Plenary, 22 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, December 22, 2005

Official Report 546KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2019)

Presiding Officer, I start by wishing you and your family a very merry Christmas and wishing all members of the Parliament a very happy new year.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

As we know, this is the time of year for handing out awards. Does the First Minister agree that the book of the year is "Lucky Jack: Scotland's First Minister"? It tells us that the First Minister feels neglected by the Prime Minister. One of the First Minister's friends said that

"People would be shocked if they knew how little they spoke"

and that Tony Blair

"has absolutely no interest in what we do."

Is that the explanation? Is it because Tony Blair ignores him that he was so desperate to meet the new Conservative party leader this week?

At least David Cameron was in Scotland, which is more than can be said for Alex Salmond. The Prime Minister and his Government do a great job for Scotland and I am happy to support them always.

My next award is speech of the year. Does the First Minister agree that that should go to the Prime Minister for his speech in Scotland, to a Scottish audience, boasting about improvements in the English health service? Does he remember that the Prime Minister also made fun of him in that speech? "Lucky Jack" tells us that the First Minister was "livid" and that he said:

"I would never publicly humiliate a colleague like that … and he would never do it to anyone else".

That may be so, but I suggest to the First Minister that, while he was licking his wounds, one important question was never answered: why are waiting time targets in Scotland still double the length of those in England?

That is not true. I remember that in speeches and in questions at question time Ms Sturgeon challenged our target for ensuring by 31 December 2005 that no in-patient or out-patient in the Scottish health service waited longer than six months to have their guarantee of consultation or treatment met. I hope that she will congratulate us when we achieve that.

Of course, that target will be met only by neatly excluding the 35,000 patients on hidden waiting lists.

I move on to my personal favourite of the awards—empty promise of the year. There was hot competition for that, but again the winner comes straight from the pages of "Lucky Jack". Does the First Minister recall writing to make it clear to the Prime Minister that, unless he agreed to pick up the costs of the G8 summit, the First Minister would attack him in a public statement? As we all know, the Prime Minister did not pick up the tab and Scotland has been left to foot the bill. I give the First Minister one last opportunity to stand up for Scotland and to make that statement.

I have not read the book and I am not sure whether there is any good material in it, but I am sure that Ms Sturgeon could have found something better than that for the final First Minister's question time of the year. We could have chosen all kinds of quotes about the Scottish National Party's performance this year from books, articles and commentators, including those that I quoted in the chamber earlier this month about the absolute incoherence and incompetence of the SNP's economic policies and its disastrous general election and by-elections in September. However, it is Christmas time—we want to concentrate not on the negative, but on the positive things that have happened this year.

For the first time in a generation, we have a growing rather than a declining population. We have waiting time targets of six months for in-patients and out-patients, both of which will be met. We have school results that have improved for yet another year. Ms Sturgeon talks about awards. We have universities that are winning awards the world over and are being cited as among the very best across the globe. Ms Sturgeon fought tooth and nail against the use of antisocial behaviour orders and the new powers that the Parliament passed, but they are making a difference in our communities and are helping people to stand up against the few who create misery.

That is good news about Scotland this year, but the best thing about Scotland this year has been the compassion and generosity that ordinary Scots have shown. It is unfortunate that, occasionally, not all members have shown such compassion and generosity. Ordinary Scots have been compassionate and generous to Africa, as well as following the tsunami last year, the earthquake earlier this year in Pakistan, Kashmir and India and other disasters and problems elsewhere in the world. We are proud that Scots have shown their better side this year.

Scots are indeed fantastic people. However, the First Minister should show a bit more gratitude. There are two full shopping days until Christmas and "Lucky Jack" has never been given as many plugs as I have given it today.

I draw this year's hostilities to a close by wishing the First Minister, the Presiding Officer and everyone else in Scotland a very happy Christmas.

I am sure that Ms Davidson is grateful for the publicity for her book.

I reiterate what I said earlier. I wish the Presiding Officer and Ms Sturgeon a very merry Christmas. However, I hope that Ms Sturgeon cheers up a bit in the new year.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2020)

At the next Cabinet meeting, we will discuss our plans for the new year.

I hope that that discussion will be fruitful. As the First Minister and I know, meetings can be very fruitful.

I turn to more serious matters. I am sure that the First Minister was as horrified as everyone else by the story that appeared in yesterday's press about two 13-year-old girls who were found unconscious in the snow in Aberdeen suffering from acute alcohol intoxication and hypothermia. The police observed that they were lucky not to die. Does he accept that what happened is a shocking symptom of a much wider problem associated with alcohol misuse in Scotland? In Scotland, alcohol-related deaths have risen by 29 per cent since 1999 to more than 2,000 last year and drinking by 13-year-olds has increased by 100 per cent in the past decade. Does he accept, at this time of year in particular, that we all need to promote responsible drinking and to do everything that we can to help to address such a serious social issue?

Absolutely. I thank Miss Goldie for her efforts in arranging meetings this week in the Parliament. I hope that she will attend any such meetings in the future and assure her that reasonable requests for meetings are always accepted by the First Minister.

I turn to the important issue that Annabel Goldie has raised. The Parliament has taken a number of important steps this year to help to tackle what has become an increasing problem in Scotland and elsewhere in the developed world over more than a decade. The action that we have taken this year to curtail binge drinking through passing the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 and our actions in passing the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to give the police and others more powers to deal with such problems in communities are important in themselves, but it is equally important that we continue to stress the role of families and people in the community as well as the importance of instilling personal responsibility in teenagers. It is critical that we not only pass laws in the Parliament, but give a lead on important social issues of the day.

Of course I welcome Miss Goldie's call for a responsible approach to alcohol over the festive season. In particular, I urge everyone to do all that they can to avoid driving after they have been drinking and to ensure that others do not drive after drinking.

I certainly welcome any measures that are introduced to make it harder for teenagers to get hold of alcohol. However, I am concerned about how teenagers such as the two girls in Aberdeen are dealt with. Apart from the desperately worrying nature of the case itself, the apparent response to the potentially tragic incident was deeply troubling. I understand that a letter was sent to the parents of the girls telling them that, if something similar happened again, the girls would be referred for counselling. Accepting that it could happen again implies that there is a clear risk that the two girls could die, as the situation in which they found themselves was critical.

Will the First Minister acknowledge that the type of binge drinking that the girls indulged in—and, according to the statistics, many other 13-year-olds throughout Scotland indulge in—places them at risk? Does he not feel that those girls are exactly the sort of children who should be referred to the children's panel, which would ensure that they were on someone's radar screen and could receive all the help that they need?

The issue is deadly serious and I share Annabel Goldie's concern. I believe strongly that those in authority—with firm guidance from the Parliament and with a clear legal framework—should exercise their judgment in individual cases and take the appropriate action in relation to the lives of young Scots. I am sure that several factors are taken into account in each case. I believe, as I have said on many occasions since becoming First Minister, that the legal framework in this country needs to be tougher on those who break the law and on those who disrupt our communities. It also needs to be tougher on parents who do not exercise their responsibilities properly in giving their youngsters a lead. There is a clear responsibility to be taken in the home as well as in the community. I believe that each case should be dealt with on its merits. I hope that the authorities, when making their decisions, take proper account of the danger that binge drinking poses to the individuals concerned. That is very much part of the risk assessment to which Miss Goldie refers.

There is no disparity between what the First Minister and I believe on the issue: there is a clear desire to make progress. The sad fact is that abuse of alcohol plays a major role in social disorder in Scotland. If we do not nip the problems of alcohol misuse in the bud, we will store up trouble. It would be wrong to comment specifically on the desperate case of the two 13-year-old girls, but my concern is that that case may be the tip of the iceberg. There is a level of invisibility whereby such young people do not feature on anyone's radar screen, which is why I ask the First Minister whether he agrees that children's panels should have a much more prominent role in dealing with the problem of drinking among that age group.

I will certainly ensure that the plans that we are developing for the reform of the children's hearings system take that point into account—if it is appropriate to hold a meeting with the minister on the details, I am sure that one can be arranged. I stress that we in the chamber have a responsibility as legislators to ensure that the legal framework is right and that public authorities carry out their responsibilities properly. We need clarity on the responsibilities of those who run off-licences, pubs and licensed premises and we need to ensure that they exercise those responsibilities. Those in the community who buy drink for young people, those who walk past young people who are drinking and do nothing and those in the home who do not give their youngsters an appropriate lead all have to share responsibility for the problem of underage drinking. Politicians and Government have a real responsibility, but so do individuals. If we are to deal with the problem of alcohol abuse in Scotland, we need more than new laws; we need a new culture of responsibility and respect in our communities.

I will take two and possibly three urgent supplementaries.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the fishing talks that concluded this morning in Brussels. Will he accept that, although everyone welcomes the significant increase in the prawn quota, 2006 will be an extremely difficult year for many of Scotland's fishing communities? Will he explain to our fishing communities and to the chamber why, at a time of record haddock stocks and when Ross Finnie promised no more cuts in quotas, Brussels has given Scotland its lowest ever haddock quota? What steps will the First Minister take to ensure that the damage that was inflicted this morning on Scotland's fishing communities, its catching sector and its fish processors will not lead to further job losses?

I suspect that Richard Lochhead had that question prepared before the negotiations had even begun, given his track record in the area and his inability to recognise the significant achievements in the negotiations this week by Ross Finnie and those who worked with him.

I take this opportunity to lay out in some detail to the Parliament what has been agreed. Our priority was to secure a balanced deal that acknowledged the vulnerability of the cod stock but provided improved economic opportunities for Scotland's fleet. We rejected a proposed 15 per cent cut in days at sea, securing a much improved figure of 3 per cent. That figure could indeed be further reduced to 1.1 per cent with the development of an enhanced scientific observer programme to build on our knowledge of key fish stocks.

Crucially, the programme that we have agreed will encourage other member states to do more to meet conservation targets. It will also help to establish greater equity in effort reduction and to make our industry more sustainable, more profitable and better managed. The final agreement included a clear commitment from the Commission to review the important monkfish allocation in mid-year on the basis of improved scientific assessment.

The 13.2 per cent reduction in the haddock quota reflects the revised scientific assessment and must be considered against earlier proposals for a 41 per cent reduction. We should not forget that we secured a substantial increase in the nephrops quota—to 32 per cent in the North sea and 39 per cent on the west coast. That balanced deal was achieved only through close co-operation with the industry, the regional advisory councils, scientists and other fisheries stakeholders. We look forward to building on that partnership as we look again at the cod recovery plan in preparation for next year's fisheries council.

When Ross Finnie appeared before the Environment and Rural Development Committee on 14 December, I asked him specifically about the Brussels negotiations and whether he was determined not to lose any more days at sea. His answer was:

"In relation to the white-fish fleet, I am absolutely adamant about that."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 14 December 2005; c 2559.]

He said that he was "absolutely adamant", yet just a week later we are witnessing yet another cave-in, with the minister conceding yet another five days. How can our beleaguered fishermen believe anything that they are told by the Executive?

I hope that our beleaguered fishermen do not believe anything that they are told by either the Tories or the nationalists. The absolute deception of both parties—one saying that we should reduce Scotland's influence in the European Union by becoming a separate state, the other saying that we should take Scotland out of the common fisheries policy and not even be part of the negotiations—has to be seen to be believed.

Negotiations are always difficult, but this week's outcome is outstanding in relation to the original proposals. An original proposal was for a 41 per cent cut in the haddock quota, but that is now down to 13.2 per cent. There has been a substantial increase in the nephrops quota and there will be an opportunity in mid-year to do something about the monkfish allocation. In addition, there has been the potential reduction in the cut in days at sea from 15 per cent to 1.1 per cent. That has been a considerable achievement. Just for once, I ask people to stand up in the chamber and say, "Well done, Ross."

Well done, Ross Finnie.

Does the First Minister agree that the increases of 39 per cent for prawns and 13 per cent for herring on the west coast have been secured on sound science and not nationalistic ravings? The increases prove that our strategy since 1997 has been correct. They will allow the Western Isles to make substantial progress once our regional management committee is established next March.

I bet that we never thought that we would hear Alasdair Morrison saying "Well done" to a Liberal Democrat minister, but he has done it and that is very welcome.

Of course the increases are important for both the east coast and the west coast and of course they are based on scientific evidence. That is the crucial point. The scientific evidence matters in negotiations. To dismiss or ignore it would damage the Scottish fishing industry because our position in the negotiations would not be credible. It would be a ridiculous position to take. It would mean further cuts and more drastic measures being taken against the Scottish fishing industry. The nationalists' position would be a disaster for the Scottish fishing industry. It is only by counting on the scientific evidence and by negotiating hard where it really matters that we can make progress. We have done so again.

---

Equal Pay (Local Authorities)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will fund the full implementation of equal pay across Scotland's local authorities. (S2F-2031)

Responsibility for the pay and conditions of local government staff, including compliance with employment legislation such as that on equal pay, rests with local authorities. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform is due to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the new year.

In the spirit of this afternoon's proceedings, on behalf of the Scottish Socialist Party I extend my best wishes to the people of Scotland for a happy Christmas and a prosperous new year, when I hope that some of the prosperity will be shared out more evenly.

COSLA believes that the bill for ensuring that women are finally paid the same as men for doing jobs of equal value may be as much as £500 million. Given that no account was taken of that extra demand when the Executive set funding levels for next year, how does the First Minister suggest that local authorities should meet those obligations? Should they do it through huge council tax increases or by cutting services to the public and sacking workers?

I thank Colin Fox for his best wishes and extend my best wishes to him and his party. I am glad that he did not turn up to the Parliament today in his green outfit, as he might have been mistaken for an elf. It is good to offer best wishes on such occasions.

Equal pay is a serious matter but, ultimately, responsibility for the pay and conditions of local authority staff lies with the authorities. It is important not only that they take that responsibility seriously, but that we discuss with them the financial implications of what they intend to do. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform will do that in the new year.

I, in turn, thank the First Minister for his kind words. The fact that he refused to meet Cindy Sheehan a fortnight ago but agreed to meet David Cameron two or three days ago shows us all where his priorities lie.

Perhaps the First Minister should reflect on the fact that in refusing local authorities funding for equal pay, he is forcing working-class women to seek justice through employment tribunals, for which they will engage one of the many sleek lawyers who represent clients on a no-win, no-fee basis. Is it the case that, as a result of following that dangerous path, the Executive may well end up paying a bill of nearer £700 million than £500 million? In the past year, the First Minister has often accused others of being guilty of empty rhetoric, but is he not guilty of that on this occasion, given that he says that he will support equal pay but will not fund it?

I do not think that I have ever accused the SSP of being guilty of empty rhetoric—it might be more accurate to say that it is guilty of having dangerous policies. We need to consider the content of what the SSP says very closely. For example, we know that it wishes to impose on Scotland a national services tax that would take all decision making away from local authorities and end local democracy as we know it. It is clear that the SSP is suggesting that we should do the same with the conditions of service and the pay of local authority employees. I do not agree with that. Local councils should employ their own staff and negotiate with the trade unions and professional associations, but ultimately we should discuss the financial implications of their actions with them and that is what we will do.

---

Security Measures (Grangemouth)

To ask the First Minister what security measures are in place at Grangemouth petrochemical plant. (S2F-2028)

The site operator, Innovene, liaises closely with Central Scotland police and Government security advisers, who are content that appropriate arrangements are in place.

I recently wrote to all the emergency services to ask whether they are confident about major incident planning. To date the responses have been positive, but local people are still concerned. Will the Executive review the plans that are in place and will the Minister for Justice agree to meet me to discuss them?

When we have a role to play on such matters through the police and other agencies—we do not always have a role to play—we will be happy to continue to monitor the situation. We looked into the recent suggestions that there had been a breach at the site, which proved to be inaccurate. I am sure that the Minister for Justice would be delighted to meet Cathy Peattie to discuss the matter further. If any concerns remain, they can be raised at that meeting.

---

Local Enterprise Companies

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive expects proposals for the reorganisation of local enterprise companies to be announced. (S2F-2022)

I understand from Scottish Enterprise that no date has been set for any announcement, as it is important that adequate consultation has taken place at all levels.

Does the First Minister agree that it is essential for Scottish Enterprise to clarify what it seeks to achieve on city region development before it embarks on reorganisation? Does he also agree that simply to split Scotland up into east and west regions would fly in the face of our attempts to try to get Glasgow and Edinburgh to work together? Finally, does he agree that there must be a fundamental review of whether we should organise on the basis of geography rather than on the basis of the industry clusters that Scottish Enterprise is targeting?

Given the debates over recent years and the importance that we attach to growing the Scottish economy, it is important that we have an efficient and effective enterprise agency in Scotland, that that agency has a clear national focus on the industries that are most likely to lead to growth in the future and that we have efficient operation in our local offices and local enterprise companies. It is also important that any decisions are made following full consultation inside the network, with business and, of course, with Government. That is what we will ensure happens. I note that Mr Neil and others in the Scottish National Party have already been campaigning against what they suspect might be about to happen in future for the local enterprise companies.

Margaret Jamieson has been campaigning against it as well.

Before Mr Neil shouts out too much, I will remind him what the SNP manifesto for the 2003 Scottish elections said about the party's proposed business rate cut. It said:

"The first stage of funding this will come from the resources released by the replacement of local enterprise companies in the Scottish Enterprise area with around half the number of regional offices, and other measures will be taken to fund this change."

He cannot have it both ways. The SNP cannot fight an election and get elected to the Parliament—albeit with depleted numbers—on a manifesto and then, as soon as Scottish Enterprise discusses even adjusting the local enterprise companies or the regional office network, start campaigning against that. The SNP must be more consistent than that if it is ever to be credible or if it ever wants to be treated as a serious party of potential government. Fortunately for us in Scotland, that is unlikely to happen.

Does the First Minister recognise the considerable value that rural enterprise companies add to the local economy of areas such as the one that I represent in the Borders? Will he ensure that the distinctiveness of that effective model in supporting vulnerable economies such as that of the Borders will receive Executive support, so that those companies are not absorbed into larger urban or city-based enterprise companies?

It is important that within the Scottish Enterprise network, and within the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network, too, we have a combination of national focus and local delivery. That is the objective that has been set for the consultation on the potential reorganisation. It is right that consultation takes place, not just with urban Scotland but with rural Scotland, as well as with the enterprise companies and all the other parties that are involved in the process. We want to get the enterprise networks right for the 21st century and for our top priority of growing the Scottish economy. The proposals that are currently under discussion at least merit that discussion and I believe that they will be adjusted in the light of the discussion, which will be a good thing.

How will the First Minister ensure that the review takes account of wider economic development opportunities across Scotland—including in Fife, where former coalfield regions such as Glenrothes and Levenmouth in my constituency are on the periphery of two metropolitan regions—rather than a narrow, city-centric approach, which might ultimately disadvantage Scotland?

A number of issues need to be dealt with as a result of the consultation. We must recognise the absolute importance of the cities of Scotland as the key generators of economic growth and we must recognise the regions surrounding them as the beneficiaries of and the complement to that. At the same time, in addition to the challenges that are faced in parts of rural Scotland, there are issues in places such as Fife about how to ensure that such areas can benefit from growth not only in the cities but in the towns. Getting the right industry focus on potential high-growth areas will be essential. Getting a network operation that supports and enhances that and makes it happen will be a challenge. I hope that, in the new year, we will be able to continue those discussions.

Given that we now seem to have cross-party consensus in favour of efficient government, does the First Minister believe that it is still appropriate for Scottish Enterprise to have 12 individual local companies, each with its own chief executive and board? Surely some slimming down would be a step in the right direction.

I am certain that the network could be even more efficient, although considerable savings have been made in Scottish Enterprise in recent years, all of which have been redirected into the important work that helps us to grow the Scottish economy. Of course, we have now had growth in the Scottish economy for every quarter since the 2003 election. The continuation of that is our number 1 priority in government. However, at the same time, it is important that we make the structure more efficient rather than abolish it, which of course is Murdo Fraser's policy. He has made it clear that

"The only correct Tory conclusion is that Scottish Enterprise should be abolished."

That would be bad for Scotland, although I am afraid that he clearly thinks that it is a good idea.

---

Alcohol-related Health Problems

To ask the First Minister what further action the Scottish Executive is taking to reduce alcohol-related health problems. (S2F-2037)

Ministers are taking wide-ranging action to address alcohol-related health problems by encouraging personal responsibility and ensuring that early and appropriate help is available for those who need support. We are taking tough action to combat the negative impact of alcohol abuse in our communities. As I mentioned earlier, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 will curtail the irresponsible promotions that fuel binge drinking and new powers in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 will help the police and other agencies to deal with alcohol-related crime and disorder. Moreover, we have issued guidance making it clear that national health service staff have the option—it may be especially appropriate at this time of year—of withdrawing treatment from patients who are drunk and violent or abusive.

That is encouraging. Experience with smoking in recent years has shown that, through the efforts of many people, it is possible to move public attitudes and opinions considerably. Will the Executive learn the lessons from that and try to repeat the changes with regard to alcohol, perhaps by focusing on younger people, who may be more open to argument, to persuade them that one can have a good time without getting paralytic and that violence, whether on the street or in the home, is absolutely unacceptable, so that we start changing attitudes towards the misuse of alcohol?

That is a valid point. Campaigns that we have run and are running and our efforts in schools and elsewhere with young people are designed to achieve that goal. We will continue with those efforts in the new year, backed up by a legal framework that, I hope, helps to give a clear signal about what is acceptable and unacceptable in today's Scotland.

As I stressed earlier in answer to Miss Goldie, personal responsibility is fundamental. One of the best things that we can do for young people in Scotland is to give them alternatives to the way of life that Donald Gorrie mentions. That is why we have created the national volunteering programme, project Scotland; it is why we have invested in colleges and universities and in training and employment and made efforts through schools to ensure that young people take on responsibility and make a positive contribution. It is also why we praise all the young people of Scotland who cared so much this year and who contributed to the make poverty history campaign and to Africa and the rest of the world. To ensure that young people have positive attitudes and a contribution to make is probably the best Christmas present that we could give them and their families this year.