Plenary, 15 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 15, 2001

Official Report 813KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues he intends to raise at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-918)

Before I answer the question, I ask the Parliament to welcome a very special guest to the public gallery. Mrs Emily Galbraith, from Penicuik in the Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency, is 105 years old. Along with Rhona Brankin and Ian Jenkins, I had the privilege of meeting her prior to question time. She was pleased to tell me that, if I was looking for advice about the way in which the coalition should work, she is 105 and is still a Liberal Democrat. [Applause.] I might add that, on some days, I feel 105 as well.

The Scottish Executive's Cabinet discusses matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

I hope that, for the sake of us all, the coalition does not last for 105 years. [Laughter.] It certainly will not, believe me.

Last Thursday, Parliament discussed the future of the fishing industry, on which the jobs of 25,000 people are dependent. Parliament voted for an immediate compensated tie-up scheme. Seven days later, we do not have one and, according to the Deputy Minister for Rural Development, we are not going to get one. Why not?

Much has been said today about respecting the will of Parliament. I am proud to have been one of the architects of the procedures of the Scottish Parliament. I repeat what I said in the chamber in January. I could not be any clearer when I said that, as First Minister, I will not ignore the will of Parliament.

In this case, the Executive has listened to the views of Parliament. We have also listened to the fishermen, and we have a duty to take responsible decisions. To govern is to choose, and we have chosen to provide a record £27 million to secure the long-term future of the fishing industry. We are a listening coalition. The short history of the Scottish Parliament demonstrates that the Executive listens and takes account. We listened on poindings and warrant sales; we listened on the census; we listened on tuition fees; and we listened on long-term care for the elderly. On all those issues, the Executive's actions followed careful consideration of the views expressed in the chamber.

In his new year's day message to the nation, expressed in the Sunday Post, the First Minister said:

"I believe voters want to see a little more straight talking from their politicians. The hallmark of my leadership will be to say what I mean and mean what I say."

It would be nice if the First Minister ever got around to doing that. He told us that he was not going to ignore the voice of Parliament. Parliament voted last week for an immediate compensated tie-up scheme, but we are not going to get one. That means that Parliament has been ignored. Why has the First Minister broken his word to the Parliament and to the people of Scotland?

When I am out and about in the country, people appreciate that I am a plain talker about what we can achieve. That may not be convenient or comfortable for members of the Parliament, but that is the way in which I operate. Let us not forget, in the heat of the kind of debate that we had this morning, what is at the heart of the issue—the sustainability of the Scottish fishing industry and the lives of the families who depend on it. The SNP may huff and puff, but can it deny that that is the core issue that faces the fishermen and the Parliament?

We have provided an unprecedented £27 million to the fishing industry. That money is not being given to tie up boats temporarily in a scheme that all our scientific advice says would not preserve the fish stocks to anything like the extent that would be achieved by the measures that we propose. The issue is to ensure the long-term, viable and sustainable future of one of Scotland's key industries, which the Parliament is debating and on which the Executive is deciding.

We are exploring—[Interruption.] I apologise to members of the SNP, but I want to continue to give the nation the facts. We are exploring with the industry the options for some rebalancing of the package, which is warmly welcomed by many in the chamber. We are delivering the biggest ever amount of Government support for the fishing industry, with the aim of strengthening and furthering the programme of research and conservation methods. When I spoke to Hamish Morrison yesterday, he was keen to press ahead with further discussions. We have a window of opportunity and intend to ensure that we deliver for the fishermen's future in Scotland.

If that was straight talking, I have no idea what convoluted talking might be.

In that answer, the First Minister did not mention democracy and he did not mention the fact that the Parliament has voted for an immediate compensated tie-up scheme, which the Scottish Executive is not going to deliver. He has ignored the will of Parliament.

In the old days, before the First Minister and I had leadership thrust upon us, I was the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and he was the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. In our many discussions at that time, I took him as a man of his word. He told Parliament that he would not ignore the will of Parliament, but he has done so. Why is the First Minister ignoring the will of Parliament? Why has he broken his word to the Parliament and to the people of Scotland?

If that question had not been synthetic, I would have been inclined to put my democratic credentials on the table. I resent the fact that anyone in the chamber should be accused of not supporting the Parliament and of ignoring the will of Parliament.

To put the record straight, I have a challenge for John Swinney, because, in some respects, what he said could be classified as interesting. The most striking element of this affair is the contrast between responsible coalition government and the skulduggery of the SNP. While the fisheries minister, Rhona Brankin, was working late into the night with industry representatives in the best interests of the fishing industry to finalise the largest ever investment in Scottish fishing, the SNP was rounding up the media to watch people burn effigies of her. If that is not a disgrace, it certainly does not serve the people of Scotland or the Scottish Parliament well.

We will never ignore the will of Parliament. We are moving towards the best settlement that the fishermen have ever had. Let us get on with delivering what the fishermen want.

---

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 plans to raise. (S1F-912)

I last met the secretary of state on Friday 9 March. We have no immediate plans to meet.

I am sure that, when the First Minister and the secretary of state meet, they will get round to discussing the future of the Lib-Lab Scottish Executive coalition.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the so-called Rumbles doctrine that I heard enunciated at the weekend. That doctrine appears to state that, if a policy is not agreed in the partnership agreement, Liberal Democrat back benchers do not have to support the Scottish Executive's policy, even if—as turns out to be the case with fisheries policy—the policy is drawn up by a department that is headed by a Liberal Democrat Cabinet minister. Does the First Minister agree with Mr Rumbles's proposition and does he think that it is any way in which to run a Government?

What happens when one governs from within a coalition is that one is able to work on behalf of the people of Scotland and to deliver for them. [Laughter.] Despite the foolish and childish behaviour of the SNP, I have to say that a coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats is a much more attractive proposition than a right-wing coalition between the SNP and the Conservative party. [Interruption.]

Order. We cannot have members shouting from a seated position. First Minister, please continue with your answer.

I will not, despite being encouraged by my colleagues to go a bit further, as it seems that I may have struck a raw nerve with the SNP.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Before I hear the point of order, I repeat that the content of ministerial answers should not be the subject of a point of order.

Is it correct for the First Minister to mislead Parliament in that way when the only place in Scotland where the Tories are in power is on Perth and Kinross Council, where they are in formal coalition with the Labour party?

Order. We cannot have political speeches in a point of order.

Far be it for me to intrude on a little private discussion, but this is my shot, Ms Cunningham.

Let us get back to the original question, which the First Minister avoided answering. The question goes to the heart of the principle of collective responsibility. The Scottish ministerial code and the Scottish Executive's guide to collective decision making both set out that principle very clearly, as it applies to ministers and junior ministers—unless of course, like Mr Nicol Stephen, they conveniently forget to vote.

Is the partnership just a coalition of ministers, or is it a coalition of parties? Is it not time for the two-faced, two-timing Liberal Democrats to come off the fence and finally decide whether they are a party of government or a party of opposition? How long will the First Minister put up with that schizophrenic behaviour and when will enough be enough?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I hope—

It is a real point of order—

Just a minute. I have had several completely bogus points of order today. I hope that this is indeed a real one.

Could you ensure, Presiding Officer, that members of the Parliament do not use terms such as "schizophrenic" in relation to political matters? That stigmatises people with mental illness.

That is a perfectly legitimate point of view, Dr Simpson, but it is not a point of order. I call the First Minister to reply to Mr McLetchie's question.

This is about the battle between social progress, as illustrated by the coalition, and continual constitutional conflict, on the part of the SNP, a party that wants to go further with its contempt of Westminster, and the Conservatives, a party that loves Westminster but that treated the idea of this Parliament with such contempt. I say again: there is a right-wing coalition at work in Scotland. If the SNP and the Conservatives do not like that, they can stop coalescing with each other.

Can the First Minister confirm, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the Scottish Executive has taken into account the decision that the Scottish Parliament made last week? Will he also confirm that the Executive is still in discussion with the fishing industry about how the short-term aid can best be provided within the record £27 million package of support for the fishing industry, which has been provided by the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive with the objectives of conserving the fishing stock and of providing for the long-term sustainability of the fishing industry, particularly in areas such as the East Neuk of Fife?

It would have helped if you had mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland somewhere in that question, Mr Smith.

I support the points that have been put forward. [Laughter.] The lady from Perth is now laughing, which I suppose is an improvement on her past behaviour.

We moved a good motion in the fisheries debate, which we can support and around which we can unite. Let me also tell Iain Smith that negotiations are taking place—we have listened to Parliament and we want to ensure that the listening translates into positive action in those discussions. Iain Smith and his fellow Liberal Democrats can be assured of that.

---

Budget

To ask the First Minister what contribution the budget announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week will make to achieving the objectives of the Scottish Executive. (S1F-915)

The budget will ensure that the UK economy continues to provide the strong and stable macroeconomic environment that is vital to the achievement of the Executive's objectives. The chancellor announced a wide range of measures that will contribute to the Executive's goals, including measures for families, for pensioners and for enterprise. The Scottish Executive will gain additional spending consequentials of £200 million spread over three years.

Will the First Minister outline how decisions will be taken on investing those resources in education, health and transport in Scotland? Does he believe that the stability that has been achieved by the economic policies of the Government will contribute to the maintenance of the 25-year low in unemployment? What damage does he believe that the Tory cuts agenda would do, if the Tories ever had the chance to implement it with the help of the SNP?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

No. I know what you are going to say.

No, you do not.

Yes, I do.

What am I going to say?

Order. I have repeated many times that the First Minister is not responsible for Opposition policies. With that in mind, the First Minister should answer.

On a point of order.

What is it?

We have heard references to Tory-SNP coalitions. Is it not the case that the only coalition in Scotland is between—

Mr Gibson, that is not a point of order. I am getting tired of false points of order, of which we have had at least half a dozen today from members of different parties. Members should realise that points of order are about the standing orders of the Parliament rather than about political argument.

I suppose that it would be appropriate for me to apologise to you, Sir David, for raising issues that are so sensitive for the SNP.

The budget that was announced last week is a very important one for Scotland and the Scottish economy. The impact of the budget is felt in many areas of the Scottish economy, but it is clear that it has benefited those who have been unemployed. When we look at the differences between May 1997 and now, we can see that the number of unemployed, on the claimant count, is down by 32 per cent; youth unemployment is down by 37 per cent; youth unemployment under the new deal is down by 79 per cent; and the number of older people who are unemployed is down by 48 per cent. That is an impressive record. It has been achieved through the stability created by the chancellor's measures at Westminster and through the partnerships that we have here and with Westminster MPs, all of which will continue to the long-term benefit of Scotland. That is attractive to Scotland, which may have the chance soon to vote on it.

In his discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the First Minister mention the growing crisis in tourism and related industries arising from the spread of foot-and-mouth throughout the country? Will he make representations to the chancellor to make the necessary resources available to deal with any crisis in the tourism and tourism-related sector in Scotland, which is vital to our economy? Will he also accept that I would never be a member of any right-wing coalition, which is why I am not a member of new Labour?

I recall that Alex Neil has a long history in politics, so I will move on to answer the serious questions that he asked. We embrace the—[Interruption.] An SNP member asked the question and I am trying to answer it—a bit of sanity would be in order.

We embrace the concern that Alex Neil raised, as clearly there is an impact on tourism throughout the United Kingdom. There are two important activities. First, there is a task group at Westminster in which we are involved. Secondly, Ross Finnie, Sam Galbraith and Wendy Alexander are leading a task group up here, to examine the implications of foot-and-mouth for the wider community and not only for farming and livestock, but for haulage, the environment and tourism. I assure him that we will do everything that is humanly possible to ensure that, with the Easter vacation coming up, we will make up some of the time that we have lost. We want to provide as much help as possible to that vital industry.

I hope that members note that, because of the noise and the bogus points of order, we reached only question 3 today. There is a lesson to be learned from that.