Plenary, 19 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, June 19, 2003

Official Report 752KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

The next item of business is consideration of three Parliamentary Bureau motions. I have been advised that two members wish to oppose two of the motions. I remind members that under rule 10.6.5 of the standing orders, only the minister who moves the motion and the member who opposes it may speak in a debate and that speaking times are restricted to three minutes each.

---

Budget (Scotland) Act 2003 Amendment Order 2003 (draft)

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2003 Amendment Order 2003 be approved.—[Tavish Scott.]

I rise to oppose the motion. The order in question does two things, the first of which is to make a change in accounting practice. That particular measure is dull and worthy, and we support it. Yesterday, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services assured me that the measure could be introduced at a later date if the order is rejected today. However, the order's second purpose is to provide almost an additional £100 million for the Holyrood project, which could not be more controversial.

The SNP opposes the motion because it was not persuaded at yesterday's meeting of the Finance Committee that a case has been proven for the expenditure of the additional £37.7 million that was dealt with yesterday. Indeed, some elements have not been proven at all.

I want to outline some of the unanswered questions that members of all parties raised yesterday. What exactly are the total fees for each consultant? How much money has been saved by the recent cap, which the Presiding Officer referred to? We do not know; those are secrets. When we asked why the contingency had been calculated at £5.692 million, the project team told us that the figure displayed a "spurious accuracy". We asked about the justification for the failure to finalise the design of a boundary wall and the exterior staircase, but answer came there nane.

There are many more points I could mention; however, I have outlined three of the most serious. Today we are being asked to make provision from the public purse of nearly £100 million for the most controversial project in Scotland. The SNP is determined to cap the cost at not a penny more than the legal minimum.

The SNP supports public-private partnership schemes where the expenditure is on pupils, patients and the police. By contrast, during the general election campaign, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, Mr Kerr, who has just arrived, said that the £338 million cost of the Holyrood project was a "drop in the ocean". Mr Kerr, who does not seem to be concentrating on this important debate, might call £37.7 million a droplet, if he believes that £338 million is a drop in the ocean. I fear that henceforth the Minister for Finance and Public Services might be known as Andy drop-in-the-ocean Kerr.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have only 10 seconds to go.

The SNP voted against the Holyrood project in 1999 and in 2000, whereas Labour and Liberal members voted for it. We are where we are. The building must be completed. Rejecting the motion will in no way prevent the completion of the building. Another motion can be lodged. Let us oppose the motion and act in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Scottish public.

Mr Ewing is wrong for three reasons. In fact, he is wrong for many more reasons, but three will suffice for today. First, the accounting change on capital charges is important. Mr Ewing is correct on one point because the change could wait until the autumn or until next year. Indeed, the change could be made at any time before April 2004. Two measures have been put together in one revision, as they were in the motion that the Finance Committee debated, because that is the most efficient mechanism for taking matters forward.

The Finance Committee agreed the process on 11 February. At that meeting, Mr Ewing's colleagues Mr Morgan and Mr Adam were content with the process. Mr Ewing shakes his head, but I suggest that he check the Official Report. The process was agreed on 11 February as a method of dealing with the Holyrood budget increase that we knew about at that time, which was £58 million.

Secondly, the budget revision provides authority for additional spending on the Holyrood building of up to £94.377 million. That figure includes the final increase in costs of £37 million. Through its scrutiny role, the Finance Committee can play a major part in ensuring that the full amount provided for is used only if that is necessary. I would have thought that that was a compelling argument, but it is clear that Mr Ewing rejects it.

The Executive's job is to amend the Scottish budget in the light of the most accurate figures that are available to us to ensure that the Holyrood project can continue. That is the purpose of the budget revision. The Executive would be delighted if it turned out that it had provided for more funding than was necessary. We hope that that will be the case. Nevertheless, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has asked us for an additional £94 million and we do not intend to amend the SPCB's estimate.

Thirdly, Mr Reid, the Presiding Officer, has stated repeatedly that any further delay, in terms of the budget revision and costs, would simply delay the opening of the Holyrood building. Mr Ewing and his party are taking an astonishing position that could delay further the completion of the building. It is evident that that is the case. I suggest that Mr Ewing listen to Mr Reid's protestations on the matter. I urge members to accept the budget revision order.

---

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/260)

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/260) be approved.—[Tavish Scott.]

In speaking against the motion, I am being consistent with my party's stance on the matter. Two years ago at least, my colleague Jamie McGrigor spoke eloquently in the chamber about a move to an alternative means of testing scallops. Ted Brocklebank, who is another colleague, talked eloquently recently in the Hub about the over-regulation move that the motion proposes. Yesterday, I opposed a similar motion at a Health Committee meeting.

There has never been a case of amnesic shellfish poisoning in Scotland or anywhere in the European Union. That is a matter of fact. The only known death from such poisoning in recent years was that of an unfortunate Canadian, from Labrador, in the late 1990s. However, he did not contract the disease from scallops, but from mussels, and three other Canadians who suffered during the same outbreak made complete recoveries.

The west coast scallop industry is worth £10 million a year. I am uncertain about the value to the local scallop industry of the scallops in the Orkney box to which the Scottish statutory instrument that we are debating refers. Instead of preventing the catching of scallops, why can we not move to the alternative procedure of testing scallops after they are caught? That procedure works well in Ireland and it is legal under European regulations.

That is, after all, a move from Europe to tell us how we should behave in this country. Why should a vital and lucrative Scottish industry be wiped out because of indiscriminate closures of this kind, while other, far more serious, risks to health are ignored? Those are posed either from poorly prepared food or cheap, unlabelled foreign imports.

Would the member agree that even one incident of poisoning in Scotland has the potential to ruin forever this very important industry?

My point is that an alternative method may be used, which would ensure consumer safety and allow consumer choice. More important, it actually works. The proof of that is in Ireland, and the method has been approved by the European Union. I oppose the motion.

We will hopefully not take up too much time on this. Mr Davidson claims that he is being consistent. He is being consistent—in the irresponsibility in both his and his party's approach to this issue. He is well aware—and this has been explained to him in the past—that work is being carried out with the industry to develop a tiered scheme, which has the potential to offer considerable relief to the industry.

Mr Davidson's comparison with Ireland is completely disingenuous. Our industry is significantly larger than the industry in Ireland, and the percentage of the product that we put to market is considerably larger than is the case in Ireland.

I have previously explained—both in the chamber and in committee—that this is both a public health and a consumer safety issue. We are also protecting the good name of the Scottish industry. It would be disastrous if, through our laxity, we had a serious outbreak of poisoning.

Will the minister give way?

No, not in this kind of debate. Above all, we are complying with our legal obligations under the relevant European directive. People in this country, and in the United Kingdom in general, realised long ago that the Conservatives stand for nothing. It is now clear that they do not even stand for the upholding of the rule of law. More importantly in this instance, they do not stand for the protection of a world-class industry.