Plenary, 17 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, February 17, 2000

Official Report 862KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

---

Scottish Executive (Targets)

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive is making in meeting its key targets. (S1F-121) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): The Executive is making excellent progress in meeting its priorities, which were set out last September in "Making it work together: A programme for government". That document explained what we are committed to achieving in government and turned our policy agreement—partnership for Scotland—into a programme of work for the Scottish Executive. We are committed to that programme and we are delivering on it.

That is all very cheery and encouraging. The Executive has previously indicated that one of its key targets is to have 12 special advisers and two law officers. Given that the First Minister has a remarkable capacity for losing them, does he have any hope of ever meeting that target?

I do not think that Annabel Goldie's forte is being a stand-up comic, but I know she has many other virtues. I welcome her presence on the front line, David McLetchie having disappeared in a puff of smoke for some reason. Seriously, however—I presume that it is a serious argument that she wants—the figure of 12 special advisers was a maximum. There was never any indication that we would hire the maximum. We hire when it is appropriate to do so—when we need help in particular areas—which is the prudent and proper approach. I hope that Annabel Goldie supports that.

Does the First Minister accept that successful conduct of the Lockerbie trial must be one of the key targets of his Administration? Did he have the opportunity to hear Susan Cohen, whose daughter died on PanAm flight 103, speaking on Radio Scotland this morning? She said:

"When we met with Lord Hardie last summer he told us he was going to oversee the trial and he would be there . . . he would oversee things.

I am appalled and amazed at a moment like this when you have a major trial, a trial such as you've never had in your history that the Lord Advocate just decides to leave".

Is it not the case that Scotland's senior law officer, someone whom the First Minister appointed to his Cabinet, has broken his word to this woman?

I accept the seriousness of these matters, and certainly the seriousness of the Lockerbie trial. I think, however, that Mr Salmond is being a little over-dramatic.

I hope that we will very shortly have contact again with the parents of those who were sadly and tragically lost, and I think that they will be reassured.

I should make it clear that the present Solicitor General, Colin Boyd, has been involved in the preparations for the Lockerbie trial from the beginning. He has chaired the core group that meets every week to plan the prosecution policy and to check on progress. He has made many of the appearances in preliminary diets, in the courts of this country and at Camp Zeist, and has overseen preparations for the trial.

I have every confidence in Colin Boyd, although I have to wait until the vote later this afternoon: I hope to have the agreement of this chamber, which will confirm him in his new role as Lord Advocate.

I do not think that the Lockerbie relatives would see what I have said as over-dramatic.

Is it not the case that it is Lord Hardie who has had the key responsibility, who has taken the key tactical decisions since 1997 in the approach to the trial and who, a few weeks before the trial— arguably, in international terms, one of the most important trials in Scottish legal history—has done a bunk because he has appointed himself to be a judge? Is not that a matter not just of letting Scotland down, but of letting Scotland down in the eyes of the world?

I think that Mr Salmond is protesting too much. He may think that that is a tactical slip on my part, but I repeat it: I think that he protests too much. To be fair to him, that is largely because he does not know a great deal about the preparations for the trial or about the dynamics of it.

There is, of course, a team, with Mr Alistair Campbell and Mr Alan Turnbull—two senior counsel—who will be leading and taking much of the heat of the trial, but there was also oversight in the hands of Colin Boyd, the Solicitor General. I repeat that he has been totally in charge of meetings of the core group and of the preparations. As Lord Advocate, he will, I have no doubt—as soon as the agreement of Parliament is secured—be taking a proper lead role in the actual event in Camp Zeist, when it starts.

It is very much a question of getting it right and

ensuring that the trial is properly conducted. I hope that Mr Salmond will not try to spread the idea that those who have been inextricably entwined with and in charge of the preparations are somehow not competent to carry on with the trial.

Is the First Minister trying to tell this Parliament that the Lord Advocate disappearing a few weeks before the trial starts is not a matter of planning?

On a point of order.

Surely that is not the case that the First Minister is making—

Point of order.

I am sorry, but there is a point of order.

Is it in order for any member of this Parliament to have three supplementary questions?

Yes. I have always allowed that latitude to the leader of the main Opposition party.

I also ask Mr Dewar to raise his microphone a little.

Perhaps Mr Salmond could finish his question first.

I think that Labour back benchers are getting a bit anxious about the tenor of questioning.

The First Minister is surely not claiming that the disappearance of the Lord Advocate a few weeks before the Lockerbie trial was a masterpiece of planning. The First Minister tells us that Mr Neil Davidson—I am sure that he is an excellent person—is the proposed new Solicitor General.

There must be a question.

Is he the same Neil Davidson who advised the Labour party when it was getting rid of Tommy Graham? What fee was paid for that advice? Does the First Minister not understand that it is actions such as this which leave the First Minister open to this accusation: that his Administration is little more than a revolving door of jobs for the boys?

I hope that Alex Salmond does not think that he will raise standards in Scottish politics with that rather unpleasant and offensive attack, because he certainly will not.

We will have a debate in a little while, and I will reply at some length to some of the charges that have already been thrown around irresponsibly.

Let me just say to Alex Salmond that the Lockerbie trial has been well and properly prepared and will be well conducted. The outcome of the trial is a matter for the judges who will take the decision at the end of the day, but I can assure him that the conduct of the trial will be pursued effectively, efficiently and with diligence.

Does the First Minister agree that the priority for the people of Lockerbie, and indeed of Scotland, is for the trial to proceed and for justice to be done—not the personalities of the people involved? Playing politics with a matter as serious as the Lockerbie trial is a great denigration of this Parliament.

Yes, I agree. I thought that the tone of the leader of the Scottish National party, in particular in his final question, was particularly offensive and unpleasant.

---

Children's Hearings

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive has taken to ensure that the children's hearing system is compatible with the European convention on human rights. (S1F-118) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I apologise, Sir David, for my delay in answering. I was distracted by my thoughts on another matter.

We are examining aspects of the hearings system to ensure that procedures and practices are in line with the convention. Sam Galbraith made that clear when he addressed the national training conference for panel members in November last year.

I am tempted to ask the First Minister what other matters were on his mind, but I will ask whether the Lord Advocate's sudden departure is a sign that the Executive is expecting further challenges to Scots law under the European convention on human rights.

Does the First Minister agree that aspects of our highly valued children's hearing system may well be vulnerable to challenge? Will he outline what action is being taken to deal with the specific areas of concern—the lack of legal aid, the role of the reporter and the method of removal of panel members? Or is he prepared to state to Parliament today that he is satisfied that the children's hearing system is compatible with the European convention?

I cannot give that assurance because the system has not been tested, but I can say that we know of one case that is pending. I think that that is the only one of the 337 cases that were referred to. No—there has been one other: the McMichael case, a couple of years ago.

The system has not been tested in the courts. It

is very important that we discuss such issues and consider them with balanced judgment. As someone who worked full time on the children's panel system for four or five years, I remind Nicola Sturgeon that the system is non-adversarial. A children's hearing is not a court of law and of course there are potential difficulties if one applies to such a hearing the standards that one would apply to a court of law.

The important point, and the system's strength, is that it applies to and concentrates on the rights of the child. It concentrates entirely on getting the right, supportive outcome for the child who is in difficulties. I hope that we can preserve—this Administration has every intention of doing so— the essence of the system, which I have tried to capture in those few sentences. We will work very hard to do so.

My colleague Sam Galbraith has been examining the problems and we will continue to make every possible, sensible preparation that we can.

Does the First Minister agree that the overriding concern should be the protection of Scotland's young people? Does he further agree that the children's hearing system has a worldwide reputation for bringing together the twin objectives of child welfare and juvenile justice on which all members in the chamber should agree?

The children's panel system has a high reputation and is certainly the subject of a great deal of examination. In my own career, I have had experience of many visitors who wanted to see how the system operates.

When we come to matters such as legal aid in relation to the hearings, which Nicola Sturgeon mentioned, and lawyers representing the child at the disposal hearing, we are getting involved in difficult questions about the balance between conflicting forces. There are difficult balances to strike, such as the right to representation against the need for informality, and the need not to have a legalistic system within the straitjacket of the law against the need to take an intelligent, co-operative look at the problems of the child. I hope that the children's panel system, and all the good work that it has done, does not become mired down in constant conference and conflict in the courts.

Through the hearings, we have a unique system of dealing with juveniles in Scotland, but we might find, after that system has been tested, that our law is incompatible with the convention. Does the First Minister think that there might still be room to have the convention come towards us, rather than us automatically having to ditch a system that is part of the best of Scots law?

I am at one with Ms MacDonald on the merits of our system. I cannot promise her changes in the convention on human rights. All conventions have to be interpreted in the courts and the interpretation depends on the arguments that are put to the case that is presented. I believe that there is a strong case for the children's panel, in essence. To be fair, I would be confident that any Scottish Administration would do all that it could to defend that essence.

---

Scottish Police College (Exchanges)

To ask the First Minister whether he will make a statement about exchange arrangements between the Scottish Police College and the state police force of the People's Republic of China. (S1F-114) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): This is one of a number of exchanges between the Scottish Police College and forces from other countries. In that sense, it is not exceptional.

In view of the deplorable human rights record of the Chinese Government and the fact that its notorious police force has been involved in many atrocities, including mass executions, what justification can there be for such exchanges?

Were the First Minister or the Foreign Secretary informed of the exchange? Will the First Minister take action to stop all such exchanges until the Chinese Government has adequate respect for human rights?

The answer to that question is no. It is important to note that the programme under which those people came was funded by the Department for International Development, which is particularly sensitive to the issues that Dennis Canavan refers to.

The Chinese police have received training from a number of sources, including the Italian carabinieri college, and decided to approach the UK authorities on this occasion. My understanding is that the programme had a particular emphasis on democratic policing and human rights. It is important that we maintain contact with the Chinese authorities and that we try to influence them on issues of this kind in a way that is effective but, by necessity, tactful.

---

Pringle of Scotland

To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Executive can give to the new owners of Pringle of Scotland, Hawick to help retain the company's manufacturing presence in the town. (S1F-123)

The Scottish Executive is working closely with Scottish Borders Enterprise with a view to encouraging the new owners of Pringle of Scotland to retain a strong manufacturing presence in Hawick.

Does the First Minister agree that the job losses at Pringle's, John Turnbull and Sons, dyers and finishers, and John Scott Knitwear demonstrate the continuing fragility of the Borders economy? Will he consider establishing a small task force to help those who have been made redundant and to review the capability of local agencies to match-fund EU objective 2 money?

We are all aware of the difficulties in the Borders. A great deal of work has been done, as Euan Robson is aware, and a great deal of co-ordination between various agencies has been initiated.

As Euan Robson knows, 140 staff were made redundant from Pringle of Scotland. Sixty people will transfer to Barrie Knitwear and about 220 will be left at Pringle's. We are anxious to help in any way we can. We will be in touch with the management and will support what it describes as its categorical promise to support manufacturing in Hawick.

I must add that unemployment in the Borders, at

3.5 per cent, is below the Scottish average and the number of people who are unemployed in the area has decreased by 306 since January 1999. I know that that is small consolation, but it suggests that the situation is, at least, stable and might be improving. We must all work to ensure that that continues. Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con): In view of the continuing decline of the textile industry in Hawick and throughout Scotland, what action will the Executive, in partnership with the Government, take to investigate allegations made by the textile industry of unfair barriers to free trade in the EU and other developed countries? Will the Executive report to the Parliament on its progress in removing those barriers?

We keep closely in touch with those negotiations. There are complicated international arrangements particularly concerning the textile trade, and others that are more wide ranging, through the World Trade Organisation. They are not our direct responsibility, but that does not mean that we do not try to influence and ensure that those who argue the case on our behalf are well aware of the tensions and difficulties that exist in the textile industry in Scotland.

There are big success stories as well; we must not forget them. The cashmere trade—Dawson International's troubles stem partly from its decision to concentrate on cashmere—has done remarkably well in many sophisticated markets.

The First Minister will be aware that 2,000 Borders textiles jobs have been lost since new Labour came to power. Will he tell us whether he believes that Pringle will still be in production in Hawick three years from now? What assurances has he received from Fang Knitwear Ltd of Hong Kong on that? Can he advise us whether he intends to set in place a funded strategy to prevent further haemorrhaging of that core Borders industry? Finally, there are 100—

No. That is enough. We have two questions. [Interruption.] Order.

What does he have to say to 140 redundant Hawick workers—

Order. The member has asked two questions already, and that is quite enough.

I shall answer the first question that the honourable lady—sorry, the lady, Mrs Grahame, asked. [Laughter.] She can feel insulted if she wishes, but that was not intended. She asked for a guarantee that production will exist in Hawick in three years' time. We have had categorical assurance to that effect from the new owners. However, if she asked me to give a categorical assurance that she will be alive in three years' time, I could not do that. I can give her a categorical promise that we will work very hard with the industry, building on the success to which I have referred and endeavouring to support it where there are viable markets and where it is competitive.

I shall take question 6, from Lewis Macdonald, in injury time.

---

Rail Services

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Railtrack and train operating companies such as Great North Eastern Railway, Virgin Trains and ScotRail about journey times between Aberdeen and Edinburgh. (S1F-126) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I see before me an enthusiast. However, I appreciate the importance of this matter. The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with Railtrack and the train operating companies to discuss a wide range of matters. I cannot tell Lewis Macdonald that I know of any immediate plans to invest in the region of £200 million in the electrification programme to which he refers.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. He will recall that, at one time, the

east coast main line ran all the way up the east coast from King's Cross to Aberdeen, but that it no longer does so officially. Although electrification is an issue that has already been discussed, does he accept that the strategic authorities that Scottish ministers put to the rail authority and to Railtrack should include a significant enhancement of the status of the main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen?

I acknowledge the importance that is given to this matter in the north-east. As I have long had connections in that part of the world, I understand that entirely.

Lewis Macdonald will, no doubt, know that ScotRail is committing quite a bit of spending to the Glasgow and Edinburgh runs to Aberdeen. I believe that it is spending £15 million on six Turbostar diesel multiple units for the Edinburgh- Aberdeen line, and double that—£30 million—on nine Turbostar diesel multiple units for the Glasgow-Aberdeen line. I hope that that will provide better travelling facilities and greater comfort. It should lead to a significant reduction in journey times. There is some progress, which we want to continue.

On a point of order.

Is it a genuine point of order?

Yes—absolutely genuine. We are all grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for the standard that you try to maintain in this chamber. We are all accustomed to slings and arrows but, earlier, we heard a very personally abusive remark from Mr Galbraith against my colleague Sandra White, while she was trying to raise the subject of abused women. The minister went too far with that sort of abuse, and I am sure that he regrets it. I invite him to—

Order. I heard no such remark. We cannot have comments on remarks that are flying across the chamber. There should not be any at all—that is the answer.