Junior Ministers
The next item of business is motion S1M-1298, in the name of the First Minister, on the appointment of junior Scottish ministers.
I have tremendous pleasure in moving that Malcolm Chisholm, Margaret Curran, Tavish Scott and Allan Wilson be appointed as junior Scottish ministers. We should not delay the chamber further this afternoon—we have important business to get on with. The appointees will strengthen the team and I look forward to working closely with them. They will serve Scotland with pride and distinction, and I hope that colleagues will support them this afternoon. [Members: "Hear, hear."]
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that Malcolm Chisholm, Margaret Curran, Tavish Scott and Allan Wilson be appointed as junior Scottish Ministers.
They say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating—at first sight, the junior ministerial pudding looks a tad indigestible. I suspect that the principal difficulty that confronts the four proposed new junior ministers may be making their mark outwith the chamber, in the perception of the Scottish public. In what I hope is a mood of characteristic bountiful magnanimity, I have one or two tips for them.
If Mr Wilson, in his new role as Deputy Minister for Sport and Culture, can lift the game from wisecracking jokes in the chamber about football to something meaningful on the national football pitch for Scotland, I might be prepared to have another look at that pudding.
If Mr Chisholm can explain to a constituent of mine why he cannot get a flu jag despite the fact that he is a priority health case, his performance too might bear serious consideration.
The most onerous task of all lies with Mr Tavish Scott, who must perform the most delicate balancing act imaginable. He will either achieve that with distinction or be labelled the biggest toady of all time. I do not envy his role.
Ms Curran, I believe, is the proclaimed crusader of women, and I extend all good fortune to her in that pursuit. I just ask that, in effecting that pursuit, she does not antagonise the entire male populace of the chamber, nor their counterparts outside.
In making those suggestions, which I hope are constructive, I am greatly disturbed by what we do not have, such as a second deputy for the enterprise and lifelong learning portfolio. I find it incomprehensible and astonishing that a portfolio of such significance—happily, that significance has been recognised outwith the Parliament, and has been commented on in relation to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—no longer has two deputy ministers, but one.
While I listened to the First Minister's warm words on the motion to appoint ministers, I thought that the proof of the pudding is definitely in the eating. I wish the appointees well, but I am not holding my breath.
Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab):
David McLetchie has just accused Henry McLeish of rewarding those who voted for him in the leadership election. I only wish that that were true. [Laughter.]
This is my first opportunity in this Parliament to speak about anything other than fishes and trees. I have enjoyed working for people in both those sectors, and I hope that I have achieved a little bit for them. My main disappointment is that it will not be for me to make the final announcement on the new Scottish sea fishing safety scheme. That initiative has taken time and will cost a lot of money. However, I think that it will be a very good scheme, which should save fishermen's lives.
People in our fishing communities can depend on Rhona Brankin and Ross Finnie to stand up for their interests, and I whole-heartedly support both my colleagues.
If I may, Presiding Officer, I wish to raise a point that affected my work as a junior minister, and which I think is significant for the whole Parliament. We have a Scottish ministerial code, which, quite rightly, has been adopted to prevent sleaze and to prevent ministers from taking decisions that could create financial advantages for themselves or for their families.
The chamber may be interested to hear about my experience of the application of that code. On 19 May 1999, the Parliament voted to accept my appointment by Donald Dewar as Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, to work with Ross Finnie on all aspects of the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, including agriculture.
It was public knowledge at the time—I reminded the First Minister and the permanent secretary to the Scottish Office of this when I met them—that I was a very dormant sleeping partner in a family farming business. My family has had no remuneration from that business for many years. A series of Tory farmers have served in agriculture departments, most recently Jamie Lindsay and Hector Monro, and, initially, nobody raised any objections to a Labour minister with farming experience. However, on 6 June 1999, we were advised that the National Farmers Union of Scotland had notified the agriculture secretary at the Scottish Office agriculture, environment and fisheries department—now the Scottish Executive rural affairs department—that the union objected to my involvement in any aspect of agriculture policy because I might be perceived to have a personal financial interest. The NFUS has subsequently denied having made that objection, but I have a letter from a very senior civil servant asserting that it did.
Leaving aside the question why the NFUS had a problem with a Labour minister who was perceived to be a farmer, despite not objecting to my Tory predecessors, I simply invite colleagues to consider where we are going with such a wide interpretation of the paragraph of the Scottish ministerial code that states:
"Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests".
A fresh interpretation of that rule was triggered to shut me out of a substantial part of the job that the Parliament had assigned to me. That meant that Ross Finnie had no support from a deputy on agricultural matters.
Obviously, it is vital to have comprehensive safeguards to prevent impropriety on the part of ministers, but does it make sense to exclude people who have direct experience of business or the professions from related ministerial offices? Should a doctor be barred from being a health minister? Should someone whose spouse is a lawyer be barred from office in the justice department? Where would we stop—and does it make sense? I invite colleagues to reflect on the possible implications of that new interpretation of the rule. It curtailed drastically my contribution to the rural affairs department and it could prevent people from bringing the benefits of business and professional experience to Government, not only in Scotland but in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise that concern. I whole-heartedly support Henry McLeish's motions on ministerial appointments and wish all my colleagues well in their dealings with the Opposition and, perhaps more important, with the civil service.
On a point of order. The ministerial code is not yet a matter for this Parliament; it is a matter for the First Minister and for Downing Street. We have a code of conduct for members, but that code does not extend to ministerial responsibilities, which the Executive and the First Minister have said in the past are a matter for the Cabinet alone. If there are problems, I suggest to Mr Home Robertson that he take them up with the First Minister so that we can get the changes that he wants.
Points of order should be addressed to me. What Mr Home Robertson said was entirely appropriate and in order on the motion to appoint new junior ministers.
I confirm that we will not oppose the motion. However, the question has arisen whether the First Minister has made appointments to curry favour with back benchers or whether the appointments genuinely reflect a ministry of all the talents. We must wait and see how the appointees get on in their roles and how they tackle the serious problems that face Scotland, including rising crime, transport problems and the crisis in the rural economy. We will engage in constructive opposition. The new ministers and their colleagues will be judged on whether they are ready, willing and able to deliver policies that will drive back the frontiers of poverty, ignorance and disease.
No one else has asked to speak. I take it that the First Minister does not wish to respond.
No.
The question is, that motion S1M-1298, in the name of the First Minister, on the appointment of junior Scottish ministers, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
That the Parliament agrees that Malcolm Chisholm, Margaret Curran, Tavish Scott and Allan Wilson be appointed as junior Scottish Ministers.
I declare both results valid. Parliament has agreed the First Minister's recommendation that he recommend to Her Majesty that she appoint Jackie Baillie and Angus MacKay as ministers and Malcolm Chisholm, Margaret Curran, Tavish Scott and Allan Wilson as junior Scottish ministers. [Applause.]