Plenary, 20 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, March 20, 2003

Official Report 592KB 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-2608)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, which is the final meeting before the dissolution of Parliament, a number of important issues will be discussed, including the security and contingency issues resulting from the current international situation. The Cabinet will have provisional arrangements to meet during April, if necessary.

I refer to the statement on the international crisis in relation to Iraq that the First Minister made to Parliament. The Scottish National Party opposes the war but, as action has now started, we pray for the safe return of our servicemen and women and that innocent Iraqi civilians will be spared in the conflict. Given that the British Government has gone to war in the absence of a United Nations mandate that would have set out the parameters for the war, will the First Minister tell Parliament what steps are being taken to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that many of us fear?

I could answer that question in detail from press reports and briefings to which I have been privy. However, I do not think that it is right for us to discuss at question time in this chamber responsibilities that are rightly the responsibilities of ministers elsewhere. I take my responsibilities seriously. I do not expect UK Government ministers to interfere with my responsibilities and I will not interfere with theirs—as I have said consistently in this chamber over a long period.

It is quite clear to anybody who heard with ears that were actually listening to the debate that took place in the House of Commons on Tuesday that the UK Government and the other Governments around the world that will be involved in action over the next few days—I hope that it will not be over too many weeks—are making every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and the causing of unnecessary destruction or harm. However, we must recognise that there cannot be military conflict in a war without those casualties and that damage.

I remind members that this is not a debate. It is question time, and the First Minister can answer questions only about matters for which he is responsible, not about other matters.

Presiding Officer, the First Minister made a statement to Parliament yesterday, to which I listened with great care and which I have in front of me. It went into extensive detail about the international situation, the problems in Iraq, the United Nations and the decisions of the United Kingdom Government. I am seeking to question the First Minister on the responsibilities that he carries as the First Minister of Scotland, by virtue of which office he is a member of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.

The First Minister will be aware that 60 per cent of the Iraqi population depend on food rations and that 50 per cent are under the age of 14. It is a fragile population. This morning, the President of the United States said that

"this will not be a campaign of half measures".

That rather contradicts what the First Minister has just told me. In the light of those comments, can he give Parliament an assurance that, in his discussions with the United Kingdom Government, he has pressed for the deliberate targeting of sites of significance for humanitarian assistance in Iraq, such as water treatment plants, to be expressly forbidden?

All members—regardless of the views that they have expressed and whether they are members of parties or no longer members of parties—have, over recent weeks, consistently expressed the desire to ensure that, if there has to be military action in Iraq, there is the minimum number of civilian casualties and that the minimum damage is caused, while the clear objective of ensuring that Saddam Hussein no longer has access to weapons of mass destruction is met. It is because the international community agreed unanimously, in UN resolution 1441, that he still had those weapons, had to provide information on them and give them up that we are in this situation. It is because of that situation that we need to support our troops, look after them and ensure that they are not affected by chemical attacks or any other attacks that Saddam Hussein might launch over the next few days or weeks.

Mr Swinney should recognise that this is a serious situation. The time for cheap political points is over. Let us move on and discuss the real issues.

The First Minister needs to raise his game and speak for Scotland on these issues. If he cannot recognise the seriousness with which I am raising the concern of many hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland about the humanitarian disaster for which we may be responsible, he misjudges the opinions of the people of Scotland. If he and I cannot agree about how we got here, will he at least agree that, unless we conduct this conflict in the right way, we will be unable to win the peace after having been involved in the war? Does not it matter that we must take the right approach to the protection of humanitarian efforts in Iraq to have any chance of winning the peace in the months to come?

Of course it matters. That is why, yesterday, I was asked three questions—one of which came from Mr George Reid, who has a lot more dignity than do some other members of his party—about what we could do to organise groups in Scotland to assist with humanitarian aid. Questions on that matter were asked by Robin Harper, Dorothy-Grace Elder and George Reid. I said that I would do whatever I could to ensure that we stood ready in Scotland, as we always have done as a nation, to help those elsewhere in the world who need our help.

However, I have to say to John Swinney that we have a democratically elected Government in this country that, for the first time in living memory, put the possibility of going to war to a vote in the House of Commons prior to going to war. The Government did that because we are proud of our democracy. It is precisely because such democracy does not exist in Iraq and because the regime in Iraq slaughtered, 15 years ago last Sunday, thousands of its own civilians that action against Iraq is so important. I do not want the Iraq regime slaughtering British troops in Iraq, Kuwait or anywhere else over the next few weeks. That is why we back our troops. We want to ensure that, having our support, they can bring a quick and effective end to the military conflict.

After such an exchange, I hope that my question does not seem like we are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. However, we have other responsibilities in the Parliament.

Is the First Minister aware that the efficiency and costs of Scottish Natural Heritage will be detrimentally affected by today's decision to disperse the headquarters, with its 270 jobs, from Edinburgh to Inverness? Will he give me an undertaking that that decision will not be acted on until the new Parliament can review it? I fear that today's decision will be regarded as a poor, politically motivated decision, given that SNH is a model for the policy of dispersing people and departments throughout Scotland.

I have heard, not just since we were elected in 1999 but before then, many members of different parties in the chamber commit themselves to the dispersal of civil service jobs from Edinburgh. I have personally been very committed to that policy. I am committed not only to the policy of dispersing civil service jobs from Edinburgh, but to the dispersal of civil service jobs out of our cities into our towns and other areas. I believe that the decision that was announced this morning will have a very small impact on the most buoyant, dynamic economy in Scotland, which is the one in Edinburgh, but a big impact in the Highlands. I believe that the decision is absolutely right and I will defend it anywhere.

---

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-2617)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, but I have spoken to him regularly and I intend to continue to speak to him regularly over the next few weeks.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. Now that the military action has started in Iraq, I think that it is important that we give our unanimous support to our armed forces that are serving in the gulf. I am sure, from what he said earlier in the chamber, that he would accept that, whatever political differences and different views we have on the issue, we all have a duty to act responsibly at this time.

Therefore, does the First Minister agree that it is totally irresponsible for elected politicians to encourage young people to truant from our schools? Does he also agree that young people should certainly be encouraged to express opinions on the political issues of the day, but that they should not be encouraged to skive off? Given the disciplinary and truancy problems that, sadly, exist in our schools, does he agree that it is quite wrong to encourage truancy and to turn a blind eye to it?

On that issue, I believe that there is a difference between older teenagers who are still at school and close to voting age and those who are very young. I also believe that two things must be consistent. We have a right to protest and to free speech in this country and I think that that right should be particularly encouraged, rather than discouraged, among teenagers. However, I do not believe that it is right for elected politicians to encourage young people to leave school during the school day. Mr McLetchie is right on that point. I would strongly discourage any member of the Parliament from encouraging any form of truancy. If young people, whatever their views, can be encouraged to protest and make their points outside school time, that would be a far better solution for us all.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Following on from that, can he give us his opinion of the situation in West Dunbartonshire Council, where the council leader, Mr McCafferty, is apparently giving staff paid time off work to take part in anti-war protests? Although council employees are as entitled as everyone else is to demonstrate in support of their views, does he agree that they should do so in their own time, at their own expense and certainly not at the expense of the local taxpayer or the provision of local services?

I am aware of West Dunbartonshire Council's decision and of the fact that other authorities in Scotland might consider such a decision in the next few days. I make my position clear: staff have a right to protest, but if local councils want their staff to take paid time off to protest, councils should pay for that from their own pockets and should not expect local taxpayers to pay for it from council tax.

---

Armed Forces (Family Support)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to support families of servicemen and servicewomen based in the gulf area. (S1F-2613)

I think—[Interruption.] I am surprised that members of the Scottish nationalist party who represent constituencies that have large numbers of families of British servicemen and women cannot accept that John Home Robertson has a right to ask his question about the action that the Executive is taking to support those families. Those members should be ashamed of themselves.

Cheap shot.

It was not a cheap shot. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, it is not right for me to respond to sedentary comments that are made around the chamber.

Quite.

The matter is serious. [Interruption.]

Order. The question has been asked and I do not understand why interruptions are being made.

The matter is serious. I have a constituent who has four sons in the gulf. We all have constituents who are in such a position and we should take their welfare seriously. Young men and women from throughout Scotland who are serving with the British armed forces in Iraq face a dangerous and life-threatening challenge. We owe them and their families our care and support.

In meetings of the Scottish emergencies co-ordinating committee, we have offered our assistance, in any way that we can provide it, to the forces' welfare services, which provide excellent support and have developed contacts with local authorities and the statutory support services.

Will the First Minister convey a message to all the armed services and in particular to regimental associations in branches and clubs of the Royal British Legion Scotland to express the whole-hearted support of members of the Parliament for Scottish servicemen and women as they carry out their dangerous duty to make Iraq safe for the Iraqi people? Will he ensure that every part of the Executive, local authorities and other agencies do everything in their power to support and assist service families, including using all possible means to facilitate telephone or radio contacts between service personnel and their families?

The provision of those services is largely a matter for the Ministry of Defence and I do not want to encroach on its responsibilities. However, we will do all that we can to support it in supporting the families of service personnel throughout Scotland who, although they are proud, are also concerned.

I urge the First Minister not to forget those families in the next few weeks as elections loom. I urge him to visit some of the military units and their bases around Scotland and to talk to the families and friends of service personnel to convey our support for their loved ones who are serving in the gulf.

I would be happy to do that and I have approached the Ministry of Defence with a view to making myself available if that would be helpful. However, I am mindful of the position of the services and of families, who might not necessarily want politicians to turn up day after day at barracks or anywhere else. It is important that we take guidance on the matter. When we are invited to talk to the families of service personnel, I will be delighted to take part in that, preferably without publicity.

---

Firefighters' Dispute

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to find a solution to the firefighters' dispute. (S1F-2622)

We are in regular contact with the employers in Scotland. Last night, I spoke with the Deputy Prime Minister following news that the Fire Brigades Union conference had rejected the recommendation of the FBU's executive to accept the employers' latest 16 per cent pay offer. I urge the FBU not only to consult its conference again in three weeks' time, but to ballot its members on the latest pay offer and to call off the threat of any further strikes.

Will the First Minister assure us that he will not copy John Prescott's provocative proposal to introduce draconian, anti-trade union legislation to give him dictatorial powers to impose a settlement? Will he also assure us that he will not stand by and allow Westminster to impose such legislation in Scotland? The Scottish Parliament is responsible for legislating on the fire service within Scotland.

The Deputy First Minister and I have made it clear that there will in this Parliament be no legislation on the matter before dissolution. We have had an absolute assurance from our colleagues in London that during dissolution there will in the United Kingdom Parliament be no legislation that covers Scotland. What happens after that will be a matter for the newly elected Parliament in Scotland to decide. That is the right and proper way of carrying through the democratic process. I hope that that clarifies that matter and that we do not spend the next week or so debating hypothetical situations that are not going to occur in Scotland.

The situation is serious; 19,000 troops are currently on standby throughout the United Kingdom because the FBU will not state that it will not call any further strikes in the course of the next two or three weeks. Even while further consultation is taking place, those troops have to remain on standby. We are in a ridiculous position. A 16 per cent pay rise is on offer for commonsense changes in conditions of service. It is time for the FBU to start living in the real world. We have all sympathised with its claim, but it is being treated very generously and it now needs to respond.

Can I pin the First Minister down a bit further? He said that there would be no legislation before dissolution. Will he confirm that the Scottish Executive ministers will not use the powers that they have during dissolution to nod through Westminster legislation on a wholly devolved matter?

I answered that question in my previous answer.

In the light of the First Minister's answer to Mr Canavan, does the First Minister agree that it is imperative that early action be taken to stop the strikes? The law on the matter is clear. Will he instruct the Lord Advocate today to seek the appropriate interdict in order that the strikes be stopped for the duration of the Iraq conflict?

No, I will not. The Lord Advocate is independent on that matter. He will make his own decisions should he ever wish to take that course of action. The best way to end the dispute—the best way to bring about there being no more strikes in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom—is for the FBU to ballot its members on a recommendation to accept the generous offer. I hope that it does so. If it does, we can bring the whole dispute to an end.

Is the First Minister aware of the apparently unilateral decision that the chief officer of Strathclyde fire service recently took to reduce from five to four the minimum number of permitted riders on first-attendant appliances and to constrain recruitment levels? Does he agree that that action is less than helpful during an industrial dispute?

We cannot have such a dispute going on for months on end, with generous pay offers on the table, and not have managers in the local fire service continuing to manage their service and trying to ensure that it runs as efficiently as possible. Those of us who have been in positions of council responsibility have been in situations in which we had to make difficult decisions at a local level to move services around, change priorities or adapt to changes in society, geography or population in an area. That is exactly what is needed in our fire service. The commonsense changes in conditions of service that are now being proposed would facilitate that work without any threat to the quality of life, quality of conditions, quality of work or pay levels of firefighters in Scotland.