Plenary, 25 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 25, 2004

Official Report 788KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-765)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the immediate future.

On 14 January, Ross Finnie said:

"I am not contemplating any further decommissioning."

This morning, the Downing Street strategy unit recommended a cut of 13 per cent in the size of the fleet, and called for a further 30 per cent of the fleet to go bankrupt by being tied up for four years without any public support. How does the First Minister reconcile Mr Finnie's remarks in January with this morning's devastating report?

Because we have no current plans for further decommissioning and we are not contemplating that.

I do not know which Downing Street strategy unit report the First Minister was reading, but the one that I read this morning has been warmly welcomed by the First Minister's Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The report proposes a minimum 13 per cent cut in the fleet, followed by bankruptcy for a further 30 per cent of the fleet—a total cut of 43 per cent. It is projected that 8,000 jobs will be lost. Two months ago, Ross Finnie said that there would be no more cuts. Will the First Minister stand by Scotland's fishing communities, reject the report and guarantee to the Parliament that there will be no further cuts in the Scottish fishing fleet?

Mr Swinney poses a false choice, because the issue in the North sea is the long-term sustainability and profitability of the fishing industry and the fisheries. The report published today by the independent strategy unit is a report to Government, which we will consider in discussions with the industry and with colleagues in London and Brussels. The report laid out the need to ensure that, given the importance of the fishing industry, we have a sustainable and profitable industry in the long term. The industry might well require to be slightly smaller than it is today, but it would not necessarily require decommissioning to get to that stage. That is why discussions with the industry are required. We must ensure that we in Scotland take some responsibility for the North sea and for fishing, and do not always abdicate from making the hard choices and go for the easy solutions. We must make the hard choices, to ensure that we remain a strong fishing country in the long term.

The First Minister says that he has no plans for decommissioning, then he tells us that the fleet needs to be smaller. He will get there only if he presides over bankruptcy in the fishing fleet, which is exactly what the report proposes. In 2001, 98 boats were lost from the Scottish fishing fleet and, in 2003, a further 67 boats were lost. That amounts to a halving of the Scottish white-fish fleet. The fleet cannot take any more cuts. Today, however, this report—warmly welcomed by Downing Street—proposes further savage cuts in the fishing industry. Is it not time that the First Minister stood up for the Scottish fishing industry and told Downing Street that enough is enough?

Decisions on the report will not be made by Downing Street; if they are about the Scottish industry, they will be made by the Executive. The right decision is to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the industry. The way to achieve a sustainable future for the industry, which is what the Executive wants, is to ensure that, at this very moment, we negotiate a proper deal in Brussels. We should not go around advocating breaking international law, as Mr Swinney did last month, and destroying Scotland's case in the international arena; we should go out there and argue Scotland's case to secure improvements in the implementation of the deal that was reached in December.

This is also about the longer term. First, that means taking more responsibility here, in Scotland, and making the choices that come with that. It means working with the industry on the regional management of the fisheries in the North sea in a way that makes them sustainable in the longer term. Secondly, it means discussing with the industry how it can become more productive and profitable in the longer term.

We cannot invent fish in the sea—we cannot create them by genetic modification. We have to ensure that the fleet is profitable, on the basis of the number of fish in the sea, the size of the fleet and its capacity to ensure that there are markets, at home and abroad, to which it can deliver. If we achieve that, we will have a long term for the fisheries industry in Scotland and we will not have the depletion that we have seen in recent years.

The First Minister will not be surprised to hear that the SNP wants Scotland to have more responsibility for these issues. We make no apology for that and will take no lectures from the First Minister about it.

The First Minister wants the right to negotiate these issues in Europe—so do we. The First Minister supported the UK Government negotiating on behalf of Scotland in December, when it negotiated such an appalling deal for our industry that he is now having to negotiate his way out of it. Will he stop trying to deceive the people of Scotland and start fighting for the fishing industry in our country?

Yes, of course we will fight for the fishing industry. However, we will also work with it to ensure that it has a long-term, sustainable future. We will not do that by advocating the breaking of international law and saying different things from one month to the next that would destroy Scotland's credibility in the international arena. On 23 February, Mr Swinney said:

"We believe in the equality of nations and … we will always uphold international law".

Only one month earlier he said:

"it doesn't strike me as wrong to break the law"

in relation to fishing. He cannot have it both ways.

Our fishing industry needs a long-term, sustainable and profitable future. We have to ensure that there are the stocks in the North sea to underpin that and that we have a fleet that can be profitable. We will do that in conjunction with the industry—yes, inside a common fisheries policy, because the sea crosses borders and we cannot create false fences in the middle of the North sea. Proper regional management, which is advocated by the report that was published this morning, is a major step forward for the industry in Scotland, as it gives the potential for real control over what happens in Scotland in the future.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-773)

The agenda for the next meeting of the Cabinet will be agreed tomorrow. However, I suspect that the report from the Downing Street strategy unit on fisheries may be one of the items that we will discuss.

I strongly suspect that that will be the case, and I welcome that. Perhaps the Cabinet might like to address some of the fundamental issues arising from that. Is it not the case that the regional management scheme that has been proposed by the strategy unit cannot disguise the fact that the European Union will still determine who can fish, where we fish, when we fish, what we fish and how we fish? Is that not the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed?

As the common fisheries policy dictates that all member states must have equal access to a common resource, is it not the case that effective regional management can be achieved only if we scrap the common fisheries policy and regain the ability to determine access to our own waters?

No—it is quite the opposite. That is why the Scottish Fishermen's Federation said today that, with the important exception of the section on the size of the fleet, this is

"a thorough and well-researched report, which is sure to become a standard reference work for some years ahead."

The federation thinks that the report provides

"welcome endorsement of the industry's long-standing complaints … and a new idea in the form of UK Regional Fisheries Managers with considerable devolved responsibilities."

This morning, the industry was big enough and bold enough to take the long-term view and to decide to engage with the debate on the report. Frankly, I think that the Tories and the nationalists in the chamber would do the Scottish fishing industry a great service if they recognised that the industry itself and the seas cross international borders. That is why we have a common fisheries policy. However, that policy should be directed towards the proper regional management of those fisheries in the North sea and elsewhere and towards devolving decision making to those who know best, such as the countries, local regions and local fishing industries that can plan a more responsible and better future.

The First Minister seems to forget that, long before the common fisheries policy, fish swam around in the North sea and elsewhere and crossed borders, but countries managed to regulate access agreements on an historical basis without having them determined centrally by Brussels. The fundamental question is who should determine access and control. In this context, it is nonsense to talk about fish not knowing boundaries. After all, the situation that I have outlined pertained for hundreds of years when we had a viable industry. Is it not the case that if we scrapped the common fisheries policy, control of our fisheries management would be devolved to this Parliament? Is the Scottish fishery not a devolved function? Surely, as far as political control is concerned, that would be a sensible solution, unless the First Minister thinks that he could not do a better job for the Scottish fishing industry than Mr Blair and Mr Bradshaw. Why will the First Minister not take responsibility and advocate a policy that will give him that responsibility?

As I have said before, we do not support the British and Scottish nationalist policy of having a free for all in the North sea. Such a situation would be ridiculous with any common fisheries policy. Furthermore, we feel that it is better to address the matter not through the CFP that we have had for the past 30 years but through a CFP that has proper devolved management responsibility in the North sea and elsewhere. Indeed, the same approach would apply not just inside the United Kingdom but inside Scotland, where authority and management responsibilities are devolved to Shetland, the Western Isles and other fisheries in which people can take more local responsibility over their own lives and ensure that the industry is sustainable and profitable in the long term. That should be our objective. We have finally got the common fisheries policy moving in the right direction.

Today, we received support for our approach from a report that was delivered to No 10. I think that that will mean that the British Government will support such a policy more enthusiastically in future. We intend to carry that forward. We need the politics of the future, not the politics of the past, for Scottish fishing.

Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Executive has a moral and political duty to protect the fishing communities that I represent from the ruinous and rapacious fishing methods that have decimated fishing stocks around other parts of the Scottish coastline? Does he also agree that the best way of protecting such communities is to put conservation-based laws on the statute book and to make regional control of fisheries a reality in the short term?

As I have said, the partnership is committed not only to the regional management of fisheries inside the European policy but to the further devolution of responsibility and engagement with the industry in Scotland. That approach has been successful off the west coast of Scotland and in the Western Isles. I have met members of Mr Morrison's fishing community who have taken responsibility for sustainability, reducing illegal catches and ensuring that stocks are preserved and the industry is profitable. If we can get the model going elsewhere in Scotland, we will be doing very well indeed.

---

Genetically Modified Maize (Commercialisation)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government and the Welsh Assembly about the commercialisation of genetically modified maize. (S2F-780)

Mr Harper will not be surprised to learn that we have had a number of discussions between receipt of the scientific advice and the announcement earlier this month.

The Greens have obtained a preliminary legal opinion that says that the Executive has not, in the words of its partnership agreement, "rigorously" applied "the precautionary principle". In fact, we have identified three separate grounds on which the Executive could have been entitled to refuse to allow GM maize on to the seed list but apparently chose not to.

GM maize is not satisfactory for cultivation on the basis of the precautionary principle and on the ground that no independent advice was sought to ensure the avoidance of adverse effects on human health and the environment. Is it not the case that the First Minister has wide discretion in this matter, that the evidence exists that would allow him to use that discretion and that it was lack of political will that held him back? If that is not the case, can the First Minister tell me why, despite the Liberal Democrats' policy, the partnership Government has not used its full powers to oppose GM? Is it because the First Minister does not want to do so?

The partnership has a united position on the issue. Not only do we accept the precautionary principle, we work carefully with the scientific advice and, of course, we use our position inside the collective decision making of the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments to ensure that decisions are in line with policy. That is exactly what we have done in this case. If I were Mr Harper, I would have been embarrassed to publish this morning my legal advice, which says that its own position is "arguable". Any legal opinion is arguable; the law and the legal system in this country are about arguing different positions. However, that is not the point here.

We cannot just accept scientific advice when everybody might want us to agree with it from a predetermined position. If we get independent scientific advice and there is a legal framework throughout the European Union and inside this country that we should stick to, we must go with that. At the same time, we push inside the United Kingdom, and we are determined here in Scotland, to be as precautionary as possible because, currently, there is no public demand, no public requirement and no public desire for GM crops to be grown in Scotland. That is what we are setting out to try to achieve.

The First Minister mentioned devolved Governments. He will be aware that the National Assembly for Wales minister Carwyn Jones agreed yesterday that he will not allow GM maize to go on to the UK seed list without the authorisation of the National Assembly for Wales. If the Green party motion that is to be voted on at 5 o' clock is agreed to by Parliament, it would allow the Scottish Parliament the same freedom to decide on whether GM maize should go ahead. Will the First Minister allow the Scottish Parliament to have the same freedom on GM maize as the National Assembly for Wales has?

The Scottish Parliament has exactly the same freedom as the National Assembly for Wales to have votes in the chamber. We had one last Thursday and the Executive's position was supported.

---

Scottish Water (Status)

To ask the First Minister whether there is any threat to Scottish Water's public status due to the general agreement on trade in services. (S2F-769)

The negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services are about improving the markets in which a range of goods and services are sold. They pose no threat to Scottish Water's status as a public corporation that is accountable to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament.

I thank the First Minister for his unequivocal reply. A clear majority of people whom the Scottish Consumer Council questioned still want a publicly funded water system. As a result of sustained campaigning, the European Union has already stated that Europe's health, education and broadcasting sectors will not be included in further GATS negotiations. Will the First Minister reassure me that he and the Scottish Executive will consider fully the implications of GATS on public services in Scotland and that he will make strong representations through the United Kingdom formulating process to ensure that we retain democratic accountability for our public services?

We will, of course, continue to have discussions and make representations where they are required to secure the appropriate democratic accountability for Scottish public services and the right choices that we want to make here in Scotland. We have received assurances, again, in relation to the water industry in Scotland and that is why I am able to give Sarah Boyack the categorical assurance that Scottish Water will remain a public corporation that is accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

In relation to the opinion survey that was published this morning, it is clear that people in Scotland wish to have a public water service that is run as a public service. The Conservatives might disagree with that position and I note that a certain percentage in the opinion survey also disagreed with that. However, I do not disagree with that position. I believe that what we need in Scotland is a public water service that is run in the interests of the public, that is as efficient as possible and that continues to drive through efficiencies, but which ultimately provides clean and safe water for people to use.

Given that the Scottish Consumer Council poll showed that nearly a third of Scots—a percentage that is growing—would now support Scottish Water being in private hands and that the privatised water companies in England have delivered 50 times the infrastructure investment that Scottish Water has delivered, as well as lower charges to consumers and higher water quality, why is the First Minister taking such a dogmatic approach by ruling out moving Scottish Water to the private sector?

The great advantage that those private companies in England had back in the early 1990s was that they were no longer run by the Tory Government, so they were able to invest in water infrastructure. It is precisely because we no longer have that Tory Government that we are now able to invest in water infrastructure. That is why we have a massive investment programme in Scotland. Efficiencies are being driven through the service to try to ensure that there is as little impact on consumers as possible. In the longer term, we want to ensure that Scottish water is safe to use and clean and that we have a service that has minimal charges and maximum efficiency.

The First Minister is being robust here in the chamber about keeping Scottish Water in public ownership, but he will be aware that the United Kingdom is asking 74 countries throughout the world to privatise their water systems. What representation from this Parliament will go to those negotiations in Geneva to ensure that Scotland's water will not be affected?

I am not sure that that is a complete portrayal of the UK's position on the matter, which is to increase international aid substantially, to ensure that much of that aid goes towards providing clean water supplies and to ensure that, inside those countries that need clean water supplies, the right infrastructure to deliver that clean water—and the health benefits that come from it—is put in place as efficiently and speedily as possible. As part of that, the UK is pushing for immediate action in countries throughout the world.

---

Barker Review

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to analyse the implications for Scotland of the Barker review's final report on housing supply and implement any necessary action. (S2F-764)

We will be looking carefully at those recommendations that affect devolved responsibilities in parallel with our own review of affordable housing.

The First Minister will be aware of the recent survey that showed that emergent households—mainly the young people whom we so strongly wish to attract and retain—are unable to afford housing in a substantial number of housing markets in Scotland. Indeed, he will know about people queuing up for days to snap up houses in new developments as soon as they go on sale. Does the First Minister accept the Barker analysis that that situation is fundamentally a matter of market failure, that we need better planning guidance and more up-to-date local plans, that we need to identify more land to stabilise house prices and that we need more affordable housing to encourage labour mobility and promote social inclusion?

Question.

It is clearly a question, Presiding Officer.

Briefly, Mr Tosh.

Given that we are at least a year away from the planning bill, will the First Minister take that time to commission a review to analyse those issues for the benefit of Scotland and to ensure that his planning bill will deliver a policy and legal framework that is equal to the task of meeting the demands of young households in Scotland?

I welcome the emerging consensus in the Parliament about the need for affordable housing and I welcome Mr Tosh's support for the review on affordable housing that is already under way, which we hope will report by the summer. Today, Margaret Curran is announcing resources that will be held back to support that review, in addition to the overall 7 per cent increase in the budget for investment in affordable housing throughout Scotland, which includes a 10 per cent increase in the budget for affordable housing projects in the coming year in rural Scotland, where there is a particular problem.

We are investing immediately and, next week, we will announce proposals to improve the planning regime in Scotland. Although we are encouraging further developments and the availability of land throughout Scotland, we also have that review in place. When it reports, we hope that it will produce further recommendations that will ensure the availability of more land and more housing both to rent and to buy, because young families in Scotland have that aspiration and we want to ensure that they can meet it in urban and rural Scotland.

With rising house prices outstripping salaries by four to one, 50,000 people faced with homelessness, 200,000 people on council waiting lists and 250,000 dwellings lost because of the right to buy, will the First Minister accept that there is a housing crisis in Scotland at the affordable end of the market? Given that the Barker review was a review of UK housing, will he address directly the recommendations of that review and wrap them into the current review, which he says that the Scottish Executive is conducting?

I am surprised that the Scottish nationalists want us to implement in Scotland the recommendations of a review that was, in essence, about the English housing market. The purpose of devolution was that we in Scotland could make our own decisions, conduct our own reviews and have the policies that are appropriate for Scotland.

The key difference between the housing markets in England and in Scotland is that, in England, the number of houses being built is outstripped by the demand for those houses whereas, in Scotland, the number of houses being built is greater than the increase in demand. That should not stop us from dealing with the issues of affordable housing because we want to see people moving to Scotland to work and live here.

We know that we have a particular challenge to meet in our rural communities. That is why we are to have our own review and why we will not just accept the findings of a review that is largely about the English housing market. We will also ensure that extra resources are made available. That is why Margaret Curran will announce today a 10 per cent increase in the resources that are to be made available for affordable housing in rural communities. That is a good development and even the nationalists might welcome it.

I welcome whole-heartedly the approach of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive to affordable housing. I want to highlight a situation in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin where an impressive development of 2,500 private houses is to be built. Out of that total, however, not a single house will be in the social rented sector.

I hope that the First Minister will agree that the need for affordable housing is not just a problem for first-time buyers and that we need a supply of social rented housing. In any review of affordable housing, would he consider placing a duty on those responsible for housing strategies and housing development to ensure that a quota of affordable housing and social rented housing is included in any new development that is built in urban and rural Scotland?

Those issues will be addressed in the review and in the consultation on planning that we intend to launch before the Easter recess. In many ways, the issues are being addressed currently in Glasgow with the substantial investment—hundreds of millions of pounds—that will result from the Glasgow housing stock transfer. Glasgow City Council will no longer control people's tenancies; people will control their tenancies themselves through their housing associations.

The process will be assisted by our announcement last Saturday of a co-operative development agency for Scotland. The agency will assist people in Scotland to have more control over their lives. The announcement is one that will meet with dismay on the part of the Trotskyists and the nationalists in the chamber, both of which groups oppose housing stock transfer and do not want the investment of hundreds of millions of pounds to take place in Glasgow. The people of Glasgow want to see that investment and we will deliver it.

Given that tens of thousands of Scottish families are effectively denied access to the housing market because of the astronomical price of housing, is not the figure of 51 council houses, which is the latest figure for the total number of council houses built across Scotland, the clearest possible signal from the First Minister and the Executive that they have given up on affordable social housing in their smart, successful Scotland?

I am sorry, but we have moved on. In Scotland today, there are many young families who can afford to and want to own their own homes and not just rent them. That is a legitimate choice. I know that it is one to which Colin Fox's party is ideologically opposed, but it is a legitimate choice for families to want to make.

Also, and much more important for the future strength of our communities in Scotland, we want those families who choose to rent, or who have to rent because they cannot afford to buy, to have more control over their housing. That is why we no longer build so many houses for councils to rent. People have more control over their homes and their lives through housing associations, which give them more say and more ownership over the houses and streets in which they live. That is an important social development. I realise that Colin Fox's party is opposed to that, but I think that it is far more in line with the socialist principles that the Labour Party adheres to than his policy is.

Will the First Minister ensure that the planning system requires that any large development must include a substantial amount of social housing for sale and for rent as well as the commercially priced houses?

I believe that there are important issues in the planning system in relation to not only the availability of land for housing but the use to which that land is put, the decisions that are made and the approvals that are given in order to guarantee the availability of affordable housing, either to rent or to buy, for local families. The planning consultation that we are about to launch will address that issue in some respects and I am sure that other issues will be addressed in the course of the months ahead.

---

Sustainable Development (Convention of the Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister how the agenda of the convention of the Highlands and Islands on Monday 29 March 2004 in Arran will aid sustainable development. (S2F-763)

The agenda for Monday's meeting of the convention of the Highlands and Islands—which, I am delighted to say, will take place in Arran—includes tourism, European structural funds and transport. Our commitment to sustainable development runs through our plans for improvements to public transport and our policies for structural funds.

Is the First Minister aware of the deeper implications of a recent Highlands and Islands Enterprise survey that shows that the Moray area gains £93 million a year from hosting military bases while the bulk of the Highlands and Islands shares little of that gain but suffers greatly as a result of a Ministry of Defence veto on renewable energy schemes, the loss of amenity from year-round low flying and live bombing and the constant risk of catastrophic environmental damage from nuclear submarine accidents? Will the First Minister order an economic and environmental impact study to establish the wider ramifications of the Ministry of Defence's policies on the economy and environment of the Highlands and Islands and table it for discussion at the autumn meeting of the convention of the Highlands and Islands in Thurso?

I do not think that that would be appropriate for a number of reasons and I suspect that my view might be supported by Ms Cunningham, Mr Swinney, Mrs Ewing and perhaps even by Mr Mather, on the days when he supports certain policies.

We have to recognise that the Ministry of Defence has a considerable investment in communities across Scotland, not just in the north of Scotland, Moray and Tayside. That investment creates jobs and delivers security and peace elsewhere in the world. We should be proud to support that investment.

I recognise that Mr Gibson and many other members of the nationalist party are opposed to that investment and, although I respect that view, I think that it is wrong. For example, more damage is done to renewable energy projects across the Highlands and Islands by certain MSPs from all Opposition parties opportunistically supporting campaigns against developments than is done by the Ministry of Defence.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—