Plenary, 22 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 22, 2001

Official Report 718KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

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-941)

With your forbearance, Sir David, I hope that the Parliament will acknowledge the contribution of Sam Galbraith to its work and to Scottish politics. [Applause.] It just remains for us to give Sam, his wife Nicola and his lovely girls our best wishes for the future.

In answer to John Swinney's question, I last met the Prime Minister on 2 March. We have no immediate plans to meet.

I associate the SNP with the First Minister's remarks on Sam Galbraith. Mr Galbraith has given a lot to the Scottish Parliament: he gave us a new word that begins with b and ends in s and sums up an awful lot of what we hear from the Scottish Executive from time to time.

On a more serious note, I reiterate the Opposition's strong support for the steps that the Executive has taken to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland and for the work of the veterinary service and the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, led by Mr Finnie.

The outbreak is undoubtedly a major crisis. There are reports that in Dumfries and Galloway nine out of 10 small businesses may be facing bankruptcy. From experience in my own constituency, where—thankfully—there have been no outbreaks of the disease, I can tell the First Minister that there is an almost inexpressible anguish among those who are affected by the crisis.

Is the First Minister in a position to tell Parliament whether he supports in principle measures to compensate businesses for the losses that they will suffer as a consequence of foot-and-mouth disease?

I would like to associate myself with John Swinney's comments. It is quite clear that foot-and-mouth disease is having a devastating effect in Scotland; people in Dumfries and Galloway are experiencing some of the darkest times in recent memory. The Government is keen to eradicate the disease, provide immediate hardship relief and ensure the long-term recovery of rural areas. It would be fair to say that the Government, both in London and in Edinburgh, is considering all the aspects carefully. I share the concern about tourism, for example. Tourism is a major revenue earner and the industry employs 180,000 people. The impact on tourism is one of the potentially devastating aspects of foot-and-mouth disease.

We are working on every front. Over the next few weeks, we hope to be able to develop consequential compensation. As colleagues are aware, such an initiative has never been implemented in the United Kingdom before. The Prime Minister has given the lead on that; he wants to consider every aspect and implication of foot-and-mouth disease to ensure that the Government in London and Edinburgh is not only listening, but responding.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that the announcements that have been made so far do not meet the growing demands and concerns in rural Scotland, particularly among tourism businesses, agricultural engineers and livestock hauliers, who have nothing do to in the current climate?

I have two suggestions for the First Minister. Will he argue with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an amnesty on national insurance contributions from certain affected businesses in rural areas? Will he lead the Scottish Executive in developing a specific programme of rates relief for certain small businesses in rural Scotland?

On John Swinney's first comment, discussions are taking place about taxes, both in the reserved sense and in terms of the local relief over which we in Scotland have control. On John Swinney's second point, we are looking seriously at rates relief, because certain sizes of business will be disproportionately hit by what is happening. We want to ease that burden.

I know that, due to the urgency and immediacy of the situation, there are real pleas for help in our communities, especially in Dumfries and Galloway. Many suggestions, including those of John Swinney, are being considered seriously. Once we set in train some of the changes that we want to make, consequences will flow from those changes. To reassure John Swinney, the matters he raises are being carefully considered.

I am grateful to the First Minister, but I want to press him further. The day before the first announcement that a foot-and-mouth case had been confirmed in Scotland, Mr Finnie said to Parliament:

"If the situation remains the same for very much longer, naturally I will keep the issue of compensation in mind."—[Official Report, 28 February 2001; Vol 11, c 11.]

That was a month ago. Today, there is real hardship in the rural communities of Scotland and people need to have definitive answers about how they will be saved from bankruptcy. When can people expect the Government to get those considerations out of being in mind, and into action, so that people have practical assistance from the Government to alleviate the enormous crisis in rural Scotland?

I share John Swinney's frustration and sense of urgency on the matter. Wendy Alexander has confirmed that an impact assessment is being carried out. We have had discussions, especially on tourism. It is clear that consequential issues flow from the effect of foot-and-mouth on farming. That will take time, but I can reassure the Parliament today that everything humanly possible is being done. The figure changes rapidly, but the most recent number of cases in Dumfries and Galloway is 62, and we are awaiting the Ministry of Defence's confirmation that the Army will help in the area. There is real immediacy and urgency. We want to pursue those hardship issues, as we are talking about livelihoods and futures. It is not about statistics—it is about real need.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-934)

The Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet on 27 March, when it will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for that. Before I move on, I join him and Mr Swinney in wishing Mr Galbraith a long and happy retirement from front-line politics in Scotland.

I am sure that when the Cabinet does meet, the foot-and-mouth outbreak will be discussed—as Mr Swinney indicated in his earlier discussion with the First Minister. I refer the First Minister to the fact that, earlier this week, the Minister for Rural Development, Mr Finnie, was quoted as saying:

"there can be absolutely no doubt that the level and degree of disruption in rural Scotland has been very extreme indeed."

The First Minister referred earlier to "devastating effects". I also refer the First Minister to a comment by Mr Russell Brown, the Labour MP for Dumfries, who was quoted last week as saying:

"If we are not on top of this in the next fortnight, I would be pressing for a delay in the election."

Bearing in mind those comments, the fact that we do not need to have a general election for another year and the fact that significant parts of the Scottish countryside are currently in grip of a foot-and-mouth crisis, does the First Minister, from his perspective here in Scotland, have a view on the appropriateness of the timing of the election?

In one respect, I am in the fortunate position of having no control over when the general election takes place. That is very much a matter for the Prime Minister.

At the present time, we want to concentrate on the matter at hand: the crisis that John Swinney has alluded to and that David McLetchie has acknowledged. It is important that the Parliament sends a message to Scotland and the rest of the world that Scotland is not quarantined, Scotland is not a no-go area and, if care is taken, Scotland is open for business. We want to have unity of purpose around a message to the rest of the world that we want people to come to our country.

I end on a note that is not trivial or frivolous. The contribution that was made by the leader of the Conservatives in the United Kingdom was utterly remarkable. He suggested that we should cancel or postpone the election in some part of the country. I do not think that the Conservatives are totally unified, but we should be unified on the need to tackle the disease, eradicate it and then tackle its implications.

Of course the First Minister is correct to say that it is a decision for the Prime Minister, but given the high regard that Mr Blair has for the First Minister, I am sure that he would welcome his advice. Mr Hague was referring to the cancellation of local elections in different parts of the country. We do not actually have a general election to cancel, as the First Minister knows. If we had local elections here in Scotland at that time, whether they should be held in Dumfries and Galloway would be a moot question. That is an important consideration.

The First Minister is right to say that there has been an impressive unity in this Parliament on foot-and-mouth, but the public believe that attention to that issue should be the top priority of Government. Does the First Minister think that it would be a pity if that unity was damaged by party interests being put before the interests of the country?

I feel a rich bit of irony circulating around the chamber. David McLetchie is in danger of turning a serious issue into a frivolous one, and I make that point with some caution. We need to concentrate on the issue in hand. We have no control over the timing of the general election. I believe, following my visit to Dumfries and Galloway last week, that what the people there want is a unified Parliament in Edinburgh that is doing everything possible. Of course there may be criticisms, but the people of Dumfries and Galloway want their problems solved and that is our first priority.

There is real concern about the future of all the communities in Dumfries and Galloway. I recommend, if they have not already done so, that party leaders go down there, discuss matters with the local community and find out how serious the situation is. The last thing on the minds of people in that area is doing anything other than tackling the real issues that face them. I hope that David McLetchie will accept that reply in the spirit in which it is intended.

Although it is absolutely right and proper that the First Minister is concerned about the compensation package for farms and the tourism industry, will he take up at his next Cabinet meeting the issue of compensation for miners and other workers who are awaiting compensation packages for asbestosis? There is a growing concern in industrial Scotland that miners and other industrial workers are being forgotten about.

The miners have certainly not been forgotten about. My father and grandfather were miners, so I am apprised of the conditions. There are people in my constituency and in those of other colleagues—[Interruption.] I think that we can do without exchanges on the back benches. A lot of members—[Interruption.]

Let us hear the First Minister.

I have had miners come to my surgery who do not really have the energy to climb steps into a surgery because of the condition they are in. I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the chancellor and I know that there is a real desire to move the compensation package on as quickly as possible. It was the Labour Government that decided that we were going to have compensation, and a substantial amount of money is available. Although that may be a reserved matter, Tommy Sheridan can be assured that this Parliament should again be united in doing most for those who have suffered in a very difficult industry for many years.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I shall take the point of order at the end of question time, so as not to hold up questions.

---

Foot-and-mouth Disease

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in implementing the proposals for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease announced by the Minister for Rural Development on 15 March 2001. (S1F-938)

Disposing of dangerous contacts outwith the infected areas is proceeding well. Planning the major cull in the infected areas of Dumfriesshire and Galloway is proceeding. The cull will begin as soon as those involved in that major logistical exercise are ready to carry it out as quickly, humanely and efficiently as possible.

Nobody would dispute that that is a serious and major logistical exercise, but will the First Minister address a number of issues as a matter of urgency? The first concerns co-ordination between the Scottish Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He will be aware that part of the 3km area in which sheep are to be slaughtered crosses the border. At the moment, there are no plans for the cull to go ahead on the other side of the border. It is frankly ridiculous for sheep to be slaughtered on one side of the border while others are present 100yd away.

Secondly, will the First Minister ensure that farmers who are affected by the crisis receive prompt and accurate information about what is going to happen? Nobody expects to be told the day on which the slaughter will take place on their farm, but they expect to be given an overall framework.

Finally, will the First Minister use his good offices to ensure that the military are brought in to do what they can?

I agree with the points that David Mundell has made.

I am advised that cross-border co-ordination is happening. I was impressed with Dumfries and Galloway Council and the co-ordination of the activities in the bunker—as they call it—which is superb. Morale and confidence are high in a difficult environment and co-ordination is being dealt with effectively. Relationships with MAFF are working well, not only at a strategic level but at a local level.

I also agree with David Mundell on giving information to farmers. An issue that was raised with us when we were down in Dumfries and Galloway was the matter of farmers, in an uncertain and unnerving world, not knowing precisely what was happening from day to day. We have tried to improve the flow of information. I sincerely hope that that will be effective in the very near future.

I said earlier that we expect the Ministry of Defence to announce around lunch time that it has acceded to our request for assistance from the Army to deal with the pre-emptive cull of livestock in the Dumfries area. Discussions with the Army were held in Dumfries yesterday. Army personnel will provide support for the planning, logistics and management of the operation, thereby helping to relieve pressure on the state veterinary service. We are trying to move as quickly as we can on several fronts to satisfy the significant concerns that David Mundell has raised.

Does the First Minister accept that it is important for the cull to go ahead as quickly as possible to provide reassurance to farmers in my constituency whose farms border on Dumfries and Galloway, as they are concerned that the disease be contained within flocks? They are living on a knife edge; it would be appreciated if the cull were to proceed sooner rather than later.

Can the First Minister explain why it has taken 10 days for information to be passed to farmers in infected areas? That is not acceptable. We must speed up the information process so that farmers know exactly what is happening.

Karen Gillon has made two important points.

Tragically for Dumfries and Galloway, that is where the problem is in terms of confirmed cases of the disease, but the cull extends to sheep that are masking the disease and are in danger of spreading it. That is why there have been culls north of the industrial belt.

We are aware that information is crucial; we are ensuring that the information process is working. I say to the farmers, who I hope will be listening to this, that we are endeavouring to ensure that the burden that they are currently experiencing is eased as much as possible by the work of the Parliament and the Executive.

---

Fisheries (Discards)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's current position is in relation to the volume of juvenile haddock being discarded at sea. (S1F-946)

We are monitoring the position very closely. There have been isolated reports of high discard levels but not significantly above those experienced prior to the commencement of the cod recovery plan. We have also had reports from skippers that discards are in the region of 20 to 30 per cent. That is much lower than anticipated. Sea trials of the fishing gear adjustments proposed by the Executive are showing a marked reduction in discards with little loss of marketable fish. I again appeal to all fishermen to introduce those measures immediately.

Is the First Minister aware that on Tuesday his Government welcomed the publication of a European Commission green paper on fisheries policy which on page 32 calls for a substantial increase in funding for temporary lay-up schemes? Given that some skippers in some areas are experiencing 90 per cent discards of young haddock, even employing the new technical measures; given that a minimum of 2 million small haddock have been discarded dead into the sea since their boats were forced back to sea; and given that the First Minister said last week that there was a "window of opportunity" on this matter, will he say whether that window includes a reconsideration of the policy advocated in the European Commission green paper, which his Government welcomed on Tuesday?

The Government's approach does not involve a reconsideration of the tie-up scheme. However, the Parliament has agreed to provide the fishermen with a window of opportunity to consider the £27 million package and to decide whether, with some flexibility, some of the fishermen's concerns can be dealt with effectively.

There are conflicting stories about the extent of discards. It would help a lot if Alex Salmond, the SNP and every member of the Parliament asked the fishermen to implement the technical conservation measures that are available immediately and will continue to be available until we work out some of the wider concerns with the £1 million that will be spent on technical considerations. It is important for the fishing fleet to acknowledge—as some of the fleet has—that the way forward is to implement those measures.

Does the First Minister agree that it is essential for all parties to urge the fishing industry to implement the technical measures? Given that there have been conflicting reports about the continued use of fishing bags and that some fishermen are still not using square mesh nets properly, the fishing industry needs to get the message about using the technical measures effectively.

I agree. It is a pity to say what I have to say now, but the SNP has to take the politics out of the fishing issue. We could have unity of purpose, but one party in Scotland needs to decide not to conceive of this as a party political issue. The SNP might think that it is doing the fishermen a service; in fact, it is doing them a huge disservice.

Does the First Minister accept that, by rebalancing and repackaging the overall amount of money, we could usefully fund the trialling of selective gear? Will he undertake to consider using the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland, which has considerable expertise in this scientific area and is quite prepared to get on with this work? The college needs to have the bureaucratic blocks on this matter lifted as soon as possible for the work to continue.

I assure Tavish Scott that such work needs to be undertaken. We want to work with scientific research bodies and the fishermen to ensure that we can proceed with the matters in question. With the current negotiations, the package will be rebalanced in the way that Tavish Scott mentioned. We will see what happens in those negotiations; and it is in the long term interests of the fishermen to do the same.

That concludes question time.