Plenary, 02 Jul 1999

Meeting date: Friday, July 2, 1999

Official Report 576KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Parliament

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it intends to take to ensure that the Parliament meets the expectations of the people of Scotland. (S1O-154) The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel): Briefly please, First Minister. [Laughter.]

Sir David, I always enjoy answering a precise question.

We have already announced an extensive legislative programme, which in range and scope could not have been matched under the previous dispensation from Westminster. We are concentrating on issues such as education, health, jobs and social inclusion—issues that I believe reflect the priorities of the people of Scotland and command their broad support. As we tackle those issues, I look forward optimistically, but not with complete confidence, to the support of the nationalists.

Is the First Minister aware that the main headline on Ceefax at 1 o'clock this morning said that MSPs were happy and emotional at events? I was tempted to ask which MSPs and which events; but I think the headline summed up a highly successful day. That success was acknowledged generally, and not just by members of the Parliament.

As was referred to in speeches yesterday, one of the expectations that people have of this Parliament is that there should be vigorous debate. Does the First Minister agree that that vigorous debate should, in this new democracy, extend not just to people in this chamber, but through all Scottish society?

That is a proposition that I might even assent to. However, I am not sure that I was emotional or tired last night, but I certainly was not sitting at 1 am looking at Ceefax. [Laughter.] That, Sir David, was a distinctly alarming piece of information from the leader of the nationalists.

I accept that there will be vigorous debate in this chamber. We all want that debate to be extended, when appropriate, into civic society and across the communities of Scotland. We will try to give impetus to that.

A clear message came out of yesterday's happy celebrations: people in Scotland value co-operation among politicians; and on initiatives and areas of policy on which there ought to be agreement, they look forward to the musketry in the party trenches being dumped. I commend that to him.

I fully accept that some people returned home slightly earlier than others.

To ask a precise question: if vigorous debate is to go through Scottish society, will the First Minister join me, Unison, and the Transport and General Workers Union in condemning the action that is being taken by Edinburgh City Council against Mr Dorman and Mr Corsie, whose offence appears to be that, during an election visit by Mr David Blunkett, they voiced their concerns to the press over the private finance initiative?

I have a prejudice against condemning situations of which I have no direct experience. That is perhaps the rather cautious approach of a lawyer; but one has to know the circumstances in their entirety before starting to condemn. Although I realise that there are always attractions in making public denunciations and gestures, before doing so it is important that one equips oneself with real knowledge.

The matter has been well reported in the press, as I am sure that the First Minister is aware. Mr Dorman and Mr Corsie are school janitors. When Mr David Blunkett attended their school during the election campaign, they expressed their concerns over the PFI in terms of jobs. One of the gentlemen is a Labour supporter, one is a Scottish National party supporter; both were concerned about their jobs. The disciplinary charge that they face is that they interfered with a Government minister's visit. Does the First Minister agree that the vigorous new democracy and debate should extend not just to members of the Parliament, not just to leaders of civic society in Scotland, but to every citizen of this country?

We are all in favour of justice and equity as general propositions. All my knowledge of the affair of the two janitors comes from reading published articles. The case is at present subject to an appeal and, in any decent judicial system, politicians do not go around making denunciatory statements in the middle of process.

Lewis Macdonald.

I would like to ask the Scottish Executive what areas of policy it plans to treat cross- departmentally to fulfil its commitment to integrated government.

I apologise, Mr Macdonald. Your name had come up on my computer screen to ask a question on the issue that Mr Salmond raised.

My apologies.

Members should not press their buttons before their question is called. Members who wish to ask questions after this should now press their buttons. I will move now to question 2.

---

Homeless People

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to set and monitor targets to reduce the numbers of homeless people. (S1O-159) The Minister for Communities (Ms Wendy Alexander): On 17 June I announced that the Deputy Minister for Communities is to lead a major new task force to take an in-depth look at the causes of homelessness in Scotland, with the aim of developing a long-term strategy. The Government is already committed to ensuring that by the end of this session of Parliament no one will have to sleep rough.

I thank the minister for that reply and I am glad that the Government is beginning to address that situation. Labour has been in power for two years and homelessness has increased by 14 per cent. What immediate initiatives does the minister intend to implement to reduce the level of homelessness?

There is consensus that one of the reasons for the rise in homelessness is the increase in applications from homeless people through the new code of better reporting that we have introduced. All housing organisations acknowledge that our legislation is 21 years out of date. It does not tell us what we need to know. We have an opportunity to legislate and we will do that based on recommendations as to how homelessness can be prevented, and how we can assist those who are homeless.

I thank the minister for that comprehensive answer, but why is that not in the legislative programme for the coming year?

We have already discussed this and, in keeping with the spirit of consultation in this Parliament, the consultation period for the green paper on housing closed just a few days ago. We have said that we will consult on those proposals and we look forward to introducing legislation.

We picked the area of homelessness because there was unanimity to move forward and to set up a review straight away. Jackie Baillie is now leading that review.

The minister will know that Shelter and many others have welcomed new housing partnerships, but have expressed concerns about the loss of homeless people's statutory rights under the new arrangements. When the Executive brings forward housing legislation, will it consider legislating in that area, or does it consider that contractual rights are adequate?

That is an area that we will consider. There is increasing consensus that we should move towards common registers and common allocations policies that will allow those sorts of issues to be taken into account.

---

Integrated Government

To ask the Scottish Executive what areas of policy it plans to treat cross-departmentally to fulfil its commitment to integrated government. (S1O148) Thank you, Mr Presiding Officer, for giving me the opportunity to be the first member to ask the same question twice at the same meeting.

The Administration regards this as an issue of considerable importance. New ministerial committees on rural development, drugs, social inclusion and the creation of digital Scotland will soon be in operation. One of the failures of the past has been that we have talked a great deal about cross-cutting but we have not made it as effective as we would have liked. I have been in office and must take some of the blame for this. The new Parliament and the new Administration have an opportunity to pick areas of the kind that I mentioned—areas that genuinely straddle the portfolios of a number of ministers—and to set up machinery that is structured and that has the strength to ensure that there is genuine co-operation and co-ordination of attack and progress. These are sensitive, key areas of policy and I look forward to seeing that working and to making progress.

I welcome the First Minister's commitment to those matters and to making the policies work in practice. I commend to him the work that is being done at a local level by the great northern partnership in deprived areas of Aberdeen Central and Aberdeen North. That partnership is developing a cross-cutting approach at local level. Does he agree that tackling urban disadvantage and promoting a policy of social inclusion and regeneration in areas such as Woodside and Tillydrone in Aberdeen not only requires that housing is regenerated, but that GPs are encouraged to move their surgeries into communities? Does he further agree that we should develop a child care strategy that will allow young mothers to work and that we should provide work and training opportunities for young people?

I congratulate Lewis

Macdonald on that omnibus supplementary question, which covered a remarkable range of issues.

I was talking specifically about the machinery of central Government, but I accept that it is important that such models are also considered locally and that we try to build the same level of co-operation and integration in our attack on urban and rural regeneration.

I fear that all of us think about our own patch when such matters are raised. In the city of Glasgow, Glasgow Alliance has an effective focus. It is trying to ensure that the £1.5 billion of public funds that goes into agencies in Glasgow every year has the maximum impact by developing a genuinely co-ordinated approach and by ensuring that when relevant organisations take decisions on their areas of responsibility, they bear in mind what other agencies are doing. Each should buttress the others' efforts, which is the right approach.

The attack on deprivation and poverty and the fight to unlock opportunity for the disadvantaged is an enormously important priority not only for this Administration, but, I hope, for the entire Parliament.

Does the First Minister agree that, while the Executive wants to improve cross-cutting, the onus is also on the parliamentary committees to develop sub-committees and working groups, particularly on the issue of drug misuse? Bearing it in mind that some committees, such as the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, have a very broad remit, members of such a working group could be drawn from the Health and Community Care Committee, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. Sub-committees and working groups need to be set up as soon as possible to address issues such as drug misuse effectively.

I do not dissent; indeed, I positively agree with Keith Raffan's remarks. There are opportunities. However, in the early days we must watch that we do not become over- complex and end up with a multiplicity of committees, each trying to take in someone else's washing. The point of cross-cutting is to simplify and focus on particular issues. That must be the result of any move towards the phenomenon to which he refers. However, if he means that there should be flexibility, I agree entirely.

Bearing in mind the principle of cross-departmental co-operation, will the First Minister speak to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the holiday trap in which school cleaning, catering and clerical staff have found themselves? Staff have suddenly been denied benefit for the summer holiday period because there is a date in their contracts—12 August—for starting back at school. Surely, these people are either entitled to benefit, as has always been the case during the summer, or they are entitled to holiday pay from the devolved Administration.

Social security is not a direct responsibility of this chamber. Although I recognise that Mr Neil has been elected only recently, I am astonished to hear him say that this is a sudden and unexpected problem. I have been aware of it for a considerable period of time. The rules are complex. As Mr Neil no doubt knows, a lot has been going on behind the scenes in the social security world and some settlements have been reached. However, I agree that there are important issues to do with definition. Members of Parliament at Westminster, who have the particular constituency responsibility, will no doubt be corresponding about and examining this issue for a considerable time.

Has the First Minister given much thought to implementation costs? To improve services we must ensure that we achieve best value for the money available. The massive increase in the number of ministerial positions and the escalating costs for the new Parliament building will put an added drain on the funds available. Will he comment?

My first comment is to congratulate Phil Gallie on the consistency of his approach. When he gets something in his mind, he certainly does not forget it in a hurry.

It is enormously important to get value for money. That is a recurrent theme of this Administration and will be of all Administrations. However, if Phil Gallie is inviting me to endorse the principle that proper democratic scrutiny should be taken on the cheap, and that we should not get some of the advantages of the constitutional reform that we represent, I disagree with him deeply.

Of course there will not be profligacy and it is important, whether it be in local government or central Government, that we get value for money. If we fall down on that, we are clearly open to considerable criticism and our ability to argue the case in other areas is greatly undermined.

That concludes question time.

It might be helpful for members to know that, following the constructive letter about question time that I received from the First Minister and the general feeling that perhaps others should be able

to ask questions, I have had a meeting with the Convener of the Procedures Committee. Whoever else is on holiday, the Procedures Committee certainly will not be. The committee will consider the matter urgently over the recess, so we might have a slightly more generous form of question time after the recess.