Plenary, 16 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, December 16, 1999

Official Report 891KB 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. (S1O842) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I last formally met the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1 December, but we speak frequently on the phone. Of course, we discuss constantly matters of mutual interest.

Will the First Minister explain the remarkable interview that appeared in the Scottish edition of The Mirror yesterday? He was asked whether he liked being First Minister and replied:

"It's not a quiet life. I sometimes sit in this office and wonder if the roof is going to fall in on me because everything else has happened."

On the basis that a problem shared is a problem halved, will the First Minister share with the Parliament what issues have persuaded him that the roof is falling in on his Administration?

I am certainly not going to flatter Mr Salmond by telling him that he is one of them.

I am prepared to admit that the job that I occupy is testing and satisfying—as, no doubt, is Mr Salmond's job. We are making progress, but we are wrestling with difficult and well-established trends and social problems. I look forward to discussing those matters with Mr Salmond after a decent interval when, no doubt, he will be able to congratulate me on the progress that we are making.

In that case, perhaps I can suggest what the issues might be.

Could one be the sacking of John Rafferty, an affair for which this Parliament has yet to receive an effective explanation? Could the issues be the First Minister's being kept in the dark over the beef issue, the fact that 6,000 square miles of fishing waters were stolen from Scotland or the 3,000 job losses in the Highlands? Could the issues be poverty and the people's health in Glasgow? Are those the issues that persuade the First Minister that the roof is falling in? If they are not, they should be.

Some of those issues would not qualify under that heading, but Mr Salmond mentioned some important points. I worry greatly

about unemployment in the Highlands and I recognise the cyclical nature of the offshore construction industry. However, I am also aware that we have the lowest unemployment benefit claimant count in Scotland for 23 years. I am worried about some of the social trends and difficulties in Glasgow, but I am encouraged by the fact that, in the early 1990s, unemployment in Glasgow was 50 per cent higher than it is now. We are also beginning to see some innovative and brave efforts being made to tackle the housing problems of that city.

I am convinced that the Executive will make progress and I am certain that it will have disappointments but, at the end of the day, I believe that the balance will be on the right side and that we are bravely and properly reflecting the priorities of the people of Scotland.

I will mention one further issue. The Cubie report is to be published on Monday. Has the First Minister considered the irony of the fact that his Administration can survive only if the Liberal Democrats renege on an election commitment? Has he also considered that his heir apparent, Henry McLeish, will get the credit if the Administration survives, and that the First Minister will get the blame if it collapses? Could that be why the First Minister believes that the roof is about to fall in on his Administration?

Alex Salmond has the conspiracy theory built into him. I do not know what the practice is in the SNP—although I know that questions have been asked about his position—but I can tell him that the Executive works as a team and we do not go round apportioning blame or, indeed, credit among ourselves.

The issue that Mr Salmond mentioned is known to be a difficult one. We made it clear that the partnership intends to approach it on a collective basis. We will have to wait until we read the report.

As I am in a helpful mood, I will advise Mr Salmond not to wait in all day on Monday as the report will not be published until Tuesday.

Did the First Minister discuss the issues surrounding the James Bulger case with the Secretary of State for Scotland? What implications does the judgment of the European Court that was announced today have for young offenders who have been convicted of the most serious offences?

I did not discuss that with the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would have been odd if I had, given the time of my previous meeting with him.

I have not seen the details of the Bulger judgment; it relates to the system of dealing with very young offenders and to a tragic case that occurred in England. I doubt that it will have great, immediate and direct implications for our system in Scotland. I have no doubt that the Executive will consider the matter closely and that we will be given good advice on it.

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1O-851) The First Minister: Mr McLetchie will be glad to know that I have not changed my mind since I gave an answer to exactly the same question a few minutes ago.

The First Minister is always a model of consistency in these questions.

In his discussions and reflections on the year that is almost awa, did the First Minister review the performance of the Scottish Executive to date and conclude that the end-of-term report would come up with a resounding "F" for failure—failure to tackle the real concerns of people in Scotland? We have falling police numbers and cuts in the prison budget at a time of rising crime. There are concerns about falling education standards, which Mr Dewar's Executive tackles by persecuting one of the best wee primary schools in Scotland. We have a transport policy so incoherent that even Professor David Begg disowns it. Does the First Minister consider that that is a political record to be proud of?

I am glad to say that the jury to which I am accountable is not David McLetchie. That is as selective a litany as I have heard. Our record is a good one. There is good will for the Parliament, and the good work that we do here—I am happy to include all the elected members in that—will be recognised when the time comes. I am quite looking forward to the next election—I do not know whether David McLetchie is.

I hope that the First Minister is keeping his seat warm for me, because I am looking forward to the election with relish.

Could we perhaps look forward to the new year? Will the First Minister make a resolution to put right Labour's great betrayal of our students and their families on the subject of tuition fees and enable his coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, finally to live up to their election pledge to abolish tuition fees? Will he tell his Minister for Finance to find the money to do that from his budget, given that Mr McConnell has already found £80 million for items of education expenditure that were never described as non-negotiable? Only this morning, we heard that he had managed to magic up another £2 million for the Hampden bail-out.

I am surprised by all this

criticism of the so-called Hampden bail-out. I would like, in passing, to congratulate Sam Galbraith and his team, and in particular the civil servants behind him, on an extremely difficult series of negotiations, which has produced a conclusion that should give satisfaction to everyone.

As far as the future is concerned, I am a little depressed by the insight given to me in the past two minutes about the many speeches on education that Mr McLetchie will no doubt make in January. I look forward to the early date when one in two school leavers enters further or higher education, and to the expansion of higher education that is essential if we are to participate in the competitive economies of the world. We want better access to education and better education facilities. We have put a good deal of money into and given priority to that effort and we will continue to do so.

When the First Minister next meets John Reid, will he persuade Mr Reid that he is the Secretary of State for Scotland, as opposed to the secretary of state against Scotland? He can show us that he is the Secretary of State for Scotland by implementing the recommendations in the recent report by the Rural Affairs Committee. That report calls for the restoration of 6,000 square miles of our seas to Scottish jurisdiction. Will the First Minister use this opportunity to tell Parliament whether he supports the recommendations and will he be doing his utmost to urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that we get our waters back?

I remember that when we changed the Gregorian calendar, people went round saying, "Give us back our 10 days." [Laughter.]

An inevitable consequence of devolution was that an administrative boundary would have to be drawn. It was drawn according to the advice given to me—and I looked into this carefully—on the normal rules of international law. It does not in any way whatever affect the right to fish.

I must tell Mr Lochhead that it was put to me by one fisherman that the drawing of the boundary was a terrible blow, because it meant that if he were to fish illegally, he would come before an English court. I know that Scottish fishermen do not fish illegally.

---

Dyslexia

To ask the Scottish Executive what support exists in Scotland to assist schoolchildren suffering from dyslexia. (S1O-874) The Minister for Children and Education (Mr Sam Galbraith): The Scottish Executive provides £5 million to local authorities for in-service special educational needs staff development and training, including training in dyslexia.

I am obliged to the minister. Given that there is no standard screening programme in Scottish schools to identify children suffering from dyslexia, and that dyslexia has no respect for age, sex or background, does Mr Galbraith agree that to consider such an initiative would be an encouraging demonstration of the Executive's social inclusion policy? In particular, will the Executive consider entering into dialogue with the Dyslexia Institute of Scotland?

Yes. The member is right—it is important to pick up dyslexia early if it is to be dealt with effectively. I am pleased to be able to tell her that in 1998-99, 165 teachers received training in dyslexia awareness and early identification of it through a project funded jointly by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Dyslexia Trust. The expansion of pre-school education and early intervention will also help us to identify earlier those children who suffer from dyslexia.

I thank the minister for expanding on that point, but does he agree that the absence of a standard programme is an alarming omission? There are clear disparities between different communities in Scotland. Is not that a matter for some concern, which the Executive could usefully address?

Yes. One of the reasons why we set up the special educational needs advisory forum was to highlight such problems before they develop to the stage where they present significant difficulties. Standard guidance was established several years ago and there is specific guidance on children with dyslexia. The framework is in place, but we are not complacent about it. We set up the special educational needs advisory forum to keep us informed. We have put money into additional training on dyslexia and into special educational needs in general. I hope that the member will be assured that that package goes some way towards rectifying the problem that she rightly identified.

Will the minister join me in welcoming the young people who have come here this afternoon to speak to members and to ask us difficult questions about the education service that we provide? Does he recognise the importance of providing for a broad range of special needs and for, for example, bullying? Does he agree that the key to delivering the service will be to listen to young people, who have so much to say on such issues?

I take a particular interest in consulting those who are involved in the service. We must always remember that the basis of any service should be delivery to the users of the service, not its producers. I have spent a considerable amount of time consulting in several areas, and not just through the consultation programme for the education bill. The Executive is spending large sums of additional money on special educational needs. The recent Riddell report has resulted in the creation of the special educational needs advisory forum. We have done a lot of work on the subject.

Is Mr Galbraith aware that many of the schoolchildren who suffer from dyslexia also suffer from dyspraxia? Will he tell us what resources the Executive is putting into provision for that?

As the member knows, dyspraxia is related to fine movements—there is disjunction of fine movements, particularly in the hands, but also in facial and oral muscles. We are putting money into dealing with dyslexia, dyspraxia and all areas of special educational needs that must be addressed.

Will the minister ensure that the education bill includes a presumption that all children with special needs will be taught within mainstream education?

Yes. I am not sure if I am allowed to say this before the bill comes to the Parliament—the bill is currently with you, Presiding Officer, and we hope that it will be available to everyone at the start of next year—but it is my intention to put a presumption in the bill that individuals with special educational needs will be taught in mainstream schooling. I do not want to put that into the bill just yet, until it has been fully consulted on. I will be asking the special educational needs advisory forum to consult us. I hope that it will be able to come back to me in time to get that presumption into the bill.

On a point of order. I am not entirely sure whether this, strictly speaking, will qualify as a point of order. [Interruption.]

No doubt you will keep me right, Presiding Officer—and the members of the Conservative party ought to just listen because this will affect them as well.

At 2.55 pm I received an e-mail about the new year information technology arrangements for the Parliament. I quote:

"The Scottish Parliament network will close for the New Year as from 1700 hours on 30th December and will reopen at 0900 hours on 5 January. This will mean that access is denied to all users, including Dial-In use."

The e-mail continues:

"During this period, all e-mails received will be held and distributed to their recipients when they logon on 5 January."

I do not suppose that for a day or two in that period any of us will be looking at our e-mails or trying to work, but—for those of us who rely entirely on the network for their work load—this is a ridiculously intrusive and disruptive length of time to shut the network down. As we are going into recess in a couple of hours, I ask that we make representations—through you, Presiding Officer—that that decision cannot be allowed to stand.

Technically, that probably was not a point of order, but it was a point of importance. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body discussed that matter in detail some time ago, and we decided that the safest period to shut down the system was from 30 December to 5 January, to ensure that millennium bug issues were sorted out before the network went live again in the new year. There will be public holidays on 3 and 4 January; while I admire Roseanna Cunningham's assiduity, I cannot believe that she will need the system on 31 December or 1 January.

Further to the point of order.

It is not a point of order, but let us hear it anyway.

Despite the fact that this is brand new technology, and despite the fact that all our laptops and computers have been dealt with over the past few weeks and months, presumably to make them millennium compliant, are we being told that they are not?

You must remember that the corporate body is a collection of lay men and women, just as we all are. We considered the issue and took professional advice; the e-mail gives the view that we arrived at. We can, perhaps, argue outside the chamber about your point, but let us start the health debate now.