³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Plenary, 22 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, November 22, 2001

Official Report 537KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Before we start First Minister's question time, I say that the occupants of the chair have had difficulty in implementing rule 13.3.3(b) of the standing orders. I remind all members that the guidance says clearly that questions about activities undertaken by members of the Executive in a personal, party or constituency capacity will not be admitted. Questions to Mr Wallace about his life as a Westminster MP or as leader of the Liberal Democrats will not be in order.

That narrows the field. I take it that that ruling also applies to the answers.

Yes.

---

Scottish Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what the current priorities of the Scottish Executive are. (S1F-1391)

The priorities of the Scottish Executive are outlined in "Working together for Scotland: A Programme for Government".

I ask the acting First Minister about two quotes from his ministerial colleagues in connection with that programme for government. I hope that the question keeps me in order.

On 29 October last year, Mr Henry McLeish said that he would "dump the crap" from the programme for government. On Sunday, Jack McConnell said:

"We will cut the crap."

It is great to see such unity among ministers. What is the crap in the programme for government and what policies would the acting First Minister like to be dumped?

I have here the programme for government that Henry McLeish published on behalf of the Executive in January this year, which somewhat post-dates the quote that Mr Swinney attributed to Henry McLeish. There is no doubt that if Mr Swinney makes a comparison he will be able to see what was dumped. I make it clear that that programme is for a Government that is working, that has been delivering for Scotland on health, education, transport and rural and urban issues and that will continue to deliver for Scotland.

I think that I quote Gil Paterson accurately when I say of the programme for government, "Maybe it's all crap." I will ask the acting First Minister about some of the policies that have been dumped. The reduction of waiting times has been dumped. The abolition of dental charges has been dumped. Boosting small business start-ups has been dumped. The review of petrol prices has been dumped. The abolition of tolls on the Skye bridge has also been dumped. The policies that have been dumped are all Liberal Democrat policies, so now that the Liberal Democrats have dumped their policies, why does not Mr Wallace dump the Liberal Democrats, go the whole hog and join his cronies in the Labour party?

At least we have some policies. To be frank, I did not recognise much of what Mr Swinney said. It is only a matter of weeks since Susan Deacon made it clear that the reduction of waiting times is now the Executive's focus in health. We continue to consider reducing petrol prices, in as much as that is within the competence of the devolved Parliament. I cannot remember the other policies that Mr Swinney listed.

It is clear that the policies in the programme for government are those on which we are delivering. As I have said previously, at least the Liberal Democrats are not a one-policy party. Mr Swinney seems to have dumped even the SNP's one policy. He does not talk much about it.

We are sailing close to the wind here.

I noticed that the First Minister latched on to the issue of waiting times, which are up by 10 per cent since he made a difference by coming into Government. The one policy that I raised that he did not recognise was the abolition of the Skye bridge tolls. We know that the Liberals have dumped that policy. Mr Wallace will not be here to answer questions next week, but I am sure that he will have to come back to rescue the Labour Administration when it implodes. Does he agree that it is not appropriate today for us to say goodbye, but that we should say merely, "Au revoir"?

Mr Swinney just referred to a policy that was not in the programme for government. He will acknowledge that the Skye bridge tolls have been frozen, so in real terms they have gone down considerably in two and a half years. What Mr Swinney does not appreciate is that if one is in a partnership Government, one must reach consensus on the programme that is to be followed. We have reached a consensus on abolishing tuition fees, on reintroducing student grants, and on delivering free personal care for the elderly. Those are issues on which I am happy to have consensus.

On Mr Swinney's final point, I say only this: when the history books are written it will be found that I might not have discharged the duties of First Minister for as long as other people did, but I probably did it more often.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the acting First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-1390)

I intend to be at the British-Irish Council meeting on 30 November at which the Prime Minister will be present.

I am sure that in those discussions the Prime Minister will be interested in the cronyism that is prevalent in the Scottish Labour party, although the Prime Minister is no stranger to cronyism. The acting First Minister will recall that in launching the consultation document on modernising public appointments, Mr Jack McConnell said that the big issue is

"who is appointed and how they are selected."—[Official Report, 9 February 2000; Vol 11, c 846.]

This week, I received from Angus MacKay an answer to a written question. That answer showed that since Labour came to power, 60 per cent of public appointees who declared a political affiliation were Labour supporters and that the figure since January 2000 has risen to 75 per cent. Is the acting First Minister happy to defend that situation?

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. As Mr McLetchie well knows, of more than 1,000 appointments that have been made by ministers since 1996, 87 per cent have not declared a political affiliation. Mr McLetchie also knows that the Executive introduced an appointments procedure that is independent and transparent. That procedure is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and independent assessors sit on every interview panel.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many people in Scotland who give willingly of their time, experience and talents to make a public contribution to the running of the nation. We should all be grateful for that. To denigrate those people, as some of Mr McLetchie's recent utterings have done, misses the point.

I denigrate no one, but the question about political activities relates only to the preceding five years and—amazingly—being a member of a political party is deemed not to be a political activity.

The statistics in the written answer from Angus MacKay also show that in the period between 1 July 1996 and 31 December 1998, not one declared Liberal Democrat supporter was appointed to a public body in Scotland. However, when proportional representation gave the Liberal Democrats a share of power in the Scottish Executive, all of a sudden Liberal Democrat supporters started to be appointed to public bodies in Scotland. Does not that demonstrate that proportional representation brings about proportional cronyism?

Of the 1,015 appointments that were made between 1 July 1996 and 31 March 2001, nine declared their affiliation to the Liberal Democrats. That is not proportional in anyone's book and, as a matter of interest, 23 appointments were Conservatives.

What about the Scottish National Party?

There were eight SNP appointments, so there is not much between us.

Are there any socialists?

I am not sure whether there is a box to tick for that.

Mr McLetchie has spoken a lot about cronyism. We would welcome hearing from him the policies that he proposes in order to tackle cronyism. For 18 years I sat in the House of Commons and saw Conservatives make public appointments. No party in this Parliament knows more about cronyism in public appointments than the Conservative party.

Will the acting First Minister remind the Prime Minister that David McLetchie remains implacably opposed to the system of proportional representation that has given the Tory party 18 seats in this Parliament, under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998? That was a remarkable piece of political generosity. Will the acting First Minister further remind the Prime Minister that David McLetchie is a wonderful human being whose commitment to the devolution settlement is entirely convincing, or does he think that I may have missed something?

It is interesting that the Conservative party, which denounces proportional representation, is only too pleased by the fact that it has 18 members in this Parliament. I do not object to that, because I support the system. The fact that the Parliament has 18 Conservative members is a reflection of the fact that we have a PR system rather than a first-past-the-post system.

Whatever Mr McLetchie thinks about devolution in the bold new politics of Scotland, he is quoted today as saying that he hopes this afternoon to beat Dennis Canavan. That illustrates the ambition of the Conservative party and where it has set its sights.

---

Tourism

To ask the acting First Minister what proposals the Scottish Executive has for the delivery of effective support to Scottish tourism. (S1F-1393)

Early in the new year we will publish a framework for action, including the new strategy for marketing Scotland that was announced at the industry conference earlier this week. At that conference the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning also announced a review of how area tourist boards can best deliver support for the industry.

Does the acting First Minister accept that a move away from geographical marketing by VisitScotland could squeeze out the island tourist boards, which would not be the right approach for the northern isles or the Western Isles? Is he aware that last week the Scotland stand at the world travel fair in London was augmented by representatives of Orkney Tourist Board, Shetland Islands Tourist Board and Western Isles Tourist Board—the only area tourist boards that were so represented? Does he accept that for many tourist businesses in peripheral areas such as the islands the key issue is not the structure of the industry, but the cost of getting to those places? Will he redouble the Executive's efforts to focus on transport costs?

As the person who with Calum MacDonald MP urged Lord James Douglas-Hamilton when he was the minister responsible for tourism to keep separate tourist boards in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, I know how compelling Tavish Scott's case is. However, there is no need to choose between supporting area boards and focusing on key activities. Branding for outdoor activities, culture and business tourism can enhance a geographical focus. We all want Scotland to be better and more effectively marketed and we want to increase the attraction of Scotland to people from other parts of the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States.

I take the point that Tavish Scott made about costs. He will be aware that the Scottish Executive is making a substantial investment in new vessels for the northern isles and in piers infrastructure. He will also be aware of the subsidy that is given to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which helps to reduce what I accept are very high fares. I know that air fares are high because I use the service weekly. We want to continue to explore with airlines ways in which to reduce fares. However, that matter is in the hands of private commercial airlines.

I would like to repeat a question that I put to the previous First Minister in June this year. Will the acting First Minister appoint a minister for tourism? If not, why not?

There is a Cabinet minister—Wendy Alexander—who has responsibility for tourism. There is a deputy minister—Alasdair Morrison—who has very specific functions in relation to tourism. In what are very difficult circumstances for the tourism industry this year, they have both been very effective in arguing the case for Scottish tourism. It will be for the new First Minister to decide whether there will be a minister for tourism.

Will the acting First Minister join me in congratulating those who work in tourism in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders on the way in which they have sought, through working with the local area tourist boards, to bounce back from the foot-and-mouth outbreak?

Does the acting First Minister share the concerns—to which Tavish Scott alluded—that if the area tourist boards are broken up, the tourism industry in the Borders and in Dumfries and Galloway might not have its voice heard in a more centralised structure?

I have visited Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders in recent months and I echo David Mundell's comments. The local industry has made considerable efforts to engage with VisitScotland to ensure that those areas recover and become again the attractive destinations for tourists that they rightly should be. The local industry has also made efforts to ensure that the areas will be able to develop their tourism industry in the year ahead. The Executive has helped substantially to increase the marketing effort that was made. The roles that were played by Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board and Scottish Borders Tourist Board have been critical in ensuring that the industry is able to combat the damaging effects of foot-and-mouth disease.

---

Voluntary Sector

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will ensure that the voluntary sector is adequately resourced. (S1F-1404)

Scottish Executive support for the voluntary sector stands at record levels. Direct support of £39 million has been provided for 2001-02, which is an increase of 70 per cent since 1998-99. In addition, my colleague Jackie Baillie yesterday announced the distribution of £304 million of indirect support to be provided in this financial year to voluntary organisations through public bodies such as Communities Scotland, health boards and local enterprise companies. Following consultation, we are also examining with the sector how direct funding can be further improved.

I call Christine Grahame. [Interruption.] I beg members' pardon—I call Stewart Stevenson. [Interruption.] I am sorry. Is Cathy Peattie going to ask a supplementary question?

Yes.

Please go ahead. That was my fault—I should have called Cathy Peattie first.

As that money will go to agencies such as the health boards or Scottish Natural Heritage, will the acting First Minister give an assurance that it will reach the voluntary sector?

Yes. That money is clearly intended for the voluntary sector and those who are in receipt of it know that we expect that money to reach the voluntary sector.

Is the acting First Minister aware that local rural partnerships, such as the Banffshire Partnership Ltd, are experiencing difficulties in obtaining payments under the objective 2 scheme? Those difficulties have been caused in particular by the fact that the rules for making such payments were finalised only after the closing date had passed for the submission of applications. That is a real hardship in continuing retention affecting partnerships. In other words, it is c-r-a-p—crap.

I am sorry that Mr Stevenson's final comments spoiled a genuine question. However, he raised an important matter that I was not aware of. I will ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of the relevant minister and we will try to find an answer to his question.

I draw the minister's attention to the voluntary sector's complaint about the amount of time that organisations spend chasing new funding. Does he agree that the main problem with voluntary sector funding is at local government level, given the deplorable lack of progress that local councils have made in putting in place longer-term core funding, in particular three-year funding? Is the Scottish Executive taking action to encourage or cajole local authorities to enter into longer-term arrangements with the voluntary sector?

I am well aware that much of the time and effort of people who have expertise to contribute is taken up in putting together funding packages. That is why the Executive encourages three-year funding for voluntary organisations. Indeed, as Robert Brown knows, we have given indicative funding to local authorities for a three-year period, which should, in turn, enable them to offer three-year funding to voluntary organisations.

---

Prosecution of Crime

To ask the First Minister what confidence the Scottish Executive has in the prosecution of crime in Scotland in light of the outcome of the Andrew Aspinall case. (S1F-1402)

I have full confidence in the Crown Office and in the police. The sheriff's decision in the Aspinall case will be studied carefully to see whether any changes are needed in either law or procedure to prevent such a situation arising again.

I thank the acting First Minister for his answer. Following the collapse of the case against an alleged paedophile, it appears that the police tried to shift the blame on to that bogeyman, the European convention on human rights. In fact, the case was sabotaged by the police's blunder over the execution of a warrant.

Does the acting First Minister have confidence that the police inquiry into this disastrous and expensive mess will be objective and open? Does he agree that the public would have more confidence if he were to direct—if he remains Minister for Justice—that there should be independent inquiry, the report of which should be placed before the justice committees?

I share Christine Grahame's view and was somewhat bemused when I heard that the European convention on human rights was being blamed. As far as I could see, the ECHR bore no relation to the decision that was made.

It is important to point out that the warrant was obtained in accordance with standard procedure. The matters are not black and white. The courts must take into account the rights of citizens to be protected from illegal or irregular invasions of their liberty, and the interests of the state in securing evidence of the commission of crime. Future procedure will be considered further in the light of experience of the case in question, especially now that—as I learned this morning—the sheriff's judgment is available.