Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2438)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.
On Monday this week, the Deputy First Minister said categorically:
First, and as I have said before, we will not agree to or even consider any new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the issue of nuclear waste is properly resolved. That is a very important issue indeed. Secondly, there are currently no applications for new nuclear power stations in Scotland, so the question does not arise.
So the First Minister remains firmly perched on that fence. I remind him that the final recommendations on nuclear waste management were published by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management two months ago. Last year, the First Minister said:
I have said it before and I will say it again—consistency is a virtue that the Scottish National Party could learn—that I do not suspect that new nuclear power stations will be required in Scotland. However, I am not prepared to rule that out forever, because we do not know the balance that will be achieved through the investment that we are making in renewables and other sources; we also do not know the impact of international events on the energy that is sourced from elsewhere in the world for Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is utterly irresponsible of the SNP to regard Scotland as an isolated place that is in no way connected to events elsewhere in the world.
I do not even understand the question, let alone know what the answer is. The SNP is clear that, because there is no solution to nuclear waste, we think that there should be no nuclear power stations. That is pretty clear. I do not know why the First Minister cannot understand it.
Ms Sturgeon should practise what she preaches. Let us get a clear answer to a clear question. The reality is that even if there are no new nuclear power stations in Scotland and the SNP manages to close those that currently exist, there is and will be nuclear waste in Scotland and in the UK. If that nuclear waste is disposed of in the north-west of England, would Ms Sturgeon's plans for an independent Scotland mean that the waste produced here in Scotland would have to be returned to Scotland—yes or no?
No. Of course they would not mean that. That is absolutely ridiculous. I am saying that if one does not have a solution to nuclear waste, it is totally irresponsible to suggest that we create even more nuclear waste. That is the question that the First Minister cannot answer. Is it not the case that what we have here is the First Minister yet again sitting on the fence, scared to jump one way or the other? On the one hand, he has Labour back benchers who agree with me that nuclear is not the way forward, but, on the other hand, he has Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pushing nuclear at every single opportunity. Instead of having the courage to say what his view is, the First Minister cowers in the corner as usual, saying nothing at all. Is it not about time that we in Scotland had a leader with the courage to lead?
I am interested in Ms Sturgeon's answer. Somehow along the way either the nuclear waste is going to evaporate and disappear, which I think most of us know is never going to be the case, or the new independent Scotland's neighbours in England are going to agree voluntarily to keep all our nuclear waste forever, so none of Scotland's waste will be disposed of in Scotland. Ms Sturgeon has to answer the questions about the number 1 policy of the SNP. We know what the SNP stands for: it stands for independence. In an independent Scotland, we would need to dispose of our own nuclear waste. If Ms Sturgeon wants the policy of this country to be "Let's have it back", she should be honest about that.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2439)
I expect to meet the Prime Minister next week in Manchester. I have no idea what we might discuss, but I am sure that our discussions will, as ever, be friendly and fruitful.
The First Minister will be aware of the Health Committee's report on free personal care, which was debated in the Parliament yesterday. The committee highlighted major problems and reaffirmed the sad fact that the majority of councils in Scotland still operate waiting lists for free personal care. He promised the Parliament in June that he would sort that out. He referred to "clear procedures". What are they and what has happened?
As I outlined at the time, the initial stage of those clear procedures is for ministers to meet the authorities that require scrutiny and in which action is required. That happened in the case that was highlighted at the time, which I think was Argyll and Bute Council. Discussions are continuing with that authority about the action that it has to take to ensure that it delivers the policy as outlined and meets the absolute rights and requirements of the elderly people who live in that area. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cases.
This is September, and vulnerable older people are stuck on waiting lists for care that they have been promised. They do not give a fig about petty squabbles between the Executive and councils—what matters is what is happening on the ground and, unfortunately, there are fundamental problems with delivering the policy. Does the First Minister accept that if the policy is to be fully delivered, more money will have to be made available? Does he agree that caring for those frail people would be a better use of resources than bailing out Scottish Enterprise or trying to relocate quangos and agencies around the country at enormous expense?
I hope that people who live in Tiree, Dundee, Inverness, Ayrshire, Aberdeen, Fife, Benbecula and other parts of Scotland who have benefited from the relocation of jobs will hear loud and clear that Annabel Goldie's rebranded Conservative party does not believe in the relocation of such jobs from Scotland's cities.
Old people in those areas would far prefer to have that care delivered than a relocation of agencies and quangos because the debacle has continued for too long and is absolutely unacceptable. The irony is that what is happening is avoidable.
I do not have that table in front of me, but what Annabel Goldie has said sounds like complete rubbish. The Conservatives spend most of the year criticising us for overspending in the health budget and for spending too much money on the health service in Scotland. We are trying to recover from the many years of underinvestment in the health service under the Conservatives. Our investment continues and is one reason why waiting times in the health service are lower than they have ever been. It is also why we can afford to fund free personal care, which was, of course, not available under the Conservatives.
There is one question from a back bencher this week.
Further to yesterday's successful drugs raid in my constituency as part of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency's operation folklore, what is the Scottish Executive doing to assist the police to ensure that communities are protected from the misery that is created by organised crime?
We are expanding the remit of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency in order to develop a wider serious crime agency, which will have the best facilities and equipment and more officers. It will also have the co-operation of officers in Scotland's police forces, the number of whom is currently higher than the record levels that existed in 2003, at the start of this parliamentary session—the number throughout Scotland has now topped 16,000. Those additional police officers will continue their work with the national agency to make such arrests.
Competitive Advantage
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to give Scottish business a competitive advantage. (S2F-2443)
From the platform of the success and stability of our United Kingdom economy, we in Scotland will build long-term competitive advantage by improving the supply side of the Scottish economy and investing in skills and transport infrastructure through boosting capital budgets for further and higher education by 300 per cent and revenue budgets by 23 per cent; cutting business rates; attracting fresh talent; creating dozens of new international air routes; building new and better roads; buying new trains; and building new railways, including a visionary new rail route between our capital city and its airport.
Given the fiasco over the Executive's plans to help firms that are investing in research and development by cutting business rates, does the First Minister not wish that the Parliament had the full financial powers of a normal parliament, like those of so many of our small, successful neighbours? Does he not wish that he was able to produce policies that would work to give our businesses a competitive advantage?
I said last year that we would consider carefully how we could use the rates system to assist R and D-intensive companies that could benefit from further assistance. We continue to look at that issue. In addition, the figures that were published this week show not only that research and development in Scottish companies is at a far higher level than it used to be because of our investments and the entrepreneurial culture that is developing in Scotland, but that it is now at a higher level than in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is something of which we should be proud, instead of moaning about it as the SNP did again this week.
Does the First Minister accept that it does nothing for the credibility of the Executive to announce with great fanfare a policy such as the cut in business rates for companies that invest in R and D without first checking whether that policy could be implemented? Can he tell us who is to blame for that incompetence? Is it the civil servants or the ministers?
We said last September that we would consider carefully the implementation of such a scheme, and we continue to do that. It is important that we are able to help R and D-intensive companies, and it is because we have made that a priority that we have seen such a dramatic increase in the research and development that is being carried out by Scottish companies. Scotland and Scottish companies are now leading the way for the rest of the United Kingdom, which is good news for Scotland. I am afraid that, whatever rebranding we get from the Tories, their same old policies would not have delivered that.
Youth Crime
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive is doing to tackle youth crime. (S2F-2450)
Over the past three years, youth justice has been transformed in Scotland. We have increased investment in youth justice from £3.5 million in 2000-01 to £63 million this year. The number of offences that are being committed by persistent young offenders has dropped in the past two years. Scotland's secure estate for vulnerable and troubled young people will increase to 125 places by 2007. We have given local agencies the powers to take strong and effective action to reduce antisocial behaviour, including the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s, parenting orders and electronic tagging. We are providing support for localised action and initiatives to divert young people away from crime by investing in education, sports and other initiatives. We have a very good record so far, but our work is far from over and there will be more.
Does the First Minister, like me, welcome the progress of a dispersal order in the Dennistoun area of my constituency? Does he recognise that, despite an unprecedented level of legal remedies and funding being available to police and local authorities, they continue to produce what I refer to as the unacceptable database of excuses as to why they are not able to deliver legal remedies? Will he name and shame those police forces and local authorities and consider imposing financial penalties on them if they are unwilling to use the available funding?
Paul Martin's point is legitimate in certain cases. I stress that the powers that the Parliament has passed provide local authorities and police forces across Scotland with powerful new tools to tackle antisocial behaviour locally. They should be using them—and, in many cases, should be using them more.
Does the First Minister welcome the figures that were published in the summer that show that the number of young people sentenced in Scotland for crimes and offences has fallen by a third over the past 10 years? However, does he also recognise that the majority of victims of youth crime are young people themselves? What support will the Executive give young victims of crime to ensure that, first of all, the entire generation is not stigmatised and, secondly, we do not let down young people who are victims of offences?
I could not agree more. Our investment in facilities, educational opportunities and other initiatives for young people is designed partly to divert those who might get involved in youth crime from that very course and partly to provide incentives and opportunities for the vast majority of young people who are not involved in youth crime and antisocial behaviour. I meet such young people from across Scotland almost every day, and they deserve our encouragement and support.
Is the First Minister aware of correspondence dated 30 June 2006 between Scottish Children's Reporter Administration principal reporter Margaret Cox and Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland spokeswoman Assistant Chief Constable Maureen Brown in which Ms Cox states:
Christine Grahame should read the letter—and, in particular, the passage that she has just quoted—a little bit more carefully. The whole purpose of early intervention and investment in education and youth opportunities in Scotland is to reduce the number of referrals to the youth justice system, which is the substance of the passage on which she has based her criticisms.
Football Banning Orders
To ask the First Minister how the new football banning orders will improve crowd behaviour at the forthcoming old firm game. (S2F-2448)
Football banning orders will have a positive impact on Scottish football as a whole. Abusive behaviour can lead to individuals being banned from matches and from places where fans gather in Scotland, the rest of the United Kingdom and internationally for up to 10 years. I have no doubt that banning orders will act as a deterrent against violent and abusive behaviour.
That is encouraging. Will the First Minister say whether the Executive, the police or the prosecuting authorities could take further action to help the management of the clubs, who are making genuine efforts to deal with the small minority of fans who cause trouble, but have particular difficulty in enforcing better behaviour at away matches?
The member makes a valid point. We have learned—in particular from our action on tackling drug dealers in Scotland, which Charlie Gordon mentioned—that close co-operation among prosecutors, police forces and other agencies involved in Scotland can reap real dividends in ensuring not only that people are identified but that they are quickly tracked through the system, which deters people from reoffending. That will be as important in the context of our football grounds as it is elsewhere.
Genetically Modified Rice
To ask the First Minister what action is being taken in relation to the sale of GM-contaminated rice in Scotland. (S2F-2453)
The United States authorities informed the Food Standards Agency on 21 August about the possible contamination of US long-grain rice with GM material. The Food Standards Agency has made clear to food retailers and food manufacturers that retailers are responsible for ensuring that the food they sell does not contain unauthorised GM material and has commissioned a survey to ensure that batches of affected rice are not entering the food chain.
That is interesting, but contaminated rice is still reaching supermarket shelves in Scotland. When the FSA called for the dye Sudan 1 to be withdrawn, it gave as its reason the fact that the dye is "illegal in foods". The unauthorised GM rice is also illegal in foods under European Union law. Is the First Minister aware that the law is being broken in Scotland? To paraphrase Mr Fraser, is that the fault of civil servants or of ministers?
There might be the odd civil servant or minister working in the supermarket at weekends, but I have my doubts.
There will be next year. [Laughter.]
I appreciate that comment.
Does the First Minister agree with the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection that illegal GM rice should not appear in our supermarkets under any circumstances? If so, as the Food Standards Agency has refused to give instructions, will the First Minister intervene to protect Scottish consumers from that rice, which is on our shelves?
I just said what the Food Standards Agency has done. It has made it clear to retailers and food manufacturers that food retailers are responsible for ensuring that the food that they sell does not contain unauthorised GM material. It is vital that they do that. Government ministers cannot go around taking things off supermarket shelves.
As we started late, I will allow one last question.
I believe that validated testing of imported US rice that might be contaminated has not showed any positive results. However, I note that the European Commission has urged member states to intensify testing of products in the market as soon as possible. Is there scope for Scottish laboratories to be given some of that work?
That might well be a possibility, but I am not certain. However, if it is possible for Scottish laboratories to be commissioned to do additional work as a result of actions taken throughout the European Union, we would welcome that.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time