Plenary, 29 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 29, 2001

Official Report 667KB pdf

---

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 they intend to discuss. (S1F-954)

I speak regularly with the Secretary of State for Scotland and we have no immediate plans to meet.

Over the past few weeks, the SNP has made it clear that we support the work of Ross Finnie and the rural affairs department in tackling the foot-and-mouth crisis, and I reiterate that support today. Last Tuesday, the First Minister allocated responsibility for the water industry to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and, on Wednesday, he reallocated it to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. His Executive spokesman said that that had been decided after consultation, because it was more appropriate that it should go to Mr Finnie.

Why, in a week when the number of cases in the foot-and-mouth outbreak increased dramatically in Scotland, was it judged that Mr Finnie and his department, who should be 100 per cent devoted to eradicating foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland, had some spare time on their hands to take on the water industry?

It is quite right to make it clear that that decision was not predicated on the excellent work that is being done by Ross Finnie and his department. We do not have many opportunities to restructure portfolios and, looking ahead, we wanted to see rural affairs in the context of countryside and, in that sense, in terms of environment. As far as I was concerned, when I looked at the whole portfolio, the decision was nothing to do with the current work load, but more an expression of interest about the future of Scotland and how those matters should be most effectively dealt with.

It would have been fine if the First Minister had done that on Tuesday, but he did something different on Tuesday and changed it on Wednesday. Was not he right first time round: foot-and-mouth disease requires the 100 per cent attention from Mr Finnie that we believe he has been giving it to date? I invite the First Minister, who has built his reputation on changing his mind every so often, to change his mind again and go back to Tuesday's position.

In talking about foot and mouth which, it seems to me, is a fairly serious issue throughout the country, we should again recognise the excellent work that is being done by the Executive and particularly by Ross Finnie. It makes little sense to talk about a serious crisis and what we need to do about it and then wrap that around some of the froth and tittle-tattle that we have seen this week.

I am raising the question in this fashion because it is a serious issue. I do not want to see Mr Finnie distracted from his central purpose of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland. The First Minister frequently tells me that there are hard choices to be made in government. Is not the hard choice that he faced the choice between allocating the water industry to a Minister for Environment and Rural Development who is very busy just now and allocating it to a minister who is on the brink of running Labour's election campaign in Scotland? Is not it deplorable that, at this time, the First Minister of Scotland, when faced with a choice between taking the party interest or the national interest, decided to back Labour and not Scotland?

With the greatest respect, I have never heard so much nonsense on the back of a serious issue that affects every part of Scotland. Does anyone in this chamber actually think that Ross Finnie is not, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, straining every sinew to concentrate on a tremendous issue in Scotland?

The question has been raised in the context of Ross Finnie concentrating, as his first priority, on foot-and-mouth disease. Let me say, in view of the question, that Ross Finnie deserves praise, not criticism, for what he has done. He will be giving this matter the maximum priority. The question was couched in terms of Ross Finnie's portfolio. It is important, when I am on my feet, to praise a minister of the Executive who is doing a good job for Scotland and the people of Scotland.

The whole of the Executive, the committees of the Parliament and the Parliament recognise that foot-and-mouth disease is crucial. We will ensure that it continues to be a national priority for us.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-972)

I last met the Prime Minister on 9 March. We have no immediate plans to meet, but that may change.

I am sure that tackling the foot-and-mouth crisis on a national basis will be discussed at the First Minister's next meeting with the Prime Minister. Does the First Minister appreciate that there is real concern that, throughout the crisis, the action that we have seen has come about because of pushing and prodding by Opposition parties in this Parliament and at Westminster? There has been dithering on bringing in the Army, on access to the countryside and on the pre-emptive cull and there is now dithering on the merits or otherwise of a vaccination policy.

Is not it about time that both the Prime Minister and the First Minister stopped reacting belatedly to events and instead showed decisive leadership that the whole country can unite behind?

I suspect that those questions may have been more occasioned by the possibility of an election than by careful reflection on the realities of what has been happening over the past two or three weeks. Let me tell the chamber that relationships between Westminster and Edinburgh are working well on this issue. Leadership is being given. I reject the suggestion that there is dithering on this issue, in Whitehall or in Edinburgh.

Let us recognise the scale of the problem that we face and that significant steps had to be taken. Let us recognise that the Army is in Dumfries and Galloway, working with the local authorities and the farming community to ensure that we can win through and ensure a future for farming and tourism.

I will take the opportunity to clear up the position on the vaccination programme that has been announced for Cumbria. It is important that the chamber has the facts. We recognise the extremely serious disease position in Cumbria, which has led to the UK Government making the decision on the vaccination programme. We hope that it will quickly bring the disease under control there.

The Scottish Executive, on the advice of the State Veterinary Service, does not consider that a similar emergency vaccination programme is required for Dumfries and Galloway. However, it will keep the situation under close review in light of developments. It will ensure that contingency preparations are made so that emergency vaccination could be delivered immediately if it was required.

It is important to note the differences in the assessments of the disease in those areas. Currently, we are not considering a similar emergency programme.

I thank the First Minister for clarifying the position on vaccination. I am sure that people will find that helpful.

I will come back to the main issue, which is priorities. Both the Government and the Scottish Executive claim that tackling the foot-and-mouth crisis is their top priority, but the First Minister's actions belie that claim. As Mr Swinney pointed out, he meekly accepted Ms Alexander's protestations that she is far too busy to take over Mr Galbraith's responsibility for water. Instead, it was dumped on Mr Funny—[Laughter.] I mean Mr Finnie. Mr Finnie can be Mr Funny.

What does Mr Finnie now have to deal with? Water and the water services bill; the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; Scottish Natural Heritage—I notice that the man who is straining every sinew on foot and mouth has found time in the past 24 hours to appoint three new board members—new proposals on water conservation; a consultation on airports; a consultation on sustainable development; a consultation on the landfill directive; the fishing industry; and, in his spare time, the foot-and-mouth crisis.

What does Ms Alexander have to deal with? Labour's election campaign. Does that not show where Labour's real priorities lie when it comes to a choice between the party's interest and the national interest, which is what should have real priority at this time?

I am tempted to ask Mr McLetchie to repeat his question so that I can find out what it is.

David McLetchie has again taken his topsy-turvy approach of asking numerous questions. I am not sure what the appointment of three board members has to do with either foot and mouth or Ross Finnie. However, I take the warm comments that have been made about the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, under Ross Finnie's leadership and with the help of the deputy minister, doing an excellent job under some very difficult circumstances.

The Conservatives have neither any real purpose nor any policies on anything that is worth talking about.

That is because you stole them all.

That was a predictable but certainly unsurprising answer from a sedentary position.

The people of Scotland who will be watching question time today will want the issues that affect them to be dealt with. They want to talk about students, older people, teachers and what we are doing about fishing, tourism, farmers, police numbers—which are at record levels in Strathclyde—and the issue of drugs. The Conservatives and the SNP—dare I say quietly the right-wing alliance—are again putting forward policies that are not in Scotland's interest.

I welcome the First Minister's restatement of the Executive's policy of not using vaccination against foot and mouth in Scotland. Clearly the Scottish Executive has got control of foot and mouth, which is in stark contrast to the situation south of the border. Does the First Minister agree that the arguments for vaccination made by the leader of the Scottish Tories would condemn Scottish agriculture to the dustbin?

I agree with George Lyon. We are currently taking a different decision on the matter of vaccination, which is wholly appropriate. We are considering advice from the vets about any further measures we can take, as it is crucial that we examine the signs and epidemiology of the disease. Any decision in Scotland will be taken after consultation with our colleagues south of the border.

I must repeat that we face a serious situation. Although we must take decisions that are in the interests of Dumfries and Galloway and Scotland, we must also recognise that the sooner the UK is free of this disease, the sooner we can begin to tackle some of its serious implications for tourism, abattoirs, hauliers and a range of small businesses.

---

Rape and Sexual Assault (Legislation)

To ask the First Minister whether there are any plans to review the legislation on rape and sexual assault. (S1F-959)

We will legislate to offer greater protection to the victims of rape and sexual assault when they give evidence in court. We will also keep the law under review and make other changes where necessary.

Will the First Minister acknowledge the real concerns, felt particularly by women's organisations and groups that support survivors of rape and sexual assault, at Lord Abernethy's ruling last Friday? His comment to the woman who said no—that it is not rape unless there is evidence of force or the threat of force—might have a serious impact on the number of women who are willing to report the crime and sends out a dangerous message to men that sexual assault is acceptable in certain circumstances. Furthermore, does he agree that the ruling has highlighted grave questions that need to be addressed if women are to have faith in the fairness of the system? If so, will he, along with the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Social Justice, agree to meet me urgently to address these very serious concerns and to discuss how these issues can best be developed?

Jim Wallace and I will be delighted to meet Johann Lamont to consider the representations that she wants to make. Furthermore, the Lord Advocate will reflect on the report prepared by the trial advocate depute and is seriously considering making a reference to the High Court. However, such a reference is only for the purposes of clarifying legal points and will not affect the outcome of the trial.

Suffice it to say that a lot of people were concerned, and Johann Lamont has reflected that in her question. We want to send out a clear message that violence against women in any form will simply not be tolerated. I want to wait to see what the Lord Advocate's judgment will be after he has received the report from the advocate depute and the trial judge.

Does the First Minister agree that women who are raped go through enough trauma without having to endanger their lives further by trying to fight off their attacker? The First Minister will be aware that many violent murders take place after rapes. Does he intend to put his weight behind calls for changes to be made in the law as defined by Lord Abernethy?

I have given a fairly clear comment on the issue, regarding both its importance and what may happen next. The Parliament will agree that it is better to leave the matter with the Lord Advocate at this stage. Nevertheless, the Parliament today acknowledges the seriousness of the issue. Many quarters of society and MSPs want further action, which may ensue from further deliberations. At this stage, however, I would like the Lord Advocate to be responsible for that.

---

Foot-and-mouth Disease

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has for the disposal of culled animal remains as part of its programme to tackle the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. (S1F-963)

Animals are being culled and disposed of in a number of ways. The procedure can be carried out on a farm, at a local abattoir, at an approved mass cremation venue or at a centrally located mass burial site.

I would like some reassurance from the First Minister that there will be no question of transporting remains—treated or otherwise—to parts of Scotland that are currently not infected with foot-and-mouth disease. Will he assure us that consideration has been given to lining the pits and liming, which was used in the past, and tell us why lime has not been used on this occasion?

I thank Brian Adam for raising two important points. The last thing anyone wants to do is transport animals or carcases that could take the disease to other parts of the country. On this matter, along with many others, we will take the advice of the vets. We must depend on the science and on commonsense judgments based on it, but I give the assurance that it is an important issue that will be monitored very carefully.

It is right that we should leave judgments about the pits and the disposal of carcases to the experts and the vets. I can reassure Mr Adam that no matter what form of disposal is used, the circumstances of it will be environmentally sound, it will be sound for neighbouring residents and it will involve the minimum of fuss. I hope also that the disposal will be carried out in such a way as to give a bit of dignity to a situation in which, in many locations, there is none.

Some farmers in my constituency, especially those in areas that are contiguous to farms where there are confirmed cases, have been receiving misleading advice on whether their animals are to be culled. Can the First Minister and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development reassure me that they will do all they can to ensure that all farmers in the affected areas receive the correct advice? It is extremely distressing for them to hear that their animals are to be destroyed; it is even more distressing to find out that the letter they received was a mistake.

Reflecting on my visit, I appreciate the sensitivities that are involved. Clarification and new advice on the point that has been raised will be issued this evening. In a distressing situation, ambiguous information is not of much help. In terms of the diseased farms, the 3km zones and the wider tracing exercise in Scotland, a complex process is at work. We will do our best to minimise further distress for farmers over the planned culling exercise.

---

Fishing Industry

To ask the First Minister, further to the resolution of the Parliament on motion S1M-1760 on 15 March 2001, what progress is being made in rebalancing the £27 million package of measures for the fishing industry to address the short-term needs of the industry. (S1F-955)

Discussions with the fishing industry about extending the research programme are progressing well. Yesterday, in Aberdeen, officials from the Executive met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and scientific partners from Fisheries Research Services, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and the North Atlantic Fisheries College to agree a programme of work. That will begin immediately and will enhance co-operative trials involving fishing vessels that have already taken place or are currently under way. Consideration is also being given to an industry proposal to set up a stock regeneration group involving a range of active fishermen in the promotion of conservation measures.

I urge the First Minister to conclude the negotiations with the fishing industry as soon as possible because the rebalancing of the funding is important. Will he endeavour to reach that conclusion so that we can determine how much of that package has been rebalanced?

I am sure that the Parliament hopes, as does the Executive, that we can conclude those negotiations at an early date. The rebalancing of the package is central to getting a settlement that will allow all parties to go forward. I assure Mike Rumbles that we are all trying to achieve that. I hope that, in the weeks ahead, we will be able to deliver a statement that will report on the negotiations and will confirm that the package is rebalanced to the satisfaction of all participants.

The First Minister may have seen in the press this week that Nick Brown wrote to the Treasury asking for cash for a decommissioning scheme. He justified his request by saying:

"We now face a development in Scotland, where the executive has responded to mass demonstrations by fishermen by offering a decommissioning scheme".

Would not a better outcome have been the First Minister sticking to his guns and his instincts and delivering a tie-up scheme, rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food delivering a decommissioning scheme in England?

I welcome the fact that the SNP's fisheries spokesman is back in his place, although he is still asking fantasy questions. The key issue is that, in view of the fact that we want to secure a long-term future for the industry, £27 million has been invested in it—£25 million for decommissioning, £1 million for further conservation measures and £1 million to allow flexibility in relation to some of the programmes that we want to implement. It is important to stress that fishermen, who know their business, are in discussion with officials about the future of the industry. It would be better if Richard Lochhead stopped politicking on this subject and considered the facts.

When the First Minister addresses the short-term needs of the fishing industry, will he follow the advice of the EU director general of fisheries: compensation money for west coast scallop fishers who have often been unable to fish during the past two years due to biological factors is available through article 16, paragraph 1(a) of council regulation 1792/1999, which deals with the financial instrument for fisheries guidance?

Again we come to the question of the FIFG. The FIFG for this country does not include tie-up proposals. It has often been said that the best bet for the future is decommissioning. In terms of our current programme, is it not better that we have made decisions in this Parliament? My view is that we should let the officials and the fishermen, who know about the business, resolve the outstanding issues.