Plenary, 05 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, October 5, 2000

Official Report 715KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1F-572)

I last met the Secretary of State, along with other colleagues, last week at Brighton, which is a prosperous watering place on the south coast of England. I spoke to him at length this morning. I will be seeing him in Glasgow tomorrow. Our discussions range widely.

I am sure that the Brighton event was as enjoyable as usual.

Did the First Minister's discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland touch on the release of information to the parliamentary committees that are conducting inquiries into the exams crisis; a crisis that has affected many students in Scotland and caused distress to parents and others? It is clear that the release of information to the parliamentary committees lies at the heart of the success of those inquiries. In the discussions that the First Minister has had with Mr McLeish and Mr Galbraith, did he pay any attention to the contents of section 23(1) of the Scotland Act 1998? [Applause.]

Applause is easily earned these days.

I am very familiar with section 23, and regard it as a nuclear option, which no one would want to see used on a regular basis. Of course there is a problem, which John Swinney will be the first to recognise, because there is a code of practice on access to Scottish Executive information that deals with internal discussion and advice. The code holds that such information is exempted from the general assumption of disclosure. That is not an unusual provision. It is true of Westminster. It is also true of a large number of regimes with forward-looking freedom of information acts, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland. But we have made it clear to the committees concerned, and to this chamber, that we are looking for a constructive way forward.

A great deal of thought is being given to this matter by Henry McLeish and Sam Galbraith. I understand that Sam Galbraith met the conveners of the relevant committees today. There was a constructive discussion, and they have gone away to think about some of the proposals that were made.

I am glad to hear that the First Minister is familiar with section 23(1) of the Scotland Act 1998. For the benefit of those who are not as authoritatively involved, I will read it to Parliament:

"The Parliament may require any person . . . to produce documents in his custody or under his control, concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility."

In one of his many distinguished contributions to the House of Commons, Mr McLeish explained that clause for the avoidance of any doubt:

"that any person can be compelled to give evidence and produce documents . . . about fully . . . devolved matters."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 29 January 1998; Vol 305, c 597.]

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Mr McLeish and Mr Galbraith have ministerial responsibility for the Scottish Qualifications Authority. The parliamentary committees have asked for information—[Interruption.] One parliamentary committee has asked for access to information. So far, the Executive has taken four weeks to refuse that access. Is not the First Minister acting in contravention of the Scotland Act 1998?

I am afraid that that explanation was riddled with assumptions that are unsafe and has largely been overtaken by events. Of course, the provisions in section 23 exist. One of the committees—not both—has asked for the production of documents, and so far as I am concerned, I have made it clear that section 23 exists. However, I have tried to explain to Mr Swinney that there are real difficulties about the workings of Government—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the answer.

It would be a shame if there were to be laughter about a serious matter. The point is that, for good reasons, there is protection for direct civil service advice to ministers. In the same way, as John Swinney knows, it is not possible for me to go back and look at papers from the time of Michael Forsyth. That was not open to me as the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is not open to me as First Minister. The reasons for that are self evident, and are established by long habit. Mr Swinney should recognise that there is a problem here. He should also recognise that constructive discussions are going on and that it might be better to let them take their course than to spar in this way.

All I am doing is reminding members of the law and of what is in the Scotland Act 1998, which was put through Parliament by Mr Dewar and Mr McLeish. I have been considering the guidance notes that go with the issues to which the First Minister has referred. One of the points in the notes is that

"potential embarrassment which may be caused to civil servants or Ministers should not be a factor in deciding whether information should be made available."

Would it not be better—for the thousands and thousands of people who were affected by the crisis over the summer—to be open and accountable with the public than to operate in a culture of secrecy? Is it not time for the First Minister to order the release of those documents, or will he continue to be in contravention of the Scotland Act 1998?

First, I am not in contravention of the Scotland Act 1998. Section 23 is a power that has not yet been invoked and if Mr Swinney wants to bandy legal points with me, I must point out to him that that is the legal position. I said that I thought that section 23 was something of a nuclear option. If carelessly invoked, it will do great damage to relationships between ministers of any political party and the civil service and the way in which it operates. If he was a little nearer to Government, he might see that rather more clearly than he does at the moment.

In any event, I have made it clear that discussions are in hand. My understanding is that the discussions today were fairly constructive. Proposals are on the table. I very much hope that they will not be rejected out of hand, simply because of the démarche that Mr Swinney has made at question time today.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-591)

The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday and we will discuss the issues of the day.

I hope that the Cabinet will discuss the bitter disappointment that many older people in Scotland will feel when they learn later this afternoon that the Scottish Executive will not implement for Scotland the Sutherland commission recommendation that all personal care costs should be met out of the national health service budget.

Last week, in the debate on the issue, we were told that Labour opposed that recommendation because it would benefit so-called rich pensioners. Does the First Minister consider the many thousands of pensioners who bought their council houses to be rich and that they should be forced to sell their houses to pay for their long-term care?

Mr McLetchie will have to wait a little while for the statement that Susan Deacon will make later.

I have said repeatedly that the test that we will apply is whether expenditure—it will be big expenditure—raises the standard of care for a significant number of people who require support in their homes or who are in residential care. When I talk to pensioners, the common complaints that I hear—certainly in my surgery and I suspect it is true of most members—concern a range of matters that are immediate priorities: the difficulty in getting appliances; the difficulty in getting the right support package that will allow someone to leave hospital; and the difficulties for families who are struggling with a heavy caring burden and looking for respite care. I repeat: the test is how we raise the standard of care for those who need it.

I thank the First Minister for that, but if he considers the record, he will see that the test that he was proclaiming last week in our exchange on the matter was one of fairness and equity. I agreed with him that it is a question of fairness and equity. Why then should the pensioner who bought his council house and developed Alzheimer's disease have to pay for his care, while the next-door neighbour, who remained a tenant, is entitled to care, irrespective of what illnesses may strike him or her in later life? Where is the fairness and equity in that?

Fairness and equity in public funding is ensuring that the people who require help and care are the ones who get it. Choices must be made. I know that members will hear later about an exciting package—which will cost a great deal of money—investing in community care and in help and support for older people who are suffering from the infirmities of age. It is right that we should concentrate on that as an immediate priority.

Has the First Minister's Cabinet discussed the continuing potential threat to the public ownership of the water and sewerage industry that is presented by the proposal to open up that industry to competition from English and French private companies? Many of those companies have opened up offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh in anticipation of that competition.

Will the First Minister say whether the Cabinet has considered asking for a block exemption from the Competition Act 1998? The water and sewerage industry is a strategic industry in Scotland and I believe it to be the will of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people that, like publicly owned railways in France and Spain, it should remain under public ownership and public control.

There has been a great deal of discussion among colleagues, led by Sarah Boyack, about how we should face up to the challenge of the competition that is being brought in by Westminster legislation, which is a difficult and complicated matter. I believe that a consultation document is available and no doubt all who have a point of view on the matter will want to contribute to the debate by responding to the points made in the consultation exercise. I give John McAllion an absolutely clear assurance that we have every intention of, and are totally committed to, keeping the water industry in the public sector.

---

Exams Inquiry

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will supply all of the papers that are being made available to Deloitte & Touche in connection with its inquiry into the handling of this year's exam results to the Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee and Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. (S1F-583)

I refer Fergus Ewing to the reply that I gave to John Swinney a few minutes ago.

Why has the Scottish Executive chosen to employ commercial consultants at a cost of £80,000 and to call private meetings to discuss secret documents behind closed doors? Is not it imperative for the future of this Parliament and its reputation that we have open inquiries, with all evidence made available, in order to get at the whole truth? Surely the Scottish people and their elected representatives deserve nothing less.

All I say to Fergus Ewing is that he is taking a very simplistic approach. Let me make it clear that Deloitte & Touche is employed to provide expertise to ensure a thorough analysis of what went wrong in certain areas of particular speciality. We concluded that it was right to get outside help, as we did not have that expertise in-house.

Deloitte & Touche is employed on a confidential basis and its work is governed by the Official Secrets Act 1989. If I had any confidence that Mr Ewing would abide by that act, he might have a stronger case.

On a point of order. I realise that we are not honourable members in this Parliament, but we do not impugn the integrity of our colleagues.

If Mr Ewing feels that I have impugned his integrity, I am sorry. However—and I am not making a particular point about him—there has been a slight tendency in the committee system for information often to reach the press with surprising speed. [Interruption.]

Having made the point about Deloitte & Touche, I repeat—although Fergus Ewing must know this—that talks to find a way forward that will recognise the difficulties that exist are continuing. Those talks will, I hope, produce an acceptable solution for all concerned. He ought to welcome the fact that those discussions are continuing, rather than simply ignore them in order to make points.

Does the First Minister agree that the overriding priority must be to ensure that all those affected have clear information on where we are with outstanding papers? Can he advise me—if he knows—when all outstanding markings and assessments will be completed?

I cannot give Marilyn Livingstone a time scale, because talks are continuing. I understand that today Sam Galbraith met the conveners of the two committees that are involved. I described those discussions as constructive because that was the report that reached me. I know that proposals are on the table. I hope that the matter can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion shortly.

---

Public Spending

To ask the First Minister what assessment has been made by the Scottish Executive of the impact of increased public spending. (S1F-588)

As Michael McMahon knows, public spending will increase by £1.2 billion, £2.3 billion and £3.4 billion over the three years to 2003-04 cumulatively. That will have a substantial impact on the provision of services in Scotland. That spending has been widely welcomed and is dramatic. Health spending will increase by nearly 15 per cent by 2003-04, justice spending by nearly 13 per cent, transport spending by 45 per cent and education spending by 17 per cent. Those are substantial results, and there will be a multiplier effect, particularly in local government but also in many other areas of employment, which I think will be widely welcomed.

I join the First Minister in welcoming the positive impact of the Scottish Executive's spending strategy. Does he agree that the alternative of cutting public services rather than investing in them would cause massive and long-lasting problems for communities and businesses throughout Scotland, but especially in Lanarkshire? Does he agree that there is no place in Scotland for the slashing of public services, and that employees in the public services in Scotland should also benefit from the Executive's spending strategy to boost their morale?

I certainly agree with Michael McMahon about that. At the moment we are faced with a debate that has a certain air of unreality about it. We have a bid on the table, one might say, and a firm intention and declaration, which will be met. From other parts of the political horizon there come some very strange claims, which do not stand even the most cursory examination. The important point is to get on with the business of improving public services in Scotland, reaching levels of public spending that are higher in real terms than ever before, and ensuring that the quality of life for those who depend on those services is improved.

Will the First Minister confirm that, at the end of the period to which he referred, Labour will be investing a lower proportion of the national wealth in public services than was invested when the Conservatives left office? Is that true, or is that another secret?

I will certainly look very carefully at that. However, I can tell Andrew Wilson that, in real terms, the level of public spending will be higher than ever before. It may be that, as a percentage of gross domestic product, there is another picture, but that is because of the Government's success in expanding GDP.

---

National Health Service

To ask the First Minister what specific plans the Scottish Executive has to avert any adverse consequences of winter pressures on the provision of NHS services this winter. (S1F-576)

As Ben Wallace knows, after the experiences of last winter a great deal of effort has gone into planning. The winter performance group established by the Scottish Executive reported in August and a winter planning conference was held last month. Most importantly, substantial additional spending of £60 million has been specifically allocated to action that will guard against difficulties in the coming winter.

Can the First Minister tell us why the Executive did not inform the flu vaccine industry of the need for an increase in the production of the vaccine until 22 April this year, exactly one month after the appropriate deadline, which may lead to a shortage of supply this winter? Will he therefore give us his personal assurance that he is satisfied that the Executive's measures that are now in place will avoid a repeat of the crisis that we saw last year in the NHS?

I do not blame Ben Wallace for making that point, because there has been much speculation about it in the press. However, I am told that there will be 900,000 doses of flu vaccine available for use in Scotland. That is a 75 per cent increase on the 520,000 doses that were available last year. We are confident that that substantial increase will benefit the population and will guard against a flu epidemic, with all the pressures that it puts on individuals and on hospital services. I hope that that increase will be widely welcomed.

I have a letter from the Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council, whose chairman, George Romanes, writes:

"I was surprised to read the negative coverage which appeared . . . last weekend about the supply of influenza vaccines . . . It is therefore our opinion that most of the hype surrounding the shortage of vaccines is unfounded."

I hope that that is so.

Does the First Minister agree that the

"adverse consequences of winter pressures"

necessitate the local delivery of certain health services such as the consultant-led maternity service that is based at Wick general hospital?

I am not going to be tempted—even by the charm of Jamie Stone—to discuss the immediate future of the maternity unit at Wick, although I am sure that it gives great satisfaction to those who use it.

We are satisfied that standards will generally rise if we invest wisely in the health service. As Mr Stone knows, the Arbuthnott committee—the findings of which are being implemented—as well as dealing with some of the problems of areas of high deprivation recognised openly, and in practical ways, the problems of delivering services in rural areas.

There is always a contest and tension between the advice that is received from the medical world about the best way in which to deliver quality services, and the loyalty that a community feels towards an individual hospital. Getting that balance right is not easy.

That concludes First Minister's questions.

On a point of order. Can the Presiding Officer advise us how the matter that arose in the First Minister's replies to John Swinney and Fergus Ewing can be pursued? The First Minister said that section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998 is a power that has not been invoked. Can you tell us how it can be invoked? Can you, as the Presiding Officer, force the Executive to release the relevant documents, or would it require action in the Court of Session to force the Executive to obey the law?

At the moment, the papers that were referred to have been requested but not required. Therefore, that is a hypothetical question. Discussions are continuing between ministers and conveners of committees, and I leave the matter in their hands.