Plenary, 18 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 18, 2004

Official Report 767KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

We are a little early for First Minister's question time, but most members seem to be in their place.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-732)

Mr Swinney will not be surprised to learn that, at the next meeting of the Cabinet, we will discuss progress towards building a better Scotland.

I am sure that ensuring the health of the Scottish economy is one of the components of building a better Scotland. The Scotch whisky industry accounts for 40,000 jobs in Scotland, contributes £1.6 billion in tax to the public purse and is worth £2 billion in overseas trade. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed on the Scotch whisky industry a measure that has been described by that industry as a catastrophe and a "hammer blow" to Scottish producers. Will the First Minister lead a national campaign to reverse that hammer blow to a flagship industry in Scotland?

Like the industry, we were disappointed at yesterday's announcement, but we continue to have discussions with the Treasury and have received assurances from it that it will amend the original proposals to make it easier for the industry to implement the new scheme to deal with tax fraud in the spirits industry more generally. However, it would be very dangerous for us in Scotland to lead any kind of campaign—national or international—that sought to run down the image of the whisky industry, which is strong today and which will remain strong. Regardless of what steps are taken to tackle tax fraud, the industry needs to be promoted by this Parliament rather than to become involved in some sort of guerrilla action against the Government.

All that I am asking the First Minister to do is to speak for Scotland on this occasion and to protect one of our vital national industries. The Government's measures are based entirely on fraud figures from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The National Audit Office has investigated those figures and concluded that they are difficult to accept. The industry has proposed a range of measures to combat fraud, but the Government has dismissed those out of hand.

The United States Treasury has abandoned the measures that the Government is proposing, because it did not think that they were successful. The industry, the unions, the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster and MSPs from all parties are against the Government's measures. Yesterday, the chairman of the Treasury Committee expressed his dismay and, today, the First Minister has told us that he is disappointed with the proposals. Will the First Minister go a stage further and turn his disappointment into action by leading a national effort to reverse the measures that have been introduced?

No, I will not. I want us to keep the matter in perspective. It was important to make representations, because the industry and those who work in it were concerned. The United Kingdom Government's original proposals would have been too extensive and too prescriptive for the industry. In responding to the representations that have been made, the UK Government has not gone the full way that we asked it to go, but it has moved in the right direction.

It is clear from yesterday's announcement, first, that the Government will assist the industry with the cost of the measures; secondly, that the measures will be much more proportionate to the scale of the problem and easier to implement; and, thirdly, that the Treasury is still open to further discussions about implementation. That was guaranteed yesterday in a letter from John Healey, the Economic Secretary, to Lewis Macdonald, who made the original representations on our behalf.

I reiterate that, even though we made representations and influenced the decision that was made and will continue to seek to influence the decisions that are made on implementation, it is right and proper that we use our national efforts in Scotland to promote the whisky industry and its success. We should not get involved in the sort of battle in which Mr Swinney suggests that we get involved.

The battle in which I want the First Minister to get involved is a battle to protect and enhance growth in the Scottish economy. Growth is at the top of the First Minister's agenda.

Yesterday, the Scotch Whisky Association said that the Government's measures would

"have a severe impact on the productivity and compliance costs of the spirits industry."

The Government's £3 million compensation scheme for an industry that contributes £1.6 billion in tax to the UK is viewed as being inadequate to protect the industry from what it is facing.

Two years ago, the chancellor introduced a tax hike on the oil and gas industry and the First Minister did nothing to protect the Scottish jobs that were lost. A second industry has been hammered by the UK Government: the fishing sector has been halved in size. Now the whisky industry, which supports 40,000 Scottish jobs, is under attack. Three great Scottish industries have been treated with contempt and three times the First Minister has been posted missing. Why, when Scottish jobs are at threat, will he not start fighting for the whisky industry and act by leading a campaign against this hammer blow?

Our job is to promote Scottish jobs and our job as parliamentarians is to deal with serious issues such as tax fraud and to make representations on how those issues should be dealt with.

Since Christmas, Mr Swinney has twice tried in the Scottish Parliament to promote illegal activity: once in relation to fishing and again in relation to genetically modified crops. He cannot have a consistent position that advocates, in relation to the issue that we are discussing, ignoring the fact that tax fraud is taking place. Tax fraud is taking place and needs to be dealt with.

We disagreed with the Government's original proposals and the Government has moved some way towards our position and the position of the industry. The job of the industry and the British Government now is to ensure that the proposals are implemented in a way that is the most effective and that will have the least impact on productivity and competitiveness. However, what will have most impact on productivity and competitiveness is the investment that the Scottish industry can make in its equipment and staff. Yesterday's budget encourages the Scottish industry to make that investment by ensuring that we have a strong economy.

The Scottish whisky industry will benefit from the successful promotion of Scotland and the promotion of the industry. That is what we will continue to do. It will certainly not benefit from any attempt to cover up or ignore the fact that there is tax fraud in the industry and that that fraud has to be dealt with.

The Scotch whisky industry put proposals to the Government that the Government threw out, choosing instead to introduce the measures that we are discussing. Everyone in Westminster who has voiced an opinion on the matter, including the chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, says that the measures are bad for the industry. I do not know who the First Minister has been speaking to in the industry, but the information that I have seen, which was published by the Scotch whisky industry, says that the measures will have

"a severe impact on the productivity and compliance costs of the spirits industry".

How can the First Minister square his stated determination to grow the Scottish economy with his silence when the United Kingdom Government undermines the strength of one of our vital national industries?

It is rubbish to suggest that we have stayed silent and it would be right to suggest that we have made representations and that they had an impact on the final decision. It would also be right to put this question in its proper context. Yesterday, a budget was announced that recognised that, throughout the UK, including in Scotland, growth has been more sustainably high than it has been for 200 years. Yesterday, a budget was announced that allows us to continue the progress that has been made over recent years—including in the Scotch whisky industry—in research and development, innovation, commercialisation and all the things that are needed to grow the Scottish economy.

Our job in the Scottish Parliament is to support the industry in a positive sense, to promote it internationally and in Scotland and to ensure that the industry supplies not only 40,000 jobs, but more as it grows in years to come.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-741)

We have no plans to meet again in the immediate future.

When the First Minister and Prime Minister get around to meeting, perhaps they will reflect on the chancellor's budget statement, in which, I was interested to note, Mr Brown announced proposals to reduce the size of Government bureaucracy following the efficiency review carried out by Sir Peter Gershon. It is always gratifying to see one sinner repent, but the announcement raises the question whether the First Minister intends to be equally contrite. Accordingly, will the First Minister follow the chancellor's lead and instigate a Gershon-type review of staffing levels in the areas for which he is responsible—the core civil service, Executive agencies and other public bodies—to cut waste and to ensure that Scottish taxpayers receive value for money?

Yes. We have already done so and look forward to discussing those issues over the summer.

I am not convinced that any review is under way, by reference to the action that has been taken or announced to date. I was interested to see that Mr Darling, the Secretary of State for Scotland, was quoted in a newspaper this morning as saying that the issue of bureaucracy was, supposedly, a priority for the First Minister. Mr Darling is obviously developing a nice line in irony, because we all know that the First Minister's priorities are usually determined by the last person to whom he spoke.

The one thing that the Executive has not had the brass neck to do is to claim that reducing bureaucracy is a priority today. The record speaks for itself. The cost of running government in Scotland has increased by £134 million since devolution and the size of the core civil service has increased by 28 per cent. Does not that prove that there is enormous scope for a war on waste in Scotland? Is that, as the secretary of state said, a priority for the First Minister's Administration? If so, where does it lie in relation to all the other top priorities and first priorities that we continually hear about?

Mr McLetchie could have been a bit more economical with the length of his question. He is clearly struggling to find a line of attack.

The Executive has an excellent record of delivering new efficiencies in the work of the core civil service. We intend to improve on that and develop it in the review that will take place this year.

The Executive established an e-procurement system four years ago, when I was Minister for Finance. Public bodies are committed to that system, which is more significant than any other public sector e-procurement system not just in the United Kingdom, but in the world. There has been a 20 per cent reduction in the cost of facilities management in the Executive and, yes, we will target other areas, too.

What Mr McLetchie does not mention to anyone who is listening at the moment is that much of that additional investment in national public services includes investment in education staff, health staff, and staff to deliver the increased transport budget that is necessary to make up for the wreckage of the Tory years. Those new investments are important for Scotland. We in the Scottish Executive will cut administration and back-room costs but, unlike the Tories, we will also invest in vital public services.

How can the First Minister tell us that he is cutting core administration when the number of people employed in the Scottish Executive civil service has increased by more than 900—28 per cent—in just four years? The record belies the First Minister's rhetoric. What is he going to do about it?

Over that period, there has been a 50 per cent increase—or something like that—in the size of the Scottish health budget, which is administered by those people. Indeed, in many areas, the national health service is run by those members of staff.

Mr McLetchie might want to portray the issue as being all about bowler-hatted civil servants working behind the scenes writing minutes and drafting letters, but these members of staff are not doing that. There have been increases in spending on education, health and transport and there has been improvement in the delivery of vital public services. The increases in spending on the Scottish Court Service have been widely welcomed by members of all parties who wanted more people ensuring that crime is being properly tackled in the community. Those members of staff are benefiting public services; behind the scenes, they are cutting administration and the cost of procurement and facilities management and they are making sure that public money—taxpayers' money—is being better spent.

Is the First Minister aware of the announcement yesterday afternoon of plans to close the Nestlé factory in Barrhead in my constituency, with the loss of more than 200 jobs? I am sure that he will appreciate the impact that such a closure could have on the local community. Will he assure the factory workers and the people of Barrhead that he and the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will support any constructive plans of action that might be put in place by East Renfrewshire Council in conjunction with the local enterprise company, Scottish Enterprise Renfrewshire, following talks with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the GMB and the company?

It is always disappointing when such announcements are made, particularly in a week when it was announced that unemployment in Scotland has dropped yet again and that employment levels in Scotland have increased. That should be of some reassurance to those who might be affected by the decision.

One of our recent successes is the system that we put in place under which, when job losses become inevitable in a particular location, we can help to direct people into new jobs or into training and skills development that will allow them to access new jobs. That system has been a success in other parts of Scotland and I am sure that it will be a success in Kenny Macintosh's area. We guarantee the provision of that service to ensure that his constituents and others who are affected will receive the best possible advice.

---

Cabinet (Priorities)

To ask the First Minister what the top priority is for the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-748)

Our top priority is to grow the Scottish economy. In addition, tackling crime and antisocial behaviour is top of our immediate agenda. In Scotland, we need more wealth, more jobs and stronger communities if we are to deliver a sustainable further reduction in poverty and deprivation.

It is unfortunate that the First Minister did not mention the 4,000 predominantly women workers who have now been on all-out strike action for three weeks in pursuit of a reasonable national pay claim. Scotland's nursery nurses are a group of workers who are dedicated to delivering the national child care education strategy.

Does the First Minister stick by his words last week, when he said that he would not intervene in the dispute "at this stage"? If he will not intervene at this stage, will he tell Scotland's nursery nurses at what stage he will intervene to support their reasonable claim? Does he agree that it is necessary to have a national independent review of pay and conditions for Scotland's nursery nurses?

I certainly believe that, at the right time, there will be a case for a national review of the overall situation in the pre-five sector. The sector is well served not only by nursery nurses, but by nursery teachers and other workers who care for children at that important stage. I do not believe that such a review could begin or be conducted in the atmosphere of an all-out strike, so it is vital that the local authorities and the trade unions get back round the table. It is ridiculous that the industrial action has gone on for this period of time without face-to-face negotiations taking place. I strongly urge the councils and the trade unions to put aside their difference for a moment and to sit down to discuss the matter. They should put the children first—and the parents of the children who attend Scotland's nurseries—and ensure that the dispute is brought to an end at the soonest possible date.

The problem with the First Minister's fine words is that they amount only to rhetoric. New Labour runs the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is the employers organisation. The First Minister has the power to intervene in what he has called a ridiculous dispute, but it appears that he wishes to be the Pontius Pilate of Scottish politics.

If the First Minister will not intervene in the dispute, will he at least consider the appeal that I made to him last Friday, when I asked him to intervene by telephone, e-mail or fax on behalf of three young men who are now near to death because they fear being returned to a country where their lives would be in danger?

Mr Sheridan, that is a separate issue.

Will the First Minister call for a review by his Westminster colleague of their asylum application?

Mr Sheridan, the question to the First Minister was about nursery nurses.

My question was actually about intervention.

The question was about nursery nurses, but Mr Sheridan showed how concerned he is for them by suddenly diverting to another subject. If he wants to claim that nursery nurses are the number 1 priority in Scotland today, he should be consistent by sticking with that and putting his case. He should then be responsible in the way in which he records the views that others have expressed.

I believe that the right intervention for the First Minister and for the Government is to ask both sides of the dispute to get back round the table and negotiate like adults. They should talk to each other to resolve the dispute and put the children and families involved first.

---

Health and Well-being

To ask the First Minister what action can be taken to address the issues highlighted in "Health and Well-being Profiles for each Scottish Parliamentary Constituency, 2004". (S2F-742)

We are tackling poverty and deprivation and we are helping Scots to adapt to a healthier lifestyle. We are providing opportunities for all people of working age to acquire skills that will help them into jobs. We have increased our funding for measures that are targeted at helping people to stop smoking. We are also improving access to healthier food and we are promoting more physical activity in our schools and communities. For example, the groundbreaking general practitioner referral scheme in Glasgow has had an impact, in particular on middle-aged men.

Is the First Minister aware that, in Glasgow Springburn, the proportion of people who leave school with no qualifications is 260 per cent above the Scottish average? I am sure that, like me, the First Minister will be concerned that people who live in Springburn face that challenge, along with the other challenges that are mentioned in the health and well-being profiles. Will he consider leading a summit of all the stakeholders in Glasgow to ensure that we deal with the unacceptable statistics that face Glasgow and Glasgow Springburn in particular?

I am certainly prepared to consider any discussions that would be helpful in relation to that. Focusing on that significant issue is absolutely vital for Scotland's well-being, not just for the well-being of the people of Glasgow. A comprehensive strategy is required to tackle a problem that has many different elements. That involves us tackling the issue of eating habits, healthy eating and access to healthy food and the issue of exercise, leisure, access to facilities and opportunities to improve personal health. It involves improving educational opportunities, including, in Glasgow, the biggest school-building programme in any city in western Europe, which is improving the educational opportunities at school. It also involves improving access to colleges and universities, which is at a higher level than it has ever been in Glasgow or the rest of Scotland, to ensure that skills can be developed post-16. In those and many other areas, a concerted approach to tackling poverty and deprivation in Glasgow is vital for Scotland and it is starting to deliver results.

The First Minister and his Executive are always keen to claim credit for good news. Will he now have the courage to accept some responsibility for the fact that the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest people has doubled in 10 years, leading to the low life expectancy figures in Paul Martin's constituency and others? Does not that prove that the policies of the Executive and of Mr McConnell's party's Government at Westminster have failed to tackle poverty and deprivation in Scotland? What change in policy direction can we now expect to address that failure?

I know that the Scottish nationalists like to work in alliance with the Conservatives from time to time, but Shona Robison is trying to use statistics from the Conservative years of the 1990s, when the main fault of government was to deny the connection between ill health and poverty and deprivation. One of the absolute tragedies of the 1980s and 1990s in this country was the denial of community and the denial of a link between poverty and other social problems.

Tackling those issues, as we have done not just with the Labour Government at Westminster but through the partnership Executive here, has not only put growth in the economy, jobs and education at the top of our agenda, but allowed us to tackle the state of our communities and the quality of our housing and to make improvements in personal health, in the health service and in many other areas. Those are the challenges and, by 2001, our actions delivered, as even the figures that Shona Robison referred to show, an improvement in life expectancy in Scotland. All the actions that we have taken since 2001 to link action against poverty with action on health improvement will have made, and will continue to make, a considerable difference.

Does the First Minister agree that one message that comes through loud and clear from the constituency profiles is the real link between smoking and poor health? Does he agree that drastic action needs to be taken to encourage people to stop smoking?

I have absolutely no doubt that there is a range of important issues associated with improving life expectancy, including healthier eating, more exercise, less binge drinking and less smoking. The number of people in Scotland who die completely unnecessarily because they have smoked throughout their adult lives, and sometimes throughout their younger lives, is unacceptable in a modern European society. Our actions so far have made a considerable difference in that area, but we are serious about our current consultation on how we can be effective in ensuring that there are more smoke-free areas in Scotland for people to enjoy and in helping those who currently smoke to get rid of that habit.

---

White-fish Industry

To ask the First Minister when changes in the regulation of the white-fish industry will be announced. (S2F-736)

I expect to see a formal Commission proposal amending December's total allowable catch and quota regulations later this month. It will give effect to the delayed agreement with Norway on certain quotas, on the haddock management changes that we have requested and on possible changes to the effort control regime.

Is the First Minister aware that many fishermen with quotas in the main haddock grounds have, because of the current bizarre system, exhausted those quotas in the three months that have passed, in the face of a 30-year high in the stocks of haddock? I welcome the news that Allan Wilson will travel to Europe to engage directly on our behalf in an attempt to change the rules. However, what happens until we get a revision? Currently, men are tied up against the wall. Do those who are going to sea have to keep dumping good haddock and scarce cod, which the regulations were meant to protect? Fishermen are forced to dump their future over the side. When will we hear, what will we hear and what happens meantime?

What members will hear from us is that we are making a continued effort, at the European level and elsewhere, to secure the changes that are important to improving not only the viability and sustainability of the individual fishing boats in Scotland, but the sustainability of stocks in the North sea.

The changes that we have sought to secure—with good co-operation from the industry, I have to say—are important for the coming year and will have an impact, if we can get agreement. However, the other side of the matter is the responsibility that is on the individual fishing boats. It is important that people in the industry take the regime seriously and, for example, use the permits that are available. There must be a two-pronged effort. First, the Government must make the effort to secure the changes that are required for the coming year and, secondly, those in the industry must take their responsibilities seriously, use the permits and ensure that they are not put in the position that Stewart Stevenson has outlined.

Does the First Minister accept the findings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh's inquiry into the scientific regulation of the white-fish industry? Ministers have always claimed that cuts in quotas are imposed only after the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. Will the First Minister accept that the methods used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea as a means of calculating cod stocks is "subject to error", as the Royal Society of Edinburgh scientists claim, and will he ensure that the views of the industry as well as those of fishery scientists are taken into account in future stock analysis?

The points that the Royal Society of Edinburgh made were very interesting. We have said that we support the general thrust and direction of what was stated in the report. I hope that the Conservatives in the Parliament will also listen to what was said in that report, which makes it clear that there is a need for a common fisheries policy in Europe and that that common fisheries policy should have the active engagement of Scotland. I hope that Mr Brocklebank will listen to his good advice to me and take it himself.

---

Security Review

To ask the First Minister whether a review of security measures on Scottish public transport and other possible terrorist targets will be undertaken. (S2F-752)

It is still the case that there is no specific intelligence of a threat to Scotland and no specific threats to United Kingdom travel. However, we are working with the UK Government, the police and the transport industry to keep security measures under review, including arrangements in Scotland. The terrible events in Madrid last week reinforce the need for vigilance by the police, by public transport operators and, crucially, by the travelling public.

I thank the First Minister for those assurances. Does he agree that any review of security that may have to be carried out has to be proportionate to the threat and must take account of the need not to undermine the liberties and freedoms that it is intended to protect?

Clearly, in all those efforts, we should seek to defend those liberties and freedoms, but also to ensure that as a country—both Scotland and the United Kingdom—we are safe. The chief constable of Tayside police made it clear yesterday that we in Scotland must not be complacent about the threat. I have made that position clear before. We may not be a specific target at the moment, but there can be no doubt in the minds of any of us after the events of last Thursday that Scotland, like anywhere else, could be a target at some stage. Therefore, preparation, contingency planning and vigilance by all concerned are necessary. A national effort to deal with terrorists, at home or abroad, is vital. I hope that the Parliament will continue to support those efforts.

With reference to Farouk Haidari, Farnborz Gravindk and Mokhtar Haydary—the three men who are currently on hunger strike in Glasgow—I appreciate that there is a grave difference between their situation and the question of security, but I am sure that members of this Parliament will agree with me—

You are off the question, Ms MacDonald. Come back to the question.

I am on the question.

I will decide that, Ms MacDonald.

Should anything horrendous happen in Glasgow, we will become more of a target for the twisted minds who wrought havoc in Madrid. I would welcome the First Minister's comments on what we can do in Scotland to promote it as a welcoming place.

As Margo MacDonald knows, I am keen to promote Scotland as a welcoming country. It is right and proper that in Scotland we have taken the attitude that we have towards the successful integration into local communities in Glasgow and elsewhere of asylum seekers and people who have achieved refugee status and it is right and proper that in recent times we have made efforts to promote Scotland as a location that people from throughout the world can make their home. However, in any sensible system, we also need a bottom line. Those who have been through the process, who have had all the appeals, who have had their cases heard at all levels and who have been rejected as not genuine asylum seekers need to accept that decision and recognise that they have to return.

For those who claim concern for the individuals involved—and I do not include Margo MacDonald in this—not to call on them to end their hunger strike and to look after their lives and seek other assistance is wrong. The hunger strike should end. The most damaging thing that could happen would be for it to continue.

I inform the chamber that, when I get notice in advance of a supplementary question, I expect members to stick to that supplementary question and not to change it when they are called.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—