Plenary, 28 Oct 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, October 28, 1999

Official Report 830KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meeting)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1O485) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I met the Secretary of State for Scotland on 18 October, when, as always, we discussed matters of mutual interest.

In view of the quite unjustified criticism that has been heaped upon Sheriff Margaret Gimblett after her decision in Greenock sheriff court last week, does the First Minister agree with the general proposition that the courts of Scotland have a duty to

"follow or at least carefully consider"

international law in determining their own decisions?

I certainly accept that the courts of Scotland have a duty to follow the law; the matter of the interpretation of the law is, of course, sometimes the subject of debate. I do not want to comment on the merits of this particular matter because, as Alex Salmond knows, the whole judgment has now been referred by the law officers to the High Court.

It has not been referred as yet—I checked a few minutes ago. I am glad that the First Minister agrees with that proposition, because I was quoting from Ronald King Murray, the last Labour Lord Advocate, who went on to argue, in a paper delivered to the United Nations Association in Oxford last year, that the Trident nuclear system could well be illegal under international law. Does it trouble the First Minister that such an eminent legal authority in Scotland considers that the nuclear system that the First Minister supports could well be illegal?

I have said already that I do not wish to comment on the merits of those arguments, as they are being considered by people of considerably more legal experience than either Alex Salmond or me. I accept that, and I hope that Mr Salmond will as well. We should wait for the review to take place.

I am genuinely astonished to hear that Andrew Hardie—Lord Hardie, our present Lord Advocate—is a non-person. He certainly is a Labour Lord Advocate in my book.

Ronald King Murray was the

Labour Lord Advocate before Andrew Hardie, and he is an eminent legal authority. I would have thought that the First Minister would acknowledge that. This is, after all, an issue of current controversy. The Scottish National party is against Trident; Labour's official policy in Scotland is against Trident; many Labour MSPs say that they are against Trident; and one of the First Minister's ministers may or may not be against Trident. If it is substantiated that the Trident nuclear system could be illegal under international law, will the First Minister acknowledge that he, and this Parliament, which is responsible for the law of Scotland, will have an obligation to do something about it?

That is a splendid series of hypothetical points. I again advise the gentleman to wait for the judgment. If I allow myself one little indulgence, I will say that the judgment came as a surprise to most people with an interest in the law.

When the First Minister met his colleague last week, did he find time to talk about the health service in Scotland, and did he perhaps find time to express his pride in the cochlear implant treatment that is offered by Crosshouse hospital? Does he advocate that that system should remain at Crosshouse, and that John Reid could take the message of Crosshouse's success back to his colleagues at Westminster?

I am always very proud to see the advances in medical practice and treatment in the health service in Scotland. We are fortunate in Scotland to spend 20 to 23 or 24 per cent more per head on the health service than is spent in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is fair to say that we see real results for that spending, in both staffing and technique. We should all be glad that we are in a position to afford that impetus to progress in the health service in our own country.

In view of the recent historic decision at Greenock sheriff court, will the First Minister ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to try to persuade the rest of the British Cabinet to abide by international law by removing all nuclear weapons from British soil and territorial waters in line with the policy of the Scottish Labour party?

Mr Canavan's theory is touching and he is obviously attached to it. However, I suggest gently that international law is not defined by Greenock sheriff court.

We will see about that. That is prejudging the judgment from on high.

---

SNP Leader (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many meetings the First Minister has had with the leader of the SNP and whether further meetings between them are planned. (S1O-477)

There has been one encounter. I would argue that the meeting was technically a photo opportunity and can assure Mr McLetchie that opportunities for discussion were sadly limited.

As for the future, I have no plans.

I am very sorry to learn that this first date was such a hurried affair. [Laughter.] Given that we have this arranged marriage of convenience in Scotland—otherwise known snappily as Scotland in Europe (part of the Britain in Europe campaign)—did the First Minister have a brief opportunity to exchange views on the effect that a rush to sign up for the euro, or the single currency, would have on the Scottish economy and jobs, and the threat that doing so poses to Scottish pensions and taxes and the sovereignty of our country?

I think that I have the advantage of knowing the position of the leader of the SNP on the matter. However, I am a little bit confused by what I hear from the Scottish Conservative benches. At the Conservative party conference south of the border, we had the vision of Lord Tebbit going to the rostrum to say that he had been an unhappy Conservative for many years, but that that week he was yet again a happy Conservative. That tells us all we need to know about the state of Conservative thinking.

I am very interested to learn that the First Minister thinks that he knows the SNP's position on the issue. Of course, he knows the position of the SNP leadership. However, that party's national council has never voted to join the single currency. Is not it clear from this unholy alliance that only the Scottish Conservative party is standing up for our interests in Europe to defend our sovereignty? Furthermore, is not it clear that the unholy alliance that the First Minister is putting together—the Lib-Lab-Nat pact of SNP, Liberal Democrats and Labour [Laughter.]—is committed to handing over control of our economy to Brussels? Will the First Minister admit that that is his intention or is he, like Tony Blair, a big feartie, afraid to tell the truth about Labour's plans to abolish the pound with all that that entails?

David McLetchie will have to learn the difference between people laughing at him and people laughing with him.

Engagement in Europe is important. It is important for the Government of this country at every level to fight for Scottish and British interests in Europe. Furthermore, our ability to do so effectively is badly damaged if we indulge in

rhetoric that suggests that not only are we positioned at the exit from the European Union, but that many of our members would like to take that exit route. I am very sad to say that that is the direction in which William Hague, purely out of political expediency, has led his party.

Is the First Minister aware that, in last week's European Committee, Mr Ben Wallace, who is sitting on the Conservative benches among the Europe extremists, made the best case for the euro when, on the subject of structural funding, he pointed out that the divergences between the euro exchange rate and the pound were very damaging to the Highlands?

I am grateful for having the matter drawn to my attention. I must confess that I have not studied the works and writings of Mr Wallace with any great attention. I know that I disagree with him on a number of social and other issues, but if this is a shining exception to my normal prejudiced approach to his affairs, please—give me a script.

In view of Mr McLetchie's previous answer, does the First Minister agree that, if William Hague's idea of standing up for industries in Scotland and Britain in Europe is to advocate an illegal trade war, that will result in a tit-for-tat action that will destroy jobs and the whole of the rural economy if it escalates out of control?

I firmly believe that a trade war would be a disaster for all parties caught in it and for many third parties. I do not want tit-for-tat politics in this matter. I remind members that our case for France lifting its beef ban is based on scientific evidence and it behoves us, therefore — if we are thinking about any action that we might take—to make sure that we base our actions on good scientific evidence. There is no evidence to justify the retaliation advocated by some of the more excitable elements in British politics.

---

NHS Pay Negotiations

To ask the Scottish Executive which national health service pay bargaining groups have settled their 1999-2000 pay negotiations, which have yet to agree and what percentage pay rises have been agreed by those bargaining groups that have settled. (S1O-484)

I can advise Mr Adam that nurses, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine, or PAMs, were awarded 4.7 per cent and doctors and dentists received 3.5 cent for 1999-2000. Negotiations are still continuing for the other staff groups.

Does the minister agree that the other staff groups have been offered 3 per cent, and that they are not part of the pay review? How long does this Administration intend to continue with the Conservative practice—which seemed to issue from the health workers' strike of 1982—of differentiating between the two groups?

I can confirm that the other staff groups concerned have been offered 3 per cent and that negotiations are continuing through the machinery of the Whitley council.

The Executive is committed to working with its counterparts throughout the UK fundamentally to overhaul and improve the pay system for the whole national health service. "Agenda for Change", which was published earlier this year and which the Executive has signed up to, sets out a way in which to do that—to modernise an outdated pay system and to put in its place a fairer system that is affordable to the public purse and that shows the value that we attribute to those who work in the NHS in Scotland and throughout the UK.

Will the minister pay particular attention to the rates of pay of laboratory assistants, who seem to be remarkably poorly paid compared with other workers in the health service, but who deliver a vital and effective service?

I agree that it is important to recognise the vital contribution of all staff groups in the NHS. Regarding that, I must repeat points that I made in answer to the previous question. We continue to support and to work for all staff groups within the existing machinery, but we are absolutely committed to making improvements in the future. That commitment will apply not only in future—it is real now. That is why we are working with staff groups across the NHS in Scotland through the Scottish partnership forum to develop and improve the NHS in Scotland.

Will the minister look into the current shortages in laboratory staff? The recruitment programme for laboratory assistants is now entirely restricted to graduates and the average starting salary is £7,000, which is extremely low and is leading to considerable problems in the laboratory system— problems that are likely to get worse.

Will the minister also encourage our UK Government colleagues to examine the inclusion of laboratory technicians and workers in the second-level pay review body, which currently covers nurses and PAMs?

I stress our commitment to examine the needs of all groups in the NHS. We are doing that in Scotland through mechanisms such as the Scottish partnership forum—which I

mentioned—and through our own distinctive arrangements for work force planning in Scotland. That takes account of planning the health service's needs in future for recruitment and retention of staff. We are doing that work now, but we are also planning to ensure that, as we move into the 21st century, the best provisions are in place for all groups that work in the health service.

In the light of today's income data survey report, does the minister agree that there should be condemnation of the continued excesses in British boardrooms, where bosses are awarding themselves pay increases five times greater than the average increases that are being awarded to our health workers, and that the case for a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage is now formidable?

I make promises to workers in the NHS that I know are deliverable, rather than painting a picture that suggests that there is a quick fix involving taking money from one place with one hand and giving to them with the other. I will do what is within my powers to ensure that we reward people working in the health service in Scotland fairly and effectively, and I will do so based on practical politics and on promises that can be kept, not on nice left-wing rhetoric.

Given that health spending in England and Wales will rise faster than health spending in Scotland, can the minister guarantee that pay settlements will be met in full?

I repeat the point that the First Minister made very eloquently just a moment ago. Spending per head of population in Scotland is 20 per cent above that in England, reflecting the health needs that exist in Scotland and reflecting also our commitment to develop the health service. As I said, we are working within the UK framework for pay negotiations with NHS staff. Our co-operation with NHS staff across the UK— which the SNP would not support, but which NHS staff do—and our record of supporting staff and responding to the recommendations of the pay review body speak for themselves.