Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 31 Oct 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, October 31, 2002


Contents


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. (S1F-2195)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell):

The Cabinet met yesterday to consider important issues that dominated ministers' work during the recess. The topics covered included Scotland's relationship with Sweden, population trends, North sea fisheries, the possibility of an ambulance strike, other health issues, flooding, the Inverness capital of culture bid, improvements for Scotland in the British Tourist Authority, and youth crime. Next week's Cabinet will look ahead and discuss other issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

The First Minister will be aware that, when a minister misleads Parliament, that is a breach of the Scottish ministerial code of conduct. When it comes to misleading Parliament, who is responsible for enforcing that code of conduct?

The First Minister:

Ultimately, I am responsible for enforcing that code of conduct. If Mr Swinney is referring to his ridiculous assertion that I misled Parliament, as he claimed the day after our last parliamentary question time, he was wrong then and he will be wrong again today.

Mr Swinney:

I am glad that the First Minister has clarified that he is responsible, because that makes him judge and jury, which means that his answers to the Parliament must be clear and they must be straight. Three weeks ago, in response to my questions, the First Minister claimed to tell Parliament exactly what he knew about irregularities in his local Labour party. Within 24 hours, the First Minister was writing to the Presiding Officer to make it clear that he had not told Parliament exactly what he knew. The First Minister did not tell Parliament that on occasions he had been questioned about the problems; consequently, he misled Parliament. I give the First Minister a second chance to give us a clear account of his involvement in the irregularities.

The First Minister:

I know that this is not a matter for parliamentary business—the Presiding Officer reminded me of that again this week—but I regard my accountability to the Parliament as important and I will state the facts once again. The voluntary local party auditors—they are amateur auditors; they are volunteers appointed by the local party and they are not professional auditors—in my constituency raised questions at my constituency annual general meeting in February of the treasurer and of the constituency as a whole, including me and the member of Parliament. They received answers to some of those questions but, when I next discussed the matter with them in July, they were not receiving answers to the questions that they had put to the constituency treasurer. The next day, I contacted the Scottish Labour party, which has pursued the matter since. That is what I said three weeks ago and it is what I say again today.

I must say to Mr Swinney that no public funds are involved in the issue. Moreover, the Labour party has made it crystal clear that: first, it will have an inquiry; secondly, it will publish the outcome; and thirdly, it will take advice on the inquiry not just from the Electoral Commission and external auditors, but from the police. That is a degree of transparency that the Parliament should welcome, not criticise. I certainly intend to see the matter through.

The First Minister has just confirmed that he misled Parliament three weeks ago.

Read the Official Report.

Order. Let us hear the question.

Mr Swinney:

The Minister for Finance and Public Services asks me to read the Official Report, so I will. [Interruption.] Keep quiet and listen to this. The First Minister, in his final answer to me, said:

"I am happy to tell Mr Swinney exactly what I know, which is that the auditors of my local constituency Labour party asked questions, which may or may not produce answers that are of concern, of the treasurer and of the local constituency party."—[Official Report, 10 October 2002;
c 14640.]

He omitted to tell Parliament that they asked questions of him. When I asked the First Minister to tell us exactly what he knew, he misled Parliament. [Interruption.]

Order. We must hear the question.

Mr Swinney:

The noisier Labour members get, the more they have been found out in the Parliament.

In the three weeks since Parliament addressed the issue, it has been revealed that the First Minister knew about those financial irregularities long before he admitted it in Parliament, that he misled Parliament and that he leads a party that has broken the law around the country. Most serious, The Sunday Times alleged on 20 October that the First Minister's register of interests was, to use its word, "false". To protect his reputation in his office, what action—legal or otherwise—has the First Minister taken to refute that serious newspaper allegation?

The First Minister:

If I spent not only any time after a Sunday refuting inaccuracies in The Sunday Times, but as much time as the people who work for me spend on a Saturday trying to tell that newspaper the truth that it refuses to print, we would be in a sorry state of affairs and I would never do any work as First Minister.

I make it clear that the answer from three weeks ago that Mr Swinney quoted refers to my previous answer, in which I said:

"There seemed to be a problem in that the auditor asked questions that did not produce answers."—[Official Report, 10 October 2002; c 14640.]

The answers that I gave three weeks ago and my answers today are entirely consistent.

I say yet again that—as I put in writing to the Presiding Officer and the general secretary of the Labour party—my entries on the register of interests are correct according to the advice that I was given when I made them. Yesterday, I met the clerk to the Standards Committee. I am happy not simply to ensure that my register of interests is correct, but to exceed the Parliament's requirements and ensure that my register of interests contains more than is needed, because I am interested in transparency and openness in the Parliament.

It is not good enough in the Parliament to go down on the side of smears and innuendo week after week. A choice must be made. We can base our politics on smears and innuendo or we can base it on acting for the people of Scotland. Regardless of the smears and innuendo, I will not be deflected as First Minister from concentrating on jobs, education, crime, health, growth in our economy and excellence in our public services. I intend to see through that programme and I will act on that. That is why I am here as First Minister.



Order. I will let Mr Swinney have one more go, but I will protect later questions.

How can the people of Scotland believe the First Minister on education, health or crime when he does not tell Parliament the straight facts on the issue? The First Minister should accept that he has misled Parliament and apologise.

I thought that Mr Swinney had another question.

The First Minister:

First, no one has misled Parliament. Secondly, no public money is involved. Thirdly, an open and transparent Labour party inquiry will report and will act. Fourthly, the campaign of smear and innuendo will not deflect me as First Minister from concentrating on growth in our economy, excellence in our public services, crime, health, education—

Child poverty.

Yes, I will concentrate on child poverty and on defending our fishing communities. Those are the important issues this week and other weeks in the Parliament and I will continue to concentrate on them.


Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-2196)

I talk with the Prime Minister regularly—I met him last week—on matters of Scottish and UK-wide importance, but I have no plans to meet him in the immediate future.

David McLetchie:

The issues that Mr Swinney raises are important, but the First Minister's future livelihood is much less important than the future livelihood of the 20,000 people who work in our fishing industry.

Will the First Minister impress on the Prime Minister the fact that the common fisheries policy as it is presently constituted has failed miserably to conserve fish stocks and that the current proposals for a total ban would devastate Scotland's fishing communities? Instead of having a common fisheries policy, we face the threat of having a common no fishing policy. Is it not time that we considered putting the current policy out of its misery? Is it not time that we sought to restore national control and management of our fisheries?

The First Minister:

A number of issues are contained in the question and it is important that they are addressed. My office discussed the fisheries situation in Scotland with the Prime Minister's office this morning. We will continue those discussions with a view to securing the full, enthusiastic and active support of the United Kingdom Government for our campaign to ensure a sustainable future for Scotland's fisheries.

In securing that sustainable future for Scotland's fisheries, we need first to ensure that we have the right policy in Scotland and that we have in place an agreed strategy with the industry. We then need to ensure that we are taking part in the debate around the review of the common fisheries policy and that we secure the right outcome.

In respect of that outcome, I would like to see not only a fisheries policy that retains the advantages that we currently have—the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, the Shetland box and so on—but a policy that gives an opportunity for more regional management of our fisheries. The Executive has been campaigning on that issue since devolution. I am determined that we should continue to pursue that argument as part of the debate. I believe that it is an argument that we will ultimately win.

David McLetchie:

I welcome the First Minister's response. I convey the Conservatives' best wishes to the delegation for the discussions. I am sure of the Executive's commitment to pursue the discussions and to try to obtain the best result for Scotland's fishermen.

Many people in the industry believe that the current system is irreparably broken and that we are long past the stage of tinkering around the edges. Will the First Minister invite the Prime Minister, with our European partners, to address fundamental issues such as why we have a common fisheries policy at all? When responsible organisations such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation can question the value of a common fisheries policy, is it not about time that our Government also questioned it?

The First Minister:

The leader of the Conservatives in the Parliament is a lot more anti-European that I will ever be. I recognise his antipathy to European co-ordination. There is a case for having a common fisheries policy in Europe. Given that the waters around the shores of Europe occasionally merge and that fish might move around in them, it is sometimes helpful for European countries to talk to one another about those matters.

I, too, believe that, here in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole, we need to have more control over fishing. I hope that the outcome of the review will be just that.

I welcome the support that the leader of the Conservatives in the Parliament has offered for the campaign on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry. However much we might disagree on the detail, I welcome that united effort for the future. I urge everyone in the Parliament to unite in this campaign. In the Scottish Parliament, we need to put bickering, party politics and semantics about leading delegations aside for once. We need to have a united campaign that involves all the parties—even the nationalists. We need to join together to defend the Scottish fishing industry so that, this time, we win for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):

The First Minister may be aware of the recent concerns of people in my constituency about the activities of private security firms. When he next meets the Prime Minister, will he discuss with him how we might best be able, as a matter of urgency, to regulate those private security firms in order to sustain the confidence of local communities in the capacity of the police to keep those communities safe?

The First Minister:

Johann Lamont raised those concerns with me during the recess. I recognise that they are serious concerns. I also recognise that action on that front can be taken in Scotland, using our devolved powers, and at a United Kingdom level. It is an area in which we can make a difference by working in partnership. I will raise the matter through the usual channels and in the appropriate way.


Cities Review

To ask the First Minister when the cities review will be finalised and published. (S1F-2207)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell):

The review will shortly be discussed by the Scottish Cabinet and then published. Our cities are essential drivers of the Scottish economy and the cities review must provide the basis for a strategy that will enable all Scottish cities to develop their particular strengths in the years ahead.

Pauline McNeill:

The First Minister will be aware of the need to report with haste on the cities review, because the longer that takes, the greater people's expectations might be. Does he recognise that Glasgow requires distinct measures—such as the full return of the business rate—that are particular to the city's problems? Does he accept that, to achieve reconciliation after generations of deliberate Government discrimination and to address issues such as poverty and social inclusion, Glasgow requires special status as well as real money and real action?

The First Minister:

I want to make a couple of points before I comment on the cities review. Although each city in Scotland has its own problems, each city also has its own successes. That includes Glasgow as much as Edinburgh or Aberdeen, and Dundee as much Inverness or, for that matter, Stirling. We need to celebrate and build on those successes as well as tackle the long-standing and indeed more current problems. For example, we heard earlier about housing problems here in Edinburgh.

The cities review was initially set up as a general review of the position of cities in Scotland both in financial terms and in terms of their strategic place within Scotland's economy and society. I am keen that the review should also reflect on the strategic importance and future of each city. That is why there has been a delay and why the final review will seek to comment on the individual place of each city as well as on the general role of cities in Scotland. I hope that, in doing so, the review will help each of our cities to become a modern European city that we can be proud of and have success through in years to come.

Andrew Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP):

What are the First Minister's views on the findings that were published last week by Sheffield Hallam University, which suggested that unemployment in Scottish cities is upwards of five times the amount shown in the national unemployment register?

The First Minister:

I have yet to read of anyone who agreed with those figures. Everyone knows that in Scotland unemployment is at its lowest for a generation and employment is at its highest for some time. Those are good-news figures for the Scottish economy, but we cannot be complacent. We must ensure that in Scotland we continue to grow our economy at an even faster pace so that we have the employment that is needed to secure prosperity not just in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness, but in Glasgow and Dundee.


Construction Industry

To ask the First Minister how the predicted shortfall in skills in the construction industry is being addressed. (S1F-2204)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell):

As Cathy Jamieson said earlier, 5,000 young people are currently on construction modern apprenticeships, with more to come next year. We are developing a new deal training course to attract the long-term unemployed to the construction industry. Moreover, an important part of our budget for the next three years is for improving vocational training opportunities in schools.

Tavish Scott:

Does the First Minister recognise the importance of apprenticeships in the training of construction craftsmen and accept that, in my constituency, the Sullom Voe oil terminal is important both as an employer and as a provider of training apprenticeships? Is he aware that there is deep concern in Shetland about impending job losses at Sullom Voe, given the terminal's significance to the island economy? Will he ensure that the Government and its agencies play a full role in ensuring that skills-retraining measures are available to those who may be unfortunate enough to lose their jobs?

The First Minister:

Those issues are as important in Shetland as anywhere else in Scotland where jobs are threatened. It is important not only that we respond to such situations, but that we try to pre-empt them. That is why having a continuing programme of learning and skills development, in the workplace as well as in the college and home, is important throughout Scotland. We must continue to pursue that aim, because there are no longer jobs for life and the development of people's skills must be an on-going process.

I am interested to hear of the recent developments in Shetland and will be happy to take up the points that the member raises. However, I hope that in the Future Skills Scotland report that is due out in November we will see a way ahead that will allow us to go even further than before in developing the lifelong skills that are important in Scotland today.

Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):

Would not the most singular contribution to addressing the deficiency be to focus on young people at school? At the moment, there may be a lack of awareness among young people about the job and career opportunities that are available in the construction industry. Will the First Minister explain what active steps have been taken in our primary schools—even from primary 6 or 7 onwards—and in the early years of secondary school to advise young people and to prepare to deliver a flexible learning base that may be outwith the school environment?

The First Minister:

We are trying to develop a range of skills in primary schools in Scotland that will ensure that people are not just skilled with their hands, but have skills of the brain to match, so that we can develop creative people who can move through employment and the many jobs that the adults of the future will have.

We must also build on the current successes in our secondary schools. Some excellent pilots have taken place over the past two years in Glasgow, in which youngsters who have not been performing well at school or who have poor disciplinary records have been encouraged to take time out of the classroom. They are not encouraged to leave school at the age of 14, as some apparently wish to, but they are encouraged to take time out to learn skills and to enjoy the opportunities of an apprenticeship that they can follow through after the age of 16. That is a constructive and positive development and we hope to make announcements soon that will build on that.

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):

I remind the First Minister that, when he was appointed, he promised to do less, better. To be fair, he has kept the first part of that promise.

On the skills shortages in the construction industry, does the First Minister realise that there will be a shortfall of 27,500 skilled people over the next few years? Going on the official figures, we still have 115,000 unemployed people in Scotland. Is not it time that we did more to get more of those 115,000 people off the buroo and into work in the construction industry?

The First Minister:

The answer to that is yes, but the interesting question is how we do it. First, we will increase the number of modern apprenticeships from 20,000 to 25,000, as agreed in the budget that was announced in September. We can also do it by creating construction projects, not just in the private sector, but in the public sector, to provide the work to ensure that people can take up opportunities.

I talked about party unity on important questions earlier, but there are some fundamental divisions on this question. I was in a brand-new school in Edinburgh this morning—St Thomas of Acquin's. It is an excellent new school built by the City of Edinburgh Council to a high standard. I want high standards throughout Scotland. We will proceed over the next few years with our plan for 300 new or refurbished schools. I am afraid that the nationalists' policies would not allow that to happen, because they are totally opposed to the financial mechanisms that would enable it to. However, we will make sure that it happens, which in turn will ensure more jobs in the construction industry.

Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):

Does the First Minister realise that part of the problem is that not enough girls and women are going into the construction industry, because they are not receiving correct careers advice at school and because the construction industry has not made itself female friendly? Perhaps the First Minister has ideas about how we can rectify that.

The First Minister:

An element of the programme is to encourage more young women into the apprenticeship scheme. When I was in Glasgow visiting the city's major part of the apprenticeship scheme, I saw that a number of young girls were taking part in the programme as well as young boys. That is to be welcomed and we want to continue to encourage it.

I hope that some of the job opportunities to which I referred might also be available in the Highland area. I will be opening a new school in the Highlands in November. I look forward to doing that. The idea of all those new schools opening throughout Scotland might annoy some members in the chamber, but I am sure that it will please everyone else.