Plenary, 16 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, March 16, 2006

Official Report 733KB 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. (S2F-2175)

I congratulate Caitlin McClatchey and David Carry on winning Scotland's first gold medals of the Commonwealth games. Let us hope that those medals are the first of many.

I, too, congratulate Caitlin McClatchey and David Carry, particularly as David Carry is a fellow Aberdonian. It was great to see his gold medal swimming success.

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that his Government is refusing to publish some 1,400 documents relating to the Shirley McKie case and that, last week, it threatened to use a public interest immunity certificate to prevent any mention in open court of the report of former deputy chief constable James Mackay, in spite of the fact that the report has been quoted in every newspaper in the land? Given that the Liberals have long championed the principle of freedom of information, is the Deputy First Minister embarrassed by the obsessive and paranoid secrecy surrounding the Shirley McKie case?

It is important to emphasise that the freedom of information requests relating to the documents that are being referred to were responded to by the Lord Advocate, in his role as the head of the prosecution service—a role that is independent of Executive ministers. It is appropriate that there is a strong freedom of information regime in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has passed the strongest freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom; indeed, it is stronger than many such regimes around the world. I am sure that the requests will be dealt with appropriately. At the end of the day, the Scottish Information Commissioner will rule on those issues. It would be wrong for ministers to intervene.

It seems that that Liberal Democrat principle comes cheap, so let us try another one.

Does the Deputy First Minister recall that, last week, a fingerprint expert in Aberdeen, Gary Dempster, speaking in a personal capacity on the BBC, voiced his concerns about the Shirley McKie case? He did so in line with the Scottish fingerprint service's manual, which says that

"any member of staff has the freedom to challenge the accuracy of any process employed in the Service."

Does the Deputy First Minister share my concern that Mr Dempster was informed yesterday—in a letter of which I have a copy—that he is to face disciplinary proceedings at the specific request of the director of the Scottish Criminal Record Office, an organisation that is, we are told, reformed beyond reproach and has nothing to hide? The last time I checked, freedom of speech was a core Liberal principle. Will the Deputy First Minister today defend that principle by condemning the outrageous action that is being taken against Gary Dempster simply for speaking his mind?

I was unaware of that matter, which is clearly between the employee and his employer.

I assure Parliament that I accept, of course, that there were significant weaknesses in the fingerprint service, as was identified in the autumn—or, if we take into account the interim report, the summer—of 2000. That means that, six years ago, significant weaknesses were identified by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. There was a significant inquiry, and three follow-up inspections that examined the weaknesses and recommendations confirmed that action had been taken by the fingerprint service to improve the situation. That ended up, in March 2005, with confirmation that all the recommendations with regard to the weaknesses had been acted on.

A good example is the cropping issue, which has been focused on in recent media comment. Cropping was discontinued in October 2000, one month after the report that contains the recommendations was published.

Further change will be delivered via the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by Parliament. By April 2007, the SCRO will become part of the proposed forensic science service, which will in turn become part of the proposed Scottish police services authority, which will have lay representatives as part of its management process. By the autumn of 2006, a new non-numeric standard will be introduced for fingerprinting in Scotland. There could not have been a more significant overhaul of the fingerprint service. We have taken decisive action.

Is not the letter to Mr Dempster proof that the Scottish Criminal Record Office is still trying to cover up the truth all these years later? I remind the Deputy First Minister that the SCRO is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. If he wants to see the letter, I will be happy to show it to him. Perhaps he will make a more robust defence of freedom of speech later.

Is it not the case that Liberal principles have gone out of the window in this case? I remind the Deputy First Minister that his party has, in the past year alone, demanded public inquiries on contaminated blood supplies in the national health service, on the political decisions that led to the war in Iraq, and on the events at the Deepcut army barracks. Why is it that the Liberals demand openness and transparency on those and other important issues but are prepared to collude in a cover-up in the Shirley McKie case?

Every Government minister, led by the Minister for Justice, has made it clear that they would not only co-operate with a parliamentary inquiry but would actively welcome and support one. The questions that can be and need to be answered in the case can be covered by a parliamentary inquiry. I and a clear majority of members of Parliament see no need for a judicial inquiry.

In commenting on Parliament's committees, Nicola Sturgeon once referred to

"powerful parliamentary committees, which will ensure strong and forensic parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive."

However, only a couple of weeks ago, Alex Neil said:

"the idea that the Shirley McKie case could be investigated by a parliamentary committee is, quite frankly, laughable."—[Official Report, 2 March 2006; c 23702.]

That is a disgrace. It undermines Parliament and its committee structure, which is seen as one of Parliament's great successes. I would like to see some consistency from the SNP on the issue.

I remind the Deputy First Minister that the Labour convener of the Justice 1 Committee said that a parliamentary inquiry with an in-built Government majority is no substitute for an open and independent public inquiry. I put it to the Deputy First Minister that the Liberals want a cover up in the Shirley McKie case simply because one of the key players is a senior Liberal politician—the former Minister for Justice and Liberal leader, Jim Wallace. Is not it the case that, if the case had arisen south of the border, where the Liberals are in opposition, they would be heading the queue of people who are demanding a public inquiry? Is not it true that the case has revealed the sheer hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats and has shown that they put private party interest ahead of the public interest?

I strongly believe that the independence of the prosecution service is vital. At other times, the SNP has said exactly that on the record. Today, however, the Scottish National Party is again attempting to take politics into the prosecution service and to gain political advantage from a situation in which the Executive has taken clear and firm action.

It is important that Cathy Jamieson has appointed assistant chief constable David Mulhern to produce an action plan on the issue and to look at how we intend to introduce the changes to the fingerprint service to which I referred earlier, including the movement of the SCRO into the forensic science service. We have to ensure that, over the next few months, we have the best international standards for our fingerprint service. The Executive is determined to ensure that that is the case. The SNP and other parties, by continuing to focus on the issues, only undermine the service. That is to be deeply regretted.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2176)

The First Minister has no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister and nor have I.

I suspect that there is mutual relief in all quarters.

The Deputy First Minister's responses indicate that the conduct of the Government coalition strikes at the heart of devolved governance. In many ways, it is remarkable that the governing coalition has survived, given the differences over issues such as the single transferable vote system, the Airborne Initiative, reform of the national health service, bridge tolls and the common fisheries policy—and that is a shortened list. Does the Deputy First Minister back his colleague Tom McCabe's handling of the impending local government strike at the end of this month or will he use that as an excuse to finally end the coalition?

One thing that the Conservatives—at least in Scotland—have still to realise is that people like political parties to work together to provide stable government, to work through differences and to deliver effective policies for the people of Scotland. Whether in education, health, housing or planning, the coalition between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in the Executive tries and, on the whole, succeeds in delivering exactly what I described.

Annabel Goldie referred to the difficult pensions issue that affects local authority workers. Tom McCabe has, of course, worked hard with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with local authorities and with trade unions to try to reach a sensible settlement. We have received legal advice on the issue, which led to the proposal to shift the policy, but Tom McCabe has made it clear that he wants to continue to talk and to seek to reach a sensible settlement. He strongly wishes to avoid industrial action of any kind on that important issue.

Worries about the coalition's stability and its ability to deliver stable devolved government are certainly not confined to my party. Only last week in this chamber, Labour's Elaine Murray said that my party's motivation for leading a debate on energy was "to split the coalition." She wondered why we bothered,

"With Nicol Stephen doing such a good job of that".—[Official Report, 9 March 2006; c 23823.]

If the Deputy First Minister will not cut and run over the local government strike, will he back the First Minister if he gives the go-ahead to build replacement nuclear power stations? If not, can the coalition continue when it is split down the middle on an issue of such fundamental importance to Scotland?

I did not hear the final part of Annabel Goldie's question because many members were criticising the line of attack that she sought to develop. The simple answer is that the Executive—the coalition—has a clear policy on nuclear power, which is that we will not approve new nuclear power stations unless the issue of nuclear waste is resolved. That will continue to be the Administration's policy until the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007. It will then be for any party to propose different policies in their manifestos.

The coalition between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats has a clear and firm agreement for a four-year working term. Of course there are issues and events that come up to trouble the coalition—that is politics. However, on such major issues as nuclear power, we are absolutely agreed and determined to deliver on our policies right through to May next year. That is what people in Scotland want—a good, sensible and stable Government that is delivered effectively by two parties working together. It will be a long time before the Conservatives understand the sense of that. Despite David Cameron's efforts down at Westminster, we in Scotland see examples of the Conservatives still being divisive and partisan and still consistently and continually losing support in election after election.

The words

"there are issues and events that come up to trouble the coalition"

will go down as the all-time best euphemism in the Parliament. Those obvious differences make it even clearer that the coalition is not a principled agreement that has been made in the country's interests to deliver stable devolved governance, but is instead a shabby marriage of convenience to serve the partners and not the people. Why does not the Deputy First Minister do the decent thing and end the sham now?

We all remember Major's Conservative Government, which no one would rush to call a principled Government. That shambolic Government was deeply divided not between two political parties but within itself. We all remember what John Major called certain back-bench members of his party. Before lecturing on such issues, Annabel Goldie should think hard about the future of the Conservative party in Scotland. In my view, her party is currently on a route to oblivion. Its only way back is for it to be more co-operative and more moderate by moving to the centre ground of politics in Scotland. Far be it from me to give greater advice than that on this occasion, but I see no signs of such a move by the Scottish Tory party.

In summary, people like to see parties working together. No party in Scotland has an overall majority under Parliament's fair system of voting. Therefore, if we are to deliver an effective and stable Government, the sensible, moderate and progressive parties need to work together.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can Miss Goldie be given the opportunity to ask question 2 again? As Nicol Stephen said when he gave his unsatisfactory answer, she was drowned out by the Liberal members to my left.

I will not reply to that. There are a number of constituency questions on job losses. I will take Kate Maclean's question, which concerns the largest of the job losses.

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that Tesco's announcement that it will relocate its distribution depot from its current location in my constituency of Dundee West will result in the loss of more than 430 jobs? Does he share my grave concern about the effect of the decision—for which no plausible justification has yet been given—on the loyal and skilled workforce, which has helped to turn the site into one of the most efficient depots in Tesco's United Kingdom network? Over the next couple of days, I will meet the trade unions and the company to discuss the matter. What can the Scottish Executive do to assist the situation?

I am concerned about the impact of the job losses on Dundee and I am aware of the matter. I am asking Scottish Enterprise Tayside to take action and to consider activating our rapid response team for those job losses.

I should emphasise that Tesco is maintaining, and is, indeed, increasing its commitment in Scotland. As well as relocating that large number of jobs from Dundee to Livingston, Tesco is creating 200 extra jobs in Livingston so that the overall impact on the Scottish economy will be positive. However, I fully appreciate that the impact on Dundee will be very negative indeed. Appropriate action should be taken by Scottish Enterprise Tayside and others.

---

Poverty

To ask the First Minister what position the eradication of poverty holds on the list of the Scottish Executive's priorities. (S2F-2179)

We are committed to eradicating child poverty within a generation. We have made good progress in that regard. Since 1999, we have reduced by 80,000 the number of children living in low-income households and we have reduced by 80,000 the number of pensioners living in low-income households. We have also increased employment to its highest levels since quarterly records began.

Last week, a national statistical report concluded that 240,000 children in Scotland are living in poverty and that the circumstances of the poorest children are worse now than they were in 1999. That evidence is endorsed by End Child Poverty and by Save the Children. I quote:

"The poorest children continue to live without nutritious meals, new shoes, or a winter coat when it is needed. There is absolutely no evidence of a decline in the proportion of children living in severe poverty since 1999."

Is it not an absolute disgrace that, in a rich country like ours, nearly a quarter of a million children endure such deprivations? Is the minister not ashamed of those statistics?

That is more than a statistic; those are young people who are living in difficult circumstances. We are determined to take action to drive those figures down and to improve the lives of children who live in the poorest families.

There is always more that we can do to reduce levels of child poverty, although we are taking strong action. It is important to note that Scotland has significantly exceeded the target of reducing child poverty by a quarter between 1998-99 and 2004-05. So far, we have lifted 100,000 children out of a low-income lifestyle—a reduction of 34 per cent. That is all the more impressive considering the fact that Scotland started with a higher percentage of children living in poverty than the rest of the United Kingdom: it was 27 per cent back in 1999, compared to the UK figure of 24 per cent. Scotland now matches the UK figure, which is that 19 per cent of children are living in poverty. We are reducing the figure in absolute terms and we have closed the gap.

Unfortunately, the minister tries, in claiming progress, to spin the story in the same way as the Executive did last week. The newspapers fell for it hook, line and sinker. Is it not the case that, as the report concluded last week, the Executive has failed to make any progress whatever on severe poverty in seven years? Is it not the case that the Deputy First Minister is misleading the public, who see that one candidate in his party's recent leadership race has nine houses, who see the Prime Minister buying a £3 million house, and who see a Labour minister admitting that she cannot remember that she made a £400,000 loan application?

Is it not the case that the Executive parties have opposed every substantial bill that has been designed to end the hideous inequalities that scar Scottish life, and which have proposed free school meals, abolition of the council tax and free prescriptions? Do figures from the Office for National Statistics not chillingly reveal the consequences and record of an Executive that simply does not give a damn about the poor?

When someone loses the argument, what do they do? They start to make personal attacks on their opponent. That is all we have heard from Colin Fox, who did not listen to the first answer that I gave.

We are doing a lot and we have achieved a lot. We have beaten the targets that we set, but we need to do more and we are doing more. We have initiatives such as sure start Scotland, which is working for families. We are funding our child care strategy, offering lone-parent grants and have a wide range of other initiatives that are designed to improve the lives of young children who are living in the most difficult circumstances. We will continue to deliver results while Colin Fox resorts to personal abuse.

---

Tay Road Bridge (Tolls)

To ask the First Minister what consideration has been given to abolishing tolls on the Tay road bridge. (S2F-2183)

The future of tolling of the Tay road bridge was considered as part of the tolled bridges review. The outcome of the review was announced by the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications on 1 March.

I note the Deputy First Minister's answer. Is he aware that there is huge cross-party, multi-agency and public support for the abolition of tolls on the Tay bridge? Is he aware that a massive 96.9 per cent of respondents to The Courier's scrap the tolls campaign voted to scrap the tolls? Given that the report that was referred to in general questions and on which the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications based his decision to retain the tolls seems to depend on information about congestion in Dundee city centre during the morning peak—otherwise known as the period when delays that are caused by toll collection are at their minimum—will the Deputy First Minister agree to instruct the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications to look at the matter again?

As Kate Maclean and others know, as part of phase 2 of the toll bridges review, a full options appraisal exercise was carried out, which included a no-tolls option for the Tay bridge. As the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications made clear earlier, the details of that will be made publicly available and will show the expected impact on congestion that was part of the decision-making process.

I emphasise that the key decision did not relate to congestion or environmental factors, but to the costs of the bridge and the cost of the outstanding debt on the bridge, of which there remains some £13 million that has not been repaid or met. That consideration was also an important factor in the decision on the Erskine bridge.

The cost of moving the tollbooths is going to be many millions of pounds, which could go towards paying off the Tay bridge debt. Does that not undermine the minister's argument? Given the unanimous view of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board that the tolls should go, how and when will the Deputy First Minister respond to that unanimous view, and when will he instruct his Minister for Transport and Telecommunications to start listening to the views of local people on this matter?

The toll bridges review has just been completed. It was a comprehensive review that analysed all the information and the facts, which have now been made public. The decision was announced on 1 March by the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications.

Decisions about the location of the tollbooths and further decisions about the future maintenance and improvement of the bridge are local matters for the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, as is appropriate.

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that my constituents bear the highest burden from the toll bridge because 65 per cent of the traffic that uses it is local and most of it goes from north-east Fife into Dundee. Those people feel that they have paid to build the bridge several times over and that much of the debt is to do with the cost of maintaining the bridge rather than the construction cost. Given those facts, will the Scottish Executive keep the situation under review, and when it receives the request from the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, will it give careful consideration to accepting its recommendation that the bridge tolls be scrapped?

Of course we will give appropriate consideration to any representations that are made to us by the joint board. It is, however, also fair to say that we have considered the sometimes very different issues that are associated with each of the remaining toll bridges in Scotland. Different local circumstances affect the Erskine bridge than affect the Forth and Tay bridges; we came to what we believed were the right decisions, taking into consideration all the circumstances. That is the view of all Scottish ministers.

---

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Performance)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with the performance of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. (S2F-2178)

I believe that we can have confidence in the professionalism, dedication and independence of the prosecution service and its staff. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has undergone the most extensive modernisation programme in its history and that is continuing, which is driving forward major improvements to the criminal justice system.

Does the Deputy First Minister realise that recent blunders by the Crown Office are bringing the legal system in Scotland into disrepute? For example, in a recent rape case, the victim was advised that the culprit would serve a minimum of 10 years; actually, he will serve less than five years. Last week, we had the ridiculous spectacle of the Crown Office putting a gagging order on a document that every journalist in Scotland already had, which made it a laughing stock.

This week, in a case in which evidence had not been presented to the defender, we have the ridiculous prospect that the Crown Office might have to drop the whole case. Is it not time the Crown Office got its act together?

If there are instances that require to be investigated, it is appropriate that such investigation takes place quickly and is thorough, and that that is established by the Lord Advocate or the police. That is exactly what has happened in recent cases, as should be the case.

I hear increasingly from Alex Neil and the Scottish National Party a desire to interfere politically with the actions of the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate. Unless Alex Neil can clarify that or explain to me in clear terms that the SNP wants something different to that, I will continue to believe that. Such interference would be quite wrong for Scotland and it would undermine the standing—international and otherwise—of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That is the last thing that I and members of the Executive want to happen.

---

Commonwealth Games (Scottish Bid)

To ask the First Minister how a successful Scottish bid for the Commonwealth games would benefit young people across Scotland. (S2F-2187)

A key element of a successful Scottish bid for the Commonwealth games will be the benefits that it will bring for young people across Scotland. This will include a legacy of world-class facilities and a top-quality coaching infrastructure throughout Scotland, as well as the inspiration that the Glasgow games would offer to young people in all parts of the country.

I endorse the Deputy First Minister's congratulations to the Scottish team. Will he also wish the best of luck to the Borders contingent of the team, including Peter Gallagher, manager of the rugby sevens team? Does he agree that, if our young people are to be inspired by our bid, as well as by the Melbourne and Delhi games, all of Scotland must be included in that bid? Will he take a lead from the Melbourne games, for which seven sports venues are more than 50km from the centre and four are more than 100km away? Can he think of a better location for the rugby sevens in Scotland's bid than the game's historic home of Melrose in my constituency?

I offer support to teams from all parts of Scotland. It is important that all Scotland becomes involved in the Glasgow bid. The bid team has an all-Scotland sub-group, which will be chaired by Councillor Graham Garvie, who is from the Borders. The specific purpose of that sub-group is to ensure that the whole country benefits from the games bid. I also emphasise that it is important that the benefits of the bid are spread across Scotland and to the young people of Scotland well before the games take place in Scotland in 2014. We can start now.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—