Plenary, 16 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, June 16, 2005

Official Report 718KB 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 will be discussed. (S2F-1721)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the G8 summit in July.

I remind the First Minister that the future of Ferguson Shipbuilders in Port Glasgow, one of only three shipyards remaining on the Clyde, and the jobs of the 300 people who work there depend entirely on its winning a Scottish Executive contract to build fisheries protection vessels. Will the First Minister tell his fisheries minister to stop dithering over the matter and instruct him to award that lifeline contract to Ferguson's now?

I am obviously a bit restricted by the rules of procurement and tendering in going into all the details of the case, but I can assure Ms Sturgeon that we are examining the tenders for the contract very carefully. In particular, we are looking at the evidence that has been presented to us—and not just recently—on the actions of the Polish Government and Polish yards and the evidence that we took to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport last October in relation to similar claims.

The only dithering that has been going on in relation to this issue has related to the contracts for fisheries protection vessels. I remind Ms Sturgeon that the last time we gave Ferguson's a contract for a fisheries protection vessel, her front-bench spokesperson Richard Lochhead said:

"Our fishermen will be holding their heads in their hands when they learn Ross Finnie has spent almost £8 million on a brand new boat to keep them in their place."

The last time we awarded a contract to Ferguson's, we were condemned by the Scottish National Party. The Government is determined to deliver for Scottish shipbuilding and to ensure that we have fisheries protection vessels in place.

I suggest that the First Minister raises his game. The work on the vessel has been commissioned by the Scottish Executive. The question is: will the work go to Poland or will it go to Port Glasgow? Is it not the case that the Executive has been told repeatedly that the Polish yard in question is being subsidised? It won a contract over Ferguson's last year with a bid that would not even cover the cost of the materials, for goodness' sake. I remind the First Minister that, thanks to the SNP taking action, the European Commission is now so concerned that it has launched a formal investigation into the Polish yard. What is it going to take to make him come down on the side of a Scottish industry, a Scottish shipyard and Scottish jobs? To quote Trish Godman—one of his own MSPs—why will he not show "some backbone"?

Not only is there plenty of backbone here, but there has been lots of action to try to ensure that Ferguson's not only wins the current contracts that are out to tender but, as in the past, has further contracts awarded to it, despite the opposition of the Scottish nationalist party. It is wrong to imply—as was done around the time of the visit to Brussels to which Ms Sturgeon alludes—that the problem could in some way be solved by transferring responsibility for the vessel that we are discussing from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to the British Royal Navy, the British Government and the Ministry of Defence.

After the visit to Brussels, the SNP leadership called for us to reclassify the vessel as a grey vessel—in other words, a military ship. That would mean that it would pass into the hands of the Ministry of Defence, rather than the Scottish Parliament. That would also mean that Scottish fisheries protection was no longer considered the responsibility of this devolved Parliament, but was instead handed back to the Ministry of Defence and the British Government.

The SNP cannot have it both ways on this. I absolutely welcome its support and the support of any other party in the Parliament for the efforts that we have undertaken not only to help Scottish shipbuilding but to ensure that anybody who breaks the law and distorts state aid rules anywhere in the European Union is dealt with.

The SNP's intervention, although perhaps late, is very welcome to us. We should be acting on an all-party basis. At the same time, we need consistency, not hypocrisy. We need honesty for the workforce at Ferguson's, not rubbish that would lead it up the garden path and lead to the yard getting no contracts at all in the future.

The First Minister has just confirmed that there are many ways in which the Scottish Executive could have given the contract to Ferguson's by now; instead it has chosen to do nothing. Does he begin to understand the urgency and seriousness of the situation? Does he know that while he politicks, more than 100 jobs at Ferguson's have gone, that a further 21 will be lost two weeks from today unless the contract is awarded and that many more will follow? As even the local Labour MSP said yesterday, "we cannot wait." The contract should go to Ferguson's right now.

I suggest to the First Minister that instead of cowering in a corner in case someone in Europe gives him a row, he should take the decision and make it clear that if it is challenged he will defend it. That is called standing up for the national interest. Why will he not do it?

Miss Sturgeon's only two solutions to the issue are either to hand over responsibility to the Ministry of Defence, which would allow shipbuilding yards the length and breadth of Britain as well as yards in Poland to compete afresh for the tender, or to break the law, as she is now suggesting. That is utterly irresponsible. The best way to deal with any allegation of law breaking elsewhere in the European Union in relation to contracts is to have it investigated properly. That is what we called for—not in April, in the middle of an election campaign, but last October, when we first approached the European Union and, of course, the British Government about the issue. That has been, and will continue to be, our consistent approach in response to any evidence that has come either from Ferguson's or elsewhere. We are determined not only to stick to the law but to ensure that others elsewhere in the European Union stick to the law too. We are also determined to ensure that Scottish shipbuilding has the best chance possible, rather than condemn the Executive—or anybody else—for awarding fisheries protection vessel contracts to Scottish shipbuilding yards, as the SNP did not that long ago.

The First Minister has just confirmed that, all along, it has been the SNP that has come up with possible solutions and the Scottish Executive that has done absolutely nothing. Is he not aware that all Ferguson's shipyard wants is fair treatment and a fair go? While he dithers, jobs are being lost. Will he take a decision now in favour of a Scottish industry, a Scottish shipyard and Scottish jobs? Will he take that decision and defend it? Will he stand up for Scotland?

I repeat that the last time that Ferguson's got a fisheries protection vessel contract from the Executive, the SNP said that people would hang their heads because it was such a disaster for Scottish fishing. The SNP opposed that contract. It cannot now come in late—six months after we first raised the allegations—and claim that it is being consistent.

I welcome the SNP's conversion. I want this to be an all-party effort. I want to ensure that in this Parliament we stick together, we promote Scottish shipbuilding and we tackle those elsewhere in the European Union who, it has been alleged, have broken the rules. Let us be consistent about it and not say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience.

As is my practice on such issues, I call the constituency member, Trish Godman.

Like the First Minister, I will take any support for Ferguson's, even if it is from Johnnys-come-lately. I point out to the SNP that the reason why we are having this discussion is that when Andy Kerr was Minister for Finance and Public Services—

Question for the First Minister.

When Andy Kerr was Minister for Finance and Public Services, at my pushing and shoving, he moved the money forward so that the ships could be built this year, and not next year, as planned originally.

Does the First Minister agree that we have to have complete confidence in Ferguson's workforce, as I am sure everyone in this room has? Will he assure me again that the Scottish Executive does not put Scottish companies at a disadvantage with regard to its interpretation of EU procurement rules and that it will do everything in its power to make sure that the order comes to Ferguson's? This is my final plea to the First Minister. The decision has to be made as soon as possible.

We are well aware of the urgency of the situation and Trish Godman's consistency in raising the issue. We are also well aware of Ross Finnie's and Andy Kerr's efforts to ensure that the work might be available should Ferguson's succeed at tender.

However, we have to be honest. We cannot give preferential treatment to one company, whether it is in Scotland or anywhere else. We have to ensure that the tender process is carried out legally and properly. If there is an allegation that the process has been handled improperly elsewhere in the European Union, or for that matter, here in Scotland, we should—as we have done—demand that the European Commission investigate that allegation.

The rules have to be implemented fairly, properly and consistently, and that means that we have to implement them in that way too. Although we will do all that we can to secure a future for Scottish shipbuilding in all the remaining yards in Scotland and to ensure that there is fair play in the award of the contract, we cannot put one company at an advantage ahead of any others in a tender process that has already begun—otherwise, we would be breaking the law, and that would be wrong.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1722)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland.

I hope that there will also be further discussion of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. I remind the First Minister that on 10 March this year he told me:

"I believe that the early release of prisoners without condition is unacceptable to the people of Scotland and needs to be reviewed sensibly and in a judicial context."—[Official Report, 10 March 2005; c 15236.]

How does that square with the Minister for Justice's announcement that the Executive is to end unconditional early release of sex offenders on short-term sentences in advance of the publication of the report of the First Minister's own Sentencing Commission for Scotland, particularly in light of the comments made by Lord Macfadyen, the commission's chairman, that there is no justification for doing so before the review is complete?

The case for doing so is absolutely crystal clear. Although we seek advice from the Sentencing Commission, we are not duty-bound to accept it. We set up the Sentencing Commission to advise us on sentencing, but ultimate responsibility for sentencing lies with this Parliament and with the Executive, which reports to the Parliament. We will continue to take the actions that we see are required, but we will do so in a measured way, taking the advice of the Sentencing Commission as we go along.

In relation to sex offenders, I am not sure where Mr McLetchie's question was pointing—in different directions at the same time, which is perhaps a more familiar refrain from the SNP. However, if he is saying that we are right to end the early release of sex offenders, he should say so and he should welcome the Minister for Justice's announcement. If he is saying that we are wrong, he is contradicting everything that he has said in the chamber over the past few months.

Of course I welcome the wholly inadequate measure that was announced this morning as a tiny step along the road to a policy that, as the First Minister is well aware, we on this side of the chamber have been advocating for the past six years.

However, the truth of the matter is that today's announcement by the Minister for Justice is simply about tinkering with the conditions under which people are let out of jail. It will not keep people in prison conditions, which are necessary to protect the public. If the First Minister is prepared to ignore advice from the Sentencing Commission on the matter, why does he not just forget about the Sentencing Commission, as we have urged, and adopt our principled position of ending automatic early release for all categories of prisoner? Will he and the Executive finally accept the strength of the argument for doing so and support the amendment that we will lodge at stage 2 of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill to end automatic early release for all? Then there will be no more get-out-of-jail-free cards in Scotland.

There are occasions when laws need to be made in a hurry, but there are also many occasions when bad laws can be made in a hurry. We have made absolutely clear our commitment, not just in relation to the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, to end automatic early release for sex offenders and, ultimately, for other offenders. However, we will do so sensibly and properly and we will think through the implications.

We will ensure that our prisons retain for longer periods of time under tighter conditions those who are a most serious threat to people in the local community, while creating new arrangements for those who are not a physical danger in the local community but who have been sentenced for other reasons. We will ensure that they are properly rehabilitated so that when they get back into society they do not turn back to robbery, vandalism or other crimes, but become useful members of society. That is what this morning's debate was all about.

It is entirely possible that the Scottish Conservatives missed the point, which is that, through the management of offenders, we are determined to reduce reoffending in Scotland. We are determined to ensure that we have tighter and better sentences for those who are serious sexual, physical, violent offenders. However, we are also determined that other offenders are brought back into the community in a way that ensures that, in the years that follow, they are less of a problem for the other members of the community than they were in the past.

Brief question and answer, please.

The First Minister should be aware that the public do not miss the point. They are well aware that in recent times some appalling offences have been committed by prisoners who were let out of jail early by the Scottish Executive. Frankly, the First Minister's arguments become more illogical by the minute. First we need a sentencing commission; now we do not. He told me previously in this chamber that decisions about early release should not be taken on the hoof—yet he has just taken a decision on the hoof. He told me that we should not have knee-jerk reactions on the issue—except when it is his knee that is doing the jerking. Will he finally take the action that is necessary to protect the public by ending automatic early release, or is the real truth behind today's announcement of yet more conditions that, in reality, the Scottish Executive has absolutely no intention of ending automatic early release?

I know that, historically, the Scottish Conservatives have a listening problem, but I hope that Mr McLetchie hears what I am saying for the umpteenth time in this chamber. Automatic early release will be ended, but we will do that properly, taking into account all the appropriate factors, and we will do so urgently in relation to sex offenders, where there is a legitimate concern in the community that needs to be addressed.

Through the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, we will make sure that, because programmes have failed in Scotland in the past, in future programmes are in place to ensure that people do not reoffend and that they have either the skills or the change in attitude that is required to make them more productive, useful and successful members of society after they have seen through their sentence. Through a comprehensive programme of reforms, we are determined to ensure that we have tougher and better sentences for violent and sex offenders, and that the vast majority of other offenders are put on a path that makes them better members of society.

Colin Fox is sick, so question 3 falls. I therefore call Frances Curran for one question.

I want to ask the First Minister about the comments that were made yesterday by Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr Salmond insisted that SNP-controlled Perth and Kinross Council and Tayside police withdrew permission for a march and rally at Gleneagles under pressure from Charles Clarke, the Westminster Home Secretary, who, I remind this Parliament, has no power over Scottish local government or policing. Will the First Minister condemn the decision taken by an SNP council, apparently under direct pressure from Westminster, and will he intervene as First Minister of Scotland to ensure that the democratic right of the people of Scotland is upheld in our own country?

Where do I start with that? First, let us be clear that everybody should stop passing the buck when they have decisions to make. Perth and Kinross Council has a decision to make. It should make its decision, defend it in public and stop blaming anybody else for it.

Secondly, we should ensure that any demonstrations that are organised in Scotland around the make poverty history campaign, in advance of or during the G8 summit, should be organised properly, organised with the responsible authorities and organised in a responsible way. I know that Frances Curran is irresponsible—that is part of her party's policy—but I thought that it was irresponsible of Alex Salmond to do what he did yesterday, when he tried to make this an issue between London and Perth, urging changes that would allow people to demonstrate in a way that might not be appropriate locally.

We all need to be responsible. People need to have a voice and to express that voice in the democracy that we have here in Scotland and in the UK in a way that will have an impact at the summit. There is also a necessity to protect local people, to ensure their security and to allow their business to be conducted in an orderly fashion. Getting that balance right is a job for us, in relation to provision across Scotland, for the chief constables in Tayside and Edinburgh and for Perth and Kinross Council. If the council wants to do what it has proposed, it will have my full support.

There are two urgent constituency questions that we can dispose of briefly. I call Fergus Ewing.

I raise a constituency question, of which I have given the First Minister notice. He will be aware that, this week, Lochaber was dealt a crushing blow with the threat to Arjo Wiggins paper mill in Corpach and the possible loss of 130 jobs. There is a consultation period of 90 days, however, and I invite the First Minister, as a sign of the Scottish Executive's commitment, to arrange for the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to meet next week the directors of the company, in order to ensure that every possible measure to avert the closure—whether by diversification, a new purchaser or other means—is found.

I am sure that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will be happy to do that, and he may already have made that offer. What is more important than simply having meetings is that we act as quickly as possible. Executive officials and officials from Highlands and Islands Enterprise were engaged with the company on the issue on Tuesday. It is a serious issue for the local community, and I understand that those officials will also be going to Paris next week to meet the company's management at that level. We are already actively engaged in the matter. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will be happy to have discussions with the company's management, but we must ensure that we also act quickly.

Does the First Minister share my concern about the proposed closure of the Carrongrove paper mill in Denny, which is one of the largest industrial employers in the area, and about the fact that the closure announcement was made without any prior consultation with the workforce or their trade union? In view of the fact, last year, Carrongrove generated sales revenue of £26.2 million and operating profits of £1.62 million, will the First Minister do everything possible to stop what looks like a shabby asset-stripping exercise? In particular, will the Scottish Executive contact the chief executive of Inveresk plc and trade union representatives of the workforce to explore every possible alternative to closure and to offer the workforce all possible assistance and advice?

Again, the ministers with responsibility for enterprise and their department will be happy to investigate those specific points with a view to providing any assistance that is required. It is regrettable that, in this instance, the company did not, as I understand it, make the effort to consult with anybody locally in advance of the announcement. Although everyone in the chamber is aware that, from time to time, Scottish companies or international companies that are based in Scotland restructure, we must be in a position to help local employees with any restructuring process, to help them into new jobs or to acquire new skills, or to help new owners to take over plants. We can do that only if the companies that are making such decisions co-operate with us, and I urge the company in this case to make every effort to do so over the coming weeks.

---

Malawi Appeal

To ask the First Minister whether the announcement on the countries that will benefit immediately from debt relief will affect the Scottish Executive's Malawi appeal. (S2F-1738)

I warmly welcome the G8 finance ministers' decision to cancel the debts of heavily indebted poor countries. We hope that that will benefit Malawi when it qualifies for debt relief. The people of Malawi, like those of other poor nations, also need increased aid and changes in trading rules to help to grow their economy. Alongside those Government actions, I am certain that the generosity of Scots can contribute to individual essential projects and that our practical assistance can help Malawi to be less dependant and more successful in future.

Although corruption is a problem in some African states, I am sure that everyone who attended the recent G8 international parliamentarians conference in the Holyrood building was impressed with the commitment, energy and capability of African elected representatives and representatives of civic society. Does the First Minister agree that any assistance that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish civic society can give African legislatures and civic society in strengthening their governance and scrutiny arrangements would represent a positive contribution to the objectives that were set out in the report by the Commission for Africa?

During the past week, there has been an attempt by some irresponsible people to imply that the speed with which Malawi is reaching the stage at which it will qualify for debt relief should discourage Scots from contributing their time or resources, or discourage the British Government from being part of a debt relief or aid effort in Malawi. That is the wrong conclusion to draw. It is right and proper that the Government of Malawi must meet the conditions that it is required to meet. When I met Malawi's President during my visit to the country last month he was absolutely committed to meeting those conditions. He has introduced a system of accountable officers, which members of this Parliament would recognise, in relation to financial management and governance. We welcome that. The President said that he is committed to taking a zero-tolerance approach to corruption. We should support him in that. He also wants to build links between Malawi's Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, to ensure that parliamentarians can learn from one other. Although in Scotland we might believe that parliamentarians in Malawi can learn more from us than we can learn from them, I suspect that the process might be much more mutual.

---

“Review of Management Arrangements of Colyn Evans”

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive intends to order an independent inquiry following the publication of the internal Fife Council and Fife constabulary report, "Review of Management Arrangements of Colyn Evans". (S2F-1725)

First, I would like to record my sympathy for the family of Karen Dewar. It is not possible to bring her back, but it is possible to make the changes that will help to prevent any similar loss in the future. We have therefore instructed the Social Work Inspection Agency and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to scrutinise the report of Fife Council and Fife constabulary, identify issues that require further action from Fife Council, Fife constabulary or anyone else, and produce an updated report. We will then determine the actions that are required.

I welcome the decision to set up an independent inquiry. That news and the First Minister's words will bring some comfort to Karen Dewar's family, who feel badly let down by Fife Council and Fife constabulary.

Will the First Minister give an assurance that the inquiry will also examine the period that Colyn Evans spent in Geilsland School as well as his release from supervision? Will he also give an assurance that the independent report will be published in full?

On the assumption that the report does not contain information about individuals who should not be subject to public scrutiny, I see no reason why it should not be published. I would always include that caveat, because sometimes we must ensure that the wider family is protected, although I do not suspect that that will be the case in relation to this report.

It is essential that we build confidence among people not just in Fife but elsewhere, so that when local communities rely on public services—the social work service or the police force—to protect them from individuals who might cause harm, they can be confident that the right procedures are in place. In far too many cases in Scotland that is not the case. The Executive and the Parliament have been very clear about the need to improve child protection services, to ensure that they are more consistent and reliable. We are determined to see that work through.

In the case to which the member refers, it is clear that the situation that arose relates particularly to the issue of people who have been involved in the children's hearings system in relation to matters, which might include sex offences, being lost by the system when they enter adulthood. If that is the case, there is an issue for us to address in this Parliament, as well as issues for Fife Council and Fife constabulary to address.

My absolute sympathy goes to the family. I want them to be assured that we are determined to take the action required.

---

Radioactive Waste (Storage)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's role will be in the selection of sites for storage of radioactive waste. (S2F-1728)

There is no site selection process at present for the disposal of radioactive waste.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is currently consulting on its shortlist of options for the long-term management of higher-activity radioactive waste. The options are deep disposal, phased deep disposal, shallow burial of short-lived waste, and interim storage

CORWM will make recommendations to the Scottish Executive in mid-2006. We will take the decisions on the management options for Scotland and determine any site selection process thereafter.

Does the First Minister agree that monitoring of radioactive waste should continue however and wherever it is stored; that waste should be retrievable if problems arise or new technological solutions are developed; and that, if the carbon implications of the transport and containment of waste are factored in, nuclear is not a carbon emission-free source of energy? Finally, will the Executive ensure that we accept responsibility for our own waste but strongly oppose any efforts to make Scotland a nuclear dump for the whole of Britain?

I think that that was four supplementaries. I think—if I get the order right—that the first two answers are yes and yes. On the question of carbon emissions, it is certainly the case that not all renewable forms of energy are carbon-free, so that is a factor that has to be taken into account. On the fourth point, I want to say two things. Of course, we do not want Scotland to be a dump for nuclear waste. However, we have to be careful about the terminology that we use and about the way in which people can be manipulated to get wound up about this issue. It is Scotland that creates much of the nuclear waste in Britain. We have a responsibility to deal with that waste; those who suggest that we do not are highly irresponsible.

Our job is to ensure that we store and ultimately dispose of nuclear waste in the most effective way possible. We do so while accepting our responsibilities as a nation that has benefited from nuclear energy over the years and which has to tackle the problems that might be associated with it.

That ends question time.

I remind members that the First Minister and I will now present the awards in the Citizenship Foundation Holyrood national youth parliament competition. Members who have students from their constituencies in the gallery are invited to stay on.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—