Plenary, 11 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, November 11, 1999

Official Report 791KB 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 they discussed. (S1O593) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): Matters of common concern.

In that case can the First Minister explain the speech he made this week in Haddington, which was reported as either warning his Liberal coalition partners to bow down on tuition fees or warning the Parliament's committees to bow down to ministers. What he says about his Liberal partners is a matter for the First Minister, but will he accept that the role of parliamentary committees is not to make life easy for ministers, but to hold the Scottish Executive to account on behalf of the people of Scotland?

I do not know whether Alex Salmond has had the advantage of reading my speech.

I have.

I am delighted. In that case, he will know that it was a speech in which I went to considerable time and trouble to demonstrate the importance that I attach to the effective working of the committee system. It is one of the characteristics of this Parliament and a mark of the deliberate effort to alter the balance of power between legislature and executive. It is a very important opportunity, and one that this Parliament cannot afford to miss.

The speech was interpreted as the First Minister expressing concern that some members of the Scottish Executive were finding life hot in front of committees. In that case, the solution might be to change the members of the Executive, rather than to change the committees.

In his speech, the First Minister said that some would argue the House of Lords should be a revising chamber for this Parliament. Who would make the ridiculous suggestion that a chamber in which the only elected people are hereditary peers and the rest are Tony's cronies should be a revising chamber for this Parliament, which is elected by the people of Scotland?

There is always a danger of arguing by caricature. Alex Salmond should wait to see what the revised composition of the House of Lords will be before jumping to assumptions. At the end of the paragraph that he cites, he will see that I reject the argument for a revising chamber and suggest that effective and properly operating committees are one of the best safeguards against that kind of thesis. I hope that no one will object if I say that the speech was subtle, in the sense that it dealt with the way in which this Parliament works and ought to work. No one is more committed than I am to making it work. I do not interpret the speech as a criticism of individuals. It was a useful contribution to a debate, and I am delighted that it has attracted so much attention from so distinguished a source.

Let me follow that note of consensus by asking the First Minister to join me in wishing Craig Brown and his squad all the best for the coming home and away matches in the European championship. I am sure that that is a matter that will attract 129 per cent support from this Parliament and concerning which everyone in this Parliament can have enthusiasm for the concept of Scotland into Europe.

I notice that quite a competitive exercise has grown up around Saturday's game. Obviously Alex Salmond is delighted to make his little effort to be associated with what will, I hope, be a very successful game. Success for me, of course, would be the right result, and the right result would be a Scottish victory.

Does the First Minister agree that, today, it would be appropriate for us to recognise the work of Hamish Henderson in projecting Scotland as a progressive, forward-looking and inclusive nation, this being the 80th anniversary of his birth? Hamish Henderson was also a veteran of the north African and Italian campaigns.

I am a great admirer of Hamish Henderson. He has written some great songs, and his "Freedom Come Aa Ye" is one of the most well known songs in Scotland. His influence has been widespread: I greatly value the work of the school of Scottish studies and the spread of academic work on Scottish culture through the universities.

I will say to Lloyd Quinan—I am sure he will not resent this—that this is not a day for honouring one individual, no matter how worthy, but for paying tribute to an enormous number of people. I attended a ceremony in a railway station in Glasgow this morning. I stood in front of the memorial to victims of the first world war. The number of names was quite daunting. The experience was humbling and it is in that general spirit that we should approach armistice day.

As I ask this question, it occurs to me that this appears to be the First Minister's groundhog day.

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1O579)

Surprise us, Mr Dewar.

Sadly, Presiding Officer, you would not let me. I live in hope that Messrs McLetchie and Salmond will think of something else to ask me.

The Secretary of State for Scotland and I discussed matters of common concern, Mr McLetchie.

I am delighted to hear that, on this occasion at least, the First Minister is a model of consistency or, perhaps, predictability.

I am also pleased to hear that the so-called father of the Parliament will not be putting the child up for adoption by the House of Lords just because it has a mind of its own.

Away from the constitutional musings of Mr Salmond, I ask the First Minister whether he and the Secretary of State for Scotland have discussed the continuing diplomatic shambles surrounding the continued French ban on our beef. I remind him that last week the Minister for Rural Affairs said that he was expecting an early resolution of the matter. That was backed up by the Prime Minister, who said that the problem would be over in a matter of days.

Has the Scottish Executive revised its opinion in light of recent developments as to the appropriate strategy and will the First Minister and the Minister for Rural Affairs put some backbone into the spineless Mr Brown?

I saw Mr Brown last night and I do not regard him as spineless.

Everyone had an interest in the removal of the possibility of extended and frustrating court proceedings. When it was suggested that some technical advice might clear the way to an early settlement and the lifting of the ban, it seemed sensible to pursue that course of action. Any reasonable man would have taken that option, given the time scale involved.

I share the regret felt by everyone in the chamber that the French have felt unable to follow the scientific advice from the European Union, the advice from the Commission and the diplomatic—I use that word technically—advice from the United Kingdom. I hope that the French will think again. If they do not, I understand that the Commission will pursue court action within days. That is an unhappy situation for all of us and one that Westminster—with the full support of the Scottish Executive—has tried very hard to avoid.

We all want the French to lift the ban. Does the First Minister never stop to reflect that there can be no wonder that the French food standards agency has so little confidence in Scottish beef when the Scottish Executive is so worried about the safety of our product that it continues to uphold its ridiculous beef-on-the-bone ban? Although beef on the bone has been certified as fit for consumption by the Prime Minister in Downing street it is apparently not fit to be served when he comes north of the border to dine with the First Minister at Bute House.

The support of the Executive and—despite the fencing that is going on at the moment—the Parliament for the reestablishment of Scottish beef in its traditional markets is total. Sadly, France was one of the most important of those markets and provided a significant proportion of the £120 million that the market was worth.

We have been co-operating well with the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Ross Finnie has played an energetic role in that, and yesterday I talked to Ben Gill of the National Farmers Union in England. I am sure that all of us are pulling in the same direction.

The beef-on-the-bone ban is an extremely difficult issue. As Mr McLetchie knows, we are urging the French to give ground in the face of scientific evidence. Three of the four chief medical officers in the United Kingdom are advising that it is not safe to lift the ban. In those circumstances, we have to think long and carefully.

Further work is going ahead. The risk assessment from the Oxford group is just becoming available. There will be further meetings in the near future, but it is important that we move—for obvious practical reasons if no other, which I am sure David McLetchie will appreciate— on a United Kingdom basis. We will move as soon as the scientific evidence allows us to.

Will the First Minister tell us whether, in his most recent—or indeed any—meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland, John Reid told him why he will remove from the First Minister's powers and functions the ability to intercept telephone or mail communications? Instead of that ability residing with the First Minister, it has gone to the Home Secretary.

I can assure Margo MacDonald that we still co-operate fully with the police. I sign warrants under the interception laws. That is fairly common. These are important matters and there is proper scrutiny of any application for a warrant. We will shortly examine the business of new, intrusive surveillance techniques; there will almost certainly be legislation on that. I am sure Margo

MacDonald will take a great interest in that.

---

Local Government Act 1986

To ask the Scottish Executive what time frame it envisages for the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 and what further steps it plans to take to end discrimination against homosexuals in Scotland. (S1O-562) The Minister for Communities (Ms Wendy Alexander): As I announced on 29 October, we will provide for the repeal of section 2A in the ethical standards in public life bill, which we intend to introduce early in the new year. The Scottish Executive is committed to tackling exclusion in all walks of life. Towards the end of this year, we will outline our approach to equality issues more generally.

I thank the minister for her reply. What is the Executive's intention in respect of the definition of nearest relative in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill? Will it be made clear that it is understood that recognition of unmarried partners includes unmarried partners in a long-term, committed, same-gender relationship?

The Millan committee is looking at the definition of nearest relative. Any proposed changes could be incorporated in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill.

Will the Scottish Executive—and in particular the Minister for Children and Education—make available to MSPs, as soon as possible, details of the guidelines that operate in relation to what is taught in our primary and secondary schools, as that should help to calm public fears in that area?

We recognise that some parents may be alarmed at the prospect of homosexuality being promoted in our schools. They can rest assured that it is not the intention of the Executive actively to promote homosexuality. Removing the prohibition is not the same as active promotion. There is a continuing review of the five to 14 guidelines, which covers health education in general and existing guidance on more detailed matters. The repeal of section 2A would require a detailed examination of those resources, but it is unlikely to require wholesale change.

The minister talks of making change in terms of bringing equality. Will she tell me at what age she thinks sex education is appropriate? Should that be the same age at which homosexuality is instructed—not promoted, but instructed—in schools?

There is an existing programme for sex education in the curriculum for five to 14year- olds. It is sensitive to the age and maturity of the pupils concerned. The Executive believes that it is wrong to make a legal distinction between the teaching of homosexuality and other sensitive topics that are well handled in schools.

I wish to raise a point of order arising from Tom McCabe's non- reply to Jamie Stone's question—number 9. Presiding Officer, can you use your influence to ensure that we get timely replies to written questions? I am still waiting on replies to several questions, some of which I lodged nearly 10 weeks ago. Do you agree, Presiding Officer, that this is simply not good enough? Part of this Parliament's job is to bring the Executive to account. The Executive should not be allowed to treat this Parliament with contempt by failing to answer our questions. [Applause.]

I listened very carefully to Tom McCabe's reply to Jamie Stone. He is correct: the bureau is looking at this issue very seriously. We have not completed our consideration and Mr Canavan and any other member is welcome to submit to us any evidence that they might have. We have already had letters from some members.