SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Paper Industry
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-11988 by Ms Wendy Alexander on 27 December 2000, what recent discussions it has had with representatives of the Scottish paper industry. (S1O-2848)
I will meet representatives of the paper industry forum on 6 February.
The minister will be aware of the situation at Donside paper mill in my constituency. Does she recognise that the paper industry has long-term needs for investment, skills and equipment to remain competitive? Does she agree that effective co-operation between unions and management at Donside has been essential in efforts to identify a new operator for the mill? Will she make a point of meeting the Graphical, Paper and Media Union? Will she ensure that the local enterprise network continues to support Donside paper mill and the Scottish paper industry as a whole?
I am hopeful that the unions will join us at the meeting with the paper industry forum on 6 February. The unions have co-operated so far in the case of the Donside paper mill. It is encouraging for the future of the paper industry in Scotland that, despite the receivership at Donside, a number of buyers have shown an interest. It is important that Scottish Enterprise Grampian continues to co-operate in ensuring that the skill base that the paper industry requires exists here in Scotland.
The First Minister will confirm that it is not inefficiency that has resulted in the job losses at Tullis Russell or the crisis in the paper industry in Scotland. The paper industry in Scotland is imploding. Profits have dropped by £70 a tonne in the past 18 months because of the exchange rate differential. Does the minister propose to take any action to relieve that situation, or will she sit back and wring her hands in the hope that her colleagues in London—who are trusted with Scotland's economic levers—will somehow make things better?
I am not sure whether the SNP is arguing that it is not in favour of the independent setting of interest rates, which has, of course, been a key factor in bringing about stability, ending boom and bust and ensuring the competitiveness of industry as a whole. The recent weakening of sterling relative to the euro has eased pressure. There is no doubt that Scotland can be a competitive location for the paper industry. The contribution that we can make is to ensure that it is an attractive location for that industry.
Is the minister aware that the paper industry is facing its gravest crisis since Margaret Thatcher was in power, when a paper machine was closing down virtually every week and a paper mill was closing down virtually every month? Although some problems—such as an over-valued currency and the climate change levy—are not the direct responsibility of the Scottish Executive, will the minister consider arranging a summit conference so that representatives of the paper industry and appropriate trade unions can put their case to Scottish Executive ministers and UK Government ministers for an effective action plan? Otherwise, there may be no paper industry left in Scotland.
We intend to have a summit—the paper industry forum on 6 February—and the trade unions are invited. It is true that some of the pressures that the industry faces—such as the price of wood pulp—are outwith the control of the Scottish Executive and, indeed, of the industry, but I repeat that, despite the receivership at Donside, there has been a widespread expression of interest. Companies in the paper industry want to come in, take over the plant, and be involved in a growing paper industry in Scotland. We will give them every support to do so.
Disability Rights Commission (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the Disability Rights Commission. (S1O-2813)
The Executive is working closely with the Disability Rights Commission on a range of issues. My officials and I meet the Disability Rights Commission regularly—most recently, last week.
Is the minister aware of the Disability Rights Commission's concerns about its limited mandate to take forward legal challenges under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that it has suggested proposals to extend its mandate to allow it to take up legal challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998? Does the minister support the proposal to extend the commission's mandate so as to enable it to take up challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998? If so, will she make representations to Margaret Hodge, the minister responsible at Westminster, to ensure that the commission's mandate is extended to protect the human rights of disabled people in Scotland?
The Disability Rights Commission has not raised that matter with me but I am happy to discuss it with it. As Michael Matheson will appreciate, the commission is a UK-wide operation that reports to the Department for Education and Employment. I am sure that the department will give due consideration to the representations that are made directly by the commission.
Young Disabled People
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review the current legislation regarding young people with a disability and in receipt of respite care being classified as looked-after children. (S1O-2835)
The existing legislation provides protection and support for children who receive respite care for continuous periods of more than 24 hours. It offers a comprehensive package of care for that vulnerable group; there are no current proposals to change the legislation.
I am well aware of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which brought that provision into being. Is the minister aware that a large proportion of parents of children who receive respite care are disturbed that children who are looked after outwith the parental home only to help them remain in that home and because of their disability are classed as looked-after children? Those parents feel that that is inappropriate. They would prefer there to be some other way for their children to receive the protection the state provides through that classification and for it to be recognised that their children fall into a different category.
While there are no plans to review that aspect of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, I am aware of the impression given to parents to which Mr Barrie refers. Nicol Stephen and I are looking at ways to change that impression. The measures in the 1995 act and the associated regulations exist to protect the children concerned, but it is important that a wrong impression or one that distresses children is not created, so we are looking at that to see what can be done.
Mobile Telephone Masts
To ask the Scottish Executive what income from rent for the positioning of mobile telephone masts it receives from telecommunications companies. (S1O-2815)
In the financial year 1999-2000 the Scottish Executive received approximately £39,800 from mobile telephone companies for the positioning of masts and aerials. Of that, capitalised one-off payments amounted to £34,500.
I take it that as those masts are on public buildings that is why, in the draft consultation on national planning guidelines, only new installations of telecommunications apparatus on buildings will be subject to full planning control. That goes against recommendation 1 of the Transport and Environment Committee report:
It cannot be taken that the masts are on buildings; they are on land and, as such, subject to the proposals that we are putting forward. Fiona McLeod's thesis is, once again, completely and utterly wrong.
Mr Galbraith is in his usual charm-free mood. He states that some of the masts are not on buildings, but on land. Of course they are—there are even plans to raise such gigantic masts in the east end of Glasgow. Will the minister accept that many people in Scotland are alarmed by the presence of gigantic mobile phone masts? We know that the chancellor is making billions from them. Out of the money from the masts made by the Scottish Executive, will the minister commission public health inquiries to find out what degree of harm is, or is not, being done to the public?
I know that the SNP is keen to spend money on everything, but it seems particularly ridiculous for me to spend money on the matter, because Professor Stewart has already brought out a report that concluded that the masts are not a public health hazard. Why the nationalists want to revisit the subject day after day beats me—it is probably because they have nothing else to talk about.
Timber Transportation
To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Minister for Rural Development has had with the Minister for Transport about the extraction and transportation of timber in areas where transportation by sea or rail is not practical. (S1O-2828)
As the minister with particular responsibility for forestry, I have had several discussions with the Minister for Transport and her officials on the vital importance of good road networks in rural areas. As members will agree, those roads serve a wide variety of industries, which include forestry, agriculture and tourism. They are essential for carrying timber where transport by sea or rail is not practical.
I thank the minister for that reply and for meeting me and Alex Fergusson in Dumfries and Galloway, where she was able to form an appreciation of the scale of timber extraction in the area. Is the minister aware that Dumfries and Galloway Council is about to impose certain restrictions on roads and bridges for reasons that it believes are necessary to maintain the integrity of those roads? The restrictions will inevitably obstruct the free flow not only of timber traffic, but other traffic. What advice does she offer the council to address the problem of roads that cannot cope with the current timber traffic?
As David Mundell is no doubt aware, last year, the Minister for Transport announced an extra £70 million over the next three years to tackle the backlog of repairs to local roads and bridges. Furthermore, as Mr Mundell will be aware, last Friday, the Dumfries and Galloway local timber transport group met and discussed several issues. We welcome the work that Dumfries and Galloway Council is doing on testing the strength of roads. I am aware of the need to consider the strength of roads and how we extract timber from forestry in sensitive areas. We will continue to support the work of the local timber transport groups.
Given that the Executive has turned its back on the recommendation of the Borders rail feasibility study for a further study into transporting timber from Kielder by rail and that the report states that
That is clearly not my responsibility as Deputy Minister for Rural Development; it is a matter for Sarah Boyack. However, we take the issue of timber transport very seriously. Sarah Boyack recently announced £4.4 million support to Associated British Ports to ship timber from the Kintyre peninsula to the Ayrshire coast. She also announced recently a £0.7 million award to Iggesund Paperboard to help ship timber from Lochaline. We are also considering promising railheads for development, for example in Dalmally, Rannoch in Argyll and Lockerbie and Beattock in Dumfriesshire. We are aware of the problems of timber transport and we will continue to have discussions about them.
I call Dr Elaine Murray.
The minister has already answered my question.
Question 6 has been withdrawn.
Police (Race Relations)
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it plans to take as a result of the recent report "Without Prejudice? A Thematic Inspection of Police Race Relations in Scotland". (S1O-2842)
The recommendations of the report are primarily directed towards chief constables. The report provides an important new contribution to the work of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group, which is chaired by the Deputy First Minister.
Is the minister aware that organisations representing black and minority ethnic communities have consistently raised concerns that there remains a huge gulf between the good words in official documents and the real outcomes and treatment in minority communities? Can he advise the Parliament what monitoring will take place to ensure that the good intentions of the police are translated into a new confidence among our minority communities in their treatment by the authorities?
It is clear that policies must be turned into real and practical improvements. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group is already working on many of the report's recommendations, including the development of comprehensive performance indicators for the police in relation to racist incidents. The key judgment on progress will come in 2002, when the inspectorate will formally follow up the report with a further inspection to ensure that progress has been real.
The minister will, no doubt, agree that the adoption of the report will have considerable training implications. Has he had a chance to examine the cost and resource implications of that? If so, what will he do about it?
I agree that the report expresses concerns about the lack of progress on national training. The Lawrence steering group has in the past expressed similar concerns. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has now prepared its national equal opportunities training strategy and the next stage is for ACPOS to produce an action plan detailing how to turn that strategy into a reality. We look forward to examining those proposals.
Questions 8 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Adoption
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will review the legislation, both primary and secondary, governing the adoption of babies purchased outwith Scotland. (S1O-2847)
Yes. We will make it an offence to bring a child into Scotland unless prospective adopters have complied fully with the requirements that are prescribed in regulations. We will consult on the draft regulations shortly.
I welcome the minister's commitment. I am sure that he and everyone else in the chamber has been concerned to read recent press coverage of the scandal that is unfolding in England. Can the minister ensure that in whatever he and the Executive do, the welfare of children will be paramount and the issue will be handled with sensitivity? Notwithstanding the fact that there will be consultation, can he assure us that action will be speedy?
Yes. We will consult on the new regulations shortly. We have to do that in conjunction with our colleagues in England and Wales, because it is important that standards are set throughout the United Kingdom. We will also consult soon on national standards for adoption within the UK. Nicol Stephen and I are reviewing those and other matters, and we will make an announcement soon.
I welcome the minister's announcement of the review and urgent legislation. Will he confirm that such a review, and the legislation, will tackle internet trading in babies and that that practice will be outlawed in Scotland?
First, internet trading, in common with any other trading, for babies or prospective adopted children is illegal and will remain so. John Hutton, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, is addressing the difficult matters relating to the internet. We are in consultation with him. The regulations that we need to bring into force will implement the Protection of Children Act 1999 rather than be a new act of Parliament, but they will be important regulations and developing consistency north and south of the border will ensure that, across the UK, we prevent this matter from happening again, if that is possible.
Can the minister give an absolute assurance that—using the terminology of the question—no baby will be "purchased" in Scotland? I am concerned by the use of the word "purchase". No loophole should be left for that.
Giving absolute assurances can be a dangerous business. If anybody in Scotland purchased, either in this country or elsewhere, a baby for adoption or for any other purpose, they would be breaking the law and action would be taken by the legal authorities as appropriate.
Minister for Health and Community Care (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Executive when the Minister for Health and Community Care last met representatives of Argyll and Clyde Health Board and what issues were discussed. (S1O-2814)
My colleagues and I regularly meet representatives of all health boards and national health service trusts, including those in Argyll and Clyde. On 14 December I discussed the Scottish health plan "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change" with representatives from all health boards in Scotland.
Babies—not a matter with which I am intimately familiar, minister, but none the less an important component of our society—were, I had hoped, going to feature in the minister's answer, because the minister should be aware that the maternity facility in Inverclyde royal hospital is threatened with closure because of a review that is being undertaken by Argyll and Clyde Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.
Annabel Goldie referred to the importance of babies, and I share her view. I confess to having intimate knowledge of that matter. I hope that none of us will go any further into intimate knowledge that we may have. I will stop at that point on that subject.
Does the minister agree that the concerns and tensions in the Argyll and Clyde Health Board area about the provision of maternity services in Paisley and Greenock and at the Vale of Leven hospital, and the continuing suggestions of threat to the services in Vale of Leven and Greenock, provide us with a solution? Argyll and Clyde Health Board cannot serve the people of the area correctly, because it covers an area that makes no sense geographically. The infrastructure to take people from the Dumbarton end, the Vale of Leven end or the Argyll section of Argyll and Clyde Health Board to maternity services in Paisley or Greenock is inadequate. Ministers need to consider creating separate health boards north and south of the River Clyde.
It is interesting that Lloyd Quinan refers to the concerns and tensions that exist on such sensitive issues. He is right. They present both a challenge and a responsibility for politicians, to ensure that we address such issues helpfully and allay rather than feed concerns when possible. When major changes are taking place to review and improve health facilities, it worries me that we often hear phrases such as "threats of closure" rather than comments about the bigger picture of the service changes and improvements.
Is the minister confident that the trusts that represent the area are working effectively to deliver a service that suits those who expect to use it? I have grave doubts about that, as Glasgow acute trust and Argyll and Clyde Health Board propose to base maternity services only four miles apart, with nothing thereafter between Paisley and Crosshouse hospital in Kilmarnock.
To be candid with the chamber, I think that the effectiveness of local health boards and trusts in taking matters forward is varied. Every part of the NHS is working hard to get better at consulting effectively on such issues. The Executive has made it clear that we expect far more effective discussion and decision making to take place locally.
Caledonian MacBrayne (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of Caledonian MacBrayne and what issues were discussed. (S1O-2849)
The Scottish Executive has regular meetings and frequent exchanges with Caledonian MacBrayne on a wide range of issues relating to its delivery of lifeline services.
I thank the minister for her very specific answer.
Let me be clear about why we have announced our proposals to the Commission this week. It has taken some time to analyse the feedback we got during the summer. There was an almost universal view that we needed to ensure that we retained the integrity of CalMac services. We had been told by the Commission that it did not see how we could meet the competition rules without splitting the services up into separate bundles. I have been clear from day one that we would be totally opposed to cherry-picking or splitting off the routes from CalMac.
I am glad that the minister is promoting single bids for the entirety of the CalMac network. That is universally welcomed by anybody who has the west Highlands at heart. How can back-bench MSPs, MEPs and councillors help to convince the EC of the rightness of that decision? Will the minister ensure that the specification in the bid ensures that the vessels are operated to the highest standards, by crew who are familiar with west Highland waters? Will she consider writing into the contract the requirement for partnership working between crew and company?
Maureen Macmillan's point is interesting and important. Over the past few months, a series of different organisations representing communities, trade unions and councils have engaged with Brussels and worked with the Executive to propose a coherent case to the Commission. As a result of that, we have seen evidence of more flexibility in the Commission. I am keen for that process to continue. If back-bench MSPs and MEPs are happy to work with us on that, I would be happy to work with them. In fact, I had a videoconference with an all-party delegation of MEPs in Brussels this week. It was extremely useful for getting the message across and I received positive feedback from the MEPs.
Given how critical it is to make a coherent case in Brussels, will the minister take this up with the Commission when she is out there?
I am going out there as soon as I can find a space in my diary. George Lyon will know that a number of other meetings, in which he was involved, took up my time yesterday, but I was able to speak to people in a videoconference. I intend to follow that up with MEPs and with the Commission directly. It is important to get our case across coherently and I am happy to work with people over the next few weeks and months to ensure that we do precisely that.
Scottish Berry Project
To ask the Scottish Executive how and when it plans to take forward a cross-sectoral project that reflects the aims of the Scottish berry project. (S1O-2817)
Scottish ministers have offered to consider funding a pilot project and we await a submission from the Scottish berry group. It is my understanding that the group intends to submit a proposal by the end of the month.
I suggest that the only thing that the proposed pilot project in Govan has in common with the Tayside-led consortium is the name. I remind the minister that a business plan for the project was first submitted in 1998. How much more time does he need to consider it? Time is something that we just do not have.
In May last year, I clearly indicated to the Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Association—try saying that quickly—that I was very much behind the project. I deeply regret the fact that negotiations between the berry project organisers and the association broke down. In recent months, we have decided to try again and get more parties to agree. Indeed, John Swinney has been in correspondence with me on the subject. The Govan project has come forward from the association and the Scottish berry group itself has promoted the project. I do not think that it is for me to dictate to the berry group what that pilot project should be.
Roads (Signposting)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review the criteria for the installation of tourist signposting on trunk roads. (S1O-2853)
The Scottish Executive has no plans to review the criteria for the installation of tourist signposting on trunk roads.
Does the minister accept that there are often conflicts between tourist signing policy on trunk roads and signing policy on local authority roads, as was recently seen on the A68 near Jedburgh and the A7 south-west of Hawick? Does she accept that that is another reason to consider detrunking some routes with ring-fenced resources?
I certainly do not want to get into a debate in the chamber about detrunking routes. The subject would be of huge interest and a lot of people could be alarmed at the prospect. The process was reviewed in 1998, which is quite a recent review of our approach to trunk road signing policy. The consultation process for that review involved the Scottish Tourist Board, the area tourist boards, local enterprise companies, planning authorities, local road and traffic authorities, tourist attraction operators and Scottish Natural Heritage. A wide range of people were involved in that process quite a short time ago. I am keen to examine the operation of the policy and to see that it is effective, but it is a bit early now to begin to review the policy.
Is the minister aware of the tremendous efforts that are being made to provide tourist attractions of the highest quality in Angus, Dundee and the adjacent areas of Perthshire? In view of those efforts, can she tell us why there is no signposting whatsoever on the Friarton bridge to direct tourists and travellers to the Angus coastal tourist route and to Dundee? Will she rectify the situation?
I ask members to keep the background noise down and to show some respect for the people who are speaking.
It is our general policy not to have a proliferation of signs in any given place, which would have implications for safety on our trunk roads and motorways. I am happy to write to Mr Welsh about the issue that he has raised. It seems to me to be a local issue, and I would prefer to give him a proper detailed answer in writing.
If the minister sees a signpost on the trunk roads showing her a way out, will she please take it?
I do not think that that is particularly relevant.
Transport (Aberdeen)
I am tempted to repeat the previous question.
This is primarily a matter for Aberdeen City Council, which has now agreed remedial measures with Cala Homes Ltd to reopen the Grandholm bridge. For our part, the Executive has been pressing ahead urgently with planned traffic improvements on the A90, including the extra slipway on the southbound carriageway, to improve access to the Bridge of Don park and ride.
I must again ask members to keep the background noise down. Members at the back are having difficulty hearing what is being said.
I appeal to the minister to stop passing the buck. Will she explain why she was able last week to announce a £245 million package for the northern extension of the M74 but unable to offer anything to address the current transport difficulties in Aberdeen? I suggest that the minister joins the First Minister on his visit to Aberdeen a week tomorrow to experience at first hand the gridlock, which causes so much misery for so many families and people who are just trying to drop the kids off at school or to get to work each day. Will the minister undertake to participate in the near future in a public meeting with the council to discuss her transport policies? Given that 2,500 people turned out at the public meeting two weeks ago, I can guarantee her a huge audience.
It is important to acknowledge that we are already working with Aberdeen City Council. The member will know the route of the A90 and will know just how critical congestion in Aberdeen is. We are concerned, which is why Executive officials were in Aberdeen last week, talking to the city council and seeing how we can work in partnership to ensure that we do not get gridlock. There are particular difficulties in Aberdeen—I am sure that Richard Lochhead is well aware of them. The massive turnout at the meeting in Aberdeen demonstrates the extent to which there is frustration about congestion. I reassure the member that, through our allocation of £70 million to local authorities for their roads and bridges, we are showing that we are concerned that local authorities should be able to invest in their transport infrastructure. The work that we are doing in partnership with local authorities will be critical in ensuring that the work that we do on the A90 is in tune with the local transport strategy for Aberdeen.
I look forward to welcoming my friend the minister to Aberdeen in the near future, where she will no doubt continue discussions with partners in the north-east Scotland economic development partnership on how the current plan for a modern transport system for Aberdeen and the north-east can be implemented. Does she agree that, although the SNP has promised everyone across Scotland millions of pounds of transport investment while declining to prioritise anything, the real way forward is through the Scottish Executive and local partners working together to identify transport priorities and agreeing how to fund them?
I could not agree more with the member. Our plans are costed; they are programmed and are capable of being implemented. I met the north-east Scotland economic development partnership because I was keen to meet people who are involved in economic development on the ground and in the councils. Their views are critical. I am well aware that they are working up plans for Aberdeen and the north-east and I am keen to meet them again in the near future. I have ensured that our officials are in regular contact with them; indeed, they meet them at every meeting of the partnership to make absolutely sure that the Executive is fully involved in the development of a modern integrated transport network for the north-east of Scotland and for Aberdeen.
The minister mentioned that £70 million was to go to local authorities. How much of that has been earmarked for Aberdeen and how much has Aberdeen City Council asked the Executive for by way of support?
The £70 million that my colleague Angus MacKay announced before Christmas is part of the local authority settlement. It will therefore be distributed to local authorities equitably; it will be up to the local authorities to ensure that they prioritise the greatest needs in their area. The member will know from correspondence that there are a host of pressing issues in his area; I hope that the money will be of great assistance to councils in advancing local bridge and road projects where urgent investment is required.
Previous
Business Motion