Plenary, 02 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, March 2, 2000

Official Report 685KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Executive (Priorities)

To ask the First Minister what currently are the Scottish Executive's main priorities. (S1F-163)

The Executive's priorities were set out clearly in "Making it work together: A programme for government", which was published in September. That document explained what we are committed to achieving in government and turned our priorities into a programme for action, on which we are now delivering.

Does the First Minister recall that George Robertson—now Lord Robertson—said of the last Tory local government settlement that it would mean

"real and painful consequences for services across Scotland"?

Given that this year's settlement is £66 million less than the last Tory settlement, does not that inevitably mean that this year's settlement will have real and painful consequences for services across Scotland?

As Alex Salmond will, of course, know, the spending guidelines show an increase of 3.4 per cent, which is well above the rate of inflation. We intend to maintain that progress and expect that spending in the public sector will reach an all-time high in real terms next year. We are building. We recognise some of the difficulties of local government. Of course, we have also had the right priorities. For example, much of the increase has gone into education. I hope that the chamber will approve of that. However, that means that life is a little more difficult in some other areas.

The First Minister says that life is a little more difficult. Let us talk about education. Has the First Minister seen the letter to the Minister for Finance from Sue Edwards, the chair of Banchory Academy school board? She writes very movingly of the consequences for her school of the £4.5 million reduction in education spending in Aberdeenshire. She says that the equivalent of two teachers' jobs are under threat and that the total repairs budget for a school of 900 pupils is £2,500. Is she not right to say that the Government's mantra of "education, education, education" has been replaced in Banchory by "cuts, cuts, cuts"?

I will not discuss a particular example. What Aberdeenshire Council decides to do with its arrangements is a matter for it. I suspect that Alex Salmond would be the first to criticise us if we increased the level of hypothecation and direction in the allocation of local government funding.

The increase in the education budget across the board is around £126 million. A large amount of money is being spent through the enterprise fund, through the early learning initiatives that tackle problems with numeracy and literacy, and on the employment of 5,000 classroom assistants. I know from my part of Scotland—it is the same everywhere—that that is making a considerable impact. There are also significantly more teachers in our schools. We are spending money in that area, and it is rather silly to pretend that we are not.

I am sure that the Liberal Democrats will have noted that the problem in Aberdeenshire is all the fault of the Liberal Democrat administration there. However, the problem does not lie with one council. Perth and Kinross, and South Lanarkshire face education cuts, and North Ayrshire, which is Labour controlled, has a proposal for substantial education cuts. Is it not the case that, far from being the world leader that the Minister for Children and Education promised that it would be, education is struggling to survive in many parts of Scotland? Is the First Minister aware that a few minutes ago, Ian Davidson, his fellow Glasgow MP, compared his Administration to the worst days of the John Major Government? If that is what Labour MPs think of this Executive, what does the rest of Scotland think?

In my job I sometimes have to quote very odd authorities, but I seem to remember Mr Kenneth Gibson, who is one of the SNP's front-bench spokesmen, complaining in the local government debate that too much money was being spent on education and that other areas were being squeezed. That might put Alex Salmond's remarks in perspective. So far as his last remarks are concerned—

On a point of order—[Interruption.]

Mr Gibson, we cannot have arguments in the middle of questions. That is not a point of order.

I am afraid that Mr Gibson's remarks were lost in the hubbub, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

With regard to the reported remarks of a Labour MP, I would draw one important distinction to Alex Salmond's attention. The quotation referred to the last days of John Major's Administration. Whatever else may be true, these are not the last days of this Administration. I suggest that the people of Scotland are mainly interested in the fact that we have now signed contracts on our eight major hospital developments, that we now have low and stable inflation, and that we have the lowest unemployment claimant count for 24 years. Those are the facts that will stand us in good stead and stand Scotland in good stead, and of which I am very proud.

Does the First Minister agree that a party that has made around £3 billion in spending commitments in recent months—twice the budget of this Parliament—cannot be trusted in matters of financial prudence?

When I listen to the promises that are made by the nationalists, I sometimes think that I am in the land of Noddy. [Interruption.] I am glad that I have David McLetchie's support in that.

I recognise—and I say this with some sympathy—the temptation to promise not only the earth, but the moon and the stars, when one is in opposition. I suspect that if the nationalists found themselves in government they would have to face up to the realities and some of the painful choices about priorities that we, bravely, are taking.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Prime Minister and what issues were discussed. (S1F-160)

I meet the Prime Minister regularly and speak to him on the telephone regularly. The specific matters that we discuss are, of course, private. I am very much looking forward to meeting the Prime Minister next Thursday, when he will address members of the Scottish Parliament in this chamber.

We look forward to that visit from the Prime Minister, as previously indicated.

In their discussions, the Prime Minister and the First Minister no doubt agree that over-hyped building projects should come with a political health warning. Would the First Minister care to comment on a report in this morning's edition of The Scotsman, which confirms that much of the problem with Holyrood stems from the inflated demands for accommodation of his bloated ministerial team and its advisers, rather than from ordinary members of this Parliament? Will the First Minister set an example by scaling down those demands and putting a cost ceiling on the Holyrood project that is in line with estimates that he has given previously to the Parliament?

I welcome the fact that David McLetchie appears willing to discuss the problem in a reasonably rational spirit. There are problems, which we must overcome. I read the story in The Scotsman with great care, and the issue that it raises will have to be considered along with all the other issues. However, my understanding is that any Executive accommodation that has been added in since the handover of the project to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body forms a very small and modest percentage of the total increase. I believe that there was a pretty selective use of statistics in the report, but there we go—we all have to put up with that occasionally.

Of course I am anxious to see the facts properly established. I want expenditure to be controlled and the project to be completed. I believe that Holyrood is the right site, but ultimately that is a matter for Parliament to decide. I hold to what I said the other day—that we want to see options illustrating how the cost of the project can be brought down from the numbers being quoted in some quarters and back towards the figures that we saw at the point to which Mr McLetchie referred.

That self-denying ordinance on the part of the First Minister and his ministers will no doubt be welcomed by people throughout Scotland.

In light of his remarks, will the First Minister now confirm unequivocally that the Executive will not ask the Treasury for any more money to pay for the Holyrood project, as the Minister for Finance indicated previously? If so, will the First Minister take up Mike Watson's interesting suggestion of privatisation—a private finance initiative—as a possible method of paying for what is now known as Donald's dome?

I do not think that there has ever been a question of looking for help in other areas, apart perhaps from suggestions that have been made for political purposes.

By Mr Watson?

No, I am talking about other Government assistance. We have a budget. The building of the Scottish Parliament was always part of that budget and had to be found from within it. That remains the case.

Obviously, there is a good deal of work to be done and construction has a long way to go. Working with the corporate body and, I hope, with the rest of the chamber, I think that we can find a way of having a building that is appropriate to the needs of the Parliament and that marks properly the importance of the democratic process. That should be the aim of all of us. It is certainly my aim.

Does the First Minister agree with the sentiments that the Presiding Officer expressed to me in his letter of yesterday? We are sending one another daily letters now. That letter referred to figures that were being brandished in yesterday's press. Sir David suggested that those figures were hypothetical. Is the First Minister prepared to endorse that view? If so, does he agree that it is impossible at this stage to put a ceiling on what the Parliament building should cost, when we do not have the faintest idea how much has been spent so far?

Further, could the First Minister brand as hypothetical the figures that have been allocated to the cost of leaving the current site? If all options are open, should Mr John Spencely's report suggest that the site is unsuitable, it may well also say how much we could raise in revenue from the site, considering the high price of land in Edinburgh.

I have made it clear, throughout the current controversy, that we want to establish the facts. I have said repeatedly that people should not rush to judgment. I look forward to John Spencely's report when it becomes available. I certainly do not want to pass judgment about the right way forward and I am glad that Margo MacDonald does not want to do that either. I hope that we can all sit down and consider the situation rationally, having in mind the aim and the end product, which must be a Parliament of which we are proud and which will take us out of the present, unfortunately temporary, situation in which we find ourselves.

---

Criminal Justice

I hope that the First Minister will take this opportunity to be magnanimous enough to apologise for his gross misrepresentation—

Order. Mr Gibson must ask the question that appears in the business bulletin.

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to improve the criminal justice system. (S1F-162)

We will do whatever is necessary to make the criminal justice system as fair, effective and efficient as possible.

We are working hard to deliver the commitments that we gave in the programme for government, to combat crime in our communities, support the victims of crime, and encourage strong links between the police and the communities that they serve.

Is the First Minister aware of the special survey that was undertaken by Victim Support Scotland, which reveals that almost half the people who witness a crime do not report that crime? Is he concerned that victims of crime express high levels of frustration with the lengthy criminal justice process? Does he agree that part of the problem is that witnesses and victims of crime are not kept informed? What measures does he propose to resolve that situation?

Of course I recognise that it is important to offer support for the victims of crime. In the present year, we are providing a grant of more than £1.5 million to Victim Support Scotland for services for victims. A victims steering group has been established to co-ordinate the development of services for victims of crime in Scotland and to help to raise awareness of their needs. The group draws on the expertise of a large number of involved bodies. We will see what emerges from that. Such support for a particularly vulnerable group is important, not only in terms of encouraging people to speak up and report crime, but in terms of helping those who have done so through any trauma that may attend the trial or its aftermath.

Does the First Minister agree that the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law gives the citizens of Scotland more rights and protection, and that we should rightly be proud of that?

I am certainly in favour of the arrival of the ECHR in our courts. Of course, the ECHR has always been pleadable in Scots law cases, but it was necessary to go to Strasbourg to progress those cases, which was a great inhibition.

The law did not change recently—the availability of the law changed. I have no doubt that, if the law is right, it is important that it is available to those who require its protection. We are in a difficult transition phase as we adjust to the terms and conditions of the ECHR, but we are winning the vast majority of cases and I think that the period of uncertainty will pass.

Perhaps I could be allowed one small jibe, Sir David. I was interested to see that, while the Conservatives picked the ECHR as the subject for debate earlier today, they could not sustain the debate for its allotted time.

---

International Women's Day

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to mark international women's day. (S1F-168)

The Scottish Executive welcomes the occasion of international women's day to emphasise its commitment to making a difference, through its policies, to the lives of Scottish women. There will be a good deal of activity on the part of ministers around 8 March. One important event will be the debate in the chamber initiated by Patricia Ferguson.

Does the First Minister agree that the relatively large number of women members in this Parliament has contributed a great deal to the work of the Parliament and to the quality of the debate? Does he think that there are lessons to be learned from our experiences in the Parliament that could be used to encourage women to take their rightful place at all levels of government—particularly in local government, where there are so few women members?

I have a great deal of sympathy with, and support the general thrust of, Patricia Ferguson's message.

As I was very much involved in the arrangements, I remember some of the controversy over selection procedures in my party, when a good deal of flak flew. I am often left with the impression that people do not like the idea of some form of positive discrimination. However, I am clear that most people like the results that it produces. I am very proud to be a member of a Parliament that looks a little bit more like the community that it purports to represent.

Does the First Minister agree that the best way in which this Parliament could recognise women in Scotland would be to pursue policies that benefit them? Many women rely heavily on local services and, while they may not want the moon and the stars, they want basic facilities, such as decent schools and local services. Does he believe that the inadequate Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2000, which was debated yesterday—

No—I am sorry, but the member's question should be about international women's day. [Members: "It was."] It was not about international women's day at all.

---

Ministerial Salaries

To ask the First Minister whether any members of the Scottish Executive have forfeited part of their ministerial salaries for 1999-2000 and 2000-01. (S1F-157)

No.

I thank the First Minister for his expansive answer.

The First Minister is obviously unimpressed by the shallow efforts of Tony Blair, who pretends to show an example by restricting ministerial remuneration for ministers in the Westminster Government.

Will the First Minister tell the chamber whether the Executive intends to provide a lead and to set an example of financial prudence? Is he aware of the concept of performance-related pay? Is he not adopting that system for his ministers because, on the basis of current performance, most of his ministers would become benefit claimants?

I would be a little bit more impressed if I thought that the Conservative group had introduced that principle. If Mr McLetchie would like to publish a document giving his assessment of the work of each of the members on the benches behind him, I will read it—not, perhaps, to my benefit, but at least with considerable amusement.

So far as the remainder of Nick Johnston's question is concerned, I see no need to ask any of my colleagues to "forfeit"—to quote the word used by Nick Johnston—some of their pay.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that Nick Johnston's question is hardly relevant to the financial management of this Parliament. Does the First Minister agree that it is of more relevance that Mr Johnston's party voted for more than £1 million extra for list MSPs' office costs? Does he agree that Mr Johnston's interest in ministerial salaries is not something that is likely to affect any Conservative MSP, either now or in the future?

I regret that this question was lodged. This chamber has paid some price for debates on allowances, fees and salaries. I would rather concentrate on the real issues that affect people's lives, such as the fact that 97 per cent of eligible four-year-olds now benefit from some form of nursery education.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw your attention to the announcement in business bulletin 44, published on Tuesday 31 August 1999, which stated:

"The Presiding Officer wishes to announce that, as a matter of good practice, motions to initiate business already agreed to should be lodged at least 2 sitting days in advance of the relevant debate, and that amendments should be lodged at least 1 sitting day in advance of the debate. This has been endorsed by the Parliamentary Bureau."

Do you think that it is good practice for a member to lodge an amendment that is selected by you and published in the bulletin, but then to withdraw it and replace it with a substitute amendment?

The operative word in the standing orders is "normally". You are quite right to believe that I normally select amendments on the day before a debate. In the case to which you refer, I was asked to accept an amended amendment, because the Conservative party did not want to delete quite so much of the Executive motion. I would have thought that the Executive would welcome that. In any case, it was my decision, and we will now debate the revised amendment as it appears in the business bulletin.