Christine May's suggestion as one of the options for this year.

Is the First Minister aware that there has been a fair degree of cross-party consensus on ship-to-ship oil transfers? At the Environment and Rural Development Committee meeting last week, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Sarah Boyack, stated:

"it is up to Forth Ports to decide whether to apply for a licence."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 7 February 2007; c 4101.]

However, on 25 July 2006, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport stated:

"As this is for a devolved purpose, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive to determine whether a licence would be required for ship-to-ship transfers in the Firth of Forth."—[Official Report, House of Commons; 25 July 2006; Vol 449, c1308W.]

Will the First Minister clarify the situation? Is it for the Scottish ministers or Forth Ports to make a decision? Who is right?

As I have not seen the quotation from the United Kingdom minister, I would be happy to provide Bruce Crawford with a written response to his question.

On 17 January, the First Minister's Government submitted legislation to the Environment and Rural Development Committee that could have given ministers the power to make a decision on ship-to-ship oil transfers. Instead, the First Minister chose to leave that decision to Forth Ports plc, an unelected, unaccountable private company that has a direct conflict of interest. Is it not the case that the First Minister is more interested in resurrecting previous speeches about the environment than putting in some hard work to govern Scotland, to put in place the right legislation and to protect the environment?

That is certainly not true. The devolved Government can be very proud of its record on the environment. The fact is that Scotland's recycling rate has increased from 6 per cent to 25 per cent. Not only have we set the most ambitious targets on renewable energy in the United Kingdom … we are marching towards meeting those targets and we have the potential to go further. Not only are we delivering the existing generation of renewable energy but we are supporting world-leading technology in wind and wave power that we hope will lead the rest of Europe and the world—rather than fall behind as we did on wind power under the Tories.

There is a host of other areas in which we have set ambitious targets for dealing with carbon emissions and so on. This devolved Government has a record on the environment that is absolutely in touch with the issues that matter to the people of Scotland and the future of our children for generations to come. We will continue to take that approach.

Has the Scottish Executive discussed—or will it—with the applicant for the proposed ship-to-ship oil transfers whether it will consider moving to the inherently safer and better-resourced location in Scapa flow?

That is a matter for the appropriate authorities and agencies. Of course the agencies of our devolved Scottish Government are involved in making appropriate representations on this matter and advising on it. To suggest otherwise is wrong. It would not be appropriate for us to get into a situation where we dump on or encourage the use of different locations for this sort of activity. It needs to be dealt with on a proper, scientific basis and that is exactly what will happen.

---

Consumer Safety (Poultry)

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive is taking to reassure consumers at home and abroad that Scottish poultry is safe. (S2F-2731)

Food safety is a matter for the independent Food Standards Agency. The agency has been active in the media, repeating its advice that an outbreak of avian flu does not pose a food safety risk for consumers. It has also posted the advice on its website. We support the FSA's efforts where it is appropriate and helpful to do so.

The First Minister no doubt shares the alarm expressed by many people that the United Kingdom apparently continues to import meat products from Hungary despite the fact that that was not supposed to happen. In the words of the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it happened only because of a "lapse in biosecurity".

Is the First Minister aware of the strong feeling in the Scottish farming sector that while farmers in Scotland have bent over backwards to prevent disease and promote biosecurity on their own farms, the same cannot be said for UK Government departments, which are failing to control the very complex import and export routes for meat products, particularly from countries that have a history of animal disease? Will the First Minister investigate those very serious concerns and protect the interests of Scotland's farming communities?

It is inappropriate, on this matter as on so many others, for the nationalists to try to turn an issue about safety into a constitutional issue by making it into a matter of Scotland versus the rest of the UK. It is entirely inappropriate to seek to turn the discussion in that direction.

The issue is about how we deal with avian flu and other food safety problems. The best way to do that is to work in partnership not only with farmers and other food producers here in Scotland but with those south of the border who are faced with such outbreaks and challenges. We also need to ensure that there is a consistent approach throughout the European Union and, if possible, beyond. That is precisely why the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department works in partnership with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In that relationship there are times when communication can fall short of the standards that we would expect, but that is why we learn from every incident. We in Scotland have taken a particular strength from the way in which we have dealt over the years of devolution with issues such as the initial foot-and-mouth outbreak six years ago and the more recent incident in Fife last spring. That expertise is helping the rest of the UK to handle its problems more effectively.

---

European Convention on Human Rights (Prisoners)

To ask the First Minister what the total cost has been of providing legal aid and compensation to people serving prison sentences for claims under the European convention on human rights since its incorporation into Scots law. (S2F-2723)

Since 2000, the total cost of legal aid and compensation in such cases has been approximately £2.3 million.

To judge from comments that have been made elsewhere, there might be some surprise at the low level of funding that the First Minister suggests. That makes me wonder whether other costs are hidden elsewhere.

I point out to the First Minister that the European convention on human rights would be better labelled in Scotland as the European convention on prisoners' rights. I point out to him the shambles in our bail laws, in slopping out, in the telephone messages issue and in voting rights for prisoners. When will he bring sanity back to our justice system?

Bringing back some consistency between the questions and the supplementaries might be more of a challenge.

Phil Gallie is surprised that the total for claims is low because the figures have, at least by implication, been exaggerated elsewhere. In this country, where people have a legal right to go to court and there is a legal aid system in place, it is right and proper that people should have the chance to apply for legal aid and that their applications should be treated consistently through the normal processes independently of the Government and ministers. That is what happens. By far the greater part of the sum I mentioned is legal aid payments. In some cases, people will have won their case; in others, they will not. Access to justice is important. It would be very dangerous to start picking and choosing who has access to justice.