Plenary, 29 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, January 29, 2004

Official Report 686KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-569)

The next meeting of Cabinet will, as ever, discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement to build a better Scotland.

Given that we have an additional minute or so, I want—I hope on behalf of all members of all parties—to give our best wishes to Murray Ritchie of The Herald, who retired yesterday from long service to Scottish journalism. I am sure that his granddaughter will enjoy the experience.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and I warmly welcome his comments about Murray Ritchie, who was a very distinguished journalist in Scottish political life.

On Sunday, the new fishing deal that the Government has negotiated comes into force. Three weeks ago, the First Minister said that his Government should be congratulated on the good deal that his ministers had negotiated for the Scottish fishing industry. At the same time, fishermen described the deal as "absolute madness", "vindictive and offensive" and a "complete and utter disaster". When did the First Minister realise that the fishermen were right and he was wrong?

I believe that Ross Finnie and our colleagues in the UK Government deserve our congratulations on significantly increasing the quotas and the total allowable catches that Scottish fishermen will be able to make this year. As Mr Swinney knows, we are now involved in serious negotiations to ensure that the technicalities of the agreement meet the needs and requirements of Scottish fishing communities. Those negotiations continue, even towards the end of this week. In those negotiations, we will ensure that Scotland's interests remain well represented.

I welcome the fact that the First Minister and the acting fisheries minister are no longer keeping up the pretence that the deal is a good deal for Scotland. Yesterday, the acting fisheries minister supported fundamental changes to the deal that was agreed in December. Now that the Government is at last listening to our concerns and the concerns of the industry about the deal, will the First Minister give a commitment that his Government will argue for the Scottish fishing fleet to be given more days at sea to fish, and for Scottish boats to be free to fish in traditional Scottish fishing waters?

The discussions that are under way and the negotiations that are taking place to change the detailed arrangements of the agreement—the good parts of that agreement—that was reached in December are important discussions. They should reach—we intend that they will reach, but we need to conduct the negotiations to ensure this—an agreement that allows Scottish fishermen to fish in those areas of the North sea where there would not be the significant impact on cod that the European Commission believes there could be. We want to ensure that fishermen have access to those areas. That is critical, particularly in Shetland but also in other north-east fishing communities.

The negotiations are not helped by senior politicians from this chamber advocating the breaking of Scots and European law, which undermines the negotiations that are taking place. Frankly, the best thing that Mr Swinney could do today in the chamber would be to repudiate his remarks of 10 days ago, to give a firm commitment to implementing the law in Scotland rather than to breaking it and, in that way, to build in the European Commission and among the countries of the European Union confidence that we in Scotland are committed both to conservation and to strong fishing communities.

The First Minister can go on and on and on about all those points, but what I will go on and on and on about is protection of the livelihoods of people in the fishing industry in Scotland. I will not stand by and be silent when industries face bankruptcy. What the First Minister should do is what I did on Monday: he should get off his backside and get over to Europe right away and argue on behalf of the fishing industry. Will he take a leaf out my book? Will he move this issue up his list of priorities? Will he go over to Europe and argue for an increase in the number of days at sea for Scottish fishermen, and will he do something to protect the livelihoods of a community that is endangered by the stupid negotiations of his Government in December?

There are two choices: members in this chamber can either support those who negotiate on our behalf and who are doing so again this week, or they can undermine them. Members on the Labour and Liberal Democrat benches support Government ministers from north and south of the border who are negotiating for Scottish fishermen and who are going to get that deal changed if they can. Members on the Scottish National Party benches undermine those negotiations by their support for illegal action. Mr Swinney has an opportunity today, as the negotiations take place, to withdraw his earlier remarks and to support the negotiations. If he will do so, he will help us to get a good deal.

I will never withdraw my support for the Scottish fishing industry in securing people's livelihoods. The First Minister should take this opportunity to apologise to the people of Scotland for negotiating a deal in December that he is now having to renegotiate. Will the First Minister take up my invitation to go and defend the fishing industry and not apologise for a deal that will have dreadful consequences for a vital national industry in Scotland?

Mr Swinney is squirming and squirming and squirming. He is unable to address the point that has been put to him now for 12 days. Will he withdraw his support for illegal activity? The support of senior politicians in Scotland for illegal activity in the North sea undermines the case of the negotiators. We need united support for the negotiators here in Scotland, and for the negotiators in London, who are currently securing changes to the deal. Those people deserve our support. Mr Swinney needs, at some point, to back them, and to stop backing illegal activity.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-578)

I have no formal meetings with the Prime Minister planned for the remainder of the month, but I expect to meet him in February.

When the First Minister meets the Prime Minister, they may well discuss the consequences of the vote in the House of Commons earlier this week on so-called top-up fees. Last week the First Minister ruled out categorically the introduction of such fees in Scotland for as long as he is First Minister, but there was a suspicion afterwards that the Scottish Executive was playing its familiar semantic word games. For the record, will the First Minister give us the same unequivocal and categorical assurance that the graduate endowment in Scotland will not rise by more than the rate of inflation for as long as he is First Minister?

In answer to the questions that Mr McLetchie posed earlier this week in a letter to me, I will be very clear. First, there will be additional money for Scottish universities for both tuition fees and research. Secondly, Scottish students studying at universities in Scotland will not pay tuition fees or top-up tuition fees, as I made clear in the chamber last week. Thirdly, income from the graduate endowment here in Scotland will not go towards tuition or research in Scotland's universities or elsewhere. Finally, in the course of the discussions that we have over the next few months about our budgets for the next three years, we will ensure that we take into account all factors, that we make rational decisions—as I have said before—and that we consider increasing student support, the contributions that students make and the best ways to fund research and tuition in Scotland's universities. Research and tuition will not be funded by the graduate endowment, but student support will be reviewed and we will make our announcements on that in the chamber in the proper manner.

That was a very interesting answer. The First Minister answered about five questions that I did not ask and ignored the one that I did ask. I remind him that I asked whether he will give us an assurance that the graduate endowment will not rise by more than the rate of inflation for as long as he is First Minister. As well as give us that commitment, will he assure us that no other additional contribution will be required of Scottish students in respect of their education over and above the present graduate endowment for as long as he is First Minister? Those are straightforward questions. Will the First Minister kindly answer them?

For the avoidance of any doubt that there might be in Mr McLetchie's mind, I am happy to answer those questions. As I have made absolutely clear, not only will the graduate endowment not be used to help fund university tuition or research, but no other new fees will be introduced for that. Graduate endowment, like all other aspects of our income and expenditure, will be discussed in the course of the spending review. We are not going to make announcements on it six months in advance of the announcement of the budgets for the next three years, any more than we would make announcements in relation to bridge tolls, water charges or any other part of the income in our budget.

The position is absolutely clear: no contribution from the graduate endowment will go towards university tuition or research. In the course of the next few months we will identify first the substantial additional resources that will be available for Scottish higher education and, secondly, the improvements that we want to make to student support. We will then agree how we are going to fund those improvements and Parliament will get a chance to vote on them in the normal manner.

Being coy does not really suit the First Minister. At last week's question time he was keen to make a series of announcements about top-up fees and increasing the repayment threshold for the graduate endowment. I have asked him two perfectly straightforward questions. Will Scottish students be forced by the Scottish Executive to pay more while he is First Minister? That is a very simple question. Could we please have a straightforward answer?

In the same way that there will be no announcements before September on bridge tolls, water charges or any other aspect of income and expenditure in relation to our budget, we will deal with announcements on the graduate endowment in the normal manner. We will consider the money that we need to raise in relation to the money that we want to spend. In the course of that process we will ensure first that the graduate endowment, as agreed by the Parliament, is not used for university tuition or research, secondly that the income for Scottish universities increases by a substantial amount to ensure that they have the right facilities and support for tuition and research and thirdly, that student support in Scotland is improved. We will consider the various ways in which that could be funded and will report back to the Parliament for a vote in due course.

---

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 intends to discuss. (S2F-589)

I have no set date for my next meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland, although I expect to see him again soon.

When the First Minister next meets the Secretary of State for Scotland, he probably will not want to say that Labour in Scotland is in danger of supporting weaker legislation on nature conservation than is Labour in England and Wales. However, yesterday, during stage 2 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, amendments from a cross-party consensus of MSPs, including the Liberal Democrats, which were intended to give the proposed biodiversity strategy a more robust framework, did not receive sufficient support. Will the First Minister give his assurance that the Executive will at least look again carefully at those amendments before stage 3 to ensure that this opportunity to give Scotland's biodiversity the status that it deserves is not missed?

Our proposals on nature conservation in Scotland are the result of widespread consultation and follow the due process of proper consideration. They reflect the balance of judgment that we made at the end of the consultation period and they should command widespread support among members who have different perspectives on the environment.

Clearly, as Robin Harper states, there is a responsibility on ministers to continue to look at matters between stage 2 and stage 3, as amendments are proposed and discussions take place. We will conduct ourselves in the normal way between the votes at stage 2 and the final decisions of Parliament at the end of stage 3.

Can the First Minister give an assurance that the bill will not be weaker than the legislation for England and Wales?

Mr Harper makes a judgment that is not necessarily sustained by the evidence. There are aspects of legislation in Scotland that may currently be described as stronger than the legislation in England and Wales and aspects that may be described as weaker. There will be aspects of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill that, in the judgment of various members, may be stronger or weaker; however, that should not be the main factor that affects our decisions in Parliament. We are here to decide the best legislation for the national interest in Scotland. I hope that, in our consideration of stage 2 amendments and stage 3, members will take into account the interests of Scotland rather than try to play Scotland off against England in a way that does not reflect the facts.

When the First Minister talks to the Secretary of State for Scotland, will he also raise the issue of yesterday's decision in Brussels in respect of state-aid rules as they affect Ryanair's flights into Charleroi airport in Brussels? In particular, will he look at the implications of that ruling for low-cost flights into and out of Scotland, which are essential to the future of Scottish tourism? Will he hold appropriate discussions with the European Commission and the low-cost airlines to ensure that there is no danger to the expansion of low-cost airlines' activity in Scotland?

I have two points to make. First, we look at any judgments that are relevant to our responsibilities in Scotland and will take into account any lessons that need to be learned or any impact on our service provision. Secondly, Ryanair—which has been mentioned regularly in the chamber by members of the Scottish National Party over the past three years—has constantly said that the current arrangements in Scotland do not allow it to move into new routes in and out of certain key Scottish airports. In fact, the activity of a wide range of other low-cost airlines over the past 15 months shows that those opportunities do exist and can be taken up—they are being grasped enthusiastically by other companies. I hope that the example of the other low-cost companies that have, in the past 15 months, moved to use our route support fund to develop new direct routes into and out of Scotland will be followed by Ryanair regardless of decisions that affect it in Belgium or elsewhere.

---

Cannabis (Policing)

To ask the First Minister how changes to the classification of cannabis will affect policing of the drug. (S2F-588)

I make it clear today that declassification is not the same as decriminalisation. The use and sale of cannabis both remain illegal in Scotland.

I do not anticipate that cannabis reclassification will have any significant implications for policing in Scotland. Police forces in Scotland will continue to report cases involving cannabis to procurators fiscal, who will take the circumstances in each case into account before deciding on the appropriate course of action.

Is the First Minister aware that there are serious concerns that, because the approach in Scotland is different from that which is being taken in England and Wales, the reclassification of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug may lead to more police time, rather than less, being spent dealing with possession and supply of cannabis? Will he reassure me that, in addition to the planned advertising campaign to inform the public about the implications of the reclassification, the Executive will monitor closely and keep under review the Scottish situation, to ensure that valuable police time is not taken away from policing possession and supply of hard drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine?

I again make it clear that the reclassification of cannabis will not significantly affect the use of police time and resources in Scotland, partly because police time and resources in Scotland are already concentrated on dealing with the most serious drugs. As a result of that activity over the past 12 months, there has been a 22 per cent increase in the number of arrests of persons involved in drug trafficking and other forms of serious and organised crime, a 366 per cent increase in the weight of class A drug seizures in Scotland and a 106 per cent increase in the weight of class B drug seizures in Scotland. We have seen 114 criminals or criminal enterprises disrupted or dismantled, against a target for that year for the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency of only 77. Those are significant achievements by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and by police forces across Scotland. Dealing with the most serious drugs will continue to be our top priority, but it will not be achieved as a result of a change in the law.

Does the First Minister agree that the reclassification of cannabis in Scotland has been dealt with in a contradictory, uneven and irresponsible manner that has left an estimated £500 million cannabis market in Scotland in the hands of the criminal black market, with the resultant violent crime and social and health problems for which that market is responsible? Does he further agree that the continued criminalising of cannabis users in Scotland exacerbates the health problems that are associated with consumption of the substance?

I do not agree with the member. Cannabis is a harmful drug that should remain illegal in this country. Parliamentarians in Scotland and parties that are represented in Parliament should be responsible in these matters. I do not agree with the Scottish Socialist Party in relation to ending the illegal status of cannabis, or with its proposals concerning heroin and other more serious drugs. The SSP has got its drugs policy seriously wrong. That policy would result in serious harm and more criminal activity throughout Scotland. The illegal activity that surrounds the drugs trade in Scotland does not relate only to those who sell or take drugs. There is much other accompanying criminal activity that would increase as a result of the Scottish Socialist Party's policy. [Interruption.]

Order.

Those who did not hear the shouting from the side may not be aware that I was being accused of not knowing the policy of the Scottish Socialist Party. The Scottish Socialist Party believes that drug taking is a victimless crime. It suggests that there should be both cannabis cafes—which I hear it is supporting today in Edinburgh—and shops that sell not only magic mushrooms, but drugs such as ecstasy, amphetamines, LSD and cocaine. It is shameful that a serious political party should adopt that approach. I hope that the Scottish Socialist Party will see sense soon.

Does the First Minister accept that the public perception in Scotland of the reclassification has been different from what he envisaged? Is he concerned that an organisation entitled the Purple Haze Cafe has interpreted the reclassification as a relaxation, which will undoubtedly incur greater demands on police time? How does he propose to assist the police in dealing with increased breaches of the law?

Not only Lothian and Borders police but the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland have made it absolutely clear today that cannabis use and sale both remain illegal in Scotland. Not only does cannabis use remain illegal in Scotland, but the penalty for cannabis sale in Scotland has increased, I believe, from five to 14 years' imprisonment. That is a serious consequence for what is serious illegal activity. Those who are tempted to interpret the law for their own ends should think about the consequences of their actions.

Is the First Minister aware that, despite the arrests and seizures that he welcomed earlier, the street price of class A drugs in this country is plummeting? The price has come down, according to the United Kingdom Government's own figures, by between 20 and 50 per cent in the past two years. Does that not underline Miss Maclean's point that reclassification of cannabis must lead to the police placing greater emphasis and concentration on the class A drugs that cause the most harm to people in Scotland—opiates, and heroin in particular?

No. The main implication of the reclassification of cannabis is that prison sentences for the use of cannabis will be reduced and prison sentences for the sale of cannabis will be increased. Neither decision will have any impact on police time and how operational duties are carried out in Scotland. What is important is that we maintain the upward rate of arrests, seizures and action by the police and other forces in Scotland over recent years. The establishment of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency has been central to achieving that. It co-operates with police forces that dedicate themselves to class A and B drugs—it is wrong to suggest that they do not. Police forces are right to take that action and they are having success in doing so. They deserve the support of all parties in the chamber.

Can the First Minister say which public and voluntary organisations or bodies were consulted by the Home Office before the decision to reclassify cannabis was taken? Further, can he explain to members the argument, which proved persuasive to the Executive, that police operations in Scotland should have less discretion in dealing with the effects of reclassification than do their counterparts in England and Wales? Finally, will the First Minister add his weight and influence to the call for a proper royal commission into the use of drugs? If he cares to read the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs's report—which went to the Home Office and produced the result that has been produced—he will find that there are a great many questions on which the council says much more research is needed.

The discretion that exists in Scotland is, I believe, properly in the hands of procurators fiscal, who receive police reports and can determine whether to take further action. I think that that is the right way under the Scottish system to apply the discretion. It maintains a clear distinction between what is legal and what is illegal and it confers a duty on the police to take action on illegal activity. However, it also allows procurators fiscal to make clear judgments on whether to pursue cases and how to do so. I do not think that that in any way lessens the pressure on other illegal drugs in Scotland or constrains the system in its acting responsibly. However, a clear message is also being sent out to people in Scotland, particularly those who would get involved in selling in the drugs trade, that the law in Scotland will be tough on them.

---

Child Protection

To ask the First Minister whether cases of children who have been removed from a parent alleged to be suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy will be independently reviewed. (S2F-577)

The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration is currently investigating that matter. If it becomes clear that any families in Scotland have been affected, ministers will announce any action after the investigation is complete.

Is the First Minister aware that many children in Scotland may have been taken into care as the result of a parent's being diagnosed with, or even simply being suspected to be suffering from, Munchausen's syndrome by proxy? Is he also aware that the methods used by Professor Roy Meadow, the author of "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy", which have been widely discredited following the Sally Clark and Angela Cannings cases in England, have also been relied upon by paediatricians here in Scotland and that there is now real concern that some parents might have been wrongly accused of harming their children? Will he therefore reflect on my strongly held view that, on a matter as serious as child protection, it is not sufficient that there be an internal inquiry by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration but that, instead, all cases involving any suggestion of MSBP should be independently and publicly reviewed?

Nicola Sturgeon's final point is one that may well be legitimately debated and discussed at the end of the current investigation. The purpose of the investigation that is being carried out by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration is to identify whether there have been any cases in Scotland where MSBP has been a factor. If there have been such cases, a debate clearly needs to take place about what should happen next. If that is the case, ministers will come to Parliament and announce their intentions.

Will the First Minister consider how best to explore the central issues for the legal system, for our child protection system and for social services, which are highlighted by some of the controversies around the syndrome, not only on the use of expert witnesses but on the means by which their authority is established? There are concerns not only about cases that are tested in court but about cases such as that of a constituent of mine, in which allegations of MSBP were made early on, but were never pursued or tested in court. However, in my constituent's view, those allegations infected every action of the agencies involved from the earliest stage.

Will the First Minister ensure, as a matter of urgency, that the debate around specific syndromes does not obscure the important work of developing secure and robust processes to protect children from abuse, regardless of the motives of those who are abusing? Will he ensure that the voices of constituents such as mine are heard at an early stage when decisions are taken about whether to take matters to independent review?

I am happy to ensure that Johann Lamont's points about the way in which the system deals with individual cases are considered as part of the current examination not only of individual cases, but of the impact of cases on the way matters are handled in future. We benefit in Scotland from having a system in which more than one source of evidence is required. In those circumstances, I hope that the Scottish system is at least as robust as systems elsewhere, if not more so. Of course, that does not deal with Johann Lamont's point, which is about cases that do not come to court. I am sure that ministers will want to take that on board.

Does the First Minister agree that there is now an urgent need to re-examine the procedure for assessing the credibility of expert witnesses in such cases, given that there are strongly conflicting views on the subject? Is he aware of the case of a constituent of mine, who has had her two children forcibly removed because of the testimony of one of Professor Roy Meadow's Scottish acolytes? When he agrees to the wider investigation that Nicola Sturgeon has asked for—which I thoroughly support and believe he must agree to, on moral if on no other grounds—will the First Minister ensure not only that evidence given by Professor Meadow is scrutinised, but that that given by his Scottish acolytes, whose testimonies may well have led to unjust and immoral actions, is also scrutinised?

The challenge for us is to ensure that we identify whether there are such cases. There may be doubts about what people say about cases outwith the formal arrangements and about what actually took place when decisions were being made. It is important that we identify the evidence in each case, the decisions that were made and whether there are any cases in which allegations of MSBP were indeed a factor. If that is the case, ministers will consider what to do next. If it is not the case, we can perhaps be confident that our Scottish system has worked well in the interests of children without taking other factors into account.

---

Faith Schools (Shared Campuses)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is on faith schools and shared campuses. (S2F-591)

I have already made it clear on a number of occasions that I believe that the Catholic schools of Scotland serve their parents and pupils very well indeed. I have also made it clear that individual local authorities in Scotland have a right to consider, and will consider, the use of shared campus facilities, but they should do so in consultation with local communities and with parents, if that is the best way to provide the best possible facilities in which children can learn.

Does the First Minister agree that Catholic schools are popular in Scotland partly because of the strong emphasis that they place on moral education and because of their high standards of discipline? Does he agree that negotiations at local level, which involve parents and staff and which reflect community aspirations, should provide acceptable solutions where there are shared campuses?

Yes, I agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on that matter.

For reasons of balance, we will have one final question.

I know that the First Minister is aware of St Andrew's Primary and Nursery Cumbernauld and Cumbernauld Primary school, the shared campus school in my constituency. The schools operate very successfully and provide a rounded education for all the young people who share facilities such as entrances, common rooms and sporting facilities.

I invite the First Minister to take the opportunity to come to Cumbernauld and see for himself at first hand how the prejudices of a minority are balanced by the views of the young people who are very able to advocate the success of their joint campus school.

I am happy to consider the invitation. I have spoken to parents and children from the two schools. St Andrew's and Cumbernauld primary schools have existed well together and I believe that that facility has improved educational provision in the area.

That said, it is right that individual local authorities make the right decision for each individual community. There will be communities in which schools that exist on separate campuses are the right thing to have because of pupil numbers and facilities or for historical reasons. However, there are also areas in which shared campuses can preserve schools that are required by local communities or can improve and enhance the facilities that are available for children in the area.

Ultimately, all the decision makers who are involved in the matter should put the interests of children first. For as long as they do that, they will have my support.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—