Plenary, 30 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, September 30, 1999

Official Report 887KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what subjects were discussed. (S1O-400) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): That is becoming the equivalent of the question about engagements for today. Mr David McLetchie asked a remarkably similar question last week. I suppose it could be telepathy and further evidence of a rather unlikely alliance [Laughter.] I can only recommend to Mr Salmond the answer I gave to Mr McLetchie last Thursday.

Only yesterday, my colleagues pointed out the First Minister's record on voting with the Conservative party.

Can the First Minister arrange a further meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the question of the fuel price escalator? Does he recall telling me on 1 February that, in his opinion, oil prices would be between $10 and $12 a barrel for the foreseeable future? Now that oil prices are double that, with clear implications for the price of petrol and fuel, is it not time that the First Minister arranges a meeting with the chancellor, to lobby to come off the fuel price escalator as soon as possible?

I hope that Mr Salmond is not complaining about the rise in the price of oil. If so, perhaps he could take his case to Aberdeen and see what kind of reception he gets. I can assure him that there are constant discussions between a range of United Kingdom ministers and me. In the course of those discussions, it is self- evident that Scotland's interests are being fully represented. Mr Salmond will accept that the chancellor is well acquainted with Scotland's problems and its opportunities and advantages.

What I am complaining about is the price of petrol and fuel and the damage that that is doing to the Scottish economy. Does the First Minister consider that indirect—or unfair— taxation such as tuition fees, toll taxes and fuel taxes is among the reasons for Labour's incredible shrinking majority in Hamilton South, from 16,000 to 600? Or does he accept the view of Westminster Labour MPs who say that it is all the fault of the Scottish Executive? To quote one, "It could not have been our fault. We were not even in session." Who is responsible for Labour's shrinking majority in Hamilton?

I thought that Mr Salmond was about to ask a serious question, pressing me about the problems that he sees arising from the fuel tax escalator. That would have been perfectly legitimate. Unfortunately, he has spoiled it by moving off into rather cheap political points, based, apparently, on gossip that he has presumably picked up from afar, as these days he seldom visits Westminster to defend Scotland's interests.

When people complain about cheap political points, it is usually because they are losing. [Laughter.] I suggest that the First Minister gets together with his close colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland, perhaps over a cup of tea, and agrees on a concordat jointly to lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer about fuel prices in Scotland and the damage that the escalator is doing to the Scottish economy. Will the First Minister agree to get together with John Reid and lobby the chancellor on that point?

I do not think that there is any reason for me to agree to get together with the secretary of state. I have seen him several times this week and am seeing him several times more. [Laughter.]

The results of the Government's stewardship in Scotland that I see are the lowest unemployment for 25 years, inflation at under 2 per cent, more people employed now than were two years ago, and a modernising of our economy that is instanced by Motorola's announcement this morning. That is a genuine vote of confidence, which gives us every ground for optimism in the future. I would like to think that Mr Salmond recognises those facts occasionally.

---

Freedom of Information

To ask the Scottish Executive what are the aims of its proposed freedom of information regime. (S1O407) The Deputy First Minister and Minister of Justice (Mr Jim Wallace): The aim of the statutory freedom of information regime will be to provide a right of access to information that is held by Scottish public authorities. The Executive will publish a consultation document in the autumn setting out its proposals.

As the Deputy First Minister knows, the Scottish Executive's code on freedom of information states that in making decisions, ministers will publish the facts and analysis of the facts that ministers consider relevant.

In view of the disquiet in the medical community which has been voiced by senior figures such as Dr John Garner, the Scottish chairman of the British Medical Association, and Professor Arnold

Maran, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, about the background of the decision of the Minister for Health and Community Care to centralise paediatric cardiac surgery at the royal hospital for sick children in Yorkhill rather than at the royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh, will the Executive publish the report of the national services division, for which it, and the Liberal Democrat group on City of Edinburgh Council, called?

Mr McLetchie's familiarity with the code of practice on access to Scottish Executive information means, I am sure, that he has got as far as reading part II, which sets out some of the exempt categories. Those include information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, which covers internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation, and projections and assumptions relating to internal policy analysis.

The advice that was supplied by the national services division is exempt from publication under the section that I have read out. It counts as part of the advice that was put to the Minister for Health and Community Care. Such advice is treated as confidential.

The advice is exempt because the minister chooses to make it exempt. I am indeed familiar with that caveat. Of course, that illustrates that the commitment to freedom of information is skin-deep. The minister will publish when it suits him to do so, and he will suppress when it does not.

Does the Deputy First Minister not accept that the failure to publish the secret report undermines confidence in the decision-making process? Will he give a categorical assurance that the decision that was taken in this case was taken on clinical grounds alone?

I will not take lessons on freedom of information from the member of a party that, when in government, sent a senior civil servant halfway round the world to be economical with the truth.

It is misleading to suggest that the decision was based directly on the work that was done by the national services division. That work was only one part of the advice on which the minister drew. It was complemented by a joint study by Greater Glasgow Health Board and Lothian Health. There was also a pan-Scotland dimension, which neither the national services division nor health boards were able to offer—that was supplied by the chief executive of the national health service in Scotland and the chief medical officer. The whole process was set out in a written answer that was given to Mr Kenneth Gibson on 10 September. The national services division's work does not give

anything like the complete picture of the issues that were raised in this highly complex and difficult decision.

Will the minister think again about what should be reserved information? I have it on the best possible authority that the three independent reports to which he referred all recommended Edinburgh royal. We do not question the clinical assessment that there is a need for only one centre of excellence, but we question the minister's refusal to make the reports public. There is no issue of commercial confidentiality in this case or anything like that. One of my colleagues from the Health and Community Care Committee, Margaret Smith, has added her voice to mine, and those of the BMA and David McLetchie, in asking to see the reports. In the spirit of the freedom of information legislation that will be introduced, can we see those reports now?

The reports formed part of the advice that was given. Susan Deacon has been very open about this. She has written a four-page letter to the chairman of the trusts, has issued detailed news releases and has written a newspaper article setting out her reasons. The whole Parliament is agreed that this is a complex and difficult issue. Ministers receive advice from a number of sources. If frank and candid advice is to continue to be given to Government, it must, in many cases, remain confidential.

---

Land Reform

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to reform crofting legislation to encourage absentee crofters to release land for potential usage by fellow crofters. (S1O-413)

Our plans for reformed crofting legislation do not include that subject. Existing legislation gives the Crofters Commission adequate powers to remove absentee croft tenants from their crofts and to control the re-letting of those crofts.

Will the minister clarify who has the authority to exercise the powers to which he refers? Is he aware of the widespread view in crofting areas that problems of absenteeism and other issues could be more effectively addressed if crofting estates were under community ownership? Is he also aware of the concern about the fact that the white paper on land reform did not contain the commitment that was given in Lord Sewel's green paper to the proactive right of crofting communities to buy land? Will he give an assurance that the community right to buy will be included in the first tranche of land reform legislation?

Landlords have the ultimate control in respect of removing absentee crofters. It must be said that most landlords do not act or exercise those powers. In terms of future legislation, we will consider the possibility of giving the Crofters Commission greater powers to act in place of a landlord who is not pursuing the matter.

The second point raised by Allan Wilson relates to the right to buy, and I am pleased to say that we are currently examining the responses to the first white paper on land reform. We are giving earnest consideration to including a crofting community right to buy in the first tranche of land reform legislation.

Does the minister recognise that one of the reasons Ollaberry in Shetland won the crofting township of the year award is that it is an active and vibrant community? A crofting outgoers scheme, which would free up crofts for new entrants, would be a helpful reform. Does the minister agree that that would help to revitalise crofting communities?

There are no firm proposals for an outgoers scheme, as that would principally rely on financial instruments. The thrust of any crofting legislation that we introduce will be designed to amend legislation to enable greater entry—and new entry—to crofts and crofting.

Does the minister accept that if there is no improvement in sheep prices and no reduction in fuel prices, there will not be many crofters left?

I am not entirely sure. This gets back to the ewe question, Sir David, which I know you are very sensitive about. [Laughter.]

I do not think that there is anything in particular that I can do to raise ewe prices. As members know, we are taking positive steps. We announced that we are putting £20 million into hill livestock compensatory allowances. More than 40 per cent of that money will go to sheep farmers and therefore to people in the less favoured areas, in our crofting communities. The Executive has taken positive steps to assist in the financial circumstances of those areas. It is not simply a question of fuel prices, but of the support that crofters receive.

That concludes question time.