Plenary, 01 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, November 1, 2001

Official Report 576KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S1F-1331)

I last met the Prime Minister on 30 October in Cardiff and we have no immediate plans to meet.

Point 1 of the Scottish Executive's ministerial code of conduct says:

"Ministers are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct."

The First Minister indicates that he receives money from the sublet of his Scottish parliamentary office in Glenrothes to a firm of solicitors, Digby Brown, which is well known to have close connections with the Labour party. Will the First Minister explain his personal conduct in agreeing that arrangement? According to the Law Society of Scotland, the Digby Brown office in the First Minister's office has no phone number, no fax number, no e-mail address and—surprisingly, for a firm of lawyers—does not have a registered solicitor. Does it even exist?

In the light of that new information, will the First Minister make a personal statement to Parliament?

Those are simply outrageous comments, which are made against a background of total ignorance of a company that is operating in the interests of my constituents in Glenrothes.

We have dealt at Westminster with the matter of the subletting of my office to the company involved. That was dealt with over the summer by the fees office and by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mrs Filkin, and they have both closed the matter.

If John Swinney has any concerns about the operations of Digby Brown in Scotland I suggest that he take them up with it. In my constituency it provides a personal service to many union colleagues who are caught up in, for example, health and safety matters. As a consequence, it provides a full range of solicitor services. Those matters should be taken up.

It is a pity that John Swinney referred to the ministerial code of conduct, which I am holding. I would like him to take the time to go through points 1.1(a) to (i) to identify the particular part that he is talking about that relates to my behaviour over the past few months.

The First Minister says that the matter is closed. He said that last week and then appeared on television to discuss the issue. He gave an interview to the Daily Record on the same subject.

The First Minister seems to be talking about a strange arrangement in which a solicitor's office has no telephone number, no fax number, no e-mail address and no registered solicitor. Does that not make the case for the First Minister doing what one of the country's newspaper editorials said that he should do this morning—respond properly? Unless he does so,

"the rumours will continue to fly and undermine him."

Will he make a personal statement to the Parliament on the issue?

I am happy to respond to the measured comments that John Swinney has made. You have made the point, Sir David, about opportunities for these matters to be discussed in the Parliament. I do not think that this is a matter about which to make a personal statement because, as in the House of Commons and as has been illustrated in the first two years of the Scottish Parliament, that is done only in an exceptional set of circumstances. Quite simply, I do not think that what has happened over the past three or four months satisfies that criterion. I have today written to my constituency secretary setting out the facts about my office in Glenrothes. That information will be available later.

I should also say that there are mechanisms within the Parliament to tackle my competency, my probity or my commitment to Scotland as First Minister. John Swinney, in a measured way, and David McLetchie, in a ranting way, have the opportunity to use the mechanisms of the Parliament to discuss issues about me and the Executive in relation to my first year as First Minister. I invite them to use their time to have a debate. I would be delighted to defend my record as First Minister. That would allow David McLetchie to stop grubbing around in the gutter and put the questions that he wants to put in the way that he wants to put them.

The First Minister is prepared to answer questions on this issue on the BBC, on Scottish Television and in the Daily Record and he is prepared to send the information to his constituency secretary, but he will not share it with the Parliament in a personal statement. Is it not time that, to ensure that he has the opportunity to brush aside any questions about his probity, integrity or commitment to Scotland, he uses the powers of the Parliament to make a personal statement to clear the air once and for all?

We have been attempting to answer the questions for some time. [Members: "We?"]—When I said "we", I meant my party chairman, secretary and councillors in relation to the activities that certain people are currently involved in.

Suffice it to say that I feel calm and collected about this. I challenge John Swinney. If he is interested in the truth and facts, we have given out a great deal of those, but if he is interested in muck-raking, gutter politics and personal character assassination, he will not be satisfied. I tell John Swinney—and David McLetchie, prior to his coming in on this—to have a debate. They should pick the time on one of their supply days and we will be happy to defend our record in my first year as First Minister. I will not run away from answering questions. The Presiding Officer has made a ruling. Let me remind colleagues that if a personal statement is made, no questions can be asked. I am willing to go further than that. I am saying: put up or shut up—pick a debate and let us respond.

I should make it clear that all of Mr Swinney's questions were in order, because they were about the ministerial code of conduct.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-1330)

The Cabinet will next meet on 6 November, when it will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for another of the detailed and informative answers that have become his trademark.

I am sure that the Cabinet will want to discuss the First Minister's proposals—which he announced last Friday—to ensure, if I understood him correctly, that we get best value for every pound of taxpayers money that is spent in Scotland. How can the people of Scotland possibly have confidence that the Cabinet will deliver on that plan when it is to be overseen by a First Minister who cannot even fill in an expenses form properly and has persistently refused to tell us how his sums add up?

On the gauntlet that the First Minister threw down, if he wants to answer questions, a host of people in the media have been asking him questions for the best part of 10 days and he has stubbornly refused to answer a single one of them.

Mr McLetchie's last comment was simply untrue. With the Presiding Officer's indulgence, I will deal with David McLetchie's role in this tawdry attack.

As First Minister, I remain proud of the fact that we are doing a lot of good work for the people of Scotland. On Monday, the Minister for Health and Community Care and I opened the new £100 million Wishaw general hospital. On Tuesday, I was in Cardiff with the Deputy First Minister to celebrate the first successful year of devolution. Yesterday, I welcomed to this country the vice-president of China, who will soon be one of the most important people on this planet. This morning, I met Mr Panagopulos, who is heading up the ferry company that will start a service from Rosyth. Tomorrow, in Glasgow, I will make the most significant announcement about housing that has ever been made in post-war Scotland.

While I am doing that, David McLetchie has been grubbing around the gutter in a way that I did not think a leader of the Conservative party would. However, I should end by saying that I do not associate the rest of the Conservative members with what he is doing. This is David McLetchie's blackest hour.

The First Minister should not kid himself; it is his blackest hour and, from the way he has conducted himself, everyone in the country knows that.

I shall outline the Henry McLeish defensive strategy. First, there was denial—nothing had happened at all. That was six months ago. Then we received an apology, but no explanation. Then, in relation to the use of the constituency office, we had the defence of ignorance—"I didnae ken; it wisnae me; a big boy did it and ran away". Then we had the sort of smears that we have heard from the First Minister today when he sent out his acolytes to put up a smokescreen. Finally, we have had the complete misrepresentation that we heard from Mr McCabe on television last night when he claimed that the First Minister had been cleared by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards even though he was never even investigated by the commissioner. That is the First Minister's record; it is his blackest hour.

Furthermore, I remind the First Minister that he was the Scottish Office minister who chaired the consultative steering group. The group's report sets out principles to which all MSPs should aspire, such as integrity, honesty, openness, responsibility for decisions and accountability. Can the First Minister look the people of Scotland in the eye and claim that his conduct throughout the whole tawdry affair has lived up to those ideals and is actually worthy of a First Minister of Scotland?

I will be very willing to face the people of Scotland in 2003. That is one of the benefits of democracy and the ballot box.

I repeat that I have not heard my invitation being taken up by the SNP or the Tories to debate the issue in the chamber. They can either put up or shut up. Furthermore, in a situation in which questions are being asked and answers are being provided, it is thoroughly deplorable that any member of the Parliament—the member I am talking about being Mr McLetchie—should seek to personalise the issue and drag not only me into the gutter—[Members: "You're already there."] Just in case anyone missed that, Mr McLetchie quipped that I am already there.

That behaviour is deplorable. I have answered question upon question upon question. The important point is that the matter was raised by the Tory MP Dominic Grieve, who is the former shadow secretary of state for Scotland. He asked the House authorities why I had not registered the item. Two days later, the item was registered. Dominic Grieve then moved on to talk about the rent of the office. That issue was taken up with Mrs Filkin, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who in turn passed it on to the fees office. The office investigated the matter over the summer—

First Minister, you are in danger in straying into the wider world here.

I will stop, Sir David. Suffice it to say that after the inquiry by the fees office, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has written to say that the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the fees office and the Westminster authorities. It is important to recognise and restate that fact, because the authorities in the House of Commons are tough and I would listen to them far more quickly than I would listen to the leader of the Opposition, David McLetchie.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In light of Mr McLetchie's statements this afternoon that he wants full and informative answers and seeks best value for every pound of the taxpayer's money, will you inform the chamber whether, under rule 13.1 of the Parliament's standing orders, David McLetchie has sought your agreement to make a personal statement regarding his ability to give sufficient time to his duties as an MSP? Would it be in order for Mr McLetchie to explain to the chamber how many hours a month he works for Tods Murray WS, for which he receives an annual remuneration of £24,000? Can he reassure the chamber that he is able to carry out his duties as an MSP, given that remuneration?

Order. First, I believe that I was right in asking the Procedures Committee to consider allowing points of order of up to only one minute—it is unfortunate that so much time is being taken up during question time. Secondly, I do not think that the procedure for personal statements that is set out in our standing orders can be used to substitute such statements for debate. That is a very different matter, and I imagine that that rule will be used only rarely. I hope that members will not get into the habit of asking me whether we can have personal statements on this, that or the next thing when that would be a political argument. Let us move on. We are losing members' questions by taking all these points of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for taking up time. Whether we like it or not, the status and integrity of the Parliament is being questioned outside, so this is an important matter. Is it in order for a petitioner to the Parliament, presenting a petition to the Public Petitions Committee, to request the First Minister to make a statement?

Anyone can petition the Parliament on anything that they like: that is self-evident. I am anxious to move on to the next question.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the number of points of order that we have taken and the amount of time that we have lost in question time, and bearing in mind the fact that the next item of business is unlikely to take up its full allocation of time, will you use your discretion to extend question time to allow more questions to be taken?

I would love to do that, but I have no such discretion. The time is set out in the business programme.

---

Hospitals (New Developments)

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made with the Scottish Executive's programme of new hospital developments. (S1F-1344)

The current hospital building programme—the largest in the history of the NHS in Scotland—involves eight hospital developments. To date, the new health facilities at Wishaw, Hairmyres, Glasgow royal infirmary, Edinburgh Western general, East Ayrshire and Balivanich have been completed and are open for patient care. The new Edinburgh royal infirmary and the new Aberdeen children's hospital will be completed during 2003.

I thank the First Minister for visiting Lanarkshire on Monday and opening the second new hospital in Lanarkshire this year. Does the First Minister agree that the provision of high-quality, modern hospitals must be complemented by a highly skilled, motivated and valued staff team? Does he also agree that the new, unified boards can play a significant part in strengthening communication between NHS staff and management?

I agree with Karen Whitefield that the quality of staff is the most vital part of the national health service. We have not only the best technology and buildings—for example, in Wishaw—but excellent staff in every department in every part of the hospitals. We must ensure that good communications exist in hospitals and that every member of staff feels that they are part of the team. It is a long-term commitment of the Executive to ensure that we have not only the best NHS, but one in which the staff feel that they are valued and want to contribute even more.

On the question of new hospital developments, is the First Minister aware that Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust is required to pay £1.9 million a year more than was originally expected to a private company for the rent of the new Edinburgh royal infirmary, which will amount to an extra £60 million over the lifetime of the private finance initiative contract? Does the First Minister share my concern about that? More important, will he give a guarantee that the extra £1.9 million that the trust is required to pay the private contractor will not be found through cuts in hospital staff or front-line patient services?

I appreciate the point that Nicola Sturgeon makes and I am sure that the Minister for Health and Community Care also acknowledges her point.

We are moving ahead to improve facilities in Lothian—that is our main objective. We want to improve patient care and the quality of the circumstances under which the staff operate. I am sure that the point raised by Nicola Sturgeon will be passed to the Minister for Health and Community Care.

I am afraid that we have not done well with questions today because of points of order. I am obliged to move on to the next—

On a point of order.

On a point of order.

On a point of order.

All right. We have finished question time, but I will take points of order, starting with John Home Robertson.

My point follows on from the point of order that Iain Smith raised a few minutes ago. I understand that you do not have discretion to extend question time, Sir David, but the fact remains that Pauline McNeill and a number of other members have been deprived of their opportunity to put questions to the Executive today. May I suggest that you could have discretion not to take points of order until the end of question time? That is the practice in another Parliament and would protect members' rights to put questions to the Executive. It would also ensure that points of order will be addressed. Surely that is the way round the problem.

That is a fair point. In the past, I have often asked members to keep their points of order to the end. I do not make up the rules—I am obliged to follow them. If members insist on raising a point of order, I must take it.

I was going to raise the same point of order as that raised by John Home Robertson.

I am sympathetic to that point of order.

I was going to raise the same point, Presiding Officer, and to suggest that you ask the Procedures Committee to examine whether points of order should not be allowed during question time. In addition, I ask you to consider the time that is allocated to the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservatives. Mr Swinney's question took eight minutes and Mr McLetchie's took seven minutes, which took up 15 of the 20 minutes that are available for First Minister's question time. That left only five minutes for the remaining questions.

Iain Smith's final point is a matter for my discretion. I think that Mr Swinney and Mr McLetchie would agree that we have frequent conversations on that subject.

I call the convener of the Procedures Committee, to whom I defer.

Would you accept a motion without notice to suspend standing orders in order to allow the extension of question time by 10 minutes? [Members: "Hear, hear."]

I would have to suspend all of standing orders, which I do not think would be wise. Let us learn a lesson today: points of order take time away from question time. That is the point that we should all recognise.

Meeting closed at 15:32.