Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, April 22, 2010

Official Report 1132KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

General Questions

---

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions ministers have had with the solicitors acting on behalf of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (S3O-10181)

None.

Does the cabinet secretary realise that it is now eight months since he released al-Megrahi on the basis that he had less than three months to live? Has he seen reports that al-Megrahi’s health is improving, that he is working on his autobiography and that he has welcomed more than 30,000 visitors to his home? Is that why both the cabinet secretary and al-Megrahi’s lawyers are refusing to put in the public domain the medical evidence that he claims justified the release of a mass murderer?

If Lord Foulkes has questions about Mr al-Megrahi’s lawyer, he would do better to put them to Labour’s deputy justice spokesman, who is his brother, rather than to me, as I have had no correspondence with him. Lord Foulkes may be salivating about it but, in this country, medical reports are private and confidential. That applies equally to people who have committed serious offences and to those who have self-confessed addictions. Medical reports are not available to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to members of the press or to members of political parties. Lord Foulkes may wish to change that, but that is how things currently are.

I said at the time that Mr al-Megrahi may live for three months, for less or for longer. What is clear is that he faces terminal prostate cancer.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not totally inappropriate for a cabinet secretary to refer to someone’s brother—it happens to be an MSP’s brother—when that is entirely irrelevant to the question and answer?

I considered it at the time, Mr Foulkes, and I consider that there is nothing unparliamentary in what the cabinet secretary said. What he chooses to say is a matter for him.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, given the additional information that has come to light since Mr al-Megrahi’s return to Libya—for example, information from former Central Intelligence Agency operatives in Iran and elsewhere—the case for an independent, thorough and complete public inquiry by the United Kingdom Government is now overwhelming? Will he give an assurance that the Scottish Government would co-operate fully with such an inquiry should the next UK Government, whatever its composition, establish one?

The Government is well aware that there are lingering questions that people feel need to be answered. We have always made it clear that we will fully support any inquiry that carries out an investigation, but it must have the appropriate powers. Those are not within the domain of the Scottish Government or the Scottish judicial system, but we have put on record what we are allowed. We will co-operate fully with any inquiry, whether it is constituted by the United Nations or by a UK Government of whatever political complexion. I give Ms Grahame the assurance that the Scottish Government will co-operate.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if anything, Lord Foulkes is guilty of underestimating the extent of the difficulty in that the prognosis upon which the man was released is now nine months old—it was made in July—and that the pressure to release the medical evidence, on the basis of which the man was released, is now absolutely compelling?

That comes back to the point that medical evidence is privileged and is regarded as private and confidential in this country. That applies to all individuals, irrespective of their status and whether or not they have been convicted. If Mr Aitken or Lord Foulkes wishes to change that, they can seek to do so; however, that would require legislative changes and medical reports are not within the Scottish Government’s domain. Nor is it within our control to publish medical reports. If there are desires to change the legislation, members can seek to do so through members’ bills or in other ways.

---

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Fossil Fuel Levy Account)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will access the funds held by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets in the fossil fuel levy account. (S3O-10212)

As a result of interventions from Scottish ministers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to consider the matter of Scotland’s fossil fuel levy surplus in the next spending review. The Scottish Government welcomes the chancellor’s approach in that respect, although we continue to make the case for a more urgent resolution of this issue.

I am grateful for the minister’s indication that the chancellor will consider the matter. However, after it was elected, the Government indicated that it had reached agreement with Ofgem and indeed, when it was questioned about its promise to deal with the issue in the first 100 days after its election, it said that it was in negotiations. Are you confirming that you have not really made much progress in those negotiations?

Progress with Ofgem is one thing; progress with the chancellor, who has a track record in Scotland of refusing to bring forward capital expenditure, is another. I am surprised that the member is surprised by that.

As the minister will acknowledge, representations on this matter were made by ministers at the Scotland Office and resulted in the UK Labour Cabinet’s decision to consider the levy in the next spending review. Do ministers take the view that funds from the levy should be ring fenced for low-carbon energy and grid investment? Will the minister undertake to consult widely on setting up a fund for that purpose in order to make further progress?

The legislation in question specifically indicates that the money will be used to promote renewable energy throughout Scotland. Although detailed proposals need to be worked up, we very much want to go down that consultation route.

---

High-speed Rail Link

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the high-speed rail link. (S3O-10246)

There have been a number of discussions on that matter with the UK Government at ministerial and official levels, during which my officials and I have pressed Scotland’s case for inclusion in a UK high-speed rail network.

Minister, in your discussions with the UK Government, will you remind its officials that, as part of the campaign for the Eurotunnel, Scotland was promised a direct link to Europe, which we are still waiting for? Can we learn from that experience and, when it comes to the high-speed rail link, insist that Scotland not be cheated and forgotten by London once again?

It was deeply disappointing that the rolling stock that was acquired at the time of the Eurotunnel to operate services from Scotland and other points north of London was never deployed and, indeed, was disposed of without ever being used for that purpose. We should learn lessons from that. However, I believe that the lesson is twofold: first, we must keep up the pressure and continue to make the case; and secondly—and more serious—we do not have to trust anything that we are told from the south.

---

Perth and Kinross Council (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of Perth and Kinross Council and what issues were discussed. (S3O-10159)

Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of councils, including Perth and Kinross Council, to discuss a range of issues.

Will the cabinet secretary use this opportunity to put on record the Scottish Government’s support for Perth’s bid for city status in 2012?

I am absolutely delighted to do so and confirm that the Government very much supports Perth and Kinross Council’s aspiration to secure city status. I very much welcome the broad support that has been given to the objective, which represents a very exciting prospect for the city of Perth.

Question 5 was not lodged.

---

Machrihanish Royal Air Force Base

To ask the Scottish Executive what it has done to encourage the efforts of the Machrihanish Airbase Community Company to buy out the ex-Royal Air Force base at Machrihanish near Campbeltown for the community. (S3O-10166)

The Scottish Government has worked closely with Machrihanish Airbase Community Company, known as MACC, to provide impartial advice to enable it to register an interest in the ex-RAF airbase under the community right-to-buy provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That has enabled MACC to secure a pre-emptive right to buy on the former airbase, and the Government will continue to provide impartial advice throughout the right-to-buy process.

I thank the minister for that answer, but he will know that £20 million of negative equity is ensnared in the airbase’s aged infrastructure, including sewerage, electricity and water, and that 140 home owners who have bought ex-RAF houses and depend on all this now have no factor to contact to address those issues. He will also be aware of the airbase’s huge importance as an asset of fantastic potential to the communities of Campbeltown and Kintyre. As a result, will he ensure that the airbase becomes an asset to the community rather than a liability that a Scottish Government might have to settle at some point in the future? Will he also investigate worrying reports on the For Argyll website of possible radioactive contamination on part of the site?

We in the Scottish Government will do everything we can within our powers and our resources to facilitate the community right to buy. However, many of the very valid issues that the member has raised can be addressed only by the Ministry of Defence in London. We will be very happy to raise these matters with the new Secretary of State for Defence, whoever they might be, and encourage them to address them to ensure that the community can not only exercise its right to buy successfully, but go on to make a success of the development.

---

Non-domestic Rates

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to support businesses affected by increases in their non-domestic rates bills. (S3O-10220)

We are taking a range of actions. The package of measures that I announced on 10 February to support all businesses in Scotland following the 2010 revaluation amounts to around £700 million in 2010-11 alone. It also includes the most generous reliefs available in the United Kingdom, which are worth in total around £2.4 billion to Scottish businesses over the next five years.

Did the cabinet secretary see an article in yesterday’s Scotsman by Debbie Taylor, the managing director of the Old Course hotel in St Andrews and chair of the British Hospitality Association’s Scotland committee? In it, she says:

“In February, the Scottish Government announced that the transitional relief scheme, which phases in increases to business rates, is being removed with effect from April. With less than two months to prepare, many businesses were left dismayed by this decision ... For some, the huge increases to their rates will be the straw which broke the camel’s back after clinging on through the worst recessions for decades.”

Question, please.

Debbie Taylor’s article concludes:

“If the Scottish tourism industry is to remain a strong brand that attracts hundreds”—

Come to your question please, Mr Smith.

I am coming to the question. Does the cabinet secretary agree with Debbie Taylor that

“If the Scottish tourism industry is to remain a strong brand that attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors to this country every year, Scottish businesses must be put on an equal footing to their English counterparts and be given a fighting chance to come out of the recession intact and competitive”?

I am certainly pleased to record that Scotland has emerged from recession. Indeed, it is important to note both that and the fact that the recession was shorter in Scotland than it was in the rest of the UK.

I have listened carefully to the views expressed by the businesses that have been adversely affected by the rates revaluation. As I said in last week’s debate, I encourage any affected business with such concerns to appeal the decision on their business rates. However, I point out to Mr Smith that the Scottish Government has made available a very generous amount of support—amounting to around £700 million in 2010-11 alone—to cushion the impact of business rates on the viability and operation of businesses. I will continue to listen to representations from businesses affected by this issue, but I stress that an appeal mechanism is available and I encourage companies that are concerned to use it.

Will the cabinet secretary listen to representations from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, which wrote to him earlier this week about their concern about the lack of transitional relief in Scotland, and agree to have the urgent meeting that it has asked for?

I am aware of the correspondence that has been received from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce and representations that have been made and concerns expressed to me by Mr Adam, the MSP for Aberdeen North. I would be delighted to meet the chamber of commerce to discuss its concerns. I point out to Mr Macdonald, however, that many businesses in the Aberdeen area and throughout Scotland have benefited from significant reductions in their business rates bills as a consequence of the rates revaluation and because the current Administration has put in place generous support that was not available under its predecessors.

Question 8 was not lodged.

---

Concessionary Rail Travel (Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will intervene to ensure that the concessionary rail travel scheme in Fife is retained. (S3O-10179)

I understand that there are no plans to stop Fife’s concessionary rail travel.

I suggest that the minister must improve communications with his colleagues in Fife, because there are certainly plans to remove the 50p travel scheme whereby those who benefit in Fife have the privilege of travelling to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee for only 50p each way. Does he share my profound concerns that Fife’s old people are being hurt in a way that has never happened over the past three decades? Does he accept that every policy outcome of the Liberal Democrat and SNP administration on Fife Council has done nothing but bring harm to Fife’s old people?

What concerns me, and should concern any member who seeks to represent Fife in any Parliament, is the grossly inaccurate misrepresentations that are seen on election addresses that are being distributed there. Even the Prime Minister’s election material talks about SNP cuts to concessionary travel. If even the Prime Minister cannot get it right, let me here and now tell Labour candidates throughout Scotland that the concessionary travel scheme has been supported by the Scottish Government. We have increased support for the bus industry through the bus service operators grant to underpin the route network. The matter is absolutely safe in our hands. Margaret Curran is guilty of a similar misrepresentation. Someone who is standing on a manifesto that is inaccurate and false and who is a member of this Parliament should know better.

Does the minister agree that the proposals that have been made by the administration on Fife Council provide good value not only for rail travellers but for all taxpayers in Fife?

I am very happy that our SNP colleagues are working with the Liberals to ensure that Fife has an effective rail concessionary travel scheme.

---

West Lothian Council (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of West Lothian Council and what issues were discussed. (S3O-10201)

Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of councils, including West Lothian Council, to discuss a range of issues.

When the ministers and officials met West Lothian Council, did they take the opportunity to discuss how they would protect the public interest of my constituents from the impact of planning decisions that are now the subject of police charges and of a Standards Commission for Scotland investigation?

Not to my knowledge. If issues are the subject of a police investigation, it would be entirely inappropriate for officials and ministers to discuss them with the local authority. I have seen news reports on the matter, but if a police investigation is under way, it would be thoroughly inappropriate for me to make any remarks on it in the Parliament.

That concludes general questions.

Before moving on to First Minister’s question time, I advise members that I noticed during this morning’s debate and during general questions that there is a growing tendency for members to address each other directly. I suggest that, as we move into electoral times, we address each other through the chair.