Plenary, 23 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, September 23, 1999

Official Report 716KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

I remind members that supplementary questions have to be on the same subject as the main question.

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many times the First Minister has met the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1 July 1999 to discuss matters relating to the public expenditure survey and its implications for the Scottish block. (S1O-364) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): As Mr McLetchie would expect, the Scottish Executive maintains close contacts with the UK Government on a wide range of issues, including matters relating to public expenditure.

I am glad that the First Minister is in active discussions with his friend the chancellor. Since he has been doing such a good job today as stand-in transport minister, will he use his influence with the chancellor on the next occasion that they meet to persuade him to devote a far higher proportion of the tax revenues that are currently derived from motorists to transport throughout the UK, thereby enabling Ms Boyack to tackle Scotland's transport needs more effectively than at present?

The balance is of course always under consideration and no doubt my colleague the chancellor will be thinking about that, as all of us are. The important thing to note is that, as against the plans that we inherited, there has been a very substantial improvement in public spending over the comprehensive spending review period—the equivalent of about £800 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. I hope that, in the years ahead, we will be able to build public services and to continue the fairly heavy investment that we already make in public transport, particularly in remoter rural areas.

The First Minister's priorities are not those of Scotland's motorists. It is all very well to claim that there are increases in public expenditure across the board, but the specific issue is expenditure on transport. Did the First Minister see the report this weekend in Scotland on Sunday about a haulier based in the Borders who had re-registered his fleet of vehicles in the Republic of Ireland in order to save his business £22,000 in excise duties? When the First Minister next meets the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he tell him that his policies not only are deeply damaging to Scottish businesses but will be counterproductive? Higher taxes will lead to lower tax revenues in total—the chancellor is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

I am delighted to see that Mr McLetchie is following the doctrines of Mr Laffer, the right-wing American economist. His assumption is very optimistic. It is important that we maintain investment, obviously. I was interested in Mr McLetchie's choice of words— £22,000 in vehicle excise duties. If Mr McLetchie was a businessman doing that calculation, he would look at the level of corporation tax, at labour costs and at a large number of other factors; he might find that the simplistic comparison that he makes does not stand up to examination. There is, as I said, always a balance to be held and I look forward to further encouraging, through the rural transport fund and through direct Scottish Executive subvention, the many lifeline and other services that we already support.

Does the Executive consider that the block grant will be sufficient to ensure that people who are referred this month to the dermatology clinic at the royal infirmary in Edinburgh will be seen before August 2000? If it does not consider the block grant large enough to meet that objective—as was suggested in the document that we looked at two weeks ago—which member of the Executive will feel obliged to resign?

I do not see the First Minister discussing that matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It is about the block grant.

Oh, it is about the block grant. [Laughter.]

Well, just.

No one would ever accuse Margo MacDonald of lack of persistence. "It's the economy, stupid."

Of course I will draw my colleagues' attention to that matter. Sometimes, press and other reports exaggerate. In any event, the funding of the health service in Scotland over this three-year period is in a remarkably healthier state than it was previously. We are very proud of that. [Interruption.]

Fortunately, I have selective deafness: I did not hear that remark.

On a point of order.

May we take it after questions so that it does not interrupt the flow?

Yes.

---

Education

To ask the Scottish Executive what are the details of its education policy. (S1O-358) The Deputy Minister for Children and Education (Peter Peacock): Obviously, it would take much longer than the time that we have left this afternoon to set out all the details of the Government's policies on education, because of their width, depth and progressive nature. However, the details of our policy commitments were set out in our programme for government.

I am not sure that it would take as long as the minister suggests. However, like all members of this Parliament, I am looking forward to debating in due course the detailed provisions of the education bill.

Does the minister agree that the approach taken by the Minister for Children and Education to the on-going dispute over teachers' pay and conditions now threatens to undermine the rest of the Executive's agenda, in that it has brought the teaching profession closer to industrial action than it has been at any time in the previous 10 years? Does he also agree that, instead of choosing to bat this problem to yet another inquiry, the Executive might do better to face up to the difficulty now and provide the additional resources necessary to bring about a satisfactory and peaceful settlement to this dispute?

The approach that Sam Galbraith has taken since becoming minister has been one of extraordinary commitment and of trying to find a way forward in which to change the tone and atmosphere of the debate surrounding Scottish education. For far too long, debate about Scottish education has taken place against a negative backcloth, and Sam Galbraith has done more than any individual to try to make the tone positive. He has gone out of his way to recognise the position of teachers and the job that they do.

We are seeking a long-term solution to what has been a problem in Scottish education for too long. That is our objective and I wish that the SNP would join us in that. I look forward to seeing the evidence that Nicola Sturgeon will produce to the independent inquiry, so that we can see what her position is in detail and not just hear it through soundbites.

I note that the minister neatly sidestepped the issue of resources, in the same way as the Minister for Children and Education has chosen to do on every occasion so far.

While we are on education resources, will the minister agree that this Labour Government is spending less on education, as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the Tories did in the last few years of their Administration? At the end of the comprehensive spending review period, the Government will be spending 4.9 per cent of GDP on education, which compares with the lowest percentage under the Tory Administration—4.9 per cent in 1995-96. Figures from the House of Commons library show that, although spending on education is planned to increase as a proportion of GDP during the CSR period, it will not return to the levels recorded in the early 1990s.

The important thing to recognise is that, in Scotland, resources for education are growing progressively. To ensure that we make progress in Scottish education, this Government has put money back in—something like £1.3 billion extra—to try to repair some of the damage that was done by our Conservative colleagues. The national grid for learning, which Nicola Sturgeon wanted to dismantle, has been put in place. There has also been the excellence fund, assistance in classrooms, measures to reduce class sizes and so on. The catalogue is almost endless. This Government is prepared to find the resources to improve education.

Nicola Sturgeon mentioned the teachers' dispute. As Sam Galbraith indicated yesterday, we have made additional resources available to try to find a solution to that dispute and we remain willing to continue to hold discussions in the interests of finding a solution.

Does the Scottish Executive understand the utter demoralisation throughout the secondary school education system at the proposal effectively to demolish the promoted posts structure?

We are trying to find a long- term answer to this problem to tackle the fact that teachers have felt beleaguered over many years. We realise that they feel that there is an initiative overload, but it is difficult to turn that around in a short period. Our commitment is to find the answers to those problems and to ensure that we move forward.

Mr Tosh refers to the proposals made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. Those proposals have been put to one side while the inquiry looks to the long term. We are desperately trying to find the long-term solution.

---

Council of the Isles

To ask the Scottish Executive what is the current position in regard to the establishment of the council of the isles. (S1O-354) The Minister for Finance (Mr Jack McConnell): Strand 3 of the Belfast agreement

envisages the establishment of a British-Irish council. The council will comprise representatives of the British and Irish Governments, the devolved Administrations within the UK and the authorities in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. A treaty providing for the council's establishment was signed in Dublin on 8 March. The council will come into operation on the day that the powers are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Will the minister clarify why the council of the isles is being transmogrified into the British-Irish council? Was that done under pressure from the Irish Government as a result of its concern to have links at a Westminster level and to include the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly as well?

No, the name of the new body and the arrangements for it were a result of the detailed negotiations that took place in Belfast last year. We should respect the delicate nature of those negotiations and the fact that, for the first time in history, not only have all the political parties in the north of Ireland signed up to an agreement—however difficult we are currently finding the implementation of that agreement—but the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly for it in a referendum.

Will the minister agree that the council could have great value not only in producing harmonious relationships between the different parts of the islands, but as a forum to discuss matters of mutual interest, such as transport links and European Union issues? Would it not be a good idea to set it up at least in part, perhaps with the Irish joining us later? That would be particularly important for those of us who take a federalist, as opposed to an isolationist and separatist, approach.

I could not agree more. The establishment of the British-Irish council will be a good thing for the people of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland. That is a positive comment. We must respect the terms of the Belfast agreement and it is important that we encourage and help to smooth the road of progress towards devolved administration in Northern Ireland. Anything that we did to upset the balance in the short term or in the long term would be wrong.

Will the minister ensure that he gives the best wishes of this Parliament to Senator George Mitchell, Mo Mowlam and the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who are trying to make progress in a difficult situation? When he transmits our best wishes to them, will he ensure that they know that we—not just the Scottish Executive, but the Scottish Parliament—are keen to play our part in the council of the isles and that we look forward to a close working relationship with them in future years?

I am sure that all members of the Scottish Parliament will agree with me when I say that, regardless of our views on the constitutional position of Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, we all want a successful resolution to the current discussions on the implementation of the Belfast agreement. We all want the establishment of devolved administration in Northern Ireland, on the basis of agreement from all the parties, to implement the will of the people as soon as possible.

Will the minister confirm that members of this Parliament would be expected to sit in the council of the isles with members of Sinn Fein-IRA?

The British-Irish council would initially be set up as an intergovernmental body, which would involve the Executives of the various devolved territories and the two Governments. In due course, we would hope that the parliamentary bodies of all those different institutions would meet as well so that there would be interparliamentary discussions as well as discussions between the Executives and Governments.

Given Ben Wallace's rather ridiculous remark—an example of what we are trying to avoid in the British isles—will the minister consider inviting members of the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly to see how we go about matters here to encourage them further?

I would not be surprised if the First Minister passes on that invitation when he visits Dublin next month. I am sure that we all wish him well on that visit, when he will represent Scotland on behalf of the Parliament.

That brings us to the end of question time. I gather that Mr Fergusson does not wish to press his point of order.