Plenary, 07 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, September 7, 2000

Official Report 586KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the last meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-504)

It is as though I had never been away. The Cabinet discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.

I thought that the discussion might have been on education, education, education.

Is the First Minister aware of the terms of section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1996? That section states that the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose responsibilities in this regard lie now with the Minister for Children and Education,

"may, after consultation with SQA, give SQA directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of its functions and it shall be the duty of SQA to comply with such directions."

Given that that is in the act, why did the Minister for Children and Education try to persuade us yesterday that he did not have those powers?

The advice that I received is that ministers could not use their power of direction in any way that would have the effect of the Executive taking over any of the Scottish Qualifications Authority's functions. The power of direction refers to the SQA's substantive functions as conferred by statute; devising, accrediting and awarding qualifications and assessment. It does not apply to incidental matters such as staffing or allocation of responsibilities in the organisation. There is no way in which the SQA's functions could revert to ministers without primary legislation.

I assure Mr Salmond that the Executive is extremely interested in education, education, education. That is why—if he bothers to look at the statistics—he will see that we have more teachers in primary and secondary schools than we had a year ago, more classroom assistants, a better pupil to teacher ratio and a much more healthy educational outlook.

I noticed that the First Minister moved quickly away from discussing what is in the act. The act refers to the discharge of the SQA's functions and the power of compliance that is given to the minister. Given that, why did Mr Galbraith say the following to Mr Harper yesterday?

"As I think I explained, and as will now be clear to everyone, I have absolutely no powers to instruct the SQA to do anything."—[Official Report, 6 September 2000; Vol 8, c 30.]

Is that statement true or false, given what is in the act?

I have made that clear. Mr Salmond will appreciate the distinction between a departmental agency and a non-departmental public body. Of course we have a right in statute to lay down the terms and conditions in the terms of the—[Interruption.] It would help if Nicola Sturgeon would stop shouting. At times, the Scot Nat benches sound like a cliff of seagulls, which does not help the standard of debate.

Of course there is a power to lay down directions with regard to the objectives of the organisation and its task. However, it is an arm's-length body—it employs its own staff, it controls its own staff and we do not have the power to walk through the door and take over. It is important to recognise that.

The first thing that matters at this point is not a discussion about textual legal interpretation between Mr Salmond and myself—neither of us is expert in the matter. The first priority is to make sure that we get the matter put right. We must get the system in good order and in a situation in which we can tell parents, pupils and teachers that there will be no repeat of the difficulties that we have seen in the past few months. That is what Sam Galbraith is making sure of and I strongly support it.

As an explanation for Mr Galbraith telling us yesterday that he did not have those powers, I offer the fact that he was trying to shift the entire responsibility and blame onto the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

Will the First Minister accept what every parent, teacher and student in Scotland knows; that the man who has presided over this educational disaster should take responsibility for it?

Will the First Minister, with his considerable parliamentary experience, accept that an education minister who has been caught so blatantly dissembling to Parliament should not be in office at 5 o'clock this afternoon?

No, I absolutely reject the charge of dissembling to Parliament and I hope that Alex Salmond will regret it when he starts to think in retrospect about this particular exchange.

I repeat: the job of the chamber and of everyone in it is to ensure that we get the matter right and that we achieve a secure future for the pupils, teachers and parents in the Scottish educational system. I want the inquiries—set up by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and other committees—to be carried through with thoroughness, integrity and balance. I hope that those inquiries analyse and inform and illuminate the chamber.

I am concerned about some of the things that have been said—Nicola Sturgeon provides an example. She stated:

"Through the education committee's inquiry, his role and culpability will be plain for all to see, and after that inquiry, there will only be one possible outcome - Sam Galbraith's removal from office."

I ask Mr Salmond to consider this: would not it be better to ask Ms Sturgeon to step down from the committee? If it were any sort of independent tribunal, she would certainly be barred from taking part on the ground of evincing malice.

---

Scottish Cabinet

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to reshuffle his Cabinet. (S1F-500)

No.

You're no getting in, David.

I can assure Mr McAveety that it would be a substantial improvement if I did.

Many candidates come to mind for a change of a position and Mr Galbraith is obviously among them, given the evidence of the past day or two.

I wish to pick up on a couple of the points that were raised initially by Mr Salmond, in particular the business about dissembling or misleading Parliament. Yesterday, Mr Galbraith was asked by Mrs Smith about his powers in relation to the Scottish Qualifications Authority. In answering, he omitted to mention that he has wide-ranging powers of direction, which are of a

"general or specific character with regard to the discharge"

of the functions of the SQA.

I put it to the First Minister that such convenient paraphrasing was misleading to Parliament and that that should be corrected by the Minister for Children and Education. The minister should stop hiding behind semantic distinctions between an instruction on the one hand and a wide-ranging power of direction on the other.

That is not the information and advice that I have been given. I put it in those terms because I do not pretend to be a constitutional lawyer.

I repeat to Mr McLetchie the point that I made to him earlier: that there is clearly a power to lay down in statute the aims, objectives and remit of the SQA. The point of the authority is that it is an arm's-length organisation. That is the point of a non-departmental public body, as distinct from a public body that has some sort of remit that lies within the Executive itself, or a next-steps agency. There is a gradation and the authority is, as a non-departmental public body, at the far edge of it.

I know that it is convenient to argue—I understand this—that we could just ignore the statutory basis of the organisation and that we could ignore the rules. However, if we had done so, we would have been in considerable difficulties, and I hope that Mr McLetchie will consider that carefully. It is an interesting area that will have to be considered by Mr McLeish and Mr Galbraith—no doubt many other people will want to help them—when they examine the review of the relationships between the Executive and that non-departmental public body.

It is a serious issue, because there have always been seen to be real advantages in independence of action and impartiality and in removing relevant matters from direct political control. I do not think that Mr McLetchie in particular—if I may say so, given the political traditions from which he comes—should simply ignore that and sweep the matter to one side.

It is not a question of ignoring the matter; it is a question of interpretation of the powers that are available to ministers. I think that the First Minister will acknowledge that I would never endorse breaking of the law by any representative of the Scottish Executive in his or her ministerial capacity.

Will the First Minister confirm for the record that no action could have been taken by the Scottish ministers in exercising their powers under section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 which would have corrected the situation that existed until 13 August? Will he confirm that there is no action that could have been taken by Scottish ministers in exercising their statutory powers that Mr Galbraith omitted to take?

If Mr McLetchie follows closely—as I am sure he will—the investigations of the committee of inquiry, he will discover that a great deal of action was taken in terms of the advice that was offered, continuous contact and the efforts that were made to unscramble an increasingly difficult situation. It would be sensible to wait until the story has been told—until it has unfolded and has been investigated with, I hope, the kind of impartiality that the chamber expects.

I hope also that Mr McLetchie will take pleasure—as I do—in the figures that Sam Galbraith announced yesterday, which show that 23,694 Scottish students have definitely been allocated university places. That is 2.6 per cent more than had been accepted at the same stage in the process last year, and the figure is well above the much smaller increase in the number of English acceptances.

---

Drugs

To ask the First Minister what measures are being taken to ensure that Scotland works together with the rest of the United Kingdom in tackling drug trafficking and drug dealers. (S1F-514)

On behalf of my Labour colleagues, I welcome the First Minister back to question time.

I thank Margaret Curran for her welcome. It is with mixed feelings that I find myself standing here, but I am looking forward to the future.

There is an enormous amount of co-operation across and between the agencies north and south of the border. The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is well placed to co-ordinate its activities with those of the UK law enforcement agencies, including the National Criminal Intelligence Service and HM Customs and Excise.

I thank the First Minister for that reply and welcome the determination behind those concerted efforts.

Does he agree that the most effective way in which to pursue the drug dealers who so ruthlessly exploit our communities—as is graphically demonstrated in my constituency in the east end of Glasgow—is to use assertively the powers of Parliament and to work in partnership and constructively across borders as a devolved Scotland within the framework of the United Kingdom?

Drug dealers do not respect national or administrative boundaries—it is important to remember that. I do not want to end with a flurry of statistics, but there is no doubt that the work of the police has been impressive. Between 1990 and 1998, seizures of drugs rose from 5,900 to 27,000 cases. That reflects increasing efficiency, but sadly, it also probably charts the increasing difficulties, danger and spread of the misuse of drugs. I agree that we will have to make our contribution and learn from other places. There is much talk about the seizure of assets and we are trying to find the right way to hit the pockets of the people who have been dealing drugs. Of course, we are also leading the way on the enforcement side with the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which the Prime Minister visited the other day.

What assurance can the First Minister give to the chief constable and deputy chief constable from different Scottish police forces who, in meetings with me, have questioned the need for the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the difference that it will make? They have expressed concern that they might lose some of their senior drugs officers and feel that the money that is being spent on the SDEA would be better spent on cutting demand, through further increased provision for treatment, rehabilitation and aftercare.

I understand that local people will often feel that way. However, I believe that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency has an important role to play. It will bring in 100 new police officers, who will develop special expertise in dealing with sophisticated drug dealers. It has been regarded widely as a helpful and progressive development in the enforcement field.

Keith Raffan will know that in May, I think, £8.9 million of additional money was allocated to police forces and it is expected that that will mean an additional 300 police officers. That will, I hope, help. We keep the situation under review always and I look forward to being able to help the police to maintain a really efficient service in this area.

We have been talking about enforcement, which takes about 45 per cent of the budget. We spend about 55 per cent on treatment and it is very important that we do not forget how vital preventive measures are in trying to help people who are the victims of drugs as certainly as are those who suffer from drug users' predations.

---

Less Favoured Areas Scheme

To ask the First Minister how the Executive will ensure that farmers and crofters in the Highlands and Islands get an adequate level of compensation for high transport, fuel and ferry costs under the new less favoured areas scheme. (S1F-513)

The immediate priority is to secure early European Commission agreement to Scotland's rural development plan. That will enable LFA payments to be made to Scotland's farmers and crofters next March. Where the switch from headage to area payments results in claimants receiving less than they will this year, individuals are guaranteed payments that are equal to at least 90 per cent of the current year's support.

Thank you. Is the First Minister aware that the new less favoured areas scheme is designed to compensate farmers and crofters for permanent and severe climatic and geographical disadvantage? That means compensation for the high transport and fuel costs experienced by farmers in the Highlands and Islands, which would put them on the same competitive playing field as their counterparts in central and lowland Scotland. The First Minister should be aware that farmers in Kintyre made a comparison between identical farms in Kintyre and in Lanarkshire. The difference per year in Kintyre because of extra costs was £8,000. I ask for the First Minister's assurance that the new scheme will take those extra costs into consideration and deal with it when it is finalised.

As George Lyon of all people knows—with his background and the offices he has held—we cannot alter arbitrarily payments that are made under the auspices of the European Union, even if we were so minded. It is important that we have a Government that has shown, during the past two or three years of crisis, that it is prepared to release substantial sums of money to help agriculture. It has also—with the rural transport fund, the public transport fund, vehicle excise duty remissions and the extent to which livestock exports from Orkney and Shetland are helped by a rebate—tried to tackle the other problems that people in rural areas face. A whole range of measures are being undertaken. Of course we are always under pressure—and rightly so—to do more and to do better, but we will do everything we can to maintain the industry. We have made that clear repeatedly and, more important, we have put our money where our mouth is.

Is the First Minister aware of the scale of the collapse of hill-farming and crofting incomes since his party came to power? What comfort can he give to crofters and farmers in the Highlands and Islands that the less favoured areas scheme will be enough to sustain agriculture in the hills in future?

I do not know where Mr McGrigor farms or how he farms—

Or on what planet.

Perhaps fortunately, I did not catch that agricultural remark from another farmer.

Of course we understand that it has been bad, that it has been tough and that there has been a substantial drop in farm incomes. I am glad to say that conditions seem to have improved in the beef sector. There has undoubtedly been a revival in lamb prices. I think it is also fair to say, although I look to greater experts than myself, that there has been some recovery in pork prices as well, which has helped the very hard-pressed pig industry.

I do not think anyone of fair mind would deny that we have been able to supplement substantially the £0.5 billion European support payments for farmers in Scotland. I do not apologise for that—we were glad to do it—but the real task now, in which Ross Finnie is playing a distinguished role with excellent co-operation from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, is to try to see how we can move to a sustainable rural economy that has farming at its heart.

It will be not easy to do that, but we must do it. We cannot continue indefinitely on the present basis.

---

Local Government (Pay)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to resolve the local government pay dispute. (S1F-498)

Local authority pay is, of course, a matter for the local authorities and the unions to resolve. That is undoubtedly true. The Executive is not represented in the negotiations. Obviously, we have an interest in those negotiations—everyone has—but we will have to wait until a negotiated settlement emerges.

Is the First Minister aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has stated categorically that the much vaunted extra resources that his Government has allocated to local authorities this year do not even cover new burdens? Is he also aware that Scottish local government employees have had pay rises below the rate of inflation for six of the past seven years and now earn approximately 17 per cent less than their counterparts south of the border? Does he believe that local government employees in Scotland should earn 17 per cent less than their counterparts in England and Wales? If not—as he is not going to put in any extra resources from his own budget—does he believe that council tax payers should meet the costs of additional pay rises for local government workers? I want a direct answer. Are workers in Scotland worth less than those south of the border? Should council tax payers pay more?

Demanding direct answers or shouting, in a rather ludicrous fashion, "Yes or no!" never leads to a great advantage. Mr Gibson is guilty of both on occasions.

This is a matter for negotiation. I have no doubt that Mr Gibson has been looking, as I have, at the Unison material that has been issued in connection with the dispute. He will have seen that Unison is making the point—very powerfully—that Government-supported expenditure to local authorities was 3.6 per cent. It suggests that the settlement last year and the promised settlements above the rate of inflation over the next two years leave proper room for negotiations between the parties. That is the traditional way in which such matters are settled.

We will have to wait to see what emerges from the 2000 spending review. If Mr Gibson is pledging—and I think that he is a front-bench spokesman—that the SNP will simply meet the bill for any settlement that is negotiated, he is not in the world of practical government.

Does the First Minister recall his position of seven years ago, when the Tory Administration introduced responsibility for local government pay as a function of the central Government settlement? I recall that his party opposed that move. Did the First Minister oppose that move seven years ago?

In the Sunday Mail last Sunday, it was reported that nursery nurses who had worked for 32 years are now earning £12,000. Does the First Minister think that Unison members are justified in taking industrial action?

I thought that Mr Sheridan was going to tell me what my views were seven years ago and I was going to be very flattered that he had followed my career in such detail. I believe strongly that the settlement of pay disputes is a matter for negotiation between the employers and those who represent the workers. That is the simple way and the best way of doing it. There are, of course, exceptions—for the teachers we have the pay review body.

There is a legitimate argument over whether that idea should be expanded. However, that is not the position just now. We will try to do all we can to create economic circumstances that allow the negotiations to take place in a reasonable atmosphere. However, those negotiations must be a matter for agreement between the sides. It cannot be a matter of our simply agreeing to underwrite the gap and saying that we will pay for the gap, whatever it is.

Does the First Minister accept the disgraceful principle that council workers in Scotland are paid something like £17 a week less than their council worker counterparts in England? Is he telling me that we in Scotland cannot afford even to pay our public authority workers a living wage while £1,000 million has been squandered in Greenwich on the symbol of Mr Blair's megalomania—that dreadful dome?

I will not swap insults with Dorothy-Grace Elder about megalomania. I think that she has me well beaten on the Richter scale.

Last year the local government settlement was higher in Scotland than in England. No doubt we would have been rather annoyed if there had been protests about that. Of course I want good wage rates in Scotland and I want negotiations conducted speedily to produce results that are accepted by both sides as fair. However, if Dorothy-Grace Elder is inviting me to endorse the principle that every time there is a stand-off we should come in rattling the money bags, I cannot do that.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There appears to be a conflict between what we have just heard in question time and what the Minister for Children and Education said at column 30 of yesterday's Official Report. I ask for your advice on what procedure should be followed by the chamber if a minister appears to have misled it. I think that it is appropriate to ask you for that advice.

That is certainly not a point of order, but I am always willing to give advice. You will simply have to continue the argument.