Plenary, 20 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, February 20, 2003

Official Report 630KB 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-2515)

The meeting of the Scottish Cabinet next week will have a full agenda, including a report from the Minister for Education and Young People on the successful launch yesterday of measures to improve school meals and provide free fresh fruit for all in primary 1 and 2.

On Saturday, as 100,000 people marched for peace in Glasgow, Mr McConnell said:

"international affairs affect us all. As First Minister of Scotland ... I'm bound to state my views."

In the light of recent events, can the First Minister say what his views are?

They are a lot clearer than Mr Swinney's. My views are very clear. Saddam Hussein should disarm and comply with United Nations resolutions. He should co-operate with the inspectors and meet his obligations, as it is his responsibility to ensure that there is peace in his country.

I will tell the First Minister my views, if he wants to hear them. [Interruption.] People such as Duncan McNeil should listen very carefully. First, there should be no illegal war. Secondly, there should be no action without a specific UN mandate. Thirdly, there should be no action without evidence. Those are my views. They are also the views of the people of Scotland and of some Labour back benchers. When will the First Minister start to tell the Prime Minister that what he is doing just now is not in our name?

The events of the past week prove that the Scottish nationalist party is a permanent party of protest in Scotland. Mr Swinney's shift from being the leader of the anti-war party on Saturday to being the in-favour-of-war party leader on Monday night was dramatic. It is not good enough for the Scottish nationalist party—

Does the First Minister believe in a pre-emptive strike?

Mr Sheridan's total opposition to international action, regardless of whether it is authorised by the United Nations, shows that he is not in favour of defending the people of Iraq against Saddam Hussein or of defending the rest of the world against Saddam Hussein's weapons. [Interruption.]

The First Minister should ignore sedentary interventions.

The events of the past week prove that the SNP will say one thing one day and another thing another day. It will not show the consistency that is required of a serious Government party. That is why it is the permanent party of opposition in the Parliament. That is why it will be rejected by the people of Scotland.

Let us consider the events of the past few days. The UN inspectors' report is published and the British Government reacts with "disappointment". One hundred thousand people take to the streets of Glasgow and the First Minister casts their views aside. In January, I lodged a motion, which we debated with cursory attendance from the First Minister, on these vital international issues. Our position was the same then as it is today. Does not the Government's reaction to the UN inspectors' report and to thousands of demonstrators in Scotland prove that the motion was correct and that the British Government is determined to pursue an inevitable path to war?

That is simply not true. The British Government has been absolutely clear in its desire to act through the United Nations and to ensure that the United Nations takes a firm stand in implementing not only the resolutions that it passed 10 years ago, but the resolution that it passed last November. That is the position of the British Government, working through the United Nations.

I listened to people across Scotland last weekend—people of differing views. I listened to them again on Monday when I was in Shetland and I listen to them everywhere I go. However, I will also honestly and consistently represent a position of principle. The one difference in the chamber is between the members on the Government benches—and indeed even on the Conservative benches—who take a principled stand, and the members of the Scottish nationalist party, who will say one thing on Saturday and another thing on Monday and who will not back Scottish troops or even the possibility of a war that they say they would support.

---

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-2518)

I met the Prime Minister last weekend and I expect to meet him again shortly. I may ask him about the progress of congestion charging in London, in which case I will be happy to tell Mr McLetchie how the scheme is coming along.

The answer to that question will be long delayed. You should wait until you have to pay for your next ticket down there, Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Sorry. I meant to say "First Minister".

Will the First Minister discuss with the Prime Minister—the real one, that is—security both at home and abroad? Does the First Minister accept that, as well as the Prime Minister, he has a responsibility to explain the Government's position on Iraq to people in Scotland? Does he accept that it is simply not enough to attack the inconsistencies of some of his opponents in the chamber, however glaring those inconsistencies might be and wherever those opponents might be sitting? Accordingly, will he follow the Prime Minister in giving a full account of the case against Mr Saddam Hussein, based on the testimony of the democratic Iraqi opposition about the regime's many human rights violations—

The Tories sold the weapons.

Order.

Iraq's failure to comply with no fewer than 18 United Nations resolutions since—

Hypocrite.

Order. As I have told Mr Sheridan before, there is to be no shouting in the chamber.

The case is based on Iraq's failure to comply with no fewer than 18 resolutions since 1991, of which resolution 1441 is merely the latest example, and the clear threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links pose to the security of our people.

What about the Scott inquiry?

If Mr Sheridan were in Iraq, he would not be able to behave like that in a parliamentary chamber. He should perhaps just remember that when he considers his behaviour in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament.

And if I was in Indonesia—

Shut up.

Order. Mr Sheridan, I have warned you three times about shouting when you are sitting down. You have not got the floor at the moment, so you will be quiet.

I accept the obligation to give, where it is appropriate for me to do so and when I am asked to do so, the information that Mr McLetchie has just outlined. I also accept, however, that my priority as First Minister in Scotland is to concentrate on the powers of devolution and to work to ensure better schools and hospitals, to provide better transport, to tackle crime and to create jobs in Scotland.

However, where it is appropriate and when I am asked, I am happy to state my views. I am also happy to clarify the facts, so that they are not distorted and so that everybody in Scotland is aware that the United Nations has for 10 years tried to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with its resolutions. In November, the United Nations called unanimously for one final attempt by inspectors and by the Iraqi regime to comply with those resolutions and said that that was a final demand to Saddam Hussein. It is vital that anybody who believes in democracy and in the security of the world supports the United Nations in that effort.

I thank the First Minister for that robust answer. I agree that he was quite right to draw attention to the inconsistencies in the unprincipled position of the Scottish National Party on the matter. Is he aware that his coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, have been equally duplicitous on the issue, posing as an anti-war party while at the same time lodging a motion in this Parliament that endorses military action against Iraq in certain circumstances. Are there not indeed two two-faced parties in Scotland today on Iraq? Does the First Minister agree—

Mr McLetchie is wrong and he should correct himself.

Mr Wallace is becoming worse than Mr Sheridan. The sooner he is expelled, the better.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

There cannot be points of order during question time. [Interruption.]

Order. Let me hear the point of order.

Presiding Officer, is it right for Mr McLetchie to preface his question with something that is patently untrue? The Liberal Democrats have been consistent and he is misleading the Parliament.

That is not a point of order.

I say to Mr Wallace that I never mislead the Parliament. He should look to himself and his own and their duplicity over the past few months.

I want to get back to the key issue. Although a second United Nations resolution on Iraq would undoubtedly be preferable before military action is or may be taken, does the First Minister agree that, as a matter of principle, no one country should be allowed to veto a course of action that a British Government believes to be in our national interest?

The British Government has to reserve the right to take action to defend the security of Britain in whatever way it sees fit. It is an important principle—not just for our national position, but in international law—that countries have that right. It is also important that we are consistent. I genuinely believe—I continue to support this perspective—that the British Government is doing all that it can to secure a peaceful outcome to the situation and to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with the resolutions and acts accordingly, not only for the good of the rest of the world, but for the good of his country. The British Government also wishes to see the United Nations take the right action to back up its position in a second resolution if that is required. That is the right, principled position. It is a consistent position; it is a position of moral principle as well as of good political judgment and I believe that the majority of people in Scotland support it, as recent opinion polls have shown clearly.

Does the First Minister agree that it is an important principle that back-bench MSPs should be free to lodge motions for debate in the Parliament? Does he realise that the 12 Liberal Democrat back-bench MSPs have made it clear what our position is? Despite what Mr McLetchie has just said, our view is that there should be a fresh UN mandate and a substantive vote in the House of Commons. Will the First Minister make those views known to the Prime Minister when he next meets him?

It is sometimes tempting for me to comment in public on the Liberal Democrats—in many ways. However, I have no intention of allowing this issue to divide a partnership that has delivered so much for Scotland over the past four years in the Parliament.

Jim Wallace is perfectly able to speak for the Liberal Democrats and he does so regularly. He did so last weekend when I believe he took part in demonstrations in his constituency. If he believes that that was the right thing to do, it is right and proper for him to do it.

It is right that we should all be consistent. In particular, those who not only seek to occupy the First Minister's chair but want to be Prime Minister of an independent, separate Scotland should be consistent, should back our troops consistently and should ensure that this country is admired internationally, is not inconsistent and does not let itself down.

---

Congestion Charging

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will take account of the introduction of congestion charging in London in the development of transport policy. (S1F-2524)

I am sure that local authorities will be watching carefully the progress of congestion charging in London. Our policy in Scotland is quite clear—congestion charging will go ahead only following substantial investment in public transport and when clear public support locally has been secured.

Does the First Minister agree that in Edinburgh we need a package of investment, supported by the Executive, to improve the quality and choice of public transport in advance of the City of Edinburgh Council's referendum on congestion charging? Does he agree that the Tories' position reeks of hypocrisy, given their lamentable track record on public transport investment?

My answer to both those questions is yes. On transport in Edinburgh, it is important to record that, if the City of Edinburgh Council decides to hold a referendum on congestion charging and comes to us with a final scheme, as it has promised to do, that referendum will take place in the middle of the largest programme of public transport investment in Edinburgh that there has been for a very long time.

Over the next decade, Edinburgh will have the opportunity to develop a tram network that will benefit the city. The city will also benefit from road improvements and the first new railway in Scotland for a decade. Other new railway stations have been proposed. Those are substantial improvements in the Edinburgh public transport network. They will start long before any congestion charging is implemented in Edinburgh. That is the right way round for those improvements.

---

Transport (Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister whether there is an adequate standard of transport infrastructure in the Highlands and Islands. (S1F-2514)

I recognise the need for continuous improvement in the infrastructure of the Highlands and Islands and the rest of Scotland. That is why, since 1999, we have supported record levels of funding for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, new ferries for Caledonian MacBrayne, refurbished piers and harbours, and additional funding for road maintenance. Such funding has not been seen in Scotland for a decade.

The First Minister must be aware of the campaign to retain the Glasgow to Barra air link, which has involved hundreds of people meeting in Glasgow and on Barra and has resulted in a debate in the Parliament. As part of that campaign, a petition that has been signed by 1,000 people will be delivered to the Parliament on Tuesday.

The First Minister might have had a chance to see the national press this week. Well informed so-called Labour sources decided to leak the fact that the Executive decision has already been taken and that the service will have a stay of execution for a couple of years. Will the First Minister do the Parliament the courtesy of informing members in the chamber whether that is the policy of his Executive? If the decision has been taken, does that mean that the review that was supposed to report at the end of March has been pre-empted? Does the decision amount to a guarantee for the long-term future of the service, or is it simply an interim measure to get the Labour party through a difficult election?

If I had to answer for every story that has been in the Scottish press this week—including some beauties yesterday—I would be here for a very long time.

We are well aware of the public position that has been adopted in Barra. Alasdair Morrison has represented his constituency properly by making that case and Lewis Macdonald has visited the island and discussed the situation with local people.

Last year, I had the pleasure of opening the new airport at Stornoway. The new causeways are making a significant difference to people's ability to move from one island to the next throughout the Western Isles. The final decision on the Glasgow to Barra service will be made in the next few weeks and will be announced to the Parliament in the proper way, not through the press.

The last time the First Minister visited my constituency, he saw for himself the positive impact that investment in infrastructure has had on island life. The First Minister and other ministers are well aware of the situation on the island of Barra.

Does the First Minister agree that the primary consideration in relation to Barra must be the well-being of islanders, particularly the hundreds of islanders who are taken to hospitals in Glasgow and beyond? I have spoken regularly with the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning on the issue. I again ask the First Minister when we can expect an announcement.

Although I am conscious of the case, I will not pre-empt the final decision and the announcement by the minister concerned, which will happen during the next few weeks. The transport improvements that have taken place in the Western Isles have been critical for the islanders and I acknowledge Mr Morrison's work in lobbying for those improvements. As an islander, I know just how important such transport links can be. In addition to the new airport terminal at Stornoway and the new causeways that have been built, other developments, such as the brand-new hospital in Benbecula, are improving the quality of life in the Western Isles. Devolution is delivering for the Western Isles.

---

Community Pharmacies

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will respond to the Office of Fair Trading report on community pharmacies. (S1F-2526)

Pharmacies are an integral part of NHS Scotland. They are not just commercial entities; they provide vital health services in Scottish communities. When we respond to the OFT report, our representations will aim to protect Scotland's network of community pharmacies.

I appreciate the First Minister's answer. I hope that the Executive will come out strongly against the OFT report. Does the First Minister agree with the views that local pharmacists in Parkgrove and Clermiston expressed to me? They said that, without control of entry, consumers will suffer a reduction in access and the platform from which the Executive intends to launch a wide range of enhanced pharmacy services, as detailed in "The Right Medicine: A Strategy for Pharmaceutical Care in Scotland", will be destroyed.

I recognise that there is and will be increasing consumer demand for a variety of outlets for pharmacy products. However, many parts of Scotland, not least our rural areas, have a vital need for a proper local pharmacy service that is protected by regulation. We will put that case in our response to the OFT report. That is our Scottish policy position, which we will adhere to.

I declare that I am a non-practising pharmacist.

I thank the First Minister for his earlier response. Essentially, if the OFT report is adopted in Scotland, the whole foundation of the NHS dispensing service in rural and suburban communities will be destroyed. Will the First Minister agree to meet the profession and all the stakeholders who are involved before he sends the Executive's response back south?

I must check with Mr Chisholm and Mr McAveety, but I will be surprised if that liaison is not already taking place; it will certainly happen before any final response is sent from Scotland.

The role of pharmacies is not just in the operation of the commercial outlets and in the dispensing of drugs and medicines; it is in the provision of advice at a local level. In Scotland, particularly in areas where the population is small, pharmacists have a key role in providing health advice and in working with local general practitioners and other health services. That role will be increasingly important if we are serious about health prevention and about having a comprehensive approach to health improvement. I believe strongly that we must make firm representations on behalf of the Scottish health service.

I am glad to hear the strength of the First Minister's replies. Basically, we are looking for his support for the family-run pharmacy businesses, which have suffered enough. The supermarkets are greedy giants and have already eaten up too many family pharmacy businesses throughout Scotland. That must be curbed. The First Minister must acknowledge that the family pharmacies do the hard work, while the supermarkets cream off the easy trade.

Yes.

Indeed, I did not hear a question.

Will the First Minister consider sympathetically the representations that constituency MSPs have made to him and to the health ministers? We are concerned about the impact of the proposals on those community pharmacy services that are not on the high street and that are away from health centres, especially those that carry large NHS prescription burdens. Will he also deal sympathetically with community pharmacy representatives who recognise that the status quo is not an option? They are looking for innovation in the control of entry so that people can access pharmacies at times and in circumstances that are suitable to them.

As the response is prepared for submission to the OFT, the Minister for Health and Community Care will take those important points on board.