Plenary, 15 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 15, 2000

Official Report 737KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's main priorities currently are. (S1F-410)

The Executive's priorities were set out clearly in "Making it work together: A programme for government", which was published last September. That document explained what we are committed to achieving in government and turned our priorities into a programme for action, on which we are now delivering.

Does the acting First Minister recall that we were debating at a meeting in Glasgow the night the news of the Chinook disaster came through? That disaster, in which 29 people lost their lives, happened more than six years ago. For the past five years, two of those families have borne the added burden of the accusation of gross negligence that has been levelled at their loved ones. Now that new evidence has come forward, cannot a way be found of giving those men's families the opportunity to clear their name?

I recall the evening to which Mr Salmond refers; we were at a debate in advance of the 1994 European elections. Everyone present was shocked and saddened by what had happened.

As Mr Salmond and the Parliament will know, the Lord Advocate, who, quite separately from the Executive, has responsibilities for matters relating to fatal accident inquiries, asked that further consideration be given by Crown counsel to whether the fatal accident inquiry should be reopened. Members will recall that the sheriff concluded that he did not think any useful purpose would be served by speculating further on the matter. In a letter to Mr Salmond's colleague, Kenny MacAskill, the Lord Advocate indicated that he thought it highly unlikely that the findings of the sheriff would be different, even in the light of further information.

I have the letter to Kenny MacAskill with me. The Lord Advocate said:

"The FAI did not consider in any detail any matter relating to FADEC"—

the system of fuel injection that we now know to be faulty. Will the acting First Minister confirm that the fatal accident inquiry did not investigate it because the information was withheld by the Ministry of Defence? Will he join the then Secretary of State for Defence, Malcolm Rifkind, in condemning the Ministry of Defence for withholding that vital information from the Scottish legal system?

As Mr Salmond and the Parliament will fully appreciate, I am in no position to confirm or not confirm anything on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The Lord Advocate has made it clear that he accepts the fatal accident inquiry did not consider in any detail matters relating to the full authority digital electronic control system. As a result, he sought a review of the fatal accident inquiry papers and other information that had been published.

Mr Salmond will be aware that the sheriff took the view at the fatal accident inquiry that it had not been established to the sheriff's satisfaction that the cause of the accident was the decision by the crew of ZD576 to overfly the Mull of Kintyre at cruising speed and their selection for that purpose of an inappropriate rate of climb. He was unable to say what the cause of the accident was. It is clear also from the Lord Advocate's letter that any further inquiry might only reinforce the sheriff's inconclusive determination with regard to the cause of the accident.

How can we possibly know that, given that the sheriff did not have vital information? Unfortunately, the board of inquiry did not follow the wisdom of the Scottish sheriff; it found gross negligence and allocated responsibility to the two pilots. Given that that is the position, and that for five years the families have had to suffer the stigma of their loved ones being allocated that gross negligence verdict by the board of inquiry, cannot Mr Wallace, who is the Minister for Justice as well as the acting First Minister, find a method or formula to reopen investigation of this case to allow what those families want—the opportunity to clear the names of their dead loved ones?

Everyone in the Parliament has the fullest sympathy with the families of those who died. I must emphasise—and all credit to him—that this matter is the Lord Advocate's responsibility, not the responsibility of the Executive. He acts independently of the Executive in these matters. He considered a number of ways in which it might be possible to reopen the inquiry, including a petition to the nobile officium of the Court of Session. He concluded that that would not serve any useful purpose and indeed might reinforce the sheriff's findings.

As to whether the Ministry of Defence should take further steps, I am sure Mr Salmond will recognise that that matter should be pursued with the Ministry of Defence; it is not the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the acting First Minister when he next expects to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise with him. (S1F-406)

I expect to next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow at the joint ministerial committee on health. It is probably rather obvious that we will be discussing health.

In view of the imminence of the meeting, it will almost certainly take place before Mr Wallace has an opportunity to meet his friend Mr Salmond as part of the invisible Scotland in Europe campaign. Given that at its launch last October Mr Wallace was such an enthusiast for joint campaigns, things seem to have gone rather quiet on this issue. Can Mr Wallace tells us whether he intends that the cross-party Scotland in Europe campaign should come out of the closet, or is it now officially dead in the water?

Mr Salmond probably has quite enough on his plate without seeking a further meeting with me. I emphasise that almost all parties in this Parliament—bar Mr McLetchie's, but I suspect that there might be some in his party who hold this view—recognise the importance of a positive Scottish, and indeed British, contribution in engaging with the European Union. The campaign to achieve that is alive and well and on-going, and it does not require publicity events to sustain it. Engaging with Europe will deliver jobs and prosperity for Scotland and the United Kingdom and it is something to which my colleagues and I are fully committed.

The acting First Minister says that the campaign does not require any publicity events. Perhaps he can explain why the First Minister described that day on the steps of the Mound as a photo-opportunity. How many more such stunts will we hear of? Does this reluctance to engage arise because the three members of the unholy alliance who want to ditch the pound are being shown to be increasingly out of touch with mainstream opinion? Opposition grows by the day and now includes Eddie George, Jim Sillars and the majority of people in Scotland.

As a member of a party of self-confessed Euro-fanatics, is Mr Wallace disappointed at the lack of urgency among his Labour and SNP colleagues, or are they reconciled to the fact that there is no point in having any future meetings or running a campaign because we in the Conservatives are the ones who speak for people in Scotland?

A moment's reflection will make clear the number of Scottish jobs that are dependent on our having good, positive links with the European Union. The people in those jobs know who their real friends are; those of us who want to develop Scotland's links with the EU, not those who want to shut the door on the EU and therefore put in jeopardy many Scottish jobs.

Over recent weeks, a number of my ministerial colleagues have been engaging positively with their counterparts in the European Union to ensure that we have policies that are good for Scotland, good for Europe and will deliver jobs and prosperity for Scotland.

On jobs, the Deputy First Minister will be aware that Eddie George said that joining the euro was irrelevant to the prosperity of the City. [Members: "The City?"] The City in the broadest sense. Only last week, economists said that Scotland's financial centre, Edinburgh, is flourishing outwith the euro and that its prosperity as the UK's fastest-growing city is not dependent on membership. That is what jobs are really about.

There are £300 billion of managed funds in Edinburgh, but Mr McLetchie gave the game away when he talked about Eddie George's comments on the City. I do not think that Mr George had Edinburgh in mind when he made that comment.

Considering the number of manufacturing jobs that are exporting to European Union destinations, if the people whose jobs are dependent on Scotland having positive links with Europe think the Conservatives are their friends, they had better think again. Their real friends are the people who wish to support those jobs. They are those of us who wish to engage more positively with the European Union and who see that as Scotland's proper destiny.

---

Rape Victims (Cross-examination)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Executive has made of the European convention on human rights in relation to the cross-examination of rape victims by the alleged perpetrator. (S1F-422)

As Angus MacKay outlined on 6 June in his answer to parliamentary question S1W-07543, Scottish ministers have instructed the development of proposals to prevent an accused person charged with a sex offence from cross-examining the victim personally and to strengthen provisions restricting cross-examination on sexual history. Ministers are committed to achieving that policy and work has already begun to assess ways in which we can do that.

Of course, we need to protect the rights of the accused—the European convention on human rights reinforces that—but, as I am sure Mr Chisholm and other members will agree, it is crucial that we protect the rights of victims.

I welcome the commitment to act but deplore the way in which the European convention on human rights has been used as a smokescreen by people who support the continuation of this totally unacceptable practice.

Is it not the case that the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that a state can require a defendant to act through a lawyer? Could not failure to end this practice lead to a challenge under article 3 of the ECHR, on the rights of victims? That is exactly what happened to the United Kingdom Government before the law was changed at Westminster.

Victims do indeed have rights; they should not be subjected to degrading treatment. The right of an accused person is that witnesses should be cross-examined, not that they should, necessarily, be cross-examined by the accused person himself. I believe that we will be able to find a way forward that will satisfy European convention considerations. Indeed, we would be obliged to do that. I hope members agree that it is important that we get it right. No interests of justice would be served by passing legislation that failed the test, with the result that someone who otherwise would have been found guilty walked free.

Will the minister give us a timetable for ending the torture and torment of women and children in the witness box while being cross-examined by men accused of raping and sexually abusing them? Will he assure us that he feels equal shame that Scots law allows that torture of human beings to this day?

I will not give a specific date but I repeat that we have already instructed the development of proposals. A solution is actively being pursued. We all want to ensure that this is done at the earliest possible opportunity.

---

Child Poverty

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive intends to take in response to the recent UNICEF report on child poverty. (S1F-415)

The UNICEF report highlights the scale of child poverty, but is based on 1995 data. As Tricia Marwick knows, and as I acknowledge, the report praises the United Kingdom Government's social inclusion policy. Tackling poverty and social exclusion is a key priority of the Scottish Executive, as was clearly set out last November in "Social Justice . . . a Scotland where everyone matters". We are committed to working in partnership with the United Kingdom Government to eliminate child poverty. As a start, 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty in Scotland in 2001.

The report indicates that Britain has one of the worst records of childhood poverty in the industrialised world. Given the important role played by local authorities in Scotland in combating child poverty by providing hot school meals, grants for uniforms and free school travel, will the minister tell us whether he agrees with his colleague, Mike Rumbles, that the local government settlement was damaging, or with Donald Dewar, who said that it was satisfactory?

I emphasise that the Executive is pursuing a range of initiatives to take children out of poverty, many of which are directed to families with pre-school or school-age children. For example, the sure start programme, which will tackle child poverty and social exclusion, has already received substantial funding. That will help to address poverty and allow children who go to school to get off on the right foot, because problems such as bad health will have been tackled in their pre-school years.

As the Deputy First Minister said, the UNICEF figures are some five years out of date. Does he agree that it is only by taking an holistic approach to child poverty that we will be able to lift the vast number of children who live in poverty out of that situation? We can certainly not do it by individual programmes; we must take a joint approach in partnership with the UK Government.

I certainly agree that poverty must be approached by pursuing initiatives at Westminster and in this Parliament. That is why we have had a joint ministerial committee on poverty, at which child poverty has been discussed. The Executive is committed to ending child poverty within 20 years. The measures that have already been taken should lift 100,000 children out of poverty in Scotland in 2001. I hope that members on all sides of this Parliament are prepared to applaud that.

---

Cashmere Industry

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to promote the Scottish cashmere industry. (S1F-411)

The most immediate problem for the industry is, of course, the renewed threat of sanctions by the United States Administration. I have been keeping closely in touch with this situation. Everything possible is being done to overcome that threat.

More generally, the Scottish cashmere industry is supported primarily through the enterprise network's Cashmere-made-in-Scotland project, which is being run by Scottish Enterprise Borders. More than £600,000 of public money is expected to be spent on the initiative over the next two years. That will provide support for cashmere companies across Scotland in a range of activities to help them develop markets at home and abroad, boost awareness of the sector, encourage collaboration between companies and increase the overall competitiveness of the sector.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the imposition of a tariff as a result of the US Trade Carousel Act would be detrimental to the Scottish cashmere industry? Although this is primarily a matter for Westminster, will he use his good offices to persuade the European Union finally to settle the banana trade dispute?

I accept that putting cashmere on the carousel list would be very damaging indeed to the industry. It is for that reason that considerable efforts have been made to resolve the problem. I am taking a personal interest in the matter. There has been engagement with UK ministers and between officials of the Scottish Executive and officials of United Kingdom Government departments about this issue.

The introduction of the World Trade Organisation-compliant banana-importing regime should go ahead without further delay. I share the view expressed earlier this week in a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee by Brian Wilson, the Minister of State at the Scotland Office. He said that the list of victims threatens to change or even to lengthen and that those who are responsible for the negotiations in Brussels have to recognise that that is intolerable. It would indeed be intolerable if the list were lengthened and included cashmere.

I welcome the minister's comments in support of the cashmere industry. Does he agree that other products made in Scotland may be at risk if the tariff list goes ahead, as expected, on 19 June? Can he assure us that he has taken every possible action to reach a solution, not just for the cashmere industry, but for other Scottish products?

That is a pertinent point. More than the cashmere industry is threatened by this—a number of other products could be threatened. I can assure Cathy Jamieson that considerable efforts are being made. The matter is primarily the responsibility of the Westminster Government, but as I have said there have been contacts at ministerial level and between officials to ensure that Scottish interests—cashmere and others—are properly recognised.

Cashmere production in the Borders involves 40 companies, employs 2,000 people directly and currently has a £21 million order book, mostly directed to the United States. Is the acting First Minister really satisfied that Labour's Stephen Byers is treating the drastic threat to this vulnerable Borders economy as a priority, given that the deadline for returning cashmere to the 100 per cent plus tariff carousel levy is 19 June?

In the preface to her question, Christine Grahame referred to the success of the cashmere industry in the Borders, which is a great tribute to an industry that produces a high-quality product and has bounced back after the threat that hung over it in March of last year, when the so-called banana wars were looming.

I am satisfied, from the contacts that have been made, that this issue is taken seriously by the United Kingdom Government, which is well aware of the time deadlines and is making every effort. We are certainly in close co-operation and consultation with it to that purpose.

---

Carers Week 2000

To ask the First Minister what actions the Scottish Executive is taking to recognise and support Carers Week 2000. (S1F-400)

At a meeting in March, carers organisations were asked to consider what support they would like from the Executive for Carers Week. They asked the Deputy Minister for Community Care to launch the Scottish Carers Alliance as the flagship event of the week. I am delighted to report that Iain Gray was able to lend his support to the launch, which took place on Tuesday 13 June.

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that a report published by the Carers National Association, "Caring on the Breadline", points out that Scottish carers have greater debt problems than do carers in other parts of the United Kingdom? Does he agree that there is a need to target resources such as debt counselling, money advice services and access to credit unions to Scottish carers?

I hear what Karen Whitefield is saying. We want to ensure that carers are more aware of what services and help are available to them. As has been said in some of the discussions on the law of diligence and the need to tackle debt problems generally, not just for carers, credit unions are one of the options that we are considering.