Plenary, 09 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, December 9, 1999

Official Report 826KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1O789) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): Many matters. The meeting was on 1 December.

In that case, can I ask the First Minister about the political meltdown of the Executive? Did John Rafferty jump or was he pushed? Was John Rafferty sacked for lying to the press and the public, was he sacked for a breach of the civil service code or was there some other reason why, after a week of dithering, the First Minister withdrew his support from Mr Rafferty? Does the First Minister accept personal responsibility for the chaos at the heart of his Administration?

I do not accept the terms that have been used; "meltdown" is an extraordinary overstatement. I can say very simply to Mr Salmond that when I take decisions, I accept responsibility for them. This has not been an easy matter. John Rafferty left the employment of the Scottish Executive today and it has been a very anxious time. Because it is difficult to establish the facts amid the welter of allegations, I thought it right to take time to make the right decision. That was only common courtesy.

I am firmly committed to the principle that the Administration should be founded on integrity and trust, but also fairness. That is why I wanted to be very clear in my mind before reaching a decision with such obvious consequences for an individual whom I have known for many years. I greatly regret the fact that John Rafferty is leaving his employment with the Scottish Executive as my principal special adviser. He and I have known each other and worked together for some 20 years; he has been a supporter and a friend. I want to pay tribute to him for his many achievements, which stand to his credit—most recently in the post that he has just left, in which he made a contribution to the organisation of the Executive that will be widely acknowledged.

As I said, this has not been an easy time. I took the decision after a great deal of thought, and I stand by it.

The First Minister has managed to pay that tribute without telling Parliament why Mr

Rafferty was sacked. Why was he sacked? Will the First Minister accept that what is required is not just a change of personnel, but a change of political culture? Will he accept responsibility for allowing a culture to develop in which statements can be made selectively to the press, rather than to this Parliament, and in which members of parliamentary committees can be rubbished by one of many Government sources as "numpties" when they publish their reports? Will he tell us, in the interests of freedom of information, which of the many Government sources described the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee in those terms? Does he know, does he care and is he capable of doing anything about it?

I am certainly not aware of anyone who described the Health and Community Care Committee as numpties, although I have, of course, seen reports in the press. Seriously, if Alex Salmond is telling me that he has some method of alchemy that allows him to trace and put a name against every quotation that he sees in the press, I will be prepared to listen to him with rather more patience and care than I often do.

The First Minister exemplifies the political culture for which he is responsible. Government sources described the Health and Community Care Committee in the terms to which I have referred. At the third time of asking, will he tell us why John Rafferty was sacked, and will he accept his personal responsibility for the departure of his chief of staff and for the chaos and in-fighting at the heart of his Administration?

I think that in the period ahead Alex Salmond will very disappointed; there will be neither chaos nor in-fighting in the Administration. I certainly take responsibility. As I said, I took the decision after anxious consideration. I am not prepared to go further on why I took it. This is a staff matter within the Administration, and it does no service to anyone to speculate about it in public—I do not believe that Mr Salmond or any of his colleagues would expect me to do so.

Whether John Rafferty jumped or whether he was pushed, does the First Minister share my concern at Mr Alex Salmond's very frequent absences from this chamber? [Interruption.] Would he care to surmise who Mr Salmond's successor might be? [Interruption.]

Order.

The First Minister is not responsible for that matter.

This is, of course, an

absolutely fascinating subject for speculation, which is made all the more difficult by the fact that there is no obvious candidate to replace Alex Salmond.

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1O-793) Was the room filled with smoke at the time?

I think that that was a witty reference to smoking bans, but I am not sure whether it is entirely relevant. I refer Mr McLetchie to the answer that I have just given Alex Salmond; I cannot help him further.

I wonder whether the First Minister and the secretary of state discussed reviewing the bloated size of the Scottish Administration and its retinue of advisers, who clearly have very little to do with their time other than fight like ferrets in a sack. Now that one ferret has been dismissed, can the First Minister advise us whether others will follow, in the interests of improving the efficiency of government in Scotland?

I said that this has been a difficult business involving serious people and matters. To describe someone as a ferret does not seem to be a great contribution to the civilised handling of these matters. There were circumstances that led me to believe that it was right for me to take the actions that I did. The matter is a private one, which, I hope, was pursued with dignity by both sides.

In light of the termination of Mr Rafferty's employment by the Executive, will the First Minister confirm that no compensation will be paid to him from the public purse in respect of the premature termination of his contract of employment? If compensation is to be paid from the public purse, will we be seeking reimbursement from the Labour party, which is responsible for this shambles in the first place?

This happened this morning. Clearly there will be discussions about housekeeping matters and tidying up. We have been dealing with a human problem, which I greatly regret. Anyone who knows the circumstances and the people involved will know that this has been peculiarly difficult for me. I submit that it is unlikely that I took this action on a whim. I pursed it with reluctance, but with great care.

Why should the taxpayer have to fork out more than £150,000 a year to enable the First Minister to employ not just one, but two spin-doctors, especially when, over the past week or so, one of them seems to have spent much of his time spinning stories about the other one? Is it any wonder that a massive number of people hope that it is one down and one to go?

I understand that Mr Canavan has every interest in exploiting this situation. He does not know the difference between a spin-doctor and a special adviser. I challenge anyone in the chamber to name me a sophisticated Administration that does not have adequate press advice and the equivalent of special advisers. It does not help to reduce the matter to caricature terms, as Mr Canavan attempts to do.

Can I say to the First Minister—

No, you cannot.

Can I ask the First Minister—I would certainly very much like to, although I will not ignore the Presiding Officer as the First Minister did a moment ago—whether he is aware that in the previous Administration there were only three such advisers, whereas he has 50, I think, stretched across the whole Executive?

If Mr Gallie thinks that I have 50 special advisers, there is something very wrong with his basic arithmetic. I suggest that some remedial teaching is required.

Given the involvement of the Minister for Health and Community Care in the fiasco that has developed in the past week, will the First Minister give a commitment today that Mr Rafferty, as special adviser to the First Minister, will not be replaced and that the sum of money for that post will be given instead to the health minister to employ an extra five nurses in the health service in Scotland?

I am not in the habit of taking on staff for the sake of it. I always use my judgment to ensure that people who are employed are employed for good reasons to do important jobs, and I will hold to that.

---

Public Services

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact of the "Barnett squeeze" on the resources available for public services in Scotland. (S1O-805)

The Barnett formula delivers the same increases or decreases in spending per head on comparable programmes in Scotland as are planned in England.

Is the Minister for Finance aware that, according to Professor Brian Ashcroft

of the University of Strathclyde, spending on public services in England will increase two and a half times more quickly during this Administration than it will in Scotland? Is he aware that, as was pointed out yesterday, Labour will spend less during this Administration than was spent under the Conservatives? Is he further aware that, despite the warm words and deceitful spin, Labour is not delivering for Scottish public services?

I am aware that Mr Wilson's claims are complete and total rubbish. By the end of the comprehensive spending review, this coalition Administration and the Government at Westminster will be spending more money per head, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, than the Tories did at the high point of their spending in 1994-95. As I said yesterday, the amount of money spent on local government in Scotland will be higher this year, next year and the year after that than it was under the Tories' plans for the same period.

Will the Minister for Finance provide the SNP with a maths teacher—Mr Canavan springs to mind—to explain to its members that if one starts with a higher base and gets the same expenditure boost as from a lower base, the higher base necessarily creates a lower percentage increase?

The problem with the SNP is that, as someone said last week, it wants to take Scotland out of Britain instead of taking poverty out of Scotland. The real divide in this country is between the rich and the poor, not between Scotland and England, and those constant comparisons do no good whatever for Scotland.

Will the minister confirm that health spending in Scotland in the next financial period will not match the level of spending in England and Wales, and that that means a loss of £400 in health terms for every man, woman and child in Scotland?

It is absolutely shocking that the health spokesperson for a major political party in Scotland does not know that health spending in this country is 20 per cent higher per head than it is in England. [Applause.] The coalition Administration is committed to ensuring that health spending will be at its highest level ever by the end of this Parliament.

Will the Minister for Finance give a rough estimate of the additional expenditure that would be involved in implementing the promises already made by the SNP, over and above the fact that the Scottish block budget is 18 per cent higher than the average budget for English regions?

I may have been a mathematics teacher, and my arithmetic and algebra were both very good, but I am afraid that I have had problems with exponential functions as a pupil, a student and a teacher. [Laughter.] However, I will certainly try to do what Dr Simpson suggests and will publish the results in due course.

Will the minister take issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to secure more spending on a UK basis to which the Barnett formula might then apply?

Mr Gorrie asked me the same question yesterday. Discussions are constantly taking place between departments here in Scotland and at UK level on overall spending and on the expenditure that is appropriate in any given area; those discussions will continue. I must stress, as I have done on a number of occasions since June, that this Parliament must ensure that the money that we spend—some £17 billion—is spent in the best possible way on the services that we provide. I do not believe that constant comparisons, to which this question time has occasionally stooped, between expenditure in Scotland and in England are the best way forward for this Parliament. We were elected to make best use of the money that we have. If we do that, we will be serving Scotland well.

As he is in expansive mood today, will the minister kindly tell the chamber why, week after week, he insists on talking in cash terms and not in real terms, so making his spending look important?

If Mr Davidson listened occasionally, he would have heard that, in my earlier answer to Mr Wilson's question, I said that, by the end of the comprehensive spending review, real-terms spending in Scotland and in the rest of the UK will be significantly higher than it was at the very highest point of spending under the Conservative Government in 1994-95. That is in real terms—real real terms—which is why it will count more.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw your attention to a matter of which I have already given notice to you and to the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, Mr John Home Robertson. It refers to an issue that I raised in yesterday's debate, when I queried nephrops allocations for the Clyde fishing area—

Hang on, Mr Gallie. Quite courteously, you gave me notice of this but, before you go any further, I have to say that it is not a point of order. You are arguing about the

content of a ministerial answer; I am afraid that you will have to take that up with the minister.