First Minister's Question Time
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-1001)
I speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly. We have no immediate plans to meet, but I suspect that I may see a great deal more of her over the next few weeks.
The privilege is all the First Minister's.
One of the most important industries in Scotland is tourism, which employs more than 180,000 people. As the First Minister reflects on the catalogue of failures that have been associated with the appointment and non-appointment of the chief executive of visitscotland, is he satisfied that the conduct and performance of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning meets the standards that he expects?
I acknowledge that that question contains a number of questions. First, however, I put on record my absolute confidence in the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. Anyone who was in the chamber yesterday will have seen an excellent job done in enormously difficult circumstances, which is a tribute to the minister. She is talented and hard working. To anyone who wants to take issue with me over that, I suggest that we would serve Scotland better by dealing with what has happened in tourism this week rather than by scapegoating—the worst form of cynicism—which is what the nationalists want to do.
John Swinney asked a serious question about the process whereby we reached where we are. I share the concerns of the Parliament—and of David McLetchie and John Swinney—over where we are. Let us be in no doubt: visitscotland will have to take a long, hard look at what has happened over the past few weeks. It has been asked to do that, and I reassure members that we intend to pursue that to ensure that the process is significantly improved to serve the interests of the 180,000 workers in an industry that generates £2.5 billion in income every year.
If I am not mistaken, that was an attempt to scapegoat visitscotland for the fiasco that has occurred. The deputy minister with responsibility for tourism—who is sitting there with his Hebridean tan—told the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, on 27 March, that on matters of tourism:
"I have no doubt about it—that Wendy Alexander and, ultimately, the First Minister are accountable"—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 27 March 2001; c 1704.]
Is it not true that hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money have been wasted on that failed appointment process? If that had happened in any other organisation, the person who was responsible would have got the sack. Is it not the case that ministers in the Executive are able to evade their responsibility for such situations? If the situation had occurred elsewhere, someone would have lost their job. Is it not time that the First Minister demanded higher standards from his minister and that the minister should be invited to go?
I seek the highest standards of performance from all ministers, whether or not they are in the Cabinet. Aside from the slight concerning his Hebridean tan—about which Mr Morrison will not be too worried; I am sure that he will share it with the people in the Western Isles—let us raise the game for SNP members. Here they are again, calling for the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to go. Not satisfied with that, they stoop lower and go for the deputy minister with responsibility for tourism. Let us be clear about the facts of the matter, rather than engaging in the political role-playing at which SNP members are becoming expert.
The search for a new chief executive was conducted by visitscotland. It withdrew the job offer made to Mr Lynch after he revealed on Monday that he was, effectively, going to be the holder of an airline operating licence for Global Supply Systems Ltd. Visitscotland decided that that executive responsibility was incompatible with the role of its chief executive.
That decision was supported by ministers. The SNP rightly made the point about the holder of the post having two jobs and David McLetchie has rightly made the point about ensuring that we had someone who would address the issues facing the industry. We took the right decision, we made it quickly and we made it in the interests of tourism and the country.
The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning announced the search for a chief executive of visitscotland, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning approved the appointment and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning was at the press conference at which the appointment was paraded to the people of Scotland. However, in the process, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and her officials failed to look at the small print of the man's contract and his details. Is it not the case that members of the Labour Executive are prepared to accept their salary but not the responsibility, which is what people in Scotland expect them to do?
Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly Mr Swinney's final point. I invite the SNP to both raise its game and get a grip of the facts.
Mr Swinney talks about the fine detail. The executive responsibilities that would fall to Mr Lynch as holder of the airline's operating licence were known to us on Monday 23 April. By early evening, decisive action had been taken in relation to the industry and the country.
For the benefit of John Swinney, I will spell out what an airline operating licence entails. Mr Lynch will be ultimately responsible for the safety and operation of two Boeing 747-400 aeroplanes. One cannot turn that sort of responsibility on and off with some non-executive directorship. Nobody would seriously suggest that that responsibility is compatible with the work load and responsibilities that go with being the chief executive of visitscotland.
I invite John Swinney to criticise the Executive but also to raise his game and, like us, to support tourism, its 180,000 workers and the £2.5 billion that it generates for Scotland every year.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-1002)
The Cabinet will next meet on 1 May, when it will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I am sure that the Cabinet will be interested to know why Mr Rod Lynch ended up making a shorter visit to Scotland than Mr Alasdair Morrison made to Italy. As even the Labour party-loving Daily Record pointed out on Tuesday, the Mr Lynch fiasco was further evidence of
"the most astonishing level of incompetence of almost any Government in the democratic world."
That is a wonderful endorsement for Labour's election campaign.
I will leave aside the red herring that is the issue of the airline licence and ask about the nub of the matter. Why is it that the First Minister or the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning was prepared to sanction the appointment of Mr Lynch as a part-time chief executive of visitscotland when they must have known that he had already been appointed as chief executive of an air cargo firm?
I understand that, in politics, facts can be an inconvenience. However, perhaps it would be helpful to David McLetchie if we were to go through some of the facts again.
The first that ministers knew of the executive responsibilities that Mr Lynch would have as the holder of the airline operating licence, which I have explained, was on Monday 23 April. We then investigated the matter, contacted Mr Lynch and made a judgment, because there was never the prospect of anyone taking on the post of chief executive of visitscotland as a part-time job, as David McLetchie suggested. We know that, as with Crawford Beveridge, who was the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, non-executive directorships can mean something. However, Wendy Alexander, Alasdair Morrison and I would be failing in our duty if, after finding out those facts, we proceeded to take on board someone whose job would compete with one of the most important jobs in Scotland, namely, giving tourism a boost and fighting for our country, the 180,000 tourism workers and, of course, £2.5 billion of income.
I am delighted that the First Minister wants to get to the facts, as I want to give him one. Only hours before Mr Lynch was dismissed, visitscotland issued a statement. It reads:
"Rod Lynch has accepted the position of CEO and Chairman of GSS. The visitscotland Board are aware of this appointment and have been for some time."
Who in GSS would one expect to hold an airline licence: the office cleaner or the chief executive officer? Has Mr McLeish ever in his life—and in his experience as Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and as First Minister of Scotland—come across a non-executive chief executive? That is the fundamental question. The fact that Mr Lynch had an executive role was well known to everyone for weeks, and was an integral part of the negotiating process. Frankly, if the First Minister did not know something that visitscotland acknowledges that it had known "for some time", that in itself is incompetent, given the importance attached to the appointment of Mr Lynch. Those are the facts of the matter. Why does not the First Minister acknowledge them instead of trying to scapegoat everybody else and avoid responsibility for the situation?
I think that I have tried not to scapegoat anyone. David McLetchie talks about facts. I say this for the third, fourth, or perhaps fifth time this afternoon: the first that ministers knew of the executive responsibilities that would fall to Mr Lynch, as the holder of the airline's operating licence, was on Monday 23 April. Like David McLetchie, John Swinney and the other members in the chamber, I know that that was not compatible with the requirements of the important job that we had advertised and to which we had appointed him.
David McLetchie may not like the facts, but, in politics, it is often useful to dwell on them. We believe that we have taken the right decision for Scotland and for the tourism industry. The main challenge now is for everyone to work together to ensure that we can move forward, and move forward quickly.
The sad truth of the matter is that more people in Scotland probably now know who Rod Lynch is, than know who John Swinney and David McLetchie are.
Will the First Minister guarantee the chamber that there will be a full investigation as to how this sad event came about and as to how such an appointment could have been made, when the man clearly had a conflict of interest? Most important, could he indicate by when a new chief executive of visitscotland will be in place, in order to support the tourism minister at this vital time?
I share Karen Gillon's disappointment, and that of the Parliament—we have made the points about trying to establish some of the facts. Clearly, this must not happen again. There will be a long, hard look at what has happened, and lessons will have to be learned—and I refer to Mr McLetchie's quote from earlier in the week.
The appointment that now needs to proceed will be the subject of early discussions with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and with the chairman and vice-chairman of visitscotland. The key point—and I think that Karen Gillon respected this—is that we have to move forward. I feel badly let down by the process, as does every member of the Parliament. However, in acknowledging that, there is no point in continuing to talk down the industry and the country. Let us move forward—and I want the support of party leaders for that purpose.
Foot-and-mouth Disease
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests.
To ask the First Minister whether the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the south of Scotland is under control. (S1F-1015)
As my colleague, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, made clear in his statement earlier today, we are making good progress in our continuing efforts to eradicate the disease.
I am sure that the chamber will share the degree of pleasure that I take in the First Minister's confidence, and my fervent hope that that confidence is borne out by events to come.
Given the glimpse of optimism to which the First Minister referred, would he agree to turn his attention, and that of the relevant ministers in his Cabinet, to the urgent need of small businesses throughout Dumfries and Galloway and, increasingly, in the Borders, for access to a survival fund? Such access has often been hinted at, but the idea has never been progressed. Does the First Minister agree that that is the only way to give some of the businesses concerned, particularly those involved in agriculture, a similar glimpse of optimism: that they might be able to survive until the recovery plan, which the First Minister received recently from Dumfries and Galloway Council, kicks in?
I acknowledge the sentiments that have been expressed about the implications of foot-and-mouth disease. I put on record the Parliament's appreciation for the incredible work that is being done by all concerned to tackle the problem, including farmers, the Army, the council and a range of others.
We were very pleased to receive from the representatives of the council and the local community the business plan for a way forward for Dumfries and Galloway. I give a categorical assurance that it is being looked at speedily by Ross Finnie's committee. We hope to make further contact over the next few weeks because we want to provide every possible assistance. I see that Alex Johnstone is shaking his head, but the council has produced a very good plan, involving significant sums of public funds. I have told the convener of the Rural Development Committee on many occasions—he accepts it in good faith—that we want to do what we can.
The brunt of the foot-and-mouth outbreak has been borne in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. It is up to Scotland, the Parliament and the Executive to respond, and we shall.
Is the First Minister willing to meet representatives of the Scottish Borders economic development forum, when the time is right and it has a well worked-out recovery plan to put to him?
I always look forward to a meeting with Drew Tulley and his colleagues. The answer to Ian Jenkins's question is yes: we will extend the opportunity that we afforded to Dumfries and Galloway to the Borders community as soon as it wishes to take advantage of it.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members' interests.
Arising from what the First Minister said, I ask whether the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland will receive temporary assistance in view of the massive loss of income that it has sustained as a result of its voluntary closure to prevent the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland?
Lord James raises an important issue, which affects a number of organisations, facilities and institutions in Scotland. Those matters are being considered by the appropriate departments. In relation to the Royal Zoological Society, we will drop him a letter outlining what is being considered.
Crime
To ask the First Minister what factors have led to the fall in recorded crime. (S1F-1020)
Many different factors influence figures for recorded crime. I nonetheless welcome the 3 per cent reduction in recorded crime last year. "Working together for Scotland" sets out our comprehensive strategy for a Scotland in which people are safer and feel safer. One part of that strategy was an increase in police numbers. As we announced last week, police numbers have reached 15,149—a record level for Scotland.
Does the First Minister agree that for many people in my constituency and throughout Scotland, violent crime and the fear of violent crime are a particular concern? If so, does he welcome the initiative at the end of last year that led to a 44 per cent decrease in the number of murders over a three-month period? Does he also agree that efforts need to be redoubled to ensure that violent crime does not pay? Will he guarantee that steps will be taken to ensure that the justice system supports police efforts?
I am happy to agree with the points that Hugh Henry makes. Despite the fact that there has been a 3 per cent reduction in recorded crime, there are areas that continue to give us cause for concern. The handling of offensive weapons is one, and, of course, the drug menace is still at the heart of every Scottish community. I assure members that, through safer Scotland, we will tackle those problems. I commend the initiative that led to a significant reduction in the number of murders, to which Hugh Henry referred. The matter influences every community. It is a non-partisan issue that should get the support of all members. We must move forward, as there is no place for complacency.
I honour my obligation to congratulate the Minister for Justice, through the First Minister, on police numbers. On balance, given the increased demands, the lead-in time for training, and the expected levels of retirement, can the First Minister give a commitment that he will maintain those police numbers in years to come?
Politics is all about achieving records, and then being asked to achieve more. The increase in police numbers has been done with solid investment by Jim Wallace's department over the past two years. We are investing heavily, not only in police numbers, but in support infrastructure. I would like to think that we will carry on that investment over the next few years. Indeed, the comprehensive spending review allows us to do so over the next three years. There is a massive commitment on the ground to the police—both to police numbers and to the technology and infrastructure that is absolutely essential in the 21st century.
Multiple Sclerosis
To ask the First Minister what proposals the Scottish Executive has to help those affected by multiple sclerosis. (S1F-1008)
The Executive expects health boards to keep the care and services provided for MS sufferers under continuous review, taking into account the Scottish needs assessment programme report that was published in November 2000 and any other appropriate guidance. "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change" commits the Executive and the NHS in Scotland to working with support groups to ensure that the needs of people with chronic, enduring conditions like MS are met.
The First Minister is aware that the SNAP report concluded that services for people with MS are inadequate, fragmented and vary from health board area to health board area.
Malcolm Chisholm, in a letter today to the Multiple Sclerosis Society in Scotland, said:
"MS specialist nurses have enormous potential to improve patients' quality of life".
He went on to say:
"They are probably the quickest way to bring a demonstrable improvement for individual patients".
Therefore, will the First Minister consider submissions from the Multiple Sclerosis Society and encourage health boards to provide specialist MS nurses in every health board area in Scotland?
I think that the Parliament would concur with Tricia Marwick that MS is a serious condition, of which the incidence in Scotland is very alarming indeed.
The Minister for Health and Community Care heard Tricia Marwick's comments. I was quite happy to say to Tricia Marwick during a private discussion prior to question time that there could be further discussion on this matter.
It is vital that issues affecting MS are considered, and the Minister for Health and Community Care is doing that. I am sure that we can fix up some way of considering in more detail the points raised by Tricia Marwick.
I welcome the First Minister's response.
As part of the implementation of "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change", will the First Minister ask his colleagues with responsibility for health and community care to ensure that, as proposed in the plan, high-quality counselling and written information about MS are provided? Sadly, such counselling and information are lacking at present. Will the First Minister ask ministers to establish at least some of the pilots that were recommended in the SNAP report to which he referred?
I am getting approving nods from the Minister for Health and Community Care, who is sitting two seats along from me.
The points raised by Richard Simpson are being dealt with by the Minister for Health and Community Care and by our new plans. I would like to think that we will see some positive progress. While progress is being made, a lot more could be, and will be, done.