Plenary, 29 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, April 29, 2004

Official Report 774KB 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-837)

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

This morning we concluded our debate on the European constitution. Were there to be a referendum on the constitution as it stands, would the First Minister vote yes?

No, I would not. The British Government is absolutely right to demand changes to the draft constitution. I support its actions in seeking to achieve changes to the draft constitution, but a condition of my support in any referendum on the constitution will be the security of the provisions that extend the influence of the Scottish Parliament and our devolved Government—and other devolved Governments throughout Europe—which the Executive and the Parliament have been so central in achieving.

That was a fascinating answer from the First Minister. What he has just said is that it is all right for him to pick and choose the issues that he is concerned about in the constitution, but that it is not okay for the rest of us to do that. That seems to rather contradict what he said at his press briefing yesterday.

The Prime Minister has specified a number of red-line issues. He said that he wants to protect the national interest on taxation, on social security, on defence, on foreign policy, on criminal justice and on the common law. Why is it reasonable for English common law to be a red-line issue and unreasonable for fishing to be a red-line issue for Scotland?

I am getting increasingly worried about the language that is being used by the leader of the Scottish nationalist party. My determination to ensure that Scottish criminal law is protected in the new constitution is not the same as trying to protect English common law, which is what Mr Swinney claims that we are doing. It is very wrong indeed for him to polarise these matters into Scotland against England, as if he were on the fringes of extreme nationalism rather than in mainstream nationalism in Europe.

I support a proper constitution for the European Union. In particular, I support a constitution that gives more power to the Scottish Parliament and our devolved Government in the European framework. However, I would not support a constitution that would take too many powers away from the legal system in Scotland in the process of trying to ensure that we have cross-border co-operation to tackle international terrorism and organised crime.

I did not ask the First Minister about criminal justice; I asked him about fishing. I do not know why he went off and talked about criminal justice when the issue that I raised was about fishing.

Let us return to fishing. At the weekend, George Foulkes, who is a former Government minister, a senior Labour member of Parliament, chairman of the board of Scotland in Europe and a very clear pro-Europe figure, said:

"If the Prime Minister comes up with a European constitution in which he puts fishing in as one of the key issues that must be brought back to this country—and back to Scotland, so we can have some control over this issue in the Scottish Parliament—then that is a deal that I would very warmly welcome."

Why does the First Minister not take the opportunity to defend a vital national industry for Scotland? Why will he not put the national interest before his party interest?

Over the past few days, Mr Swinney might have been taken in by Mr Salmond and his talk of a deal. Perhaps he was even set up by Mr Salmond to talk of a deal. I do not think that it is in the interests of Scotland to put the nationalist interest above the national interest.

We believe that, as a point of principle, it is right that marine resources are dealt with at the European level. What is wrong with the common fisheries policy is the way in which it is implemented and not the fact that it recognises that fish travel across borders throughout the sea. The implementation of the common fisheries policy in Europe needs to change. We need to have not only the regional advisory councils that we managed to secure, but further regional management of decision making.

We should achieve that within a constitution that recognises the status quo on fishing but gives the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive more of a role inside the European Union. We are very clear that that is what is worth securing in the European constitution. Mr Swinney has to be clear about whether he is prepared to put aside the advantages that would come as a result of international co-operation to tackle organised crime and other serious crime. Is he prepared to put aside the benefits that we get in jobs and economic development from the European Union? Is he prepared to do all of that? Will he put aside the interests of all of Scotland for the sake of making one point, which is to secure more votes for the Scottish nationalist party in the election in June? He is wrong to do that. Let us put the national interest before the nationalist interest. Let us put Scotland first.

The First Minister has just said that there are circumstances in which he would vote against the constitution if he were not to get what he wants. He has to work out what his priorities are. Our priorities in the SNP are to fight for the vital national industries of Scotland. It is a disgrace that the biggest obstacle in the process is the First Minister of Scotland. Instead of getting on the telephone to block the deals, why does the First Minister not support the deals to protect the fishing industry in our country?

The SNP might be happy to line up with the Tories and the Trots against the developments in the European Union, but we are going to take a principled stand.

The First Minister is going to do the same thing.

No, we are not going to do the same thing. [Interruption.]

Order.

We are clearly saying that if the European Union or some European states want to take new powers that are unacceptable to the people of Scotland and to the British people, we will be against that. I am thinking of such areas as taxation, defence and social security. Where the European Union has those powers already, our job is to ensure that they are exercised more in the interests of Scotland than they are at the moment. That is why we support and demand improved decision making on the common fisheries policy. It is also why we support and demand changes that give the Scottish Parliament and this devolved Government more of a role at the European level. Mr Swinney might believe that the best way to show leadership and to influence decisions is to bully and expel people, but that is not the way that things happen in the real world. In the real world, people have to negotiate and they have to win the argument. We are going to win the argument for Scotland.

---

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-838)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I am sure that when the First Minister and the Prime Minister do meet, they will discuss issues such as the European constitution. Despite all the bluster that we heard from Mr Swinney this morning about fishing and doing deals with Labour over the European constitution, does the First Minister agree that that whole ludicrous posture completely misses the point, which is that the common fisheries policy is a reality—European constitution or no European constitution?

The way to end the common fisheries policy is not to focus on some distant referendum, but to elect a Conservative United Kingdom Government, as that would be the only Government that would be pledged to restoring national and local control over our fisheries after the next general election. I remind the chamber that that general election will precede any referendum on a European constitution. Would the First Minister not agree that it is completely illogical to be talking about red lines in constitutions and distant referendum dates if, by the time that a European constitution could come into force, there might be no fishing industry to sustain?

It is interesting what two weeks does to the importance of a referendum in Conservative policy. I remember that, two weeks ago, holding a referendum was central to the European debate for the Conservatives. There will be a referendum if, and only if, any new European constitution is acceptable to the current British Government. That is the right position for the Government to take, both on the referendum and on the constitution.

I have already stated our position on the common fisheries policy. My position on the matter is clear. I believe that the marine resource should be the subject of policy making at a European level, because fish cross borders and seas cross borders, and there is a need to take the environment and the sustainability of stocks seriously at a European level. There is also a need to ensure that we have regional and devolved decision making under the common fisheries policy, so that Scotland and the other nations around the North sea can make decisions for themselves, and so that a similar policy exists elsewhere in the European Union. This is the right way forward. There should be a proper Europe-wide agreement on the strategic framework for fishing, but there should also be devolved decision making, in which we in Scotland can take part and which we can implement, and an awful lot more successfully than the European Union has done over the past 30 years.

I remind the First Minister of his answers to two essential points. First, Norwegian fish swim across borders, just like Scottish fish, but they do not need a common fisheries policy. Secondly, not so many months ago in the chamber, the Conservative party moved a motion calling for a referendum, but Mr McConnell's party and the Liberal Democrats voted that down, so let us not have any preaching from them about the importance of referenda here.

Despite all the bluster between the Scottish National Party and the First Minister today, the fundamental point is that, when it comes to the European constitution, they are two peas in the same pod, because they are both fundamentally in favour of the European constitution.

Please ask a question, Mr McLetchie.

The constitution is a mechanism for transferring powers not just from Westminster to Brussels, but from the Scottish Parliament to Brussels. Mr Kerr has already conceded to the European and External Relations Committee that 75 per cent of the work load of the Executive and the Parliament is influenced by decisions taken in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Question, please.

That percentage will increase if the new constitution comes into effect. Did the First Minister and others really campaign for a Scottish Parliament only to see its powers eroded and given away to Brussels? That is what is happening.

Mr McLetchie is very wrong in his final remarks. We have been instrumental in our influence with regard to the draft constitution, which gives new powers and recognition not just to the Scottish Parliament but to other devolved Parliaments and Governments throughout Europe. Article 5 states:

"The Union shall respect the … fundamental structures … inclusive of regional and local self-government."

Article 9.3 states:

"the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level".

For the very first time in the 50-year history of the European Union, we have secured a recognition that regional government is a legitimate form of government throughout the European Union, that the EU must take that into account and that it must be less centralising and more decentralising in its approach. In my view, that is the way to make enlargement of the European Union work for Scotland and for every other country in Europe.

If Mr McLetchie thinks that the national interests of Scotland or the United Kingdom would be best served by a Tory Government driving Scotland and Britain out of Europe—taking away the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are created and sustained by the European single market; taking away our influence and co-operation on tackling organised crime and international terrorism through the EU; and taking away all the other benefits that come from European Union membership—he is very wrong indeed.

There is one constituency question.

The First Minister will be aware of the controversy that has been created by Caledonian MacBrayne's proposal to introduce a Sunday ferry service to the island of Raasay in my constituency. I understand that the people on the island have not been consulted on the issue by the ferry operators. Would he care to intervene by instructing Caledonian MacBrayne to hold a public meeting on Raasay to determine the islanders' views before commencing Sunday ferry services between Skye and the island?

Although I recognise the strength of feeling that exists in the community on Raasay on the issue, the determination of ferry services in relation to such developments is clearly a commercial decision for Caledonian MacBrayne. However, in these circumstances I would expect Caledonian MacBrayne to use its judgment well and wisely and to ensure that it has proper consultations with the local communities that are affected.

---

Sustainable Scotland (Cabinet Sub-committee)

To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland will next meet and what matters will be discussed. (S2F-846)

The next meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland takes place on 8 June and, not surprisingly, it will discuss a wide range of issues that relate to sustainable development in Scotland.

That answer did not give away much more than the minutes. I will address a marine issue that is under the Executive's control. Although the run of salmon on the east coast of Scotland is one of the best in recent years, salmon and sea trout continue to be threatened on the west coast. The Executive's aquaculture strategy is not being applied. Given that we do not know what the total chemical load is, that no co-ordinated sea life strategy has been developed for the whole coast, and that not a single farm has been relocated under the revised locational guidelines, does the First Minister agree that the aquaculture strategy has failed, is failing and will continue to fail until he gets a grip on it?

The aquaculture strategy has been widely welcomed, not only by the aquaculture industry in Scotland but by local communities, as it provides a framework for the way forward for an industry that is vital for communities throughout the north and west of Scotland. It is obviously the case that we need to continue to monitor the impact of salmon farming, in particular, on those communities and on the environment in which they are located. However, it is also important for us to recognise when scientific evidence does not prove the claims that have been made in recent weeks about the impact of marine salmon farming on the wider environment.

Salmon farming is vital in communities throughout the west of Scotland. Recently, I opened the new harvesting station at Mallaig, which is an investment by Marine Harvest that will sustain the industry so that it can thrive in international markets for many years to come. It is important for us to continue to support the industry, but it is also important for us to monitor the impact on the environment.

Does the First Minister agree that if we are to drive up standards, for example to the standards in Loch Duart, we must co-ordinate the veterinary service, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, local councils and the Crown Estate? Given the wide spread of stakeholders that must be co-ordinated to achieve the end that the First Minister enunciated—support for the salmon industry—and given that the aquaculture strategy is not working, does he agree that he must put the matter on the agenda of the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland as a matter of urgency?

I am sure that these issues will be discussed at the appropriate time by the Cabinet sub-committee. However, it is important that we recognise that the standards in Scotland are as high as, if not higher than, those in other countries throughout the world that have a salmon-farming industry. It is also important that we recognise, within the wider context of Government policy in Scotland, that we are committed to further moves to preserve and enhance the marine environment in Scotland. The consultation that we launched recently included the options of marine national parks and coastline national parks—potential developments that would help us to preserve and enhance that environment.

I do not agree that the aquaculture strategy is not working, but I agree that we need to monitor the impact of the aquaculture industry on our environment. I believe that we can have a natural salmon environment in marine and inland waters alongside a thriving aquaculture industry, which currently contributes about 50 per cent of our food exports from Scotland. The importance of that industry has to be recognised. However, as I said, the importance of its impact on the environment also has to be recognised.

Will the First Minister reveal what priority he has made tackling climate change—one of the greatest threats to the world's stability—for the Cabinet sub-committee in the week in which the climate group has been established to help the United Kingdom to meet its targets under the Kyoto agreement? Will he also say what the Scottish Executive is doing to turn round Scotland's performance in tackling climate change in the light of recently published evidence that shows that we are falling behind the rest of the UK in cutting our greenhouse gas emissions? I am particularly keen to know what the Executive is going to do on transport, energy and economic policy to turn the situation round.

We remain strongly committed to making our contribution to the UK target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We also have an integrated programme for tackling climate change, which is called the Scottish climate change programme. We will review that programme this year to ensure that it continues to deliver that Scottish contribution. We will need to review the programme as the years go by, but we should not review our commitment to action, which must remain strong, not just on transport policy, although that is important in this area, and on energy efficiency, which is vital, but on the many other areas of Executive activity and policy that can have an impact on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

---

Prisons (Sanitation)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will respond to the legal judgment regarding sanitation in prisons. (S2F-844)

We have received Lord Bonomy's judgment on the petition of Robert Napier against Scottish ministers and we are considering it carefully.

Does the First Minister agree that those whom we incarcerate for their crimes should be held in humane conditions in our prisons and that it is harder to rehabilitate prisoners who are held in overcrowded conditions with no sanitation for up to 23 hours a day? Does he believe that a balance has to be struck, as the victims of crime are struggling to understand the judgment, which could mean that more prisoners may be entitled to compensation although there are other priorities? Will he assure Parliament that at least progress will be made on ending slopping out in Scottish prisons because it is the right thing to do? Will he also note the view of Her Majesty's prisons inspectorate for Scotland that overcrowding in our prisons causes more damage to tackling offending behaviour and that it is not just about ending slopping out, but about looking at other conditions in our prison system?

Pauline McNeill raises three issues. First, we remain committed to ending slopping out and tackling overcrowding, both of which are important, not least for their contribution towards tackling reoffending. Secondly, we are absolutely committed to tackling reoffending patterns in Scotland, which has one of the worst records in Europe for reoffending. We need a new approach to custodial and non-custodial sentences to tackle that. Thirdly, I agree with Pauline McNeill that we need to strike a balance between compensation and investment in support for victims and witnesses. At the same time, we must realise that our prisons have to be fit for the 21st century.

Will the First Minister tell Parliament what the Executive's financial liability is estimated to be as a result of Lord Bonomy's judgment? Will he apologise to the Scottish people on behalf of those who were responsible for not taking the opportunity to address the issue in 1999, as Lord Bonomy has said that they could have done, instead of creating a situation in which millions of pounds will have to be taken out of public services and paid into the pockets of convicted criminals?

As I said, we are currently considering the judgment and we will give our view once we have done that properly. I make no apology for using resources in 1999 to establish the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. The millions of pounds that matter most to ordinary Scots are the more than £50 million in 2002-03 that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency was responsible for taking from drug dealers and putting back into the pockets of Scottish taxpayers. That is the action and the priority that the people of Scotland expect us to apply. As Pauline McNeill said, we have to balance that with tackling reoffending and the conditions in our prisons.

When the First Minister and his colleagues get round to considering Lord Bonomy's judgment in detail and accept that it is a judicial keelhauling of the Scottish Executive, will he say why it was not thought appropriate in 1999 to deploy some of the year-end surplus revenue—a very considerable amount of money—to meet what most people in Scotland would now regard as the essential public sector obligation to provide sanitation in our prisons?

I have already answered that point. In 1999 we believed—and I believe today—that we were right to use resources to support new programmes for victims and witnesses and to establish the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. That agency has been responsible for record levels of seizures from drug dealers in Scotland and record numbers of arrests of drug dealers, and has set an international example that is being copied elsewhere. We were right to use resources to establish the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the people of Scotland will support that view rather than the views of the Tories and the nationalists that we should have used the money for something else.

Does the First Minister agree that the prison building and refurbishment programme has to be implemented as speedily as possible? Can he indicate when there is likely to be an end to slopping out in Scotland's prisons?

As we have made clear this week, the target date for ending slopping out in Scotland's prisons will follow the creation of those new prisons, which are fundamental to establishing the new practice. Among other things, the establishment of the new prisons will depend on planning permission for the two sites that have been provisionally identified. In both cases, planning decisions remain outstanding.

---

Hepatitis C (Ex Gratia Payments)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any concerns over delay in implementation of the ex gratia payment scheme for those infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood products and, if so, what steps are being taken to address the delay. (S2F-849)

It is essential that we get the procedures for claimants right and in particular that we agree those procedures and the application forms with the patient groups. We will announce in May the date from which people can start submitting claims.

Frankly, that is disgraceful. In October 2001, the Health and Community Care Committee recommended that

"the Executive set up a mechanism for providing financial and other appropriate practical support to all hepatitis C sufferers who have contracted the virus as a result of blood transfusions provided by the NHS"

and that that support should come into effect within 12 months. We are more than two and a half years down the line and the forms are not completed. Will the First Minister now take responsibility for delivery of the scheme? His Minister for Health and Community Care might have time on his side, but the claimants do not.

I do not agree with Christine Grahame. I do not believe that it is disgraceful to consult patient groups, to take their views on board and to act quickly to ensure that the forms and procedures reflect their comments. There was a meeting with patient groups on 26 March and a further meeting is planned for the middle of May. The need for the further meeting and the delay are a direct result of representations made by the groups to amend the forms and to ensure that the procedures suit them. To describe that level of consultation and involvement as disgraceful is unfortunate indeed.

---

Identity Cards

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government in respect of the introduction of identity cards. (S2F-835)

As a result of regular discussion that we have had with the Home Office, it has published a consultation paper that makes it clear that the card that it proposes will not be used for accessing devolved services in Scotland without the agreement of this Parliament.

I welcome the First Minister's comments. Does he envisage advantages in the use of an ID card in Scotland? What key issues does he believe could be incorporated, with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government, in an ID card that could be used in the future by the people of Scotland?

That is a debate that will go on in Scotland over the years to come. I personally do not have any problems with carrying cards that identify me as an individual. However, our policy position is right, which is that access to services that are devolved to this Parliament should be controlled by this Parliament. Under the UK Government's proposals, we will have the right as a Parliament to determine which services, if any, might be accessible through the use of an ID card in the years to come. That position is right in principle and it will be good for Scotland in practice.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—