Plenary, 19 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, September 19, 2002

Official Report 708KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2102)

As always, the Cabinet will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

Earlier this year, I wrote to the First Minister suggesting cross-party co-operation to combat racism in Scotland. I thank the First Minister for his positive response and congratulate the Executive on the measures that it has taken to date. Given that consensus, may I draw the First Minister's attention to the comments of the Home Secretary, who said that asylum seekers should "get back home"? Does the First Minister believe that those comments have helped or hindered the genuine efforts of the Executive, and of all parties in Scotland, to tackle the scourge of racism in our society?

I heard the Home Secretary's comments on the radio this morning and that was not what he said. The quote has been taken out of context. It is false of Mr Swinney to raise matters in that way in the chamber.

Let me give the First Minister the full quote from the Home Secretary:

"If these people are dynamic and well qualified, and I don't dispute they are, they should get back home and recreate their countries."

Last week, the First Minister said:

"I … know the sort of Scotland I want government to help to create. A society that greets talent to Scotland, as other countries have welcomed Scottish talent to theirs."

In order to protect the sound Executive policy on racism, will the First Minister today dissociate his Executive from the Home Secretary's remarks?

No, I will not. The point that the Home Secretary made on the radio this morning, and he made it very clearly, was that some asylum seekers in the UK came here for very good reasons, because of the circumstances back in their own countries. In some cases, those circumstances have since changed, because of international action that we on this side of the chamber supported but that Mr Swinney certainly did not. Let us get the facts from the past right.

The point that the Home Secretary was making this morning was that, in some cases, people may wish to return to assist those countries whose circumstances have changed in order to take forward the development of their nations.

The point that I was making last week—which I have made again this week and which I will make again and again, because we need to create a culture in this country of welcoming talent and of ensuring that people are welcome in Scotland and can contribute to the growth of our economy—is that not only do we need to retain Scots in this country and not have them leaving to work abroad, down south or anywhere else, but we need to attract ex-Scots back to Scotland and to attract new talent, so that people stay here if they come to our universities to study or come here if they are attracted by our economy, our academic research or any other aspect of our society. That is what I think the new Scotland should be about and I am determined to see it happen.

That is a vision that all of us in the Parliament will support, but it is fundamentally undermined by the unwillingness of the First Minister to give a clear statement that his Executive and the Parliament dissociate themselves from the Home Secretary's remarks, which have been roundly condemned by all sections of opinion in our society. Will the First Minister, at the third time of asking, take the opportunity to dissociate his Executive from some repugnant remarks?

If there is anything that will put people off coming to Scotland and helping us to grow our economy, it is the sort of politics that we see in the chamber week in, week out and that is about running Scotland down. Within the past hour, we heard Mr Andrew Wilson describe a Scotland from the past 50 years that no sane person in Scotland today would recognise. The educational, social and economic advances in Scotland since the second world war have been dramatic. They have improved our quality of life. People used to live in slums in Glasgow. People died young. People died in childbirth. All those things have changed in Scotland since 1945. In the chamber, we consistently hear from the Scottish National Party a description of a Scotland that I do not recognise. We need a Scotland—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer?

Order.

We need a Scotland that welcomes talent to our shores and encourages that talent to stay here. That will help to grow our economy and grow our population. We will do that by being positive in the chamber, getting away from the personality politics of the past and concentrating on the policies for the future. When we do that, we will be much more successful as a country.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-2093)

I talk regularly with the Prime Minister on matters of importance and expect to see him again shortly.

Does the First Minister agree with the Prime Minister that the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility is essential to effective government? If so, surely Mr Watson should have done the right thing and resigned from the Cabinet over the review of Glasgow hospitals. That would have maintained the principle of collective responsibility and, in all likelihood, achieved a much better result for the people of Glasgow in our vote in Parliament last week. By clinging to his post, has not Mr Watson achieved the worst of both worlds?

I remind Mr McLetchie that all the ministers in the devolved Government supported the position as proposed in the Parliament last Thursday by Malcolm Chisholm. I am pleased that that happened. The principle of collective Cabinet responsibility is important and is being implemented.

The First Minister's interpretation of the rules is at variance with everyone else's. If he will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to others. Minutes ago, a series of interviews was broadcast on the BBC's "Holyrood Live". Mr McAllion, from the First Minister's back benches, said:

"If people can't agree with Government policy then they have to go."

Will the First Minister listen to him? If not, will he listen to Mr Tavish Scott, a former junior minister who knows a thing or two about resigning in the right circumstances and who described the affair as having "a corrosive effect"? If the First Minister will not listen to politicians, will he listen to Sir William Kerr Fraser, the former head of the civil service in Scotland? Sir William said:

"I think he has broken the rules. The power of an administration both within Parliament and outside becomes damaged."

By protecting his friend in the face of the overwhelming opinion that his friend should go, is not the First Minister making a mockery of collective responsibility and bringing the Government in Scotland into disrepute?

That was a long way of calling for another resignation. I suspect that, if the word "resignation" were removed from the English language, Mr McLetchie might have problems devising a speech.

The principle of collective Cabinet responsibility was maintained in the chamber last Thursday. All ministers voted with the Government, which was right and proper. The Tories and others in opposition are deliberately creating a distraction from the success of the creation of a portfolio for tourism, culture and sport in the Cabinet. That portfolio recognises Scotland's identity, our confidence in the arts and culture and the importance of our tourism industry.

In a year when our tourism industry has started to grow again, when our cultural industries have won awards abroad and have been successful at home, and when we have had sporting achievements at the Commonwealth games and our campaign for the Euro 2008 championships looks like it has a chance of success, we should concentrate on the good things in the portfolio and on the importance of tourism, culture and sport to Scotland. I hope that Mr McLetchie will join us in that crusade.

Go on quickly.

We are talking not about the width of the portfolio, but about Mr Watson publicly disagreeing with Mr Chisholm. The breadth of the portfolio and what Mr Watson is doing are irrelevant. Other members are more than capable of doing the job. Heaven knows that the First Minister has enough experienced ministers dispossessed on his back benches. Why will not the First Minister address the issue? Mr Watson broke the rules and he should go.

I repeat that all ministers voted with the Government last Thursday. That is the principle of collective responsibility properly implemented.

---

Revenue-varying Powers

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any plans to recommend to the Parliament the use of revenue-varying powers conferred by the Scotland Act 1998. (S1F-2098)

No, we do not.

I welcome that clear response, as I am sure will many hard-working families in my constituency. Does the First Minister agree that the spending review confirms the success of the devolution partnership? In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, will he join John Swinney in congratulating Gordon Brown on his budget, which will deliver benefits for public services in Scotland?

I am absolutely delighted to join the leader of the Scottish National Party in welcoming Gordon Brown's budget. I agree whole-heartedly with John Swinney that this summer's budget invested an amount of money in Scottish public services that will make a real difference to Scotland. I am delighted that he will support that. I only hope that the others on the Opposition benches will stop making the sort of daily promises that Mr Swinney found so difficult to justify in his BBC interview on Sunday afternoon. Perhaps, at some point, we will get some honest budgeting from the SNP.

Order. Let us hear the question.

I am always delighted at the reception that I receive from Labour members.

The member always welcomes them as well.

They are warmly welcomed—by the teeth.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the report published this week by the London-based constitution unit, which points out that Scotland has been in surplus for 22 of the past 23 years. Is not it time that the Scottish people had access to that money, which has been drained away to the UK Treasury in London? If it were spent in Scotland instead of in London, we would be a growing economy instead of an economy in recession.

I am pleased that Mr Neil welcomes the opportunity to use the word "independence", which he presumably enjoyed in the document that was published on Tuesday. I notice that his colleagues were a bit quieter about that during the day on Tuesday and on Tuesday night.

When?

I see a little division appearing among the SNP members, but let us concentrate on the issues and not the personalities.

Two things clearly emerged from this week's report. The first was the economic uncertainty created by the negotiations, the referenda and the process of independence that the Scottish National Party would prioritise. That would have a devastating impact on interest rates, inflation, the currency exchange rate and other economic factors at a critically important time when the Scottish economy needs to grow out of its current position and achieve higher growth. [Interruption.]

Order. We must listen to the answer.

Secondly, we—[Interruption.]

Order. We cannot have a running commentary during the answers.

Be consistent for once.

Order. I have just said that we must hear the answers.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We now know quite clearly what the choice will be in the elections next year. We face the choice either of risk and uncertainty and of a budget gap that cannot be filled or of investment in public services and growth in opportunities from the budget that was announced last week. That is the choice facing the people of Scotland and I know where Labour wants to go.

I am delighted that the First Minister has promised not to put up the variable tax at this time. Does he agree that the system is skewed, as a decrease in taxation through the tax-varying power would benefit Gordon Brown and not the block grant to the Scottish people? Moreover, an increase would damage the Scottish economy even further and would cause greater difficulty in our economic position. Would he care to examine the Scotland Act 1998 with the Prime Minister when he meets him and review it so that we can have reasonable taxation levels in Scotland?

As I have said consistently since I became First Minister, I believe that the challenge that the Parliament faces is to win the people of Scotland's confidence and belief in our credibility by using the powers that we have to the greatest effect to grow our economy and to deliver opportunity through improved public services. That is the challenge that we face, using the powers that we have today, not spending the next four years arguing about the powers that some people think we should have and making the fatal errors that would be made by going down that road.

---

Euro 2008

I had hoped to give the First Minister the chance to show some unified leadership for Scotland, but—

Order. Let us stick to the question.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's current assessment is of the prospect for success of the joint bid to host the European football championships in 2008. (S1F-2097)

We have submitted an excellent joint bid and we believe that it is a strong contender. On behalf of the whole Parliament, I welcome to Scotland this week the committee that is assessing the technical nature of our bid. We met members of that committee yesterday and I believe that they will be impressed by what they see, not just in the stadia that we have in Scotland and not just in the quality of our organisation, but in the enthusiasm that exists locally and nationally for the bid.

In that regard, I thank the football clubs and local authorities of Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh, which did so much to assist on Tuesday and Wednesday, and those of Glasgow, which assisted today. I also thank the Irish football authorities, the Irish Government and the Gaelic Athletic Association, all of which hosted excellent presentations on Monday. I believe that they were very persuasive in working with officials from the Union of European Football Associations.

I think that the whole Parliament and the whole country are delighted to hear that the bid is going well. Does the First Minister agree with me—someone who, as he might recall, first called for a joint bid with Ireland two and a half years ago in the chamber—that our passion for the game and the near-impeccable behaviour and welcome of our fans could be the key, determining factor that wins us the bid? Does he agree that a successful bid for Scotland and Ireland to host the European championships in 2008 will produce a friendly football festival that will unite the whole continent of Europe behind the game, based on welcome and on friendly football fans?

Yes.

Will the Scottish Executive and the Irish Government consider making a joint appeal to the GAA to allow the use of their magnificent stadium at Croke Park for Euro 2008? Although I understand the historical reasons for banning non-Gaelic sports from Croke Park, will both Governments try to persuade the GAA that it is now time to move on and to recognise the huge potential benefit of stadium sharing in terms of economic co-operation and good sporting relationships at international level, particularly between Scotland and Ireland?

We would wish to leave that to the Irish Government and its relationship with the GAA, but we fully support the Irish Government's approach to the GAA. I believe that the discussions that will take place over the next few months can lead us to a constructive conclusion for the bid. The GAA played host to the UEFA officials this week, not only taking them around Croke Park, but marching them on to the turf there. The GAA has this week played its part in assisting with the bid. I hope that it will see that its participation in the bid can be a boost for Gaelic athletics in Ireland as well as a boost for the European championships in 2008.

---

Genetically Modified Crops (Bees and Honey)

To ask the First Minister what studies have been carried out on the effect of pollen from GM crops on bee colonies and honey production. (S1F-2105)

Studies acknowledge that minuscule amounts of genetically modified material may be found in honey. However, our independent advisory bodies are clear that pollen from GM crops does not pose a greater risk to bees or honey consumers than pollen from conventional crops.

We today received test results from The Sunday Times and, in line with our precautionary approach, we will have the validity of the findings independently assessed and then made public.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that the primary concern must always be the safety of the public, including the members of the Newport-on-Tay probus club, who may wish to enjoy some of their local honey when they return home from the chamber today.

Can the First Minister confirm that Ross Finnie took immediate action to obtain from The Sunday Times a copy of its report and to ensure that it was passed to the Food Standards Agency, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes? Will he further confirm that, if any of those agencies says that GM pollen found in the honey poses any threat to human health or the environment, the GM crop trials will be halted immediately?

We will continue to demand the highest possible level of confidence that the trials pose no demonstrable risk to public health or the environment. Clearly, if such a risk were posed, we would take the necessary action.

Given that the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has recommended a debate on the subject of GM crops, and given that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, has announced a public debate on the issue in England and Wales—that debate is about to begin—does the Executive intend to hold a public debate on the future of GM crops in Scotland? If so, when will it begin?

I think that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development has already confirmed that we in Scotland will be part of the debate that Robin Harper has mentioned. We will be enthusiastic participants in the debate and we look forward to the outcome of the discussions that will take place.

Iain Smith would have had more credibility had he joined me, Robin Harper and the community of north-east Fife at the recent public meeting in Newport to oppose the spring trials about which he now complains.

On 29 May, my colleague Bruce Crawford drew Ross Finnie's attention to a report from the European Environment Agency, which highlighted the fact that GM pollen can be transferred beyond 10km. Will the First Minister explain why the scientific information has been ignored and why Ross Finnie and the Lib-Lab coalition continue to put the environment of Fife at risk by approving an autumn GM crop planting in Newport?

Tricia Marwick should for once avoid gesture politics and take note of the answers that are given in the chamber. Iain Smith is not a member of my political party, but I know that—as is right and proper—as the local constituency MSP he contacted the minister on Monday morning, asking him to investigate The Sunday Times evidence. The Sunday Times was contacted and it has provided the evidence. The minister has instructed that the evidence be properly analysed. That is the right and proper thing to do, rather than indulging in gesture politics in north-east Fife or in the chamber.