Plenary, 27 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, January 27, 2000

Official Report 838KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Executive Cabinet (Meeting)

To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the last meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-50) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): We discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and the people of Scotland.

In that case, can I congratulate the First Minister on following the Opposition's advice on slimming down his army of special advisers and spin-doctors?

However, would not this matter benefit from a Cabinet discussion? After a sacking, a resignation and a grovelling apology in the space of a month, is not this Parliament entitled to ask the First Minister when he will get a grip on the chaos at the heart of his Administration?

I need hardly stress to the chamber that I deeply regret what has happened. Above all, it is a devastating tragedy for Philip Chalmers and his family. He went; he had to go. Obviously it is my intention that we should continue with the essentials of this Administration: the fight for social justice; the fight for economic growth in Scotland; and the answering and delivery of the pledges that we made at the previous election.

Does the First Minister recall that, during the demise of Mr John Rafferty, he sent me a copy of the model contract for special advisers, which says that they

"must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, and avoid personal attacks"?

Is not it the case that Mr David Whitton is in breach of all three terms of reference in his own contract? Is that the First Minister's opinion? Does he intend to do anything about it?

Mr Salmond refers to an incident in which David Whitton was talking to a journalist in the course of a discussion about a very difficult and traumatic series of events. He made remarks which he should not have made. David Whitton saw me on Wednesday morning and immediately stated his intention to put the record straight. He did so, and rightly so. He held up his hand and apologised for what had been said.

I should make it clear that we do not know how the information about Philip Chalmers's troubles

reached the press; only the newspaper that first received that information can answer that question.

And the question was whether Mr David Whitton was in breach of his own contract and whether the First Minister was planning any disciplinary action.

Has the First Minister seen the affidavit from Mr John Scott, an Edinburgh solicitor and chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, which says that Mr Brian Fitzpatrick, another of the First Minister's men, made a statement that suggests influence over judicial appointments and is prejudicial to the president of the Glasgow Bar Association? Has the First Minister investigated this matter? Does he take it seriously? Is he in a position to tell us whether this is true? Are any of his special advisers obeying the terms of reference on their contracts? Does he intend to do anything about it?

The answer to Mr Salmond's final point is yes. As for David Whitton, he apologised for an error that I know he regrets. He was working under extreme pressure. I and a great many people who work with him in this building know him well as a good colleague. I put the question seriously to Mr Salmond: which of us in the heat of the day have not said things that we wish we could unsay? What matters is how someone in that position acts and puts it right.

I have not seen the affidavit to which Mr Salmond refers, but there have been a couple of items in the newspapers. Brian Fitzpatrick has made it very clear to me that there is no foundation in the matter.

Does the First Minister agree that the issues that really matter to the people of Scotland are housing, health and employment, and that it is about those matters, not the behaviour of certain discredited advisers, that people want to hear? Does he agree that far too much time is being spent discussing those issues rather than the really important things that matter to the people of our country?

I ought to make it clear that I take the matters that have been raised very seriously. I am disappointed and dismayed by what has happened, and nothing that I say now should take away from that.

Of course, as Elaine Murray says, the Government's record will be judged on these issues: social justice, education and housing. I would be very disappointed if I were not in a position to defend a record that shows the lowest unemployment in Scotland for 24 years, an investment of £50 million per annum in a new scheme for student support and the many other improvements that we will rightly put before the country and on which we will ultimately be judged.

---

Joint Ministerial Committees (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister how many meetings of joint ministerial committees have taken place and whether there are any plans to create further such committees. (S1F-57) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): The joint ministerial committee on poverty has met once. The memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administration allows for the establishment of further sub-committees as the joint ministerial committee sees fit.

I am glad to see that the First Minister's briefing book for today's question time is as voluminous as ever. Given the casualty rate among his advisers, I thought he might have been reduced to thinking for himself by now.

Could I suggest that a new joint ministerial committee be established to consider the terms and conditions of employment of Government special advisers, so as to ensure fairness at work—a concept that I believe is dear to the Labour party's heart?

Could that committee investigate double standards? Why is it, for example, that Mr John Rafferty is dismissed for allegedly making inappropriate comments to journalists, which he strenuously denies, whereas Mr David Whitton remains in his post for making inappropriate comments to journalists, which he freely admits?

That would be a clever debating point, but I do not regard this as a debating matter. It would be a clever point if Mr McLetchie was working on the right premise. If he would like to look at the record of what I have said here today, and of what I have said about other aspects of the difficulties that led to John Rafferty leaving the civil service, he will find that I made it clear that I was not asking Mr Rafferty to go on the basis that Mr McLetchie has suggested.

I think the First Minister acknowledged that there was a loss of confidence. I suggest that that must extend further, to those who advise him. Does he agree that the actions of his aides, not least in operating behind his back to conceal the truth from him about the activities of Mr Chalmers, are bringing him, the Scottish Executive and the whole Scottish Parliament into disrepute?

The First Minister's failure to control the activities of his advisers, combined with his failure to address the real issues facing the Scottish people, is leading to growing public contempt for his Administration and for this Parliament. Is it not

about time the First Minister took charge of events instead of constantly being at the mercy of them?

I say to David McLetchie, very seriously, that I know it is always tempting to have a crescendo of abuse on occasions such as this, but I resent the suggestion that any of the special advisers was aware of the difficulties that became all too evident in the private life of Mr Chalmers and deliberately withheld them from me. That is not the position.

I take such matters seriously, and I deal with them as and when they come to my notice. I will continue to do so. I do not think that the spirit in which Mr McLetchie is approaching the matter is very helpful.

I wish to ask the First Minister about the joint ministerial committee on poverty, which he says has already met once. Will he raise in that committee the issue of pensioner poverty in Scotland? In particular, will he make representations through the committee about the minimum income guarantee? It is a very minimum income, and given that 60,000 pensioners in Scotland who are entitled to get it do not get it, it is certainly no guarantee.

The representative of the Executive who attends those meetings will consider the situation of pensioners, who make up a section of our society that needs support.

I take it from Alex Neil's attack that he believes that the guaranteed minimum pension represents an advance, although he would like to it to be more broad-based and at a higher level. I am glad to welcome him as an ally in building in a minimum floor of this kind, which will mean that many pensioners will see a substantial increase in income.

The joint ministerial committees are helpful. They allow us to discuss and co-ordinate matters with colleagues who face similar problems in other parts of the UK. I hope that everyone will benefit from that exchange of information. I assure Alex Neil that the improvements that have been brought in—such as the guaranteed minimum pension and the £100 winter allowance—are of great importance and will be built on in the future.

Is the First Minister aware that there is widespread uncertainty about whether the funding that pays for the rent rebate portion of the housing benefit to council tenants across Scotland has been transferred to the Scottish Executive block of expenditure? From his knowledge of the joint ministerial committee on poverty, will the First Minister say whether that is the case? If it is the case, does he accept that that will cap housing benefit expenditure for council tenants in Scotland? Will he explain how the Executive intends to fund council rent rises for those tenants?

A short and snappy answer is obviously being invited.

I do not believe that the matter raised by Mr McAllion was discussed in depth at the first meeting of the joint ministerial committee on poverty. There will be subsequent meetings and Mr McAllion is right to point out that subjects that are mutual to our two jurisdictions are particularly valuable for discussion and examination. All Governments of recent years have attempted to refine and improve the housing benefit system. In previous years, the attempts have met with somewhat disappointing results. I know that Alistair Darling and his colleagues will want to consider the matter again. Because we are on the committee, our views will have an impact when that happens. That alone justifies the committee, despite Mr McLetchie's rather outré constitutional theories.

---

Education Funding

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made by the joint ministerial working group considering further and higher education funding and student support. (S1F-62)

That sensitive question was anticipated by the announcement made by Henry McLeish yesterday that formed our response to the Cubie committee's report.

I am puzzled by the fact that many people in this chamber—particularly SNP members—have not given a warm welcome to our proposals which, after all, put £50 million into student support in Scotland. Andrew Cubie, whose opinion might be relevant, described that investment as "a good thing". That is a simple truth that I hope all members will endorse.

We have adopted the Cubie philosophy, which we could not implement in full for financial reasons. He drew the map and the thrust of his intention is evident, even if the scale is—though still generous—a little lower.

I remind the chamber that the graduate endowment includes a 50 per cent exemption for Scottish students—that is unlike Cubie's recommendations. I remind the chamber that the wider access pledge in the Cubie report has been met, that those at the bottom end of the family income scale—earning less than £10,000—will have another £2,000 of purchasing power and will be £4,000 less in debt than they would be under the present system.

Our solution is progressive, sensible and—given

the restrictions and practicalities of government— extremely generous.

When David Caldwell was interviewed on "Good Morning Scotland" the other day, he was asked whether we were playing a new ball game. Speaking on behalf of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, he said that we were, but that it was a better ball game. I agree with that entirely.

I thank the First Minister for his response. Given the importance of the expansion of higher and further education to, for example, Aberdeen's two universities and further education college, and throughout Scotland, can he tell me exactly how students from low-income families will be assisted under this scheme?

I thought I had made a good shot at it. Elaine Thomson is right: if she looks at the exemplifications that have been produced, she will see that no student—even taking into account the graduate endowment, which is £2,000 rather than the £3,000 Cubie suggested—will be left with a higher debt at the end of their course than they have at present, and that the vast number will be left with a reduced debt.

Further education students—people who are studying for higher national diplomas and higher national certificates—come out of the arithmetic extremely well in terms of the treatment of the abolition of fees. That is important in the context of wider access, as it is in that kind of area that we must establish a good record and a welcoming atmosphere for those who are considering entering higher education.

Does the First Minister agree that the access fund threshold that has been set during this deal is far too low? Does he acknowledge that the Minister for Communities recently wrote to me to tell me that, in Scotland, poverty income is considered to be £10,704 per annum, and that someone would have to be below poverty income before they would qualify for a full access fund?

I would like to think that Tommy Sheridan will have a look at the figures and see the weighting that has been built in, not just for those earning less than £10,000, but for those earning up to £15,000. There is also protection for those earning up to £23,000—I stress the word protection—so that no one loses out following the changes.

I recognise that I have probably been guilty in the past—during the long 18 years—of making claims about what Governments should do that were less than practical. However, we have a duty to try to stay in touch with reality. The £50 million investment—£33 million net when the endowment scheme is running—is a pretty generous effort to meet the outline of Andrew Cubie and his colleagues. Cubie was not asked in particular to consider the affordability of the measures, but I think he would accept—he has, in the sense that I have already quoted—that we have made a pretty good job of trying to meet the requirements and needs of Scottish students.

---

Convicted Sex Offenders

To ask the First Minister what proposals there are to deal with the release of convicted sex offenders back into the community. (S1F-58) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): Protecting the public from sex offenders is the paramount consideration; that is common ground between me and Roseanna Cunningham. A good number of measures have been established and are working well, but there is no room for complacency and work to enhance public protection is continuing.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. In the light of John Cronin's release from supervision, does he share my concern that many female lawyers and MSPs appear to be reluctant to comment, on the record, on that and similar cases? Does he agree that the challenge that is posed to the criminal justice system by a very small number of individuals needs to be addressed urgently by reconsidering the options that are open to sheriffs and judges when they are confronted by such as Cronin?

I hope that no one will think that I am being a stickler for protocol, in any sense, but it would be dangerous for me to comment too directly on a specific case.

If someone was convicted of offences of a sexual nature before 1 September 1997, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 does not apply to them. If, since then, they have been convicted of a totally different sort of offence, they serve the sentence that is appropriate to that offence. That does not allow us retrospectively to include them in the provisions of the 1997 act.

It is a difficult and very delicate problem, and there are always European convention on human rights considerations. As Roseanna Cunnigham will know, a committee chaired by Lady Cosgrove is examining sex offences and the treatment of sex offenders. Another committee, which is headed by Lord Maclean, is examining violent and dangerous offences. When their reports are available we will carefully reconsider the best way forward.

Does the First Minister agree that the overriding concern in such cases must be the safeguarding of victims and the wider community through measures such as the sex offenders orders that

he has supported?

I am grateful to Janis Hughes—I should perhaps have mentioned that point in my reply to Roseanna Cunningham. It is, however, difficult to cover all the ground. The sex offenders orders were introduced on 1 December 1998 and they allow the police to apply to a sheriff for a civil order against any person who has a previous conviction for a sex offence, if their conduct gives rise to concern. That is a matter for the judgment of the courts.

There are, obviously, difficulties that we must recognise—the courts must be satisfied that the serious matter of imposing such an order is justified by the evidence that is produced. That power is a step beyond what has been available in the past and I am sure that it will be used when there is good justification for doing so. I agree with Janis Hughes that safety and protection of the public are considerations in all such matters.