Plenary, 25 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, October 25, 2001

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

My question will not be about recipe books, I assure you, Presiding Officer.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1313)

I am happy to agree with John Swinney about stirring things up in relation to the previous question.

The Cabinet will next meet on 29 October, when it will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I hear from the lunchtime news that the First Minister finds First Minister's question time a tough occasion, so I shall ask him a simple question today—it will be not be about numbers, as he does not seem to be very good with numbers. Why does it make sense for the Scottish Executive to have full responsibility for investment in Scotland's road network but not for investment in our rail network?

The settlement that was made under the devolution legislation gave substantial powers to Scotland in regard to our railways. In the light of recent events with Railtrack, I anticipate that there will be significant developments, which are long overdue and which will, I hope, return railways north of the border—and eventually south of the border—to some form of sanity. Rail transport is vital to Scotland, providing key links to the south as well as internal links. We must build on where we are, and I have no doubt that, as Sarah Boyack has outlined, we will have tremendous opportunities in the aftermath of the Railtrack fiasco.

Not for the first time, the question has not been asked. [Members: "Answered!"] The question was why this Parliament does not have the same powers over rail investment as it has over road investment. There is to be a £7 billion rail investment in the United Kingdom, but the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority says that, on current plans, none of that investment will be made north of Watford. Will the First Minister give Parliament a guarantee that Scotland will get its fair share of that rail investment budget?

It often escapes the SNP that there may be some practical, rather than political, transport issues. Let us imagine a situation in which Virgin Trains and Great North Eastern Railway are operating on a UK basis and that the powers that they seek are all contained within Scotland. What do we do then? Do we, as the independent nation that the SNP wants, argue with and cajole Westminster and then the private companies down there? We have a good package for railways that allows both Westminster and Edinburgh to work towards an integrated UK passenger transport service. That serves the interests of Scotland as much as it serves the interests of the United Kingdom.

I know that the First Minister was giving interviews at lunch time about how much he does not enjoy First Minister's question time, but today's lunchtime news also featured the head of Virgin Trains, the company that he has just mentioned, who said, "I would be quite happy if ScotRail owned the track in Scotland and we had a contract with them." The idea that it is impossible for a train to go over the border just as someone can drive a car over the border on a motorway is utterly bizarre. Does not that make the case for this Parliament to have the same responsibility for rail investment as it has for road investment? Would not that be, as the First Minister said, a triumph of pragmatism over ideology?

The references to First Minister's question time being tough certainly exclude the contribution from the SNP benches week in, week out. I never regard them as tough in any way.

The other point is that the SNP has its worst polling figures for the past 20 years. The SNP looks at every problem and seeks to come up with more constitutional changes and to wrangle endlessly over constitutional items.

In the aftermath of Railtrack, a much bigger opportunity exists than for ScotRail merely to have the track and for Virgin to be happy to run on it. There are tremendous opportunities. Until the SNP sees the benefits of devolution, there will continue to be a mishmash week in, week out whereby it tries to fool Scotland. The best of the union benefits the UK in total.

In his contacts with his colleagues south of the border, has the First Minister been made aware of the cancellation of the individual learning account programme? Is he aware of the concerns that I have expressed in questions on that subject? Will he reassess the responses to those questions? If there are abuses, will he find ways of correcting them? If he sees potential abuses in Scotland, will he deal with them?

I thank Phil Gallie for giving me prior notice of his concerns. I acknowledge and respect the fact that he has taken an interest in the matter.

In England, individual learning accounts have been suspended because massive fraud has been uncovered. The suspension in England does not automatically mean that we will suspend accounts in Scotland. However, over the next few days, I want to look closely at activities in Scotland. Like Phil Gallie, I want to send a message to anyone who wants to exploit individual learning accounts or commit fraud in respect of them.

There are more than 220,000 accounts—that is a massive reflection of Scots' appetite for such activities. More than 90,000 accounts are active. The accounts are one way in which individuals take ownership of their education and build their future. I reassure Phil Gallie that we will leave no stone unturned in identifying the extent of the problems in Scotland. If there are any, they will continue to be tackled. If we find that our programme is substantially robust, we will continue with it and not suspend it. I am grateful for the opportunity to record that in the Official Report.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-1308)

I will meet the Prime Minister and leaders of the other devolved Administrations next week.

Undoubtedly, there are many important issues that the First Minister will discuss with the Prime Minister. We have discussed some of those issues in the chamber yesterday and today.

An important issue that has not been aired relates to the First Minister's parliamentary office expenses. The issue calls into question the integrity and probity of the First Minister. [Interruption.]

Order. Members should sit down. I will not allow questions on internal matters of the House of Commons. Members would object if members of the House of Commons raised questions about activities in the Scottish Parliament. I do not care who such questions affect—the First Minister or anyone else. It is not in order to raise questions about matters that are internal to the House of Commons.

Allegations have been made in certain quarters that the First Minister has been guilty of submitting fraudulent expenses claims and those allegations must be answered. If Scotland's First Minister is accused by some of submitting a fraudulent claim—irrespective of whom that claim is submitted to—it must be relevant for his conduct to be questioned in the chamber. [Interruption.]

Order. I will clarify my ruling. It would be in order to make a passing reference to the matter, but it is not in order to ask a substantive question on a matter for which Mr McLeish is not responsible as First Minister of Scotland.

The First Minister is responsible for his reputation. I protest. There is a situation—

You may make a passing reference to his reputation, but it is not in order to ask a question about internal administration in the House of Commons.

I sincerely hope that a First Minister who preaches open government and freedom of information will give the people of Scotland the explanation that they deserve and that he will stop hiding behind his spin doctors.

Sir David, I will give a dignified response to that question and, as you have done, express my concern at the tawdry tone that David McLetchie has taken.

As the Presiding Officer has said, the matter is not for the Scottish Parliament. Most colleagues will agree. However, I want to go on the record. I regret the error that I made. I responded immediately to the parliamentary authorities. There was no investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mrs Elizabeth Filkin. She referred to the House of Commons fees office an inquiry made by the former shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Dominic Grieve, a Conservative member of Parliament.

As has been said all along, there has been no personal gain. The mutual agreement between the fees office and me to pay over the money was reported to Mrs Filkin. Mrs Filkin wrote to me on Tuesday afternoon to inform me of that. Sir David, the letter is very brief and I will not seek your indulgence or that of the Parliament much longer. She wrote:

"Thank you for your letter of 23 October informing me that this matter has now been resolved.

I reported to the Standards and Privileges Committee today that the Head of the Fees Office had informed me that the matter had been settled to his satisfaction.

I am grateful to you for keeping me fully informed on this matter even though there was no requirement on you to do so as you have ceased to be a sitting Member here.

With every good wish.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Filkin".

Both the House of Commons authorities and I now regard the matter as closed. I hope that Mr McLetchie will accept that.

I will intervene again. The answer was as out of order as the question. Let us change the subject. Mr McLetchie, do you have another supplementary?

I have a hundred questions on that subject and I do not regard the matter as closed—

Order. If the member will not respect my ruling I will have to move on to another question. The Speaker of the House of Commons would not allow questions on matters internal to the Scottish Parliament and I do not propose to allow questions on matters internal to the House of Commons. If Mr McLetchie has a question about something else, he may ask it.

I hope that the First Minister will discuss with the Prime Minister the outcome of the inquiries into the Chhokar case that we discussed yesterday. Does the First Minister agree that those inquiries have, in part, been distorted by a constant attempt to examine issues by reference to the concept of institutional racism? Does he agree that it would be more constructive if we stopped bandying about that silly label? The term is deeply insulting to many police officers who regard it as a slur on them and their professionalism.

Should not we be addressing the more pertinent issues relating to the competence with which the case was handled and the sensitivity with which our criminal justice system deals with victims and their families? Should not we also ensure that, instead of pinning labels on people and organisations, our justice system treats everyone equally, regardless of race, colour or creed?

I do not agree with comments that could be offensive to those who suffer as a consequence of racism in any part of Scotland. I do not believe that the two reports that were published yesterday should be construed by our police services or by the officers of the Crown Office as anything other than a statement that institutional racism must be stamped out, no matter where it occurs—whether in government, the police or the courts. That was the message that the Lord Advocate gave without qualification yesterday when he presented the reports. I sincerely hope that, when David McLetchie reflects on that, he will realise that we, too, should support that message.

Let me also say that, subject to all the recommendations in the two reports, we intend not only to acknowledge institutional racism but to do a great deal more about it than we have done in the past. If every party and every member were to sign up to that action, we would send through the media the best message to every person in Scotland: we will simply not tolerate racism, institutional or otherwise, in the 21st century in our country.

---

Educational Support (Looked-after Children)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that investment in books and equipment reaches all pupils, including children in local authority care. (S1F-1320)

I am conscious that Jack McConnell has been addressing this issue. In addition to the substantial general resources that authorities can use to invest in books and equipment, we have recently provided two special increases in funding for schools and have promoted books and equipment as a priority for that expenditure. In addition, this week we have announced a new fund of up to £10 million for this financial year to provide books, equipment and homework materials for every child in Scotland who is looked after by local authorities.

I thank the First Minister for that response and welcome the announcement that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs made earlier this week. However, as the First Minister will be aware, statistics show that, after two decades, the educational attainment of looked-after children is abysmally low compared with that of other young people. Can he assure me that looked-after children, who are among the most disadvantaged in our society, will continue to be a priority for the Executive? Will he and his ministers explore other initiatives to improve the life opportunities for all looked-after children?

I am pleased to reply positively to Scott Barrie's questions. Part of our task is to provide mainstream provision, but it is also part of our task to top up provision, where we can, to reach children who suffer from a number of disadvantages. I know that it is Jack McConnell's wish that looked-after children should be a priority. He has given the figure of 11,309 looked-after children in Scotland. There are 1,585 in residential accommodation and 9,724 who are looked after at home or in the community. They will continue to be a priority.

I would like to use Scott Barrie's question to consider the moneys for books and equipment for school libraries. I have to declare a registered interest, as I am an associate member of the Library Association.

Is the First Minister considering a similar special fund to ensure that the moneys meant for school library books get to the school libraries and are spent on school library books and equipment? This week, I was in a school library whose capitation should have produced £3,400 per annum; for the past two years, however, it has received only £200 per annum.

I am making an instant decision, having looked at Mr Jack McConnell. He said to me quietly, "Watch this space." I suspect that, after discussions that he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Mr McConnell may be on the verge of making an announcement.

---

Racism

I assure the First Minister and Mr McConnell that we will be watching this space closely.

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive intends to take to address any allegations of institutional racism within its departments or any of the agencies for which it is responsible. (S1F-1305)

I will develop the same theme as I did a few minutes ago. Racism of any kind should have no part in Scottish public life. The Executive takes very seriously any allegations of institutional racism within its departments and its agencies. The race equality advisory forum, which the Executive set up two years ago, has just produced a challenging report. It sets out a number of recommendations for action by the Executive and other bodies. Those recommendations aim to help to eliminate institutional racism and other forms of racism in Scotland. We will set out a detailed response to that report early next year.

I thank the First Minister for his response. I totally agree with his comments in reply to Mr McLetchie.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the contents of Dr Jandoo's report on the Chhokar case. It states:

"The Crown Office cannot be cleared of the charge of institutional racism. That however is a charge which can probably be levelled at almost any organisation in the country."

On the basis that prevention is better than cure, is not there a case for an anti-racist unit within the Executive to ensure that the recommendations are properly and adequately implemented?

Even though it is not named as such, I think that the equality unit covers those areas of concern. Alex Neil is right in the sense that there has been a general concern in England, Wales and Scotland that institutional racism could occur in any institution. However, we should not be shaken by that observation; instead, we should accept it as a challenge. For example, as an employer, the Executive will seek to do what it can based on the forum's advice. We will also examine the whole governance of Scotland, including public bodies, quangos and local authorities. All in all, we are embarking on a very comprehensive plan to tackle racism.

I should also point out that very often we are dealing with issues of culture. Some people have deep-seated concerns that the problem has lingered for many decades. Now is the time for a 21st century Scotland, helped by devolution, to address the issue in a unified way and as seriously as we can. I am not convinced that that has been the case in the past; I hope that it will be the case in the future.

On that point, will the First Minister recognise the keen commitment of those who undertake public service in the Crown Office? Such commitment rejects the antediluvian antics of the likes of David McLetchie and makes clear a determination to work in a public-spirited organisation that reflects all the people of Scotland, serves victims of crime and treats serious crime seriously.

I agree with Brian Fitzpatrick, because it is the people who work daily in Scotland whom we need most to help us. I know that police officers, Crown officers and those in the court system want to ensure that we have egalitarian policies that provide the same service for everyone, regardless of their race, religion or any other issue or characteristic. That means that we have to work together and not alienate organisations or individuals, but ensure that they are part of the team approach to tackle the issue.