First Minister's Question Time
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meeting)
To ask the First Minister when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1F-29) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I last formally met the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1 December 1999. There have, however, been many informal exchanges, both face to face and with the use of the telephone.
I know by his wry smile that the First Minister does not necessarily like being asked about when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland. The question can perhaps be used today to advance a very important issue for Scottish society. Does the First Minister accept that at least some of the concern about the repeal of section 28, or section 2A, has been because people believed that it would take place in a vacuum, before revised guidelines were issued to local authorities and schools? In the light of that, can he confirm the welcome indication given by Jackie Baillie yesterday that the Executive's intention is to bring forward revised guidelines before the repeal of section 28 takes effect?
I welcome the tone of that question. It is important to address the problem realistically. One of the real difficulties that has emerged is that people genuinely imagine that the removal of section 28 will open our schools to all sorts of materials of the kind that are occasionally found when surfing the internet. That is a different, totally unconnected problem.
There are significant, far-reaching guidelines for schools. I believe that the real protection of children is in the proper administration of those guidelines, the vigilance of head teachers, the expertise and professionalism of teaching staff and the concerns of parents. We have made it clear that we intend to re-examine the guidelines. I have had a chance to look at them myself, and I think that they are sound in tone and comprehensive in cover.
I accept the logic of much of what the First Minister has said. Yesterday, Jackie Baillie said:
"Before repeal of section 2A comes into force, we will conduct a detailed examination of existing guidelines and revise them if necessary."—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol 4, c 254.]
As we know, some of those guidelines are about
section 28. Clearly, they will be overtaken by the repeal of section 28. Could the First Minister be helpful and further indicate that, when the revised guidelines are being prepared, they will be subject to full and specific consultation with all interested parties?
Yes, indeed.
It is a misconception that the suggestion of revising the guidelines has somehow come up under the pressures of the debate of the past week or two. It was announced a long time ago and has been a commitment for some time.
There will of course be consultation. This is a fairly civilised exchange, so I hope that this point will not be open to misunderstanding: one of the difficulties about consultation and about the debate on the matter is the weighting given to the various types of opinion, for example, that of the teaching profession itself, and wider public opinion.
Sometimes there is a difference between the two, which is often exacerbated by a genuine lack of understanding or misunderstanding of the issues. Anything that we can do to close that gap and ensure that we are all talking on an agreed basis about what is a difficult and sensitive issue would be worth while.
I accept the tone of what the First Minister says. Therefore, looking to the future, will the First Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the guidelines for Scottish schools and local authorities that will be in place after the repeal of section 28 will make it quite clear that what is at stake is not the promotion of homosexuality in schools, but the trusting of teachers so that they be allowed to discuss sensitive issues in an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect?
I very much welcome the tone of what Alex Salmond is saying. It is common ground among all those who have examined the matter with care, including representatives speaking on behalf of the gay community, that no one wants to see the positive promotion of homosexuality. We are all looking at the question of how in our schools we treat a sensitive area with sensitivity and make sure that children who are troubled get the proper support and counselling. I am happy to join Alex Salmond in saying that it is important that the guidelines, which will of course continue in place whatever the outcome of the section 28 debate, reflect that.
Prime Minister (Meeting)
To ask the First Minister when he last met the Prime Minister and what issues they discussed. (S1F-35) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I always wonder what Mr McLetchie does with these answers, but as I am always anxious to be helpful, I can tell him that I last met the Prime Minister on 12 January. The specific matters discussed are, of course, private.
Thank you. I file the answers away for future reference and will no doubt bring them back to the First Minister's attention at an appropriate moment.
No doubt the subject of the health service came up in the First Minister's discussions with the Prime Minister on 12 January, or perhaps it will in future meetings. The Prime Minister admitted at the weekend that there is a major long-term funding problem with the health service, certainly down south, yet until now the First Minister and the Minister for Health and Community Care have stuck to the Jim Callaghan line of "Crisis? What crisis?" In the light of the Prime Minister's remarks, does he stick by that complacent attitude that all is well with the NHS in Scotland, or will he finally accept that it is under severe financial strain that will only worsen through the announcement of pay increases that are not fully funded?
I am genuinely puzzled by that line of argument on the pay increases. I ask colleagues to imagine what Mr McLetchie would have said if Susan Deacon had announced that we would not implement the pay increases. We would have been excoriated; in colloquial terms, we would have been bloomin' well booted round the chamber, and rightly too. Susan Deacon has very properly made the point that when we invest in retaining staff and staff morale, we are investing in the fabric of the health service. I make no apology. We have looked at the funding and believe that we can meet it.
I am not complacent. I know that the health service is under pressure and probably always will be because of the advance in medical science and ingenuity, new techniques, increasing longevity and all that that means. I am trying to get through to colleagues in the Parliament and to a wider audience that in Scotland we start with 20 per cent more per head expenditure, which is reflected in very real differences north and south of the border. In Scotland, we have 51 consultants per 100,000 population against 39 per 100,000 in England; Scotland has 75 GPs per 100,000 population against 56 in England, an enormous difference. In Scotland, we have 808 nurses per 100,000 population; England has 620.
Those are very substantial differences, for which we should be grateful and which explain why I believe that the situation is different, although we must constantly strive to improve and maintain it.
Thank you—although the First Minister might have said, in his
characteristically generous manner, that the substantial differences that benefit Scotland existed for the 18 years for which we were in government and that we were major contributors to the improvement of the health service.
To return to the First Minister's discussions with Mr Blair on this subject, Mr Blair has said that he wants to pour extra money into the health service, although it is unclear whether Blair's billions are the real thing or fantasy. As the First Minister has told me in answer to previous questions that he does not believe in hypothecating the Scottish block and has said that there is no real crisis in the health service here, can we assume that Scotland's share of Blair's billions will not go into the health service but will be diverted to finance some of his other pet projects—or should I say frivolities—as his friend Mr Brian Donohoe MP would have it?
Dear me. Mr McLetchie wrote to me on those matters. In his letter, he said:
"Sadly, in your reply you stated your preference for the present arrangements whereby the Scottish Executive has discretion over how money from the Scottish block is spent."
I do not regard it as sad that the Scottish Executive has that power—it is very important. I said clearly to Mr McLetchie that our high priorities are the health service and—in another context— transport. The Executive is determined to stand by the health service and by the transport infrastructure. For that reason, we will spend the money in which Mr McLetchie is so interested in that way.
In the light of the First Minister's comments about kicking things around the chamber, will he join me in wishing the Scottish Rugby Union team well in the forthcoming six nations championship? Has he noted the governor of the Bank of England's comments about national rivalries being relegated to the rugby field? Could not it be that the SNP's economic policy should—like rugby—be regarded as a predominantly amateur pursuit? [Laughter.]
Order. I had to say last week that the First Minister is not responsible for the Conservative party; neither, I am sure he will be relieved to hear, is he responsible for the SNP.
I am very grateful for that protection. I have enough difficult causes to defend without having to take on the indefensible.
There is a serious message that I would like to put across, and I will do so at no great length. The Scottish economy is remarkably sound. That is not a situation with which I would like to gamble by following some of the nostrums that are being proposed in other quarters.
At more than 2.3 million, employment in Scotland is at its highest. The unemployment claimant count is, as members will know, at its lowest for 24 years. If members examine the last yearly figures that are available, they will see that Scotland has outperformed the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of gross domestic product growth and—significantly—in terms of manufacturing sector output growth. We have done well and the Executive intends that we will do better—we would be grateful for a little helpful support.
Supplementary questions must be relevant to the question in the business bulletin, and that last was not.
School Standards
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to raise standards in Scotland's schools. (S1F-41) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): The Standards in Scotland's Schools Bill, which was published today, places ministers and local authorities under a duty to promote improvement in education, and it establishes a new statutory framework for raising standards in Scotland's schools.
The Executive has, since the Parliament came into being, been pursuing with considerable energy and through the allocation of significant resources, the aim of improving standards.
I thank the First Minister for that response—I am sure that the publication of the school standards bill will be widely welcomed, as will his earlier response to Mr Salmond.
Recently there has been considerable implicit criticism of teachers in the context of responses to the Executive's proposals to repeal section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Will the First Minister confirm that he has—as I am sure the rest of the Parliament and Scotland has—confidence in the teaching staff in Scotland's schools? Will he further confirm that that should be reflected adequately in the debates during the progress of the school standards bill?
I have no difficulty in agreeing with that. The Executive—and Sam Galbraith in particular—has made clear repeatedly its respect for the professionalism of teachers and its wish to support them. There are difficult questions about the future structure of schools that are being considered by the McCrone committee. We hope that it will be possible to do something positive to help with salaries in return for greater flexibility and for advances in relation to terms and conditions of teachers' employment.
Those negotiations lie ahead of us. I can assure the chamber that teachers will continue to have the support of the Administration as, I am sure, they have the support of members in the chamber.
Does the First Minister agree that the diversion of savings arising from the assisted places scheme to bail out Scottish Opera was at odds with Labour's 1997 manifesto commitment to use that money to cut class sizes in the first three years of primary school? Does he further agree that that money should not have been taken from education when, at the last count, nearly 30,000 Scottish children in primaries 1 to 3 were still in classes of more than 30 and that there is even further to go in reducing class sizes in all years of primary school?
I hope that Nicola Sturgeon will not think my first point pedantic, but it is important. I understand that there are no children in primary 1 or primary 2 in classes of more than
30. Secondly, the money was diverted because the assisted places scheme process had come to an end, which was another success for our policy and for the Executive's education department. I am sure that Nicola Sturgeon is well aware that the figures show that this year, there has been a
6.4 per cent increase in the local authority education budget. Next year, there will be an increase of 4.6 per cent—a further £126 million. We are allocating resources on a basis that is well above the rate of inflation. We are getting returns on, for example, the £389 million in the excellence fund over three years. I say to Nicola Sturgeon—in a friendly spirit, as always—that the trouble with the way in which she presents her argument is that she manages to give the impression that she would rather have seen Scottish Opera go down. I am sure that there will be at least someone on the SNP benches who would disagree with that position.
BBC News
To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Executive is planning to make to the BBC in connection with the BBC's previously announced May 2000 review of the need for a Scottish edited and controlled 6 o'clock news programme. (S1F-44)
The last thing that an Executive or an Administration should do is to try to dictate to the broadcasters. It is not for me to prescribe—[Laughter.] Ladies and gentlemen on the SNP benches may laugh at me, but I can assure the chamber that an Administration or Government that tried to bully or to over-influence the broadcasting process would be open to very considerable criticism. I do not think that I want to indulge in such a practice.
I welcome the fact that, as a result of the last round of talks in 1998, a further £10 million was given to BBC Scotland—that is probably another 50 or so skilled jobs. The test must be that we should have fair, balanced and accurate coverage in news reporting, that we should have world news, national news and Scottish news, that such reporting should be inclusive and certainly not insular and that the standards and professionalism should be of the highest order. We want to maintain the true traditions of public service broadcasting.
Some might argue, although I do not think that Michael Russell would, that, if we did have a "Scottish Six", politicians from this chamber would appear rather more commonly in the living rooms of the nation. I leave it to other people to decide whether that is an argument for or against.
The First Minister has the virtue of consistency, at least. He has taken a supine position on the matter since it was first raised.
However, in the light of that position, perhaps it would be advisable for the First Minister to tell the First Secretary in Wales about it. In the excitement of his election on 12 May 1999, the First Secretary said in the Welsh Assembly chamber, during his acceptance speech:
"The BBC was right to decline to break up the six o'clock news."—[Official Record, National Assembly for Wales; 15 May 1999.]
In the circumstances, there is no consistency in new Labour's position and there has been bullying and interference.
I hoped that the First Minister and his Administration might address the potential of Scottish broadcasting and help it to develop, first of all in the BBC and, in the emerging crisis, in Scottish Television, as that would be welcome. I hope that the First Minister will be active in the matter.
I hope that I am not supine in these matters although I certainly do not believe that, as a Government, we should be trying to prescribe to the broadcasting authorities. If Michael Russell were to think about going down that road, he would see the dangers of it.
I am not responsible for what happens in Wales. If I understand what Michael Russell said—I may have got it wrong—he invited me to endorse something that was said in Wales, which he would then be able to attack with great ferocity. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I have no intention of taking his rather contradictory advice.
However, in my initial reply, I made the point that
I totally join Michael Russell in urging upon the BBC the need to maintain the standards of public service broadcasting and to serve Scotland, not in the narrow sense, but in the broad, internationalist sense, to which I think we would all want to pay tribute.
Water Charges
To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to ensure that water authorities are accountable to both businesses and domestic users for their water charges. (S1F-33) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): As public bodies, the water authorities are both fully accountable to ministers—and through them to Parliament—and directly accountable to their customers for the services that they provide.
The new legislation that came into effect on 1 November last year put in place a water industry commissioner. Mr Sutherland is the first holder of that post and is very active in his duties. He has primary responsibility for promoting the interests of all the authorities' customers. The commissioner will be supported by consultative committees that advise him on the interests of customers. In the past two or three days, Tavish Scott may have seen in the press advertisements for people who wish to serve on those bodies.
Does the First Minister recognise that the water commissioner's role is extremely important and that, with the impending announcement of water charges for businesses, there is real concern, particularly in fish- processing and salmon-processing businesses, about possible increases in water and waste water charges? Will he ensure that the Executive keeps a close eye on that, so that businesses are not damaged by those charges?
I recognise that that is a matter for anxiety, and we have certainly been considering it. There are problems in the water industry, because the investment demands are very high. We are talking about literally hundreds of millions of pounds over the next three or four years, if we are to get the kind of improvement in infrastructure that will allow us to have water standards of which we can be proud. That is bound to be reflected in charges to some extent. I know that my colleague Sarah Boyack has been working very closely and constructively with the commissioner to find a proper balance between competing interests that are, frankly, sometimes difficult to reconcile.