Plenary, 20 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, November 20, 2003

Official Report 819KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

Like everyone else, I regret that interruption—and I deplore members of this Parliament applauding people in the public gallery who interrupt the Parliament.

Before we start First Minister's question time, members will want to join me in welcoming to the gallery Lynne Brown from South Africa, who is the Speaker of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament. [Applause.]

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-358)

Will the First Minister also join me in condemning the attack on the British consulate in Istanbul this morning?

Obviously, I condemn any attacks.

I start the afternoon by expressing the collective disappointment of the chamber at last night's football result. However, I also praise the more than 20,000 Scottish football fans who, yet again, have been superb ambassadors for their country. I am sure that, for the team, we would all wish for a repeat performance of Saturday's game at some point in the future.

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss progress on implementing the partnership agreement and our legislative programme.

I associate myself and my party with the remarks that the First Minister has just made.

On three occasions in March 2003, the First Minister told Parliament that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that war was required to remove them. Why did he mislead Parliament?

I do not think that I misled Parliament at that time. I believe that the events that have taken place since March, which is what we should reflect on in all the debates and discussions this month and in the future, have shown that the troops from Scotland and from the rest of the United Kingdom—who have served their country and the rest of the world so well in recent months—are doing a good job. They should have been supported by everybody in the chamber and I hope that, as the months go on, they will be.

The question was about the statements the First Minister made to Parliament about weapons of mass destruction.

On 13 March, the First Minister stated that Iraq

"is not willing to give up its weapons of mass destruction"—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; c 19436.]

On 19 March, the First Minister stated that the United Kingdom stood ready

"to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction"—[Official Report, 19 March 2003; c 19659.]

On 20 March, the First Minister stated that we had to meet

"the clear objective of ensuring that Saddam Hussein no longer has access to weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; c 19799.]

Given all the water that has gone under the bridge and in the light of what the First Minister has just said, it is clear that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the First Minister made those remarks in March. What possible justification can the First Minister have had for making those misleading statements to Parliament earlier this year?

Given the events of recent months, I for one am delighted

"that Saddam Hussein no longer has access to weapons of mass destruction"

because he is no longer in power in Iraq. The international community recognises that and Mr Swinney should recognise it. The most evil dictator in the world has been removed from office, his people are now free and I believe that we have an opportunity—our Scottish soldiers are playing a prime role in achieving this—to rebuild Iraq as a democratic and prosperous country. We should welcome and support that opportunity.

The question is still about the fact that the First Minister stood in front of Parliament and misled it about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Not one weapon of mass destruction has been found. There were warnings at the time that no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

The President of the United States came to London yesterday and delivered a speech about international policy and about Iraq. Not once did he put the words "Iraq" and "weapons of mass destruction" in the same sentence.

Does the First Minister accept that it is time a clear message was sent to President Bush: all of us in this country who have deep reservations about what has gone on in the international community expect control of Iraq to be handed over to the people of Iraq and security in Iraq to be handed over to the United Nations, to ensure that we can deliver the security and peace that the United States has been incapable of delivering in the international community?

Some pretty stupid questions have been asked over the past two years while I have been First Minister, but that one takes the biscuit. If Mr Swinney thinks that the United Nations would have been able to take over the running of Iraq and to build a democratic Parliament with Saddam Hussein still in power, he has a crazy way of looking at the rest of the world.

The British Government has been trying to find the weapons of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland for at least 30 years. We run that country; it is part of our own country. It would be relatively easy for us to find those weapons if it were easy for us to find weapons in Iraq.

Mr Swinney should recognise that in the months since Iraq was liberated, Scottish troops have played a fantastic and superb role at the front line in difficult circumstances: reopening more than 1,500 schools; reopening 70 of Baghdad's 90 sewerage plants; setting up again the power supply in Iraq—it reached a post-war high on 6 October; and, crucially, enabling something that we enjoy, sometimes uncomfortably, in this country—a free press.

Iraq now has a free press: 170 different newspapers are on the streets and satellite dishes are legal and flourishing. The people of Iraq now have a chance to express their opinions. Our Scottish soldiers are helping them to achieve that, which is something we should welcome and be very proud of.

That still leaves the original question: where are the weapons of mass destruction—the First Minister was determined to persuade the Parliament to support a war to rid the world of them—and why did the First Minister mislead the Parliament?

Mr Swinney might not have noticed, but Saddam Hussein has not been found either. Iraq is quite a big place. Perhaps Mr Swinney should at some point visit that country and see where Scottish men and women, who are serving their country, are rebuilding schools, hospitals and roads, turning the water and power supplies back on, protecting the local population and creating a democratically based Iraqi army, the first battalions of which are now on the streets, and a police force with thousands of local officers who, in due course, will enable the country to be run by Iraqis, for Iraq, in the safety of the international community.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-363)

I plan to meet the Prime Minister on at least two occasions before the end of the year. I am sure that we will discuss a number of important issues. In particular, I plan to raise with him the importance of direct routes in and out of Scotland by air. I would be happy to inform him about the success of our route development fund, which this morning announced its first direct route out of Glasgow—a regular flight from Glasgow to Dubai, which will be very good for Scottish tourists and for the Scottish economy.

That is interesting. The First Minister should encourage the route development fund to support a flight from Glasgow to Baghdad and let Mr Swinney go to see what Iraq is really like.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister's friends in the Scottish Labour Party delivered a Scottish solution to his English problem with foundation hospitals. As we know, Westminster retains the ability to legislate on any devolved area it chooses and could therefore establish in Scotland the foundation hospitals that we know Scottish Labour MPs to be keen on. Does the First Minister agree that such apparently English solutions to Scottish problems would be a constitutional outrage and, accordingly, that the idea is equally outrageous the other way round?

I believe that the elected members of a democratic Parliament have a right to vote in democratic votes in that Parliament. It is also right and proper that those who are responsible for the health service in England—the Westminster Parliament and the Whitehall Government—take decisions that are appropriate for that health service and do so in the full knowledge of the running of the service and of its aims and objectives and that, in Scotland, this Parliament and Executive take responsibility for decisions on the Scottish health service. That is the right and proper arrangement, but it is one that Mr McLetchie's party opposed for an awfully long time.

The thing about the new constitutional arrangement and, given the experience of the last 24 hours, the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, is that we accept the logic and reality of the institutions but the Labour Party is bringing them into disrepute. The First Minister would do well to remember that the United Kingdom is a union founded on consent and that, ultimately, that consent depends on equity and being fair to all. Does the First Minister agree that his colleagues' actions play into the hands of nationalists and separatists on both sides of the border and that true unionists would not behave in such a constitutionally cavalier and irresponsible manner?

It is interesting to see—it was clear last night in the shape of Tim Yeo in the House of Commons—that the anti-Scottish bias that ran through the Tory party and Government for 18 years still exists under the leadership of Michael Howard, who was so much a part of it.

I believe that if this Parliament has a right to have a view of the health service that is different from that of our colleagues in Westminster, it is clear that that should also be the case in the Conservative party. I notice that, in spite of the fact that Mr McLetchie's party opposed foundation hospitals in the House of Commons last night, just six months ago in this Parliament, he spoke about the benefits of foundation hospitals and asked why they were being denied to the people of my constituency. He has a right to be different from his colleagues south of the border and we have that right, too.

In the meantime, we will get on with the business of building a health service of which Scotland can be proud, by increasing the number of operations that take place and the number of doctors, nurses and other professional staff and by ensuring that modern techniques deliver patient care as close to the patients as possible. We have set those objectives and that is what we will work for.

In light of this week's lobby by hundreds of multiple sclerosis sufferers, including those from Stirling, will the First Minister outline what action is being taken to improve care for people in Scotland who are suffering from MS?

Members of all parties in the Parliament identified care for MS sufferers as a concern very early on, given the high rate of MS that exists in Scotland. It is important that we do something about that, and we have—broadly, with all-party support. We have increased the number of MS nurses and we have increased the number of neurologists in Scotland by 40 per cent over the past six years. It is clear that much more still needs to be done. Malcolm Chisholm continues to meet those who have an interest in the area, to ensure consistency across Scotland and a decent quality of care.

---

Cabinet Sub-committee on Sustainable Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues were raised at the last meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland. (S2F-371)

The Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland met for the first time on 5 November and discussed a number of issues, including its remit and working arrangements, the appointment of external members and its forward work programme. It was agreed that our principal objective is to embed sustainable development and environmental justice across policies and programmes. A summary of the issues that were discussed at the meeting has been posted on the sustainable Scotland website today.

I thank the First Minister for the commitments that he made in that reply. However, it is just over a year since he and I took part in the United Nations environment summit in Johannesburg. In April 2002, before the First Minister went to Johannesburg, the Executive published a document that included suggestions for ways in which the sustainability of our society could be measured. Although I welcomed those indicators of sustainability at the time, I pointed out that the list of indicators was far from complete. There was no target for the recovery of fish species or for reducing the amount of electricity we consume, for example. Does the Executive intend to complete its list of indicators and targets and does the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland intend to make that task one of its priorities?

Yes. In fact, one of the issues that we addressed at the first meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee was the way in which the Sustainable Development Commission is looking to improve the indicators that are used at a United Kingdom level and its move towards appointing a Scottish vice-chair, to give a specifically Scottish input to its decisions and a better relationship with us. In the light of that movement, the Executive is reviewing progress not only on our indicators, but on the way in which we measure progress in the area as a whole. We will report back to the Parliament on that in the future.

Mr Harper can ask a supplementary, provided that it is brief.

One of the biggest challenges is to reduce our global ecological footprint. Given that, at present, our footprint is about three times its fair share, will the First Minister give a commitment that, when the full set of indicators is finally published, he will include a footprint indicator and a target for reducing Scotland's global footprint?

We have not yet agreed to go down that road. There are several different points of view on the best way to measure progress on sustainable development. We need to take account of those points of view and to ensure that we choose a solution that allows us to make an immediate impact in Scotland and to make progress in the right direction.

Our objective is clear: it is to ensure that sustainable development and environmental justice are at the heart of our policies and programmes and that we measure our progress to ensure that Scotland makes a more significant contribution to a world in which we do less damage to our environment. We must ensure that, in what we use, what we make and the way in which we conduct our business, we perform in a much more sustainable way.

Does the First Minister agree that, if we are to deliver our policies in a more sustainable way, we need joined-up thinking between different bits of the Government? On issues such as tackling pensioner poverty and eradicating fuel poverty, we can see the benefits of doing that. Will the First Minister agree that the real challenge now is to make the policy links between economic prosperity and environmental and social justice? Will he have a look at this week's recommendations on waste management from the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which would let us do precisely that?

I am always keen to look at those committee reports and to study them carefully and respond positively.

We take this issue seriously. I have said on a number of occasions that we need to move away from the old argument, which said that we could have either economic prosperity or environmental protection. In the modern world, I believe that Scotland can benefit from having an environmental concern at the heart of our economic policy. We have the ability and opportunity to develop new industries in renewable energy, waste management and a number of other areas. If we seize those opportunities, we will not only make Scotland a cleaner and healthier country; we will ensure that we are more prosperous as well.

Does the First Minister agree that we cannot have a sustainable Scotland and sustainable communities in the west Highlands of Scotland unless people continue to enjoy access to consultant-led acute hospitals, such as those in Fort William and Oban? Will he urge both local health boards to bring forward proposals that allow those aspirations to be met? Does he agree that the phrase "Lochaber no more" is fine for part of a song by the Proclaimers but should not be a proclamation of the upshot of the Scottish Executive's health policy?

The matter will be addressed by the Minister for Health and Community Care when we receive proposals from the health board.

---

Further Education (Funding)

To ask the First Minister what support is being provided for further education colleges attempting to meet the Scottish Further Education Funding Council's requirements for achieving financial security by July 2006. (S2F-357)

We are continuing to increase, to record levels, our funding of the further education sector. That provides real evidence of our commitment to boosting skills and lifelong learning for all. In each of the next two years, funding will increase in cash terms by over 8 per cent and, by the end of the current spending review period, annual support for further education in Scotland will exceed £0.5 billion for the first time. That level of funding is designed to support both the financial recovery plans of colleges and quality enhancement across the sector for the students concerned.

I very much welcome the increase in funding that the First Minister has outlined, but given the different factors that affect colleges throughout Scotland, does he agree that the July 2006 deadline could risk overstretching colleges such as Coatbridge College that are currently facing financial difficulties? Coatbridge College's recent decision to incorporate the closure of its leisure centre into its recovery plan will affect the health and well-being of students and the wider community. Does the First Minister agree that greater support is needed to ensure that such colleges are not forced to cut valuable services in order to meet the deadline?

It is important that colleges are well managed. It is also important that they recognise their obligations to the wider community. But their primary responsibility is to deliver quality teaching to the students they serve. Those decisions are essentially for college management rather than for politicians, but I hope that in Coatbridge and elsewhere the management will take all the factors into account.

Is financial security and governance part of the remit of the current Executive review of college governance? Will a review of the funding of higher education students in the college sector be included?

The purpose of that review is essentially to look at the governance of the colleges concerned rather than the current financial circumstances. However, I am sure that, in looking at governance, those responsible for the review will want to ensure that the financial arrangements deliver further education in Scotland as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

Given the fact that programmes such as the modern apprenticeship scheme are administered by Scottish Enterprise but delivered by further education colleges, would it make more sense and assist the finances of colleges if the schemes were administered by the colleges themselves? We would thus cut out a tier of bureaucracy and cost.

That is not a ridiculous suggestion and I am sure it deserves debate. It is certainly a lot better than Mr Fraser's previous suggestion, which was to abolish Scottish Enterprise.

---

Fluoridation

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will announce its decision with regard to the fluoridation of water supplies. (S2F-369)

Our consultation document "Towards Better Oral Health in Children" set out the facts around Scotland's poor oral health record and invited views on a range of measures, including water fluoridation. We plan to publish a report on the analysis of that consultation, and our response to it, shortly.

Does the First Minister agree that although fluoridation is presented as one way to tackle Scotland's oral health, the priority should be to ensure that every man, woman and child in Scotland has access to a dentist on a regular basis? What is the Scottish Executive doing to train and retain enough dentists to ensure that that happens throughout Scotland?

Absolutely. I agree entirely with that. Mr McCabe is about to make a statement on the matter in the chamber. I refer the member—Mr McCabe will also do so—to the important commitments that the Executive has made. Not only have we made a commitment to train more dentists and to provide financial incentives to encourage more dentists to practise across Scotland—particularly in rural Scotland—we have, significantly, made a commitment to encourage the population of Scotland to register with a dentist, to ensure that their kids are registered with a dentist and that their kids learn how to brush their teeth.

---

Conference of European Regions with Legislative Power

To ask the First Minister what matters were discussed at the conference of European regions with legislative power on 11 and 12 November 2003. (S2F-366)

The regions with legislative power meet as a network to pursue matters of common interest. In particular, we contribute to the development of constitutional arrangements in Europe and, individually, we add to the status of member states.

I am sure that we all wish the First Minister well in his presidency of Regleg. In his quieter moments, does the First Minister wonder why Ireland, with a population that is less than that of Scotland, is up to the task of leading Europe and why tiny Malta, with a population of less than that of Edinburgh, has a seat at the top tables of Europe when Scotland has to make do with membership of a regional body that has no power and little influence? Is it not time the First Minister raised his ambitions for Scotland and started to argue for our place at the heart of Europe; a place that would allow us to fight our corner and start to defend our vital national interests?

Given her new remit with responsibility for Europe, perhaps Ms Sturgeon should do some reading about the new arrangements. She needs to find out exactly what the new arrangements are.

The reality is that, in the new constitutional arrangements in the European Union, the votes of countries including Ireland, Denmark and others that Ms Sturgeon and others are always happy to quote in the chamber, go from being a third of the equivalent vote of the United Kingdom to being a quarter of the equivalent vote of the United Kingdom. The point is that Scotland has the very big vote of the United Kingdom.

Our membership of these European Union channels means that Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds: we have the power of the United Kingdom's vote, which is increasing in size and influence, and we have the right to make direct representations. That right has been welcomed—[Interruption.] SNP members should wait for the rest of the answer. That right has been welcomed by the acknowledged and experienced European politician, Professor Neil McCormick, the SNP member for Scotland in the European Parliament. I welcome the fact that he has been nominated yet again for the European politician of the year award in next week's Scottish politician of the year awards ceremony.

Professor McCormick has made it absolutely crystal clear that the new draft constitution

"should require European laws to leave as much scope for local decision-making as is consistent with securing the legislative aim".

He has also argued:

"The Treaties should make clear that the Commission has an obligation to consult in relation to forthcoming legislation with all legislative authorities at whatever level within the Union".

He welcomed the new measures, one of which we have for Scotland. If he is gracious enough to do that, Ms Sturgeon should be, too.

Rather than invite the First Minister to speculate on what he might do if constitutional arrangements were different, I ask him to give the chamber an assurance that he will continue to press the European Commission on flexibility in the new EU constitution. Will he argue for a greater voice for the regions, particularly regions such as Scotland?

We are not a region.

SNP members regularly make abusive remarks about our "regional colleagues" in the European Union. They seem to forget that nations such as Salzburg had an independent Parliament long after Scotland did, and that Bavaria had an independent Parliament even later than Salzburg did. Those are nations with histories similar to ours, and they work with us to secure not only the maximum benefit from the involvement of their larger member state in the European Union, but their own involvement as well.

We should be proud to stand side by side with them, but we should also ensure—and this is what is important—that the decisions of the European Union are more relevant for us here in Scotland. That should apply not just in fishing—although that is critically important at this time—but in other areas, particularly in the criminal law. We have our own legal system, and the European Union should recognise that. Getting that diversity inside a Union of 25 member states is very important for Scotland and for this devolved Parliament—and we will continue to fight for it.

The First Minister did not make clear in his response to Christine May whether the proposed European constitution was discussed at his meeting. Can he say whether it was and, if it was, what reservations, if any, were expressed about it?

Yes, of course it was discussed: it was the central item for discussion. The main focus of that discussion was to ensure that we defend the proposed article on subsidiarity—which would guarantee that decisions are made at the right level in Europe and are not unnecessarily centralised—so that it goes through in the final version.

The second focus was to ensure that the way in which the European Commission makes decisions and produces proposals guarantees consultation not just with the 25 member states, but with the recent and ancient regions and nations of the European Union, which are not member states, but deserve to have their say heard as well. Scotland stands with them, and we are certain that we will win the argument to get the European Commission to give us that right to consultation.

That concludes questions to the First Minister. There will be a brief pause prior to the statement from Mr Tom McCabe.