First Minister's Question Time
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2296)
I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.
I remind the First Minister that Tony Blair said this week that without new nuclear power stations there will be a dramatic gap in our targets to reduce carbon emissions and we will become heavily dependent on foreign gas. However, the Sustainable Development Commission, which was set up to advise the Government, has said that in its expert opinion we can meet our carbon targets and our energy needs without new nuclear power.
What is the First Minister's view on the necessity for new nuclear power stations?
There are two necessities. One is the necessity to ensure that we have a solution to nuclear waste and that that solution is sustainable. Secondly, there is an absolute necessity to have an intelligent debate about this.
As I have said in a different kind of chamber on a number of occasions in recent weeks, on the one hand we have to deal with the nuclear waste issue, which those who advocate more nuclear power stations in Scotland need to address; on the other, given that more than a third of the electricity generated in Scotland comes from nuclear, those who say that there is no case at all for nuclear power in Scotland have to say how we should fill that gap.
We need to have an intelligent debate in Scotland—that is the absolute necessity.
I know that the question, "What will replace existing nuclear capacity?" has to be answered, but I did not ask the First Minister to repose that question; I asked him what he thinks the answer is.
What side of the debate is the First Minister on? I do not agree with Tony Blair on the issue, but at least he has nailed his colours to the mast. Tony Blair said that new nuclear power is necessary and that not to take a decision on it "now"—not in the future, but now—would be a "serious dereliction of duty."
Does the First Minister agree with the Prime Minister—yes or no?
I am quite happy to explain which side of the debate I am on. I am on the side of electricity consumers and business in Scotland now and into the future. I believe that what they want us to do is not consider additional new nuclear power stations in Scotland without having resolved the issue of nuclear waste, because of the impact it has on future generations. That is absolutely vital as far as I am concerned.
However, on the other side of the coin, I think that it is important that we address the energy gap that would be created if we simply ended the role of nuclear in Scotland without having an answer to the replacements that might be required. Therefore, it is vital that we consider the facts and the evidence and ensure that the decisions that are made about the future of electricity generation in Scotland are based on the needs of consumers, the needs of Scottish business and the need for a decent environment in Scotland for generations to come.
It seems that the First Minister is on both sides of the debate. Is not that the mebbes aye, mebbes no approach to leadership? Where I agree with Tony Blair is that to dodge the issue, hide behind a form of words, show no leadership whatever, as the First Minister is doing, is a serious dereliction of duty.
Is not it the case that we know where Tony Blair stands? As of this morning, we know where Gordon Brown stands. He will back nuclear, too. We know that here in this Parliament, the Scottish National Party, the Greens and the Liberals oppose new nuclear power stations, because there are better alternatives. Is not it reasonable for the Scottish people to ask and be told what side of the fence their First Minister is on?
When the Prime Minister says that nuclear is a necessary part of the mix and that we must make a decision on that now, not in the future, does the First Minister agree with him or not?
There is only a certain number of times that I can answer the same question with exactly the same answer, but I will do so again. It would be an absolute dereliction of duty if I ruled out options for the future for Scotland. I believe that it is important that, as part of this debate on the future energy policy of Scotland on electricity generation, we say that we need to address the fact that, if there were no nuclear power stations in Scotland, that gap would have to be addressed in some other way. The Scottish National Party, perhaps more than any other party in this chamber, fails to address that issue. That is because of its contradictory position on renewables, never mind its position on nuclear or other forms of energy.
However, it would also be a dereliction of duty on my part if I approved, or encouraged ministers to approve, new nuclear power stations in Scotland without a resolution to the nuclear waste issue. I believe strongly that nuclear waste has an impact not just on people today but on future generations. It is an issue that we in Scotland need to address because we have to be part of the solution, not just part of the problem. Unlike the nationalists, who abdicate this duty, we have to acknowledge that we in Scotland have a duty to deal with that issue in order to protect future generations and to ensure that energy policy and decisions on new power stations are made in the most sensible and reasonable way.
In the Prime Minister's words, not mine, the dereliction of duty is to dodge the issue and dodging the issue is what the First Minister is doing. Why will the First Minister not show some real leadership? Why will he not follow the advice of the Sustainable Development Commission, which was set up to advise him, and rule out the distraction of a heated nuclear debate and, instead, concentrate on the alternative sources of energy that we need to replace dirty, expensive, unsafe nuclear power? Would not that be showing real political leadership?
I do not think that it is political leadership to rule out options. Further, I do not think that it is political leadership to advocate a solution—I assume that that is what Ms Sturgeon was doing when she mentioned renewables—and then consistently join SNP members across the country in opposing wind farms and other forms of renewable energy generation. The difference between policy and action on the part of the SNP becomes all too apparent.
We need a consistent energy policy. We need to get that from business organisations, consumers and environmental groups. I believe that to achieve a consistent energy policy, we have to address two issues. First, the nuclear waste issue must be dealt with before we consider new nuclear power stations. Secondly, if we are, at some point, not to consider having new nuclear power stations, we have to address the gap that that would create in Scottish electricity generation. The SNP addresses neither of those issues. It abdicates responsibility for them. In both cases, that is a real failure of leadership.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2297)
The next Cabinet meeting will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.
As the First Minister and his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Executive are so keen on newspaper advertising, can he tell me how much of the £3.7 million of taxpayers' money that has been spent on advertising in the past 20 months was used to inform patients in Scotland that, under European Union regulations, they are entitled to seek treatment in other European countries, paid for by the national health service?
I do not know, but I suspect that very little of that money was spent in that way. There are far higher priorities for public information campaigns in Scotland. For example, campaigns on road safety and public health are an absolute necessity. Further, the events of the past two weeks have shown clearly that campaigns on sexual health and sexual education for young people and their parents, to ensure that young people take more responsibility for their lives, are also essential. Those should be the priorities for public information campaigns, not what Miss Goldie outlines.
I hope that the patients in Scotland who are suffering and in pain while they wait for treatment listened closely to the First Minister's answer. The entitlement about which the First Minister knows so little is exercised by applying for something called a form E112. Most people in Scotland have never heard of the facility. I have a constituent who was totally ignorant of the procedure and his general practitioner also seemed unaware of it. My constituent confirmed that it was never brought to his attention by his local hospital.
Presumably, the scheme is designed to be in the interests of patients who need treatment that is not available or cannot be provided quickly enough in this country. Why is the First Minister so shy about telling people in Scotland about their right?
Obviously, I am not sure off the top of my head exactly what communications there have been between the health service nationally and individual GPs about the procedures that they should follow to inform their patients of that particular option and form.
However, I can tell Annabel Goldie that in a speech to health service professionals in Dundee in—I think—February 2003, and consistently since then in speeches, articles, communications and debates in the chamber, we have made it absolutely clear that if health boards do not meet the targets that we set for individual treatments, and patients or their GPs want to choose other locations either in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK or Europe, they have the right to do so and we will ensure that that guarantee is met. That has been crystal clear since at least early 2003, if not significantly longer, and it remains our position today, but I am happy to ensure that Annabel Goldie is informed about the individual communications and advice that is given to GPs to ensure that they are aware of the procedures that they have to follow.
I am certainly reassured by the First Minister's commitment to support the EU regulation, but I have to say that it must be one of the best-kept secrets in Scotland. It is an entitlement for all NHS patients in Scotland. For the benefit of those who, as we speak, are in pain and incapacitated because of undue delays in treatment, will the First Minister today stand up for patients' rights and broadcast more publicly the availability of the entitlement?
As I said, I am happy to look into what communications have taken place and what guidance is available to individual GPs and patients and to ensure that it is as clear as it can be. However, I stress that our absolute priority for the health service in Scotland is to ensure that people can have treatments in Scotland within the guaranteed waiting times that they have been given.
The guaranteed waiting times, which were met on 31 December last year for both out-patients and in-patients, are being reduced this year. We look forward to seeing the health statistics next week, which we hope will show further improvements. We will also ensure that we work towards the guaranteed waiting times that we have set for the end of 2007, because that is a far better option for people in Scotland than having to travel overseas.
I will take two constituency questions.
Will the First Minister tell us how much the Scottish Executive's decision to relocate sportscotland jobs from Edinburgh will cost, which budget the money will come from, and whether funds will be taken from front-line sports services and bid preparations to pay for it? Will he also tell us whether the relocation satisfies the terms of the Scottish Sports Council's royal charter and confirm that, because of the charter, it was the management of sportscotland, rather than ministers, who had the ultimate power to make the decision?
The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport was to make an announcement about the matter today. I am not sure whether that is in the public domain yet, with all the details. I am happy for her to outline all those details. However, I can guarantee that the financing of any relocation will not lead to a diminution of the amount of money that is available for sports in Scotland. Our commitment to sports activity, facilities and education in Scotland remains absolute. The relocation of sportscotland's headquarters is designed to ensure that there is an improvement in that work throughout Scotland, not a diminution.
The First Minister will be aware of this week's press reports that highlighted the high rates of infant mortality in my constituency. He will also be aware that, in Scotland, each year, 300 babies are born addicted to heroin. Does the First Minister agree that that terrifying picture of modern Scotland is unacceptable? Will he assure the Parliament that he will consider every available option to turn the situation around?
First, I recognise the strong views that Duncan McNeil holds on the matter because of his strong commitment to improving the lives of adults and children in his constituency. I welcome his contribution to the debate, although obviously we are not committed to at least one proposal that he has made in the past seven days.
I strongly suggest that we need to take a reasonable but radical approach to the issue. Last Monday, Cathy Jamieson and I met a number of mothers who were or had been addicts. I met a five-year-old youngster who had been born with an addiction because of his mother's addiction. That youngster is lively, healthy and making progress, which is a good thing and is partly because his mother has been helped away from her addiction by good rehabilitation.
There are issues about good rehabilitation and supporting youngsters in their development, which might be delayed, but there is also an issue about ensuring that youngsters are not born into such situations in the first place. Therefore, we need an open and radical debate about how we deal with the issue and we should not close down options or attack people for making radical suggestions when their intentions are very well meaning indeed.
Steel Commission
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive's Cabinet has discussed the recommendations of the Steel commission report, "Moving to Federalism—A New Settlement for Scotland", and what the outcome was of any such discussions. (S2F-2309)
I think that when the report was initially published it might have been mentioned in an information report before Cabinet, but we have not discussed the matter at Cabinet.
Does the First Minister accept that the conclusions and recommendations of the Steel commission report indicate that even within the Executive parties there is a strong feeling that the powers of the Scottish Parliament are incomplete? Does he accept that in the Parliament and throughout Scotland there is strong support for an increase in the powers of the Parliament, up to and including full sovereign powers?
I think that all members accept that the Executive and the Parliament are ambitious for Scotland. Does the First Minister think that we can achieve our ambitions without there being any enhancement of the current powers of the Parliament?
As I think I have said in the Parliament on a number of occasions, I welcome the Steel commission's contribution to the debate.
I want to focus on the particular points that Campbell Martin made. There is a debate to be had on the matter, which I welcome. Indeed, I would welcome more honesty from some parties about their position, because it would be healthy for us to have that discussion. However, it is absolutely wrong to portray the advocacy of an entirely independent Scottish state, which is very much the position of Campbell Martin and his former colleagues in the Scottish National Party, as the gradual securing of more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Let us have an honest debate on the matter, in which the SNP, Campbell Martin and others tell us what the impact of a separate state in Scotland would be on our currency, our army—[Interruption.] I hear complaining from the SNP benches, so I give an example. Over the past few years the SNP ran a campaign to save the British regiments, but this week Christine Grahame complained that the regiments are recruiting in Scottish schools. The SNP points this way and it points that way, on regiments, on fiscal powers, on interest rates, on the currency and on every other issue.
I recognise Campbell Martin's sincerity, honesty and absolute consistency on the issue and I admire him for those qualities, which I suspect are the main reason why he is no longer a member of the SNP. I wish that the SNP was as consistent and honest as Campbell Martin is—I look forward to having the debate when that happens.
That was almost praise—I do not know whether I liked it.
The First Minister knows that I no longer have any party-political affiliation. I genuinely ask such questions because we need to learn from seven years of devolution and think about where we are and where we go from here.
Does the First Minister agree that it will ultimately be for the people of Scotland to decide, through a Scottish general election, what level of enhancement to the powers of the Parliament there should be, and that if they vote for full sovereign powers—or independence, as some of us like to call it—nothing should be put in the way of their democratically expressed will? Does he think that that decision would still have to be endorsed in a referendum?
The First Minister expressed a desire for honesty. Can we have an honest debate in the Executive's time in the chamber on where we should go in building the Parliament's powers?
I will happily consider the suggestion that there should be a debate in the chamber on an independent Scotland. I am sure that such a debate would be a pleasure. It would be interesting to try to eke out the SNP's ideas on independence.
Campbell Martin has made a valid point. I agree that the people of Scotland should ultimately decide what Scotland's constitutional position should be, but the matter has been resolved for the moment by the referendum in 1997, in which a massive majority voted in favour of the establishment of the Parliament and its current powers. I would welcome a debate on what the future might hold for Scotland and would be happy to participate in it, but say to colleagues that we must get on with the business of using the powers that we currently have and making the settlement work.
Nurseries (Hygiene)
To ask the First Minister what provisions are in place to ensure that child care nurseries meet statutory hygiene requirements. (S2F-2304)
Under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001, all nursery services must be registered with the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. Ministers have made various regulations under the act and have set national care standards that registered services are expected to meet. The care commission regulates service providers against the act and the regulations, taking account of the standards. It has a range of powers under the act, including the power to make recommendations and/or requirements in respect of a provider, to place conditions on a registration, to use formal improvement notices and, ultimately, to close a service if doing so is warranted.
I am sure that all members will welcome the news that those who have been affected by the E coli outbreak in my constituency are continuing to improve.
In the light of the First Minister's answer and the answer that he gave me last week, does he agree to consider how recommendations or concerns that the care commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education have highlighted are acted on? In particular, does he agree that time delays between any inspection that has taken place and the publication of the subsequent report should not be allowed to compromise areas of concern? Should the care commission and local authorities be more aware of any deficiencies that are identified and ensure that they are immediately acted on?
Obviously, I am conscious of Scott Barrie's constituency interest in the matter and his representations and questions to ministers in recent weeks. I am sure that all of us are thinking about the children who are involved and their families.
I want to make two points. First, we should support the care commission in ensuring that appropriate action is taken as a result of the incidents that have occurred and that lessons are learned from them for the individual establishments and the company that is involved.
Secondly, on those who are involved in drafting reports, the action plans that those reports create and the speed of the process, I am certain that the care commission, as well as ministers, will want to review matters as they develop and ensure that any lessons that are learned are acted on as quickly as possible.
Underage Pregnancies
To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to improve parental education in light of recently published figures on the number of underage pregnancies. (S2F-2310)
Parents and all carers play an important role in explaining responsible sexual behaviour to children. Parents are supported through sure start Scotland and other programmes, and schools provide a range of life skills courses to young people.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. I have obtained recent figures that reveal that six children in Scotland had conceived at the age of 12. Is the First Minister aware of that? I speak as one former school teacher and current politician to another. I think that we agree that teachers, educators and politicians cannot undertake change on their own. I think that the First Minister has also said that good parenting provides an important role model to children learning personal responsibility.
Will he therefore advise the chamber whether he agrees that teaching parenting skills should be a priority in social education and integral to sex education, so that Scottish children do not continue to have children? Will he also take the opportunity to make it clear to me that he has not endorsed Duncan McNeil's proposal—I think that he called it a radical proposal—for the chemical sterilisation of methadone users? I find that proposal both crass and sexist.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask Christine Grahame to withdraw that remark. I never said in any statement in the chamber, publicly or anywhere what she just described. I ask her to withdraw her remark and to apologise unreservedly.
I will reflect on that and come back to it before we close, Mr McNeil.
I have three points to make in response to Christine Grahame. First, I have made clear my position on Duncan McNeil's contribution to the debate. The issues that he identifies are important, and the measured way in which he made his radical proposal means that it deserves debate and attention. We need to consider a variety of radical options that might help to reduce the problems that are caused in those circumstances.
I have two points to make about parenting. First, some high-quality parenting education is already going on in our schools. However, it is not enough. It is clear to me that youngsters in Scotland—where extended families no longer exist in communities as they once did and where many of the affected youngsters no longer have parents who are good role models in this modern age—need to be able to learn some of those skills in the classroom. That said, we must not blame schools for parental failings. There is an issue about parental responsibility for the youngsters and ensuring that parents take more responsibility for the behaviour, actions and attitudes of their children.
Secondly, there is a role for grandparents in the community, in the school and in the home. I have made that suggestion on two or three occasions with different connections. Scottish grandparents could be encouraged to play a more significant role in developing the expectations and attitudes of young people in Scotland and in determining the actions that those young people pursue.
I would like us to ensure, in all that we do on this, not only that we work with parents to improve their skills and their actions as role models and with children to ensure that they grow up with the skills to become better parents, but that we engage with grandparents, who I think have a significant role to play in helping families to develop in what is, at times, a very disjointed and dysfunctional society.
In the light of the recent passing of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill, which abolished the provision in section 9(2) of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 that gave school boards the right to approve spending on teaching materials, what assurances can the First Minister give me that parents will be encouraged to take more responsibility for their children's sexual health education by allowing them appropriate influence over the materials relating to sex and relationships education that are used in teaching their children?
I thank Nanette Milne for that question, as it gives me a chance to clarify the position. Under the guidelines that we have set out, parents must be involved in—not just have the option—the development of sex education programmes in our schools. The changes to the school boards should make no difference whatever to that. In fact, it should be possible, because of the bill that was passed last week, to ensure that parents are more involved in those activities in schools, as the participation of parents should improve as a result of the bill.
I want to clear up two other myths in this debate. The first is the myth that there is no commitment in our sex education programme or our sexual health strategy to marriage as an important part of our society, although it is only one of many relationships. The second myth is that there is no encouragement of abstinence among young people so that they do not make choices that could be detrimental to the rest of their lives.
The Executive's sexual health strategy makes it absolutely clear that marriage remains a key part of our national life and that abstinence until a mature, loving relationship is established is an approach that we support. If we are going to move Scotland on, it would be helpful if we could agree that those two elements are in place and consider practical ways of getting that message across rather than try to deny it.
European Convention on Human Rights
To ask the First Minister whether he has discussed the European convention on human rights with the new Home Secretary. (S2F-2299)
Yes, I have.
I am delighted but not surprised, given the fact that the First Minister is a neighbour of the new Home Secretary. Does the First Minister agree with Mr Reid that, as I warned in the early days of this Parliament, the ECHR has become a charter for the criminally inclined? Does the First Minister recognise the shambles that has been made of our bail laws, such that a vicious criminal who knifed someone can be released on eight bail orders? Does he recognise that prisoners are compensated with hard-earned taxpayers' money because prison conditions do not come up to hotel standards?
When next he meets the Home Secretary, who is the member of Parliament for Airdrie and Shotts, will the First Minister insist that when he legislates to reduce the impact of the ECHR on English constituents, Mr Reid will consider amending the Scotland Act 1998 to take care of his Scottish constituents?
It is sometimes tempting to dismiss the turn of phrase, but those are serious issues and I want to address them seriously.
First, the Human Rights Act 1998 is United Kingdom legislation. It has an impact on the whole UK and we will therefore clearly be involved in discussions with the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs during the review of its operation as announced in recent days.
Secondly, the establishment of a series of rights in our law in relation to the ECHR took place a very long time ago and it was supported by Conservative Governments, so let us not deny that. The establishment of rights in our law in Scotland and across the UK is important for the 21st century, but it is also important that the provision of those rights does not create a culture that will lead to victims, witnesses or potential victims of crime having no rights, or perceiving that they have no rights. In the operation of the law, it is important to ensure that people are properly protected and that public safety is paramount.
I will give Phil Gallie an example. The way in which our courts were implementing the new laws was perceived to be having an impact on public safety, even if it was not doing so in reality, so we had to tighten up the law on bail. We are doing that. There will be changes that ensure that any judge who gives bail also gives their reasons for doing so. The changes will also put on the face of Scots law the conditions in which bail can be refused. There will also be changes to practice and procedures to ensure that information is more speedily exchanged so that those who are being considered for bail go in front of people who have full information available to them.
Those changes are important and they are being made in light of practical experience of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am sure that other changes will need to be considered in the years to come. My absolute priority will be to strike a balance between the rights of individuals—particularly the rights of law-abiding, decent individuals—and the rights of the victims and witnesses of crime, and to ensure that public safety and concern for the public are at the heart of our criminal justice system.
I revert to the point of order raised by Duncan McNeil. Members will appreciate that it is difficult for me to come to a judgment when I do not have specific details or the extracts in front of me.
However, I remind all members that, under rule 7.3, they are required to behave and conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner, particularly when attributing direct quotations to other members. I ask Christine Grahame to reflect on whether her description of Duncan McNeil's remarks was, in her view, fair, accurate and consistent with rule 7.3.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—