Plenary, 28 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, June 28, 2001

Official Report 692KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1186)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister soon.

I thank the First Minister for his answer.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister established a review of United Kingdom energy policy, which is to be chaired by one of the First Minister's confidants, Brian Wilson. Can the First Minister tell me whether the Scottish Executive supports the construction of any more new nuclear power stations in Scotland or an extension to the lifespan of existing stations?

Everyone is aware that a review of energy policy is taking place in the United Kingdom; the Scottish Executive will be very much part of that. It would be premature to discuss the details of what may emerge from the review. Suffice it to say that Scotland's interests will be well taken care of by the involvement of the Scottish Executive.

I thank the First Minister. I am aware that the review is taking place and, from Brian Wilson's remarks, that the remit of the group involves a close working relationship with the devolved Administrations. I want to establish the stance of the Scottish Executive in those discussions.

At the 1997 general election, the Labour party fought on a ticket of there being

"no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations".

That had evaporated by the time of the 2001 election manifesto. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats have just fought an election on a commitment to

"decommission and not replace nuclear power stations as they reach the end of their safe operating lives".

Just for absolute clarity, the Scottish National Party is opposed to the development of any more nuclear power stations in Scotland.

As the First Minister of Scotland, will Mr McLeish give the Parliament a guarantee that there will be no more nuclear power stations in Scotland? Will that be the Scottish Executive's stance?

Order. We are trespassing on reserved matters. [Interruption.] Order. It is no use members arguing—the Scotland Act 1998 is quite clear that nuclear installations are a reserved matter.

I am sure that the chamber appreciates your judgment on the matter, Sir David.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the ruling you have just given, will you explain why you have selected question 4, lodged by Nora Radcliffe, on UK energy policy?

I can certainly explain that. There are matters of energy policy that are devolved. I am ready to watch that supplementaries to question 4 are in order. We are in danger of trespassing on matters that are not in order. That is all I am saying.

On a point of order—

Order. I have not ruled John Swinney out of order; I am merely saying that we are in danger of straying on to reserved matters.

On a point of order on the point that you have just made, Presiding Officer. Question 4 clearly mentions UK energy policy, not matters devolved to this Parliament. You need to reconsider your situation.

Ooh!

Order. I considered the matter carefully when I chose the question. The fact is that there are devolved matters within UK energy policy that are properly for the Parliament; the commissioning or decommissioning of nuclear power stations is not one of them.

I do not want to intrude on any private grief among the SNP, but I confirm what I said initially: a review is taking place, which everyone should welcome. That is an important, commonsense approach.

The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit will want to look to 2050 and consider what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom in the long term. I underline the fact that the Scottish Executive—and, I hope, the committees of the Parliament—will want to be involved and reflect on the views of Scotland. There is a shambles to my left among the SNP, but I think people in every part of Scotland take energy policy very seriously. After two years of a very successful Parliament, we should be talking up devolution issues today rather than hearing the SNP trying again to create a piece of political opportunism on a very serious subject.

The First Minister cannot have it both ways: he cannot sign up to a remit for a United Kingdom energy policy review that is supposed to involve close working with devolved Administrations and then refuse to involve himself in legitimate debate about those issues. On a day when the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is responsible to this Parliament, has unveiled the fact that the largest radioactive particle has been discovered at the Dounreay nuclear power station, is not it legitimate for us to examine whether this country and its Executive should take a stance on whether we should have more nuclear power stations in Scotland? Is it right that London should take the decisions and Scotland should take the risk? [Applause.]

Did I just detect a bit of manufactured hysteria on the benches opposite?

So the matter is not serious?

If Tommy Sheridan had taken the cotton wool out of his ears, he would have heard me make the point that energy policy is absolutely vital to the United Kingdom and to Scotland. SNP members find themselves in another sorry mess. We hear their constant harping that, "We're the party that stands up for Scotland," in a week when Alex Salmond seems to be standing up for London. There is a new deal with Plaid Cymru. The nationalists are in bed with Plaid. What did Plaid say this week? It said that the nationalists agree with Plaid that the talk of independence is unhelpful and outmoded. Does John Swinney agree with Plaid?

We need no lectures from the SNP about Scotland's interests. Three weeks ago, the people of Scotland recorded their vote for a significant Labour victory. John Swinney would be better to read the runes of that than to come to the chamber every day with another piece of political opportunism.

Before we go any further, and before we get to question 4, I advise members to look at section D4 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, where they will see exactly where the division lies.

Will the First Minister simply tell Parliament, in answer to a question that is legitimately asked—and which we are entitled to hear an answer to because the First Minister is here to answer the questions of this Parliament—whether the Scottish Executive will go into the working party reviewing UK energy policy arguing for more nuclear power stations in Scotland or the same number as we have now? Will he reconcile the stance of the Liberal Democrats with the stance of the Labour party and give clarity to the people of Scotland?

It is worth repeating the points that I made earlier—I am sorry if that is rather repetitive for members. Other parties, which are actually in government in Scotland and forming a coalition, do not have the luxury of making instant decisions about issues that are of paramount importance to the United Kingdom and to Scotland. Saying that we see the review being undertaken is a commonsense approach. It will unfold and we will be intimately involved in projecting the interests of Scotland. That is what good government is about.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1177)

I last spoke to the secretary of state on 19 June. We have no immediate plans to meet.

I am sure that the secretary of state will be looking for an explanation of the latest chaos that has engulfed the Scottish tourism industry. Following hard on the heels of the Rod Lynch debacle, and with the industry still reeling from the impact of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, the promotion of that important industry has once again descended into farce. Six directors of visitscotland have been sacked at the height of the tourist season, when only one of their replacements is in place. Will the First Minister tell us whether the Executive, or his tourism minister, had prior knowledge of, and gave approval to, that summertime cull of the entire senior management team?

I welcome David McLetchie's raising two weeks running a serious issue that affects Scotland. Earlier today, we invested another £10 million in both tourism and farming to acknowledge some of the serious concerns that people have been putting forward. The issue that David McLetchie raises is very much another stage in the restructuring process triggered by the PricewaterhouseCoopers management review report.

Let us consider matters over a period. We came up with a tourism strategy that has been well received. We knew that investment was required. That has been injected into the industry. We knew that a major change of personnel was required to drive a modern industry forward in the 21st century. That is being done. David McLetchie and the Parliament should welcome the fact that we are strengthening management in the tourist board. That will be good for tourism and ultimately for the country.

I thank the First Minister for his reply, but the issue is one of accountability. I asked whether the matter was one on which the Executive's prior approval was sought. Is it not the case that when such important organisations are divorced from the Scottish Executive, there is a fundamental lack of accountability? Is that one of the reasons why people have apparently become disillusioned with the Parliament? It seems that ministers are happy to take credit when things go well, but when things go badly with, for example, the Holyrood building, the Scottish Qualifications Authority fiasco or visitscotland, they run a mile. Is that lack of accountability and openness—which are two of the key consultative steering group principles on which the Parliament was founded—one of the fundamental reasons for the disillusionment that has been evident this week? Does the First Minister accept that he bears a significant share of responsibility for that?

David McLetchie talks about significant disillusionment and refers to one survey that is incredibly out of date. He should recognise—as I did earlier—that the past two years have been enormously successful for a Parliament that is still in its infancy. On 30 April 1997, Parliament was merely an idea that the Scottish people had to vote through. Four years later, a remarkable success story has taken place. That is reflected in many policies, from tuition fees through to the announcement today about personal care for older people in Scotland.

David McLetchie made a valid point about accountability—that is why the Minister for Finance and Local Government submitted a paper last week that set out clearly our future policy on quangos. No member thinks that we had the right solution on ensuring quangos' accountability. That is why we have agreed to get rid of 52 quangos and to review another 60 and why the remaining 60 will satisfy a more rigorous set of accountability criteria.

David McLetchie also made a point that I want to stress. The Parliament as well as the Executive should be involved in ensuring that scrutiny and accountability exists. It would be a very significant step forward if David McLetchie were to sign up to that today.

Mr McLetchie talks about disillusionment setting into Parliament. Does the First Minister recognise that when the survey originally took place 25 per cent took Mr McLetchie and the Conservative party's view that Parliament should be scotched? Only 10 per cent now take that view. Is that an indication of how successful the Parliament has been?

I could not agree more. The Labour party, the coalition, the Government and the Parliament can take pride in an awful lot.

This is the final question time before the recess. The deal for fishermen, the cull of quangos, personal care policy, the most ambitious housing act that this country has ever seen and the maintenance grants that are being introduced are all significant for a Parliament that is two years old. In addition—I do not make any apologies for stressing this—we are developing links in Europe so that we can improve our profile. We are bidding for the European championships and the Ryder cup. Scotland is walking tall. People may snipe from the sidelines, but those are great achievements by all members in two years. Let us walk away today with some pride in achievement. That would be good for the country and Parliament.

---

Social Justice (Agriculture)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive's plans for Scottish agriculture will contribute to its objective of securing social justice. (S1F-1187)

On Tuesday this week, Ross Finnie launched "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture", which sets out a framework for the future development of farming and related industries in Scotland. Its aims are wide-ranging and include the creation of a prosperous farming industry, which will generate wider economic and social benefits, particularly in rural areas. We are committed to tackling poverty and social exclusion throughout Scotland. The creation of a stronger and more diversified farming industry will help us to achieve that aim.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. He will obviously be aware that many people who live in rural communities depend on agriculture and related industries for their livelihoods. Can he give me an assurance that jobs in agriculture, horticulture and similar industries will continue to be seen as a vital part of the rural economy and that efforts will continue to be made to ensure that those who work in the sector have a safe working environment and access to training to allow them to update their skills and knowledge?

I am happy to give that assurance. The aim is to look after the safety issues that Cathy Jamieson has raised in relation to workers in rural areas. We must consider the employment consequences of any strategy. The level of earnings of workers in rural Scotland is an issue. All those matters will be safeguarded.

An important step that we have taken is the establishment of a rural poverty and inclusion working group so that we can understand the issues surrounding rural social exclusion. That will report in the future. It will tackle the issues that Cathy Jamieson has raised. The message for the whole of Scotland—urban or rural—is that those issues are germane to the future of the Parliament and the country.

The First Minister has stated his commitment to tackling poverty. Is he aware that the current income of small farmers in Scotland is barely £1 per hour? Can he identify one provision in the new agriculture strategy document produced by the Labour and Liberal parties that will address that problem?

A great deal in the strategy will address many issues, two of which have been raised this afternoon. It is important to seize the opportunity that we now have. There have been problems in the agriculture industry this year, but now we are looking forward. [Interruption.] This orchestrated nonsense among the shambles of the SNP should not detract from the fact that the rural strategy is vital. It is perhaps important that people in rural areas appreciate that the SNP does not take rural issues seriously, while the rest of this Parliament does. That is a terrible disgrace.

Although the report contains some good things about the direction that should be taken and details the assistance that will be given to many farmers—most of them large-scale farmers—does the First Minister agree that all the report does on organic farming is list the five ways organic farmers should be helping themselves? Does he regard that as socially inclusive of the many hundreds of small-scale organic farmers in Scotland?

That slightly distorts the position on organic farming in the United Kingdom and Scotland. A significant attempt is being made to develop organic farming further. That is reflected in the strategy. I assure Robin Harper that everything possible will be done to ensure that that happens.

---

UK Energy Policy

To ask the First Minister what involvement the Scottish Executive will have in any future review of UK energy policy. (S1F-1179)

As energy policy is a reserved matter the review will be undertaken by the UK Government. There will, however, be a close working relationship and active dialogue between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government as the review proceeds.

I thank the First Minister for his response. The UK Government has made a commitment to reduce significantly, UK-wide, dependence on energy from fossil fuels and there are concerns about the long-term implications of nuclear energy generation. There is enormous potential for generation of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind, wave and tidal power in Scotland, especially in remoter areas. We should remember that Scotland is, with good reason, making a disproportionately higher contribution to meeting the existing UK targets in renewable energy. Will the First Minister press the UK Government to put up, from UK resources, the investment needed to extend and strengthen the national grid in Scotland to enable this potential to be fully utilised?

I am very willing to respond positively to that question. The gist of my comments on the energy review is to ensure that Scotland's interests are represented in every part of the energy sector. That will be done. I look forward to the whole of the Parliament and the two coalition partners ensuring that that happens.

I congratulate the First Minister and the Executive on their success in attracting the Danish renewable energy company Vestas Wind Systems to Scotland. Does he agree that there is a need not only for more such inward investment but for the development of an indigenous renewables sector?

Yes. We want to ensure that such issues are raised strongly in the review, because Scotland has some very special qualities and resources that must be harnessed. I assure Sylvia Jackson that the issue she has raised will be part of the review.

In spite of the fact that he thought that I should not have selected this question, I will call Bruce Crawford to ask a supplementary, provided that it is in order.

The First Minister's answers so far on his Government's view of the UK energy policy have been either confused or at worst downright evasive. Quite frankly, the Scottish people deserve better in this area.

Order. I want a question.

Will the First Minister tell the Parliament and the Scottish people, in the clearest terms, whether the Government supports the building of new nuclear power stations—or does he agree that they should remain in the previous century and not be part of a 21st century Scotland? He is paid £90,000 a year to have an opinion; it is time we heard one.

I do not want to dwell too much on the previous century; the SNP certainly exemplifies most of the characteristics of a party that is struggling to escape from it.

I am sorry that common sense affects the SNP in the way that it does. SNP members always preface their points with the phrase, "the Scottish people". Do they not think that every MSP represents the interests of Scotland and the Scottish people? The simple point is that the election showed that the Scottish people have no confidence whatsoever in the SNP. The best way forward is to say that energy is vital to us and will form part of the review. We hope that the whole chamber will participate in that review to ensure that Scotland's interests are represented.

That concludes question time. We have well overrun our time.