SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Westminster (Visits)
To ask the First Minister when he next plans to visit the Westminster Parliament. (S1F72) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I was there on 12 January 2000 and, sadly, it turned out to be a one-line whip. However, I am going again on 9 February and, of course, visit Westminster regularly.
I am sure that, like me, the First Minister likes to welcome distinguished visitors to the Parliament. This morning, I was delighted to meet and welcome Mr Tom Conti when he visited the Parliament as a guest of Colin Campbell.
When the First Minister next goes to the Westminster Parliament, will he take the opportunity to talk to the Prime Minister about the press report in The Scotsman last Friday, which announced the Prime Minister's visit to Scotland under the headline:
"Blair visit to ‘reassure' Scots over devolution
Labour turmoil continues as Dewar is forced to defend another aide"?
The article argued the line from Labour sources that the Prime Minister's visit to Scotland was to shore up the First Minister's incompetent Administration. Is that the reason for the visit, or are London spin doctors as out of control as the ones in Edinburgh?
I should make an important announcement—I have no one to welcome in the gallery today, although all who are here are of course very welcome. As for Tom Conti, I was also delighted to meet his wife, Kara Wilson, who was at university with me and who gave me a very pleasant kiss. Sir David, may I say, without sounding pathetic, that that is not something that happens to me every day. [Laughter.]
As for the report in The Scotsman, I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to say a few words of welcome to the Parliament. The chamber will remember that, for very good reasons, he was unfortunately unable to be at the official opening ceremonies. He will be in Scotland for a very simple purpose: to address the annual conference of the Scottish Labour party. If he were not coming for that purpose, I cannot think of all the ingenious words that would be used to suggest that that was a snub, a disaster and a repudiation of Scotland.
On the subject of snubs, I am sure
that Mr George Foulkes is recovering from not being welcomed by the First Minister.
I want to return to the report in The Scotsman, which quotes senior Labour sources in London as saying:
"[Mr Dewar's administration] were meant to be the best and brightest that Scottish Labour had to offer, but they have displayed a naivete and incompetence that is quite extraordinary. People are appalled by the sheer naked incompetence of it."
If we leave to one side the "naked" bit, are not people right to be appalled by the Executive's incompetence, just as they should be appalled at the arrogance of London spin doctors who say that all that is required to sort everything out is a visit from the Prime Minister?
I have noticed a rather depressing tendency for Alex Salmond to reduce everything to arguments ad hominem. If he wants to judge this Parliament and this Administration, perhaps he should consider some of the achievements and policies that we have pursued. I am unashamedly proud of the fact that we were able to announce a settlement for student finance, which is very distinctly built for Scotland and will put £50 million gross into student support. The settlement was described by the spokesman for the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals as a new and better ball game compared with the old system.
I am proud of the fact that, since March 1998, waiting lists in the health service have fallen by more than 15 per cent. I am proud of the fact that we have the lowest unemployment claimant count for 24 years. I am certainly proud of the fact that we have the biggest building programme for Scottish schools that we have ever seen.
How interesting. The same source said in The Scotsman that there were concerns about
"the fallout south of the Border over student tuition fees"
and the Administration in Scotland.
The First Minister says that he knows the reason for the Prime Minister's visit. Are we expected to believe that the fact that the last prime ministerial visit to Scotland took place during the Hamilton by- election and that the next will take place a week before the Ayr by-election is mere coincidence? Or are people in Scotland entitled to be appalled by the Administration's incompetence, by the effrontery of the Labour spin doctors in London and by the gall of a Prime Minister who wants to treat this Parliament as a political plaything a week before a by-election? [Applause.]
The noise of the chief whip's clapping shows a certain loyalty.
I very much hope that Alex Salmond will listen with courtesy to what the Prime Minister has to say. I hope that Alex Salmond will not tailor his response to the visit to whether the Prime Minister goes to the Ayr by-election, but I rather fear that that is what will happen.
I say to Mr Salmond that, occasionally, people come to my surgeries clutching newspaper cuttings and boring me with them—[Interruption.] I regard them with some suspicion.
Scottish Executive
To ask the First Minister whether he will outline the Scottish Executive's priorities. (S1F-74) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): The Executive's priorities were set out clearly in "Making it work together: a programme for government", which was published last September.
It is important that we concentrate on major policy areas, such as health, education and the strengthening of the economy. I offer that to Mr McLetchie as a friendly, early warning point, because I fear that if the Scottish Conservatives approach the next election in their present state of confusion, the slaughter is likely to be terrible.
In a week in which Wim Duisenberg, the president of the European Central Bank, said that in his opinion it will be many years before the United Kingdom will be ready to join the euro, and when according to opinion polls some 70 per cent of British people—indeed 58 per cent of Labour voters—want to retain the pound, will the First Minister tell us—[Interruption.]
Order.
Members must contain themselves.
Is it one of the First Minister's priorities to continue his unholy alliance with Alex Salmond and Jim Wallace in the Scotland in Europe campaign, which they launched so enthusiastically last autumn?
Our position on Europe is well known and well set out.
Although I may be misjudging the situation— genuine prejudice may be involved—I fear that for the sake of short-term electoral gain the Conservatives are trying to rule out any progress at all on the European front. That is unfortunate for a major political party. Most of us take the view that when the circumstances are right, there is a very strong case for entry to the euro. That is something that must be judged in terms of its impact on employment and on our economy and, of course, has to be endorsed by the people in a
referendum.
That is an eminently sensible and proper position for the Government to take. I recognise that populist slogans about the pound may give some consolation to those who are in struggle, but such slogans are not grown-up politics.
The First Minister will acknowledge that Mr Duisenberg's comments on the timetable are far more in accord with my party's policy than with the various policies announced daily by HM Government.
For the benefit of other members of the Parliament, I observe that the First Minister did not answer my initial question about the Scotland in Europe campaign to abolish the pound in which his party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party are enthusiastic participants. I am surprised by the First Minister's coyness; it is obviously the euro love that dare not speak its name.
If I could I move on to another issue—[MEMBERS: "No."] I was generous with the amount of time I gave the First Minister to answer. I am sure that he can listen for a few moments to this very pertinent question.
As the First Minister is aware, HM Government, the Scottish Executive and many public agencies are spending millions of pounds on the Government's national handover—or changeover—plan to abolish the pound and adopt the euro. In light of Mr Duisenberg's comments, will the First Minister instruct Government agencies in Scotland to abandon their participation in the campaign and so release millions of pounds to ministers to spend on hard-pressed public services? Or is it the First Minister's policy to continue to hedge his bets at the taxpayers' expense?
The answer, quite clearly, is no. I like to think that Mr McLetchie will go and talk to Scottish industry. If he does, I accept that he will find a variety of views, but among many people he will find a certain degree of contempt for the black and white way in which the argument is presented by the Conservative party and for the popularisation of the campaign for progress in Europe and the possibility of joining—
He means that we are winning, David.
That is very interesting. I suspect that that is all that matters to David McLetchie—the hope that he is winning. He should perhaps look at the polls and be just a little bit more humble. The important thing is to have an intelligent debate, which is the one thing of which I see no sign at all.
I offer an olive branch to David McLetchie. I know that the Conservative party in Scotland has a proven record of being able to change its mind. I was particularly touched when I listened to "Good Morning Scotland" today to hear the leader of the Tory party in Westminster's heart-felt tribute to the need for a Scottish Parliament. I genuinely appreciated his comments. I hope that Mr McLetchie will undergo a similar conversion to a more reasonable attitude to the important issues he raised in his question.
Local Government Act 1986
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's timetable is for the publication of the guidelines with regard to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. (S1F-75) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): My colleague, Sam Galbraith, announced last week the package of safeguards that will be put in place before the repeal takes effect. Part of that package will be a review of the existing curricular materials used by teachers. A working group is being appointed to undertake the review, the membership of which will include representatives of parents, teachers and Churches.
We will publish the group's views on the package of safeguards and its proposals for revising the guidelines before a final vote is taken on the bill. We certainly will not bring the repeal of section 2A into force until that work has been concluded and revised guidelines are in place.
I thank the First Minister for that full response. I was aware of Sam Galbraith's letter to school boards, but I am disappointed to hear that the guidelines will be available only before a final vote and not at an earlier stage of consideration of the bill.
If the current guidelines, which allow the discussion of homosexuality in schools, fail to work to the First Minister's satisfaction, will he explain why parents should accept that the new guidelines will work to their satisfaction? Would not it be in the best interests of calm and sensitive debate on section 2A to delay the possible repeal of the section so that we may have a full inquiry into all sex education in Scottish schools?
I do not agree, but I am genuinely happy if Mr Monteith is in favour of a rational, good-tempered and balanced debate on the issue, and I would welcome his contribution to such a debate.
The answer is to get a package of safeguards that reflect the values of family, marriage and stable relationships, and which offer as a basis for the upbringing of children security, stability and, hopefully, happiness.
I think that the best safeguard is not section 2A; the best safeguard is the skill and professionalism of teachers in a very sensitive area, the policies laid down in schools by head teachers, the vigilance of HM inspectorate of schools and, very important, the concern and involvement of parents.
Mr Monteith will remember that any parent who is upset or concerned about what might be happening has every right to raise the issue that concerns them, which will be properly and immediately investigated. I hope that it will not be necessary, but any parent can, in extremis, withdraw their child from sex education classes.
It is a question of how to promote tolerance. I fear that the existence of section 2A on the statute book does not, in my balanced judgment, do that; indeed, it stands in its way.
I am glad that the First Minister's reply took some time, as I was quite speechless on hearing Brian Monteith talking about a calm and sensible debate on section 2A.
Does the First Minister agree that the issue of the repeal of section 2A should not be used as a vehicle for party political jibes or for the expression of personal prejudice, as that detracts from the importance of appropriate sex education and the promotion of good sexual health for all Scotland's young people, whatever their sexual orientation?
Does the First Minister agree that this Parliament would be letting the young people of Scotland down if its political parties did not work together to promote appropriate sex education in encouraging young people to engage in their first sexual experience when they are older, which would reduce the current unacceptable level of teenage conceptions and abortions in Scotland?
I agree with a great deal of what Kate MacLean said, and with the spirit in which she said it. We all want an effective framework that encourages children to face up to the real world and equips them to do that effectively and responsibly. There is no doubt that the main weight remains on the shoulders of parents and family. Schools have an important role to play, and we want to get it right.
I say to Kate—and I mean this—that there are encouraging signs on this matter. There is a willingness, at least in this chamber, to examine the arguments and to conduct a debate in the way that members have described in the past few minutes. I hope that that will become the norm throughout this chamber in areas as sensitive and, in a sense, as non-political but as socially important, as this.
I note, in relation to Sam Galbraith's announcement last week about the working group, and in particular about the materials to be used in sex education in classrooms, the First Minister's comments about the organisations or representative bodies that will be involved. Can the First Minister be more specific about which organisations and, in particular, which bodies from the teaching profession, will be involved in the working group? It is teachers who will be responsible for using the material the working group may provide.
I do not want to be more specific at this point. Some thought is going into the matter and it is important to have a properly balanced working group that will carry out the remit we are all setting it.
I hope that there will be an announcement reasonably soon, but until people have been approached and until we are a little further down the track, it would not be helpful for me to speculate.
Convention of the Highlands and Islands
To ask the First Minister what plans there are for the future of the convention of the Highlands and Islands. (S1F-79) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I am pleased to announce that the convention of the Highlands and Islands will be reconvened in March this year. It is a difficult matter, because the number of possible participants has increased enormously, and the political circumstances, with the setting up of this Parliament, have changed.
There are now 16 MSPs representing the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area in the Parliament, and there are other elected members at parliamentary level. There is no longer a shortage of opportunity for the parliamentary representatives of the Highlands and Islands to make representations to the UK Parliament and to this Parliament's Executive. Members of the Scottish, Westminster and European Parliaments will not therefore be part of the reconstituted convention.
We will concentrate on the continuing need for the Executive to meet the key agencies responsible for the economic development of the Highlands and Islands, which need to work together to secure a prosperous future for the region. That includes local enterprise companies, the area tourist boards and, above all, the locally elected representatives of councils.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the previous convention and thank them for their contribution to its work. I hope that,
in its new geometry, the convention will resume its valuable role in providing direct access to ministers for the key agencies in the Highlands and Islands.
I welcome the First Minister's announcement and I hope that the convention will give local representatives the direct access to the Executive that we enjoy in this Parliament.
How will the local authority representatives be chosen? Will the convention continue to meet in public?
I do not want to anticipate a decision by the convention about meeting in public. I hope that it does. No doubt that will be discussed when it reconvenes.
I recognise that a controversy surrounds the constitution of the convention. Alasdair Morrison, who has been involved in many members' business debates at the end of the day, tells me that he has taken part in five such debates on the Highlands and Islands so far. Through our committee system and the chamber, we have a great opportunity for talking about issues relating to the area.
We wanted to make the scale of the convention practical and useful. It seemed to us that it was right to concentrate on the membership that I outlined. I am grateful to Maureen Macmillan for understanding that.
I am sure that the First Minister will be aware of the enthusiasm and co-operation that has been demonstrated by all members of the convention of the Highlands and Islands in the past, and in particular the excellent work that they have undertaken on behalf of communities in the Highlands and Islands.
Will he ensure that the Scottish Executive will encourage and support the continuation of this all- party group?
I can promise the member that there will be strong support for the convention and for its work. It was a useful organisation in the two years I was Secretary of State for Scotland, which is one of the reasons why—despite some difficulties about its constitution—we were so keen to see it re-established.
It is right that we should have this listening post. It is right that—particularly at a local authority level—the Highlands and Islands should come together to put arguments to ministers. I look forward to being part of that process and—to be straightforward—learning from that process.
I am sure that the First Minister agrees that people in the Highlands and Islands want politicians to work together. That is impossible if we are not at the table together. A man of his intelligence would surely find it easy to devise a model that allows all elected parliamentarians—from this place, Westminster and Europe—to be represented. We could operate on a rota basis—we do not expect everybody to be able to be there on every occasion.
Has the First Minister abandoned consensus? Has he abandoned the slogan, "working together"? If he has, I would ask him, "Donald, where is your democracy now?"
I do not take that from Fergus Ewing. Perhaps I will say no more than that.
I will say that the business has been difficult. Fergus Ewing—who is in touch with his part of the Highlands and has great access to ministers and is able to put his point of view in this chamber— should not assume that the convention cannot operate properly without the benefit of his wisdom.
One of the most strongly put representations that I heard was that we should drop all the local representation and have the convention made up entirely of parliamentarians. That was an extreme choice that we clearly did not want to take. Along with the Westminster MPs from the Highlands and Islands, there are 16 MSPs from the area and eight MSPs who have an interest in the Highlands and Islands. A body made up of those representatives as well as local representatives would be unwieldy.
We will see how things go. We will see what those who are on the convention make of it. I intend to try to make a success of it and I hope that I will have Fergus Ewing's help.
On a point of order. I crave your indulgence for some guidance, Presiding Officer. Which minister—it may be your own committee or bureau—is responsible for day-to-day expenditure on the Holyrood project? I find it extremely difficult to get anyone to own up to responsibility for the money that is being spent daily. Is that operational or financial?
That is not a point of order. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is responsible, and I answer for it. If you lodge a question, I shall answer it.