Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 19, 2005

Official Report 755KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I take a brief opportunity to congratulate an Edinburgh-based company, Ocean Power Delivery Limited, for having just won the world's first commercial wave energy contract, proving Scotland's potential in renewables technology. [Applause.]

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1646)

I am happy to concur with Ms Sturgeon's remarks, and I welcome her recognition of the considerable efforts that we in the coalition Government have made to support renewable energy development in Scotland. I hope that the success of Scottish companies will be testament to that.

I have no immediate plans for a meeting with the Prime Minister, although I expect to meet him in advance of the G8 summit in July.

I take the opportunity today to thank all members of staff in the Parliament and the Executive who helped to organise such a successful conference in the chamber on Monday. It reflected well on Scotland, and I hope that we will continue to have all-party support in the weeks ahead as we not only prepare for the G8 summit but, more important, seek to influence its decisions and be part of the movement to make poverty history.

I echo those remarks.

In a similar vein, is the First Minister aware of a report in today's edition of The Courier that suggests that the cost of policing the G8 summit might be as high as £100 million? Will he tell us whether that is in any way an accurate estimate and, if not, will he confirm what the cost of policing the summit will be?

I can confirm absolutely—and I regret it if this was not done to The Courier yesterday by our offices—that the report in today's edition of The Courier is inaccurate. That cost is not true and unless circumstances change in an exceptional manner over the next few weeks, the cost of bringing the G8 summit to Scotland will be nowhere near £100 million.

It is interesting that the First Minister did not answer the second part of my question. I asked him to confirm what the estimate of the cost will be. I know that he knows the answer to that question because the Executive's website says:

"Executive officials … have informed the Treasury as to how much they think the policing costs will be."

I ask the First Minister to share that information with taxpayers, who will be expected to foot the bill. What is the estimated cost of policing the G8 summit?

I think that I have explained this in the chamber before—I regret it if Ms Sturgeon has not understood fully the answers that I have given in the past—but I am happy to try to explain again. The final cost of bringing the G8 summit to Scotland will depend on the level of security that is required, given the assessment of the threat to the summit at that time. Basic costs obviously require to be met to ensure security around whichever airports are used and the transportation and accommodation of those supporting the delegations. Critically, there will be an assessment of the costs of both police and other security support for the summit. In total, those costs will be finalised around about the time of the summit. I am sure that they will be reported afterwards, and people will have the chance to assess that it was all—I hope—worth it.

The First Minister still fails to answer the question. There is an estimate; that estimate has been given to the United Kingdom Treasury, so why cannot it be shared with Scottish taxpayers? It seems that he wants to dodge that question for reasons that are not immediately apparent to me or, I am sure, to anybody else.

However, will the First Minister answer the following question? I understand that the UK Treasury has agreed to contribute £20 million towards the policing costs. If it turns out that the cost is considerably higher than £20 million, as all the indications suggest, will he give an absolute assurance that council tax payers will not be left to foot part of the bill? In those circumstances, will he demand that the UK Treasury ups its contribution for what, after all, is a UK event?

Can I be absolutely clear that—[Interruption.]

Order.

There is a range of potential estimated costs for the organisation of the summit, some of which will be met directly by the United Kingdom Government and some of which will be met directly by the Scottish Executive. Within those costs, we will ensure not only that we make good use of the £20 million that has been promised by the UK Government in addition to the resources that we already have from it for such events, but that we will use those other resources that we have not had to use in Scotland in recent years because of the consequentials that arise from the UK Government organising events of a similar nature in England. On this occasion, because of the exceptional nature of the G8 summit, we have received £20 million over and above the contribution that we receive each year in our budget from the UK Government for organising such events.

I state yet again in the chamber that, although we will not give any council in Scotland a blank cheque for expenditure in advance of an event, we will ensure that councils in Scotland are properly recompensed for costs that are associated with organising the summit and supporting those who attend it.

I have to say that, given the importance of the issues that will be debated at the summit and given the importance of bringing the world's top table to Scotland, the Scottish National Party's ability to revert to an introverted, insular and inward-looking position and to be concerned about any potential for the odd penny to go astray in Perth and Kinross Council or Angus Council is depressing for Scotland. Nationalist parties the world over would be delighted with the opportunity to have the world's leaders on their nation's doorstep. We in the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat party—and maybe even members in the Conservative party—are delighted that those leaders are coming to Scotland: I wish only that the SNP, too, was delighted.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Issue—[Laughter.] Sorry. For the first issue, I would like to ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1647)

Because of my visit to Malawi, next week's meeting of the Cabinet will be chaired by the Deputy First Minister. I suspect that my colleagues will be delighted by that news because if I am not in the chair, the meeting might be shorter than usual.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. I am sure that taking the helm again—perhaps for the last time—will be a useful swansong for the Deputy First Minister.

I suggest that the Cabinet could consider the issue of energy at its next meeting. As the First Minister knows, the Royal Society of Edinburgh has launched an inquiry into energy issues that affect Scotland. Given that nuclear power meets half of Scotland's electricity needs and makes a major contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, how does he think that we can meet both our future energy needs and the Government's own CO2 emissions targets without making a commitment to, at the very least, maintaining current nuclear generating capacity?

As Ms Sturgeon herself pointed out, we have seen in Scotland our companies' increasing capacity to engage in the renewable energy market and the fact that renewable energy generation in Scotland is increasing year on year and is likely to increase substantially in the years to come. The Executive has not ruled out any future for nuclear power in Scotland; however, we have said quite clearly that any such future must be preceded by a clear decision on the management of radioactive waste. That position is reasonable and is in Scotland's best interests. In the long term, it allows us to keep our minds open, and in the short term, it sends out a very firm signal to the nuclear industry and the UK Government to deliver on the management of waste. At that stage, we will decide whether Scotland needs any more nuclear power.

I suggest to the First Minister that, regardless of whether we build new nuclear power stations, the waste issue must be dealt with. He will be aware that the recent report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs said:

"It is … vital that decisions are taken now, to obviate the possibility of, quite literally, the lights going out in Scotland in the foreseeable future."

Why is the Scottish Executive pretending that the answer is large-scale wind farm developments that many local communities the length and breadth of Scotland are fiercely opposed to when local communities and local workforces at Torness, Hunterston and Chapelcross would welcome new developments on those sites?

We are not ruling out development on those sites. While the new Conservative shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr James Gray, may wish to abolish the Parliament and replace our decisions with the decisions of Scottish members of Parliament, until he is in a position to carry out that threat, it is possible for this Parliament to take a different attitude, a different opinion and a different decision from those that might be preferred by the members of Parliament who sit on the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. On this issue, we take a different attitude, and we believe that it would be wrong to make a decision that would add to the level of nuclear waste that exists in Scotland until a decision on the future management of that waste has been made to our satisfaction. We intend to maintain that policy.

The First Minister will be aware of this week's sad announcement by the Hoover Candy group to enter into consultation with staff over the future of the remaining 88 manufacturing jobs at the Hoover plant in Cambuslang. I am sure that he will agree that that announcement is a bitter blow to the loyal employees, past and present, who have worked tirelessly for Hoover Cambuslang for almost 60 years and who, ironically, have greatly increased production at the plant in recent months. Will he assure me that the Executive will do everything in its power to assist those manufacturing workers in Hoover, whose jobs are at risk?

We are extremely disappointed at the announcement. Executive ministers have worked hard in the past two years to secure the jobs that remained on site at Hoover in Cambuslang. It is disappointing to hear that a subsequent decision has been made to move that production elsewhere. We will continue not only to work with the company to secure the research, development and service jobs that remain important in Cambuslang, but to make available the considerable services that have been successfully employed elsewhere in Scotland to assist any workers who lose their jobs as a result of the announcement.

Will the First Minister join me in extending the condolences of the chamber to the families of those who lost their lives in the Solway Harvester tragedy in January 2000, in the light of the collapse of the trial against the owner of the vessel yesterday in the Isle of Man on the ground of insufficient evidence? Will he explore, perhaps with the Solicitor General, any possibilities that might still exist to assist those families in bringing about the closure on this tragic issue that they so desperately seek and which now appears to be denied them?

All ministers—and I am sure all members—would want to associate themselves with Alex Fergusson's remarks and to share the expression of condolences to those families, who are still grieving for the loss of their loved ones when the Solway Harvester went down those years ago. While it would be wrong of me to comment on the outcome of the trial, I would be happy for the Solicitor General to respond to any representations that Alex Fergusson may wish to put directly to her—that may be a better route than pursuing the matter through me. We are still awaiting publication of the report of the marine accident investigation branch and although the Executive and the Parliament do not have direct responsibility for vessel safety and safety at sea, we may want to make some observations when the report is published.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1658)

I have no immediate plans to meet formally with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

On Monday, Bob Geldof stood here in Parliament and outlined the role the G8 plays in perpetuating poverty in Africa. [Interruption.] Bless you.

Does the First Minister agree that those Scots who believe that the G8 is

"a complete and utter disgrace"

and an affront to the human dignity of the peoples of Africa should be able to protest at the Gleneagles summit in July? Does he believe that it is right that the tens of thousands of Scots who share Bob Geldof's scepticism should be denied their democratic right to march in peaceful protest?

No one in Scotland—as long as they are not a threat to the security of the state, and I suspect that the people to whom Colin Fox refers could never be described as that—will be denied the right to demonstrate peacefully in advance of or during the G8 summit.

The First Minister said "or during". A few weeks ago, the Parliament voted on a Scottish Socialist Party motion to reiterate its support for the democratic right to march in peaceful protest in Scotland, but decisions have been taken to set up road blocks and exclusion zones to prevent such a march from happening. The First Minister knows that that is the case. Who took those decisions, and does he agree that it is for the Parliament to decide on such matters in order to protect the right to march peacefully in Scotland? Does he further agree that the current position is the worst of all possible worlds, as the right to assemble has been granted but the right to march has not, which creates the possibility of a dangerous, frustrated and tense situation?

Colin Fox made an interesting remark at the end of his questions. I hope that it was not intended as a threat of dangerous activity—or activity that could at least be damaging to Scotland's reputation—around the summit. It is essential that people in Scotland, which is a democratic country, have the opportunity to assemble and march, but it is also absolutely right that we and all parties—including the Scottish Socialist Party—should be behind the summit and that we should respect and support the determinations of the chief constable and others on what is best for the safety and security not only of those attending the summit, but of Scotland during the summit.

There will obviously be opportunities in advance of and during the summit for Scots and people from other nations to march and put their views to those who are attending the summit, but we in Scotland will also organise the summit in an orderly fashion. If Mr Fox had been listening on Monday, he would have heard Bob Geldof say that the best way to respect poverty, suffering and death in Africa is to respect the right to march peacefully, not to encourage or fail to condemn any violence, intimidation or dangerous activity.

---

Make Poverty History

To ask the First Minister what contribution devolved nations like Scotland can make to the global effort to make poverty history. (S2F-1648)

We can support the national and international efforts of the United Kingdom Government. We can help Scots and Scottish organisations to provide practical assistance to developing countries. We can also raise awareness while adding our voice to the legitimate call for worldwide action to make poverty history. We will do all of those.

I agree with the First Minister that those are the issues. The genuine anger that Bob Geldof voiced in the Parliament on Monday should motivate us all to insist that the G8 address the problems of poverty, disease, debt and trade injustice that blight the lives of millions in Africa.

I ask the First Minister that, in the assistance that is to be given to Malawi, particular attention be given to supporting women's participation in economic, political and social activity, as advancing the cause of women is likely to be the most effective way of delivering change.

It is the view of Governments and many voluntary organisations throughout the world that women in Africa can play a particularly important role in strengthening governance and representation, improving the delivery of public services and growing local economies. That will be true not only in Malawi, but in other countries that will be affected by the decisions of the G8 summit that will take place later this summer.

The scale of the challenge that faces us in supporting those who live in Malawi is considerable. I hope that, as well as visiting next week and supporting the efforts of those who already work on the ground there, we will, in weeks to come, be able to turn our collective imagination to playing a part in supporting the improvement of Malawi's education services, health services and local economies and to doing something to turn around the fact that the life expectancy of the average citizen of Malawi is almost exactly half that of the average citizen of Scotland. That statistic, which I learned this morning, should have an enormous impact on us all. It is a damning indictment of the 21st century and I hope that we will help to do something about it.

Although I fervently hope that the people of Perthshire do not get caught in the middle of a row about finances—or, indeed, a row about a protest, which, if it happens, I hope is peaceful—those attending the G8 are indeed precisely the folk who can really make poverty history. I know that the First Minister will have listened carefully to what Bob Geldof said, and I congratulate the First Minister and the Presiding Officer on inviting Bob Geldof to this Parliament. How does the First Minister personally propose to lay down the challenge to the leaders of the G8 on Scotland's behalf?

I have been happy to be doing that since January and I will continue to do so increasingly in the weeks ahead. I think that I speak for the vast majority of members of this Parliament when I and others call for considerable and proper action from the G8 in supporting the efforts to make poverty history in Africa and elsewhere.

Both Mr Geldof and other speakers on Monday outlined the considerable challenge that faces not just Scotland but, more important, the UK Government, as president of the G8, in challenging and getting support from the other seven countries for the efforts that have been outlined. The issue definitely has more resonance and support in the United Kingdom than in any of the other G8 nations. The British Government is clearly ahead of the other G8 nations in its demands and support for action. Through international Scottish contacts as well as through our voice here in Scotland, I hope that we can help to raise awareness of the issue and ensure that, throughout the world, pressure is put on the other seven leaders to ensure that they support Tony Blair and the Government's efforts at Gleneagles hotel in July.

Although I support the sentiments outlined by Des McNulty, the First Minister will be aware that I wrote to him a fortnight ago to say that although there is terrific support in Edinburgh for bringing the G8 here—for which I give my congratulations all round—there is a residual and legitimate concern, as voiced last night by Donald Anderson, the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, that Edinburgh might have unfairly to pick up the tab. The council leader has said that the cost of barriers and of any clean-up—which we hope will not be excessive, although that might occur—is not negotiable and he would like to know who is going to pay for it. Can the First Minister enlighten us?

As I said earlier, we will not write a blank cheque for any local authority that is involved. Even at this stage, we cannot properly assess the likely costs in Edinburgh because the final arrangements for what might take place in the days leading up to the summit have not been clarified by those who might be organising those events. However, we will provide proper compensation to local authorities for the relevant costs that they have to incur as a result not just of the G8 being in Scotland but of the events and activities that will undoubtedly happen in the run-up to the event itself.

---

The Queen's Speech

To ask the First Minister what the implications of the Queen's speech are for Scotland and the Scottish Executive. (S2F-1655)

Where the proposals outlined in the Queen's speech affect the responsibilities of this Parliament, ministers will outline the implications and our response to MSPs through the normal Parliamentary procedures.

The First Minister will know of the proposed establishment of a commission for equality and human rights under the UK Equality Bill. Does he agree that the continuing practice of detaining children in Dungavel immigration removal centre is difficult to reconcile with any concept of human rights? Is he aware of the critical report on the practice that was published earlier this week by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons for England and Wales? Will he tell the Prime Minister that children who have committed no crime are entitled to the same rights and liberties as anyone else? Will he also tell the Prime Minister that he will put the full resources of the Scottish Executive at the disposal of HM Government in supporting any moves that it might want to make to end the detention of children behind high metal barriers in Dungavel?

It is important to recognise that since last summer, considerable progress has been made at Dungavel in reducing not just the number of children held there—there are none at the moment—but the length of time that any children are held there. That is to be welcomed, and I am sure that there is cross-party support for that.

If there is no alternative and if children are being held at Dungavel—for a very short period of time—because their families are being held there, it is important that appropriate services and support are available to them. The report of HM chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales made it absolutely clear where the responsibility lies. She recognises that the support given through our agencies and by local authorities has been available at all times. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government's immigration agency must ensure that the appropriate support is used effectively in each and every case.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the commitment in the Queen's speech to introduce a bill on behalf of Rhodri Morgan and the National Assembly for Wales to establish an old people's commissioner for Wales. In light of that, will the First Minister now commit the Scottish Executive to supporting my proposed member's bill to establish an old people's commissioner for Scotland?

As regards the care standards against which establishments and services can be measured, and given the establishment of the care commission itself, I hope that Alex Neil will recognise that we in Scotland were ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in establishing proper investigatory procedures and standards for the care of old people in Scotland. I urge anyone with concerns about the care of individual older citizens to use the avenues that are available to them.

As Alex Neil knows, we are currently considering our response to his proposed member's bill. We need to consider our response alongside those other avenues that are currently available for older people in Scotland with respect to the establishment of standards and the investigation of complaints. We will of course inform Parliament, in the proper manner, when any decision has been made by ministers.

I wish to ask the First Minister about an issue that, his ministers have told us, was awaiting the Queen's speech. Although it is clear that no Sewel motion will be required on the proposed identity cards bill, the First Minister will recall that the Parliament voted for a statement on the intended use of the database. We are familiar with the Executive's line on identity cards, but I am asking about the use of the database by the devolved institutions.

We were told that such a statement could not be made until the UK Government had made its position clear through the Queen's speech, but that has now happened. Therefore, can the First Minister tell us when his Executive will comply with the will of Parliament and, under rule 13.2 of standing orders, ask the Presiding Officer for permission to make such a statement?

I can confirm that, as promised, Mr McCabe will make a statement on the identity cards bill and on the way in which it will affect the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Parliament. He will do so before the summer recess.

I welcome the indication in the Queen's speech that Westminster's regulation-making procedures will be examined. As the First Minister knows, the Scottish Parliament's Subordinate Legislation Committee is examining our procedures, and legislation will result from that work. Will he indicate how ministers at Westminster will liaise with the appropriate minister here to secure the best advantage for both Parliaments?

I have not been involved in those discussions directly, but I will be happy to ensure that the appropriate minister responds directly to Sylvia Jackson on that issue as soon as possible.

---

Working Time Directive Opt-out

To ask the First Minister how the ending of the European Union working time opt-out will affect the Scottish economy. (S2F-1651)

The opt-out clause in the EU working time directive has not been abolished.

The First Minister will be aware that Labour and Liberal MEPs voted in the European Parliament to bring about the ending of the working time directive opt-out, despite the wishes of the Labour-controlled British Government. Will he accept my support for the United Kingdom Government on the issue? Will he commit his support to the UK Government on the issue today?

The British Government is perfectly capable of representing itself, but I am sure it will be delighted to have the support of Phil Gallie. Mr Gallie has already heard my views on the way in which European regulation can be too prescriptive, not just for the UK but for us here in Scotland.

There is a proper role for Europe-wide legislation in key areas but that legislation needs to take account of the fact that there are sometimes different circumstances in different parts of the Community or even within member states. I welcome the on-going negotiations and the fact that the European Parliament's decision earlier this month was not a final decision but is only part of the process. I hope, however, that Mr Gallie and others will not use the issue to bash the European Union—it is a serious issue that requires serious debate and which will have, I hope, a constructive conclusion. The EU remains an important institution not just for mainland Europe but for us in the British Isles too.

On a related point, the First Minister will be aware of the many freight transport operators in the Highlands and Islands who cannot complete their journeys to central markets within the reduced working time limits, which will increase operational costs and considerably reduce profits. Will the First Minister argue for a relaxation of the EU directive in remote and rural areas of Scotland?

My understanding of the matter is that, in terms of the European Union's enforcement of obligations on member states, the UK Government eventually agreed to implement the directive at the stage at which it had little choice but to do so, but that the Secretary of State for Transport and Scotland confirmed to the Westminster Parliament that he would be prepared to review the situation after a year and make further representations to the European Union if that was required. I am not absolutely certain that that is his current position this week, but that was certainly the position when I last spoke to him about the matter. If that is the case, we will continue to pass on any representations or concerns that might exist here in Scotland about the rigid implementation of the position as it is outlined.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—