Col 653	The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel): Before we move to the first item of business this afternoon I would like to repeat a request from the chair: that any member who wishes to speak on any item of business press the request-to-speak button at the start of that debate, regardless of whether they have put their names on party lists that have been submitted in advance. That will ensure that both the occupant of the chair and the broadcasting staff are fully aware of all requests to speak. Shona Robison (North-East Scotland) (SNP): May I make a point of order? The Presiding Officer: Yes, of course. Shona Robison: Thank you. Last week I attempted to submit an emergency question on the case of the Chhokar family. You said that it was not an emergency question, Mr Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer: I am sorry, but we cannot have debates on emergency questions. Shona Robison: If I can finish my question my point will become clear. You then suggested that I submit the question as a written question requiring an urgent response. That was fine, but my point of order is to seek clarification on when that urgent response should be given. As yet there has been no response and the chamber office has been attempting to get one. I raise this matter because I could not find anything in the standing orders and I would like some clarification about the time scale for an urgent response. The Presiding Officer: I understand your point and will look into it as soon as I leave the chair in about an hour. Shona Robison: Thank you. The Presiding Officer: There is another point of order. Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): My point of order is also about written questions. The guidance on answering parliamentary questions states that ministers should reply within two weeks. That is fair enough but, obviously, from time to time ministers will not have a reply ready within two weeks. In those circumstances, and so that we know that ministers are held accountable, could ministers state why they cannot give a reply
Col 654	within the two weeks and indicate when they expect to be able to give a reply-instead of giving the sort of reply that I received from Mr Wallace, which said that he would reply as soon as that was possible? The Presiding Officer: That is quite a reasonable point, but it is a point for the Executive that I think will have been noted. I do not like those open responses to questions as a general practice. I am not criticising ministers; I am simply saying that a fuller explanation is required by members if ministers are not able to give a response. There is another point of order. Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): This is just a small point of order, Mr Presiding Officer, and it is not, perhaps, as serious as the others. Given the low attendance of Labour members, is there an important meeting that we should be aware of? The Presiding Officer: That really is not a point of order.
Col 655	Freedom of Information The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel): The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by the Deputy First Minister on freedom of information. He will take questions at the end of the statement and there should, therefore, be no interventions. This item of business will last for half an hour. 14:34 The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace): With permission, Sir David, I wish to outline to members how the Executive intends to take forward the partnership commitment to the early introduction of an effective freedom of information regime. This is a subject that I and many other members of this Parliament feel very strongly about. On my election as a member of the UK Parliament for Orkney and Shetland in 1983, I was asked what private member's bill I would like to promote if I were lucky in the ballot. I said-16 years ago-that I would like to introduce a freedom of information bill, but I never had any luck in the ballot. Fortunately, with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, an effective Scottish freedom of information regime no longer depends on luck. Scotland has the opportunity to adopt a distinctive approach to openness and to create a freedom of information regime that is appropriate to a modern and open Government as we approach the 21st century. We are committed to creating open government in Scotland. The partnership agreement says that the Scottish Executive intends to put in place an effective freedom of information regime. Let me make absolutely clear what we mean by that. We mean a Scottish freedom of information bill that is introduced in this Parliament, scrutinised by this Parliament, and enacted at the hand of this Parliament. The bill will enshrine in primary legislation the people's right to have access to information. It is important that people recognise that we are serious about this commitment. By introducing primary legislation to this Parliament we will leave no one in any doubt. We attach great importance to an open and inclusive approach to policy development and we shall consult widely as we develop our policy on freedom of information. We welcome members' views and I expect that a committee of the Parliament will take a close interest in the development of policy in this area. We are committed to open and wide consultation but we
Col 656	also need to ensure that the process is driven forward. I propose to strike that balance by initiating consultation in the autumn. Based on the results of that consultation, we will introduce primary legislation as soon as possible. The Executive has moved swiftly on the commitment to freedom of information in the partnership agreement-today's commitment to legislation demonstrates that-but we need to ensure that effective arrangements are in place from 1 July. I therefore announce today that, for the first time ever, Scotland will be covered by a specifically Scottish non-statutory code of practice on access to Scottish Executive information. It will ensure that arrangements for access to information are in place from 1 July. Without that non-statutory code as an interim measure, Scotland would be worse off than the rest of the UK, and I will not allow that to happen. Copies of the code are being made available to members today and can be collected from the chamber reference point. Our commitment to an effective, statutory, freedom of information regime is not made lightly. We recognise that freedom of information is a complex area of public policy that has taxed successive UK Governments. Members will be aware of some of the criticisms that greeted the publication last month of the draft UK freedom of information bill for consultation. In developing our approach to freedom of information, we need to strike a careful balance between the public's right to know and public authorities' reasonable expectation of confidentiality for sensitive information. We also need to ensure that the necessary exchange of information with Westminster and with the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales can operate effectively. That arrangement is necessary to support the continued supply of information from Whitehall to the Scottish Executive. In formulating our way forward, we will take account of the draft UK bill and take stock of the comments and criticisms of it that arise during parliamentary scrutiny at Westminster. Effective freedom of information and openness is as much about culture as it is about legislation. We are therefore committed to fostering and maintaining an appropriate culture of openness throughout this Administration. The code of practice will preserve existing rights of access and afford the public and public bodies a degree of continuity. The code contains a strong presumption of openness. It makes clear that information should be disclosed unless the harm that is likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the
Col 657	information available. The code is intended to support policy making and the democratic process by providing access to the information that is provided to ministers and to the facts and analyses which form the basis for the consideration of proposed policy. From the outset, the code will be effectively policed by the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration. The Scottish commissioner will submit reports to Parliament, as will the Executive, on the operation of the code. Members will refer to the Scottish commissioner complaints from the public that a Scottish public authority has failed to operate adequately the provisions of the code. I intend that the code and the role of the Scottish commissioner will be well publicised. The code will be made available widely in printed form and on the internet. I understand that the commissioner will distribute a leaflet that will set out his role and the ways in which a member of the public may submit a complaint to him through a member of the Parliament. I have written today to the bodies covered by the code, including the Scottish Prison Service, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, Scottish Homes and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, to reinforce the presumption of openness and to encourage them to continue to foster a culture of openness in their dealings with the public. I shall take a close interest in the operation of the code. The Executive is committed to running an open Administration, to consulting widely as we develop freedom of information policy for Scotland, to a non-statutory code from day one, and-most important-to an effective freedom of information act. This is an effective and ambitious package of measures that will lead to increased openness in the governing of Scotland. At the heart of the legislation we bring to the Parliament will be a presumption of openness. What has to be, and is increasingly being, recognised is that better scrutiny leads to better government. By making information more available we empower people-we do not weaken government. I look forward to working with members of this Parliament and others as the Executive puts into place Scotland's first ever freedom of information act. The Presiding Officer: The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on his statement. Members who wish to ask questions should press their request buttons. Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): Thank you, Mr Presiding Officer. I listened with interest to
Col 658	what the minister said, but I have some concerns, not least of which are those that relate to the unnecessary delay. Can he be more open about his time scale for the introduction of legislation? I fear that we are missing a great opportunity. Can the minister elaborate on the precise strength of the code of conduct, because it does not appear to usher in any change at all? He said that the code will "preserve existing rights of access". That phraseology suggests that the code will make no real change, which will be a matter of great concern. Will the minister clarify that aspect of the code? It appears not to contain any legal rights or responsibilities-unless I have missed something fundamental. Will the minister expand on the time scale involved and explain why he feels it necessary effectively to wait until Westminster's deliberations are over? That is a rather unfortunate precedent to set. Will he clarify precisely what strength the code of conduct will have when it comes to implementation? What remedies will people have if the code is breached? I fear that the minister's statement is sending out a signal that not much will change. Mr Wallace: I am grateful to Ms Cunningham for her remarks. On timing, she would be one of the first to criticise the Executive if we said that we are going full steam ahead to legislate without consultation. It has been widely expected of this Parliament that we will consult widely. The UK draft bill will be part of that process, but by no means the sole part. Ms Cunningham is a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I hope-with individual members and other people who are interested in the issue-will take an active interest in examining the consultation paper that will be published in the autumn. As I said in my statement, it is a question of striking a balance between ensuring that there is proper and effective consultation and ensuring that we make steady progress. I am not committing myself to a particular time scale, but the fact that we have made a statement today, that a consultation paper will be published after the summer recess, that we are inviting consultation and that we will try to maintain progress and drive this forward, is a sign of good intent and a willingness to consult properly. If there is any issue that requires openness and consultation, surely it is freedom of information. On the strength of the code of conduct, Ms Cunningham is right to say that I said in my statement that this is a continuity of the existing code for rights of access to information. We are not making any secret of that. The code has been redrafted to take account of the fact that we will be
Col 659	different after 1 July. Without it, there would be a gap, and Scotland would be less well served than the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of access to public information. I do not think that anyone here wants that. It is important that, rather than undertaking the almost impossible task of drafting from scratch in a short time, we maintain what is in place and look forward to a statutory regime. That is what is different-we are making a commitment to a statutory freedom of information regime. That takes things forward. Sometimes I fear that the current access code is one of the country's best-kept secrets. Perhaps today's statement and the attendant publicity will mean that people are better informed of what legislation already exists to enable them to get access to information. David McLetchie (Lothians) (Con): I thank the minister for his courtesy in making an advance copy of his statement available to us, which facilitates comment on it. I would be grateful for his response to three points. First, why do we need a separate freedom of information act in Scotland, as distinct from a single UK measure based on a common set of principles? A single UK measure would mean that whatever agency or Government department our citizens are dealing with, whether in relation to a reserved or a devolved matter, they have access to information on the basis of a single statutory and legislative code. I fear that different regimes north and south of the border will make it difficult to resolve the access provisions that apply to information in matters where there is an interface between the UK Government and Scottish Office departments. Will we work on the principle that access is governed by the most liberal or the most restrictive regime? Secondly, I am grateful for the minister's response to Ms Cunningham's question, confirming that the code to which he refers is not a novel feature, but simply replicates what was put in place by the previous UK Government. Thirdly, will Mr Wallace and his colleagues have discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with a view to introducing a similar code for local government? That should happen in advance of the primary legislation to which he referred, which we will discuss in Parliament. Such a code should build on the existing local government access to information regime that was established in 1985. Is the minister aware that there are concerns about access to information in local government-particularly in relation to bodies funded by local government-where the information that has been made available to the public has not been all that is desired? There have been a number of
Col 660	instances of disastrous funding arrangements with partnership initiatives here in Lothian that freer and more accessible information would have avoided. Mr Wallace: A separate freedom of information regime is part of the devolution settlement. It was first foreshadowed by the white paper and was implemented by one of the orders that we considered only a matter of weeks ago. It was considered appropriate-I believe that it is appropriate-that as a Parliament we devise our own regime to deal with the range of our devolved responsibilities. Only one regime will apply to a particular public body. There might have been some problem if cross-border bodies had tried to operate under two different regimes, but the Westminster regime will apply to them. Requests from the public will be dealt with under whichever regime is applicable. Mr McLetchie pointed out that local government already operates under a statutory access to information regime and that there is dissatisfaction about its effectiveness. I am sure that it could be examined as part of the consultation process. The health service has different arrangements. Examining the effectiveness of other current statutory regimes and codes would be a very helpful part of the consultation exercise. Mr John McAllion (Dundee East) (Lab): The minister will be aware of the growing concern across Scotland that the Crown Office is failing to use the full force of the law in cases where death is caused by dangerous driving. For example, some of my constituents have been denied access to police reports into fatal accidents-even when members of their family have been killed. Can he guarantee that such police files, along with all other official files and reports on accidents and accident inquiries, will be available under the freedom of information legislation? Mr Wallace: I want to take the opportunity to clarify one point: the code of practice that we are discussing does not apply to the police, because the police are not subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner for administration. It is fair to say that it might be very worthwhile to consult on the inclusion of the police in a freedom of information regime. That is the situation in other countries that operate statutory regimes. There was a strong recommendation in the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence case that the police should be covered by a statutory regime. That will be an important part of the consultation. Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD): On behalf of Liberal Democrat members, I welcome the minister's statement. It is particularly important that he has made clear that the code will be introduced because, if it is not, there will be no
Col 661	such facility after 1 July. Does he hope to use the concepts of prejudice and harm that are mentioned in the code-emphasising the tighter test of harm-in the draft legislation? Mr Wallace: That will be a key part of the consultation. Mr Robson will note that the harm test features fairly prominently in the code. It is also important to note that whether the test of harm or of prejudice is used, the overriding test is one of the public interest. Members will see that part II of the code, which deals with reasons for confidentiality, states that  "the presumption remains that information should be disclosed unless the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available." Openness is the presumption and the ultimate test is that of public interest. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West): Is the minister aware that the Westminster draft bill on freedom of information has not received a warm response from people who, over many years, have campaigned for such a bill? It is hoped that the Scottish Parliament can do much better than Westminster. Security and defence are reserved matters, but there are many incidents in Scotland that arise from defence and security operations. Does the minister envisage that the freedom of information bill that will be passed by this Parliament-hopefully-will be able to shed any light on matters such as the tragic crash of the Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre or the operations of the killer Trident submarines in Scottish territorial waters? Mr Wallace: I am sorry to disappoint Mr Canavan, but there is a clear division between the freedom of information bill regime that will be passed by this Parliament, which will apply to matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and the matters that are reserved. As he knows, defence is not a responsibility of the Parliament, so it will continue to operate under freedom of information legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament. Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP): The minister mentioned consultation. I am sure he is aware that there was extensive consultation on the Westminster bill. Were any organisations in Scotland that have a keen interest in the subject not included in that consultation exercise? The danger of such an open-ended consultation process is that it might delay the introduction of a bill in the Scottish Parliament. Mr Wallace: I assure Mr Matheson that there will not be open-ended consultation. We want to make progress and drive the legislation through. However, I am sure that he and other members
Col 662	expect us to have a proper period of consultation, during which many of the bodies to which he referred can make a contribution. It is only right that they should have that opportunity to contribute to a distinctively Scottish freedom of information act. Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): Does not the minister's statement suggest that this bill will be much more watered down than that which he envisaged some 16 years ago? Are the practicalities of government now registering with him? He referred to the code's ensuring that Scotland was no worse off than the rest of the UK. Is not this a Westminster-led bill? Mr Wallace: I think I am correct in saying that when I advocated a freedom of information bill in 1983 it was a criminal offence to tell anyone where the Post Office Tower in London was, and it was a criminal offence for the head gardener at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Inverleith to tell anyone in which order he watered the plants. We have come a considerable way since then in changing the culture in government. I assure Mr Gallie that this will be a Scottish bill. It will be for this Parliament to pass it, to move amendments to it, and to consider it. It clearly makes sense to consider the freedom of information legislation that is now in draft form at Westminster, the comments that have been made on it and the parliamentary scrutiny that it has undergone. However, it will be for this Parliament and its committees to devise the arrangements that we believe are suitable for Scottish circumstances. Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): I welcome the minister's speedy statement and would like to ask two questions. First, are the hospital boards and hospital trusts in Scotland among those to whom he has written? Secondly, will the freedom of information regime include not just information, but specific documents that can be recovered from the various public authorities that have been referred to? Mr Wallace: No, it does not include the health boards or health trusts, which are covered by a separate code and, in some cases, by separate arrangements for access to medical records. I am aware that several members have already raised the question of access to information in the health service. As I said in my reply to Mr McLetchie, it would be quite proper to examine the effectiveness of the codes and the freedom of information regime that applies in that service. My answer to Mr Brown's second question is that the supply of specific documents is not required, although there will undoubtedly be occasions on which specific documents are supplied. However, the regime requires the supply
Col 663	of information rather than the provision of specific documents. Mrs Margaret Ewing (Moray) (SNP): In the interests of freedom of information and of the public whom we serve, will members of this Parliament be given the same rights of parliamentary privilege as members at Westminster when they want to raise individual cases here? Mr Wallace: That might be a question to which you, Sir David, are better able to supply an answer. I understand that that is the case, but I would not want to commit myself firmly without taking advice. John Young (West of Scotland) (Con): My first question to the Deputy First Minister concerns the code of conduct as a significant advance in public access to information. Will it apply equally to information on BSE and genetically modified foods, or are those areas the preserve of the UK Parliament? My second question is this: if a dispute were to arise between the UK and Scottish Parliaments over what information should be released, will some form of arbiter or group be appointed to adjudicate? I accept that it is unlikely that such a difference will arise, but it is not impossible. I would also like to know whether the Deputy First Minister believes that what he is proposing is in some ways inferior to what Mr Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, is proposing. Does he, as a lawyer, think that if there are differences, people may come from south of the border to the Scottish courts, and vice versa? My last point has been raised many times over the years. I fought the election on 6 May for the constituency in which Rudolf Hess landed 58 years ago. Some local historians still feel that there are papers concerning the flight of Rudolf Hess that are being retained into the 21st century. Will access to that information be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament or will the UK Government again remain supreme? Mr Wallace: I will take those questions in reverse order. Many cases are covered by existing statute. The Rudolf Hess case almost certainly falls under a reserved power. If it is any consolation to John Young, I can tell him that I have had cause in the past week to write to the Secretary of State for Defence about the sinking off Orkney in 1916 of HMS Hampshire, about which there is still some concern among relatives of those who lost their lives. On the interface between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, information on issues that are dealt with by the Scottish Parliament as devolved
Col 664	matters will be governed by the freedom of information regime that we agree here. Information that belongs-if I may use that word-to the Westminster Government will be governed by the rules that apply to the UK. It does not take long to work out that if there were a perception that one could come to Scotland to get information that was the property-as it were-of the Westminster Government and it could not be obtained in England, the supply of information might dry up. Common sense has to be applied in such circumstances. John Young rose- The Presiding Officer: I am sorry, Mr Young, we are out of time. I have taken the Deputy First Minister's hint in response to Margaret Ewing's question about parliamentary privilege and will circulate a detailed note in the business bulletin on the extent of privilege in this chamber, as it is slightly different from that at Westminster.
Col 665	Education Bill (Consultation) The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel): I remind all members who have not inserted their cards in the microphone unit in front of them that they do not exist until they have done so. We now move on to a statement by the Minister for Children and Education. The procedure will be the same as before: a statement followed by questions. I am ready to call Mr Galbraith, but I gather that he is waiting for the furniture remover. While we wait, it might be useful for members to know that lecterns that are more removable than the one that is shared at present will be made available. Please put your card in the slot, minister. [Laughter.] A credit card will not do. 15:04 The Minister for Children and Education (Mr Sam Galbraith): I would like to make a statement on the procedures that will be adopted to ensure that there is full public consultation on our proposals in the forthcoming education improvement bill. I intend to launch the consultation during the first week of July. I should make it clear first that I will not be giving full details of our proposals at this stage; those will come later. I am making this statement for two reasons: first, the consultation document setting out our proposals can be launched only shortly after the Parliament rises for the summer recess and I felt that, out of courtesy, I should give Parliament the details of the consultation process that will follow. Secondly, I want to make clear the nature of the general process, as this consultation will be the first to launch a bill to be put before this Parliament. I do not expect that we will follow exactly the same procedure for every bill put forward by this Administration, but the approach that we take for the education bill will serve as a general template. Before that, however, let me say briefly why we intend to legislate on education. The Scottish Executive is committed to an agenda of continuous improvement that will progressively raise standards in education. It will build on the groundwork laid by the United Kingdom Government since the 1997 election, with the aim of delivering a world-class system with world-class standards. This Parliament should not make the mistake of thinking that legislation on its own can deliver higher standards, nor should we suggest that continuous improvement will start only once we have legislated. In recent weeks, I have met many teachers, parents, pupils and others involved in
Col 666	the school system. Their commitment to excellence stands out and they tell me that it is an exciting time to be in education. We have already achieved a great deal through the significant additional resources that are now being made available to schools. Those resources are targeted on activities that make a difference to children's and teachers' experience and which directly support improvement. Pre-school provision for all three and four-year-olds, 5,000 additional classroom assistants, smaller class sizes, and early intervention to support better literacy and numeracy in the primary school, add up to a package that gives children a much better start at school. The excellence fund is reaching all parts of the school system in other ways: for example, by supporting alternatives to exclusion. New community schools, training and staff development and the delivery of modern information technology to all our schools will make a major difference. We are delivering better education in better schools. We also want to support and develop our teachers, strengthening their skills and professionalism. I want to pay tribute to their commitment. [MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I recognise very well the pressures on teachers and their feeling that they are undervalued. However, we all know that a world-class education system will not happen without them and that their expertise is already delivering huge improvements. We want those improvements to be continuous and to extend throughout the school system in Scotland through the sharing of best practice, using it to raise standards. Her Majesty's inspectors' reports show how that is already happening; how school after school is delivering a high and rising quality of education for its pupils. Our aim in legislating is to consolidate and build on the momentum that is already under way. It is to provide a framework through which Government, local authorities, teachers, parents and children can work in partnership to secure improvement and to achieve and celebrate excellence. That requires an education service that is guided by shared priorities and is responsive to local circumstances and to the needs of children. We need to meet the challenge to help those who still need to achieve the standards of the very best. I believe that we can do that with a few simple measures that will strengthen the culture of improvement and make clear the responsibility of all those in the education system for taking them forward. That means that those who support, fund and direct schools must also be encouraged to continue developing the culture of excellence. We often speak of the partnership of schools, local authorities and Government as a strength of
Col 667	Scottish education. I believe in that partnership and that each of the partners must pull its weight. That means that we ourselves, the Scottish Ministers and the local authorities should be provided with a clear statement of our responsibilities for delivering improvement. The measures that we will bring forward will create a new partnership between central and local government, and between authorities and schools, to raise standards and to target and celebrate excellence. None of us-schools, parents, authorities or this Parliament-should be prepared to accept second best for our children when we see what the best can achieve. This bill is about achieving the best. It will be a framework for partnership. Our approach to the preparation of the bill is designed to reflect that. The first principle adopted by the cross-party consultative steering group was that power should be shared between the Parliament, the Executive and the people of Scotland. We have the chance to make that a reality in our approach to this legislation. The people of Scotland will, therefore, have an unprecedented opportunity to express their views on our proposals before the bill is finally presented to this Parliament. Education interests and the general public have already had a substantial opportunity to comment on the basis of the proposals that were set out in the UK Government's white paper "Targeting Excellence", which was published in January. The detailed plans for legislation will take into account the many comments that were made on the white paper. The next step is to set out the details of the proposals for legislation in a consultative document to be published early in July. That will set out and explain the draft provisions and the policy behind them. I can assure this Parliament that the document will be made widely available. We are all stakeholders in the education system and our approach to consultation will be designed to ensure that our proposals are considered by as many people as possible. The document, therefore, will be sent to local authorities, schools, school boards and a wide range of organisations with an interest in children and schools. A summary of the main elements will also be published and made available on request. The consultation document will be made available on the internet. That will allow many more people to have access to it, to comment and to see what others have said about the bill. I am particularly concerned that the consultation should go beyond the normal range of interests, and that many parents and pupils are involved. Pupils who have access to the internet through the national grid for learning will have an excellent opportunity to get involved in the debates, and we
Col 668	shall be ready to take their views into account. I consider that young people's views about schools should be listened to. The consultation will also give them an early opportunity to learn about the processes and procedures of the new Parliament. The consultation will continue until the end of October to give plenty people plenty of time to comment after the schools are back. Peter Peacock and I want to meet as many people as possible to hear their views, and we will want to take part in a series of meetings throughout Scotland. I hope that the outcome of the process will be a bill that the widest spectrum of people agree reflects the best way forward for Scottish education. It will take account of the knowledge and experience of those who are directly involved as providers and consumers of school education. Parliament can then be confident that our proposals are soundly based and will make a real difference to the education of our children. At the end of October, the bill will be revised as necessary to take into account the consultations and to make any technical changes needed to refine the drafting. Once that has happened it will be passed to the Parliament, which will, as a first step, put it to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The committee will comment on the approach taken in the bill, and in particular on how good the consultation has been. It will report to Parliament on whether the bill should be approved in principle. If the report is favourable, the bill will go through three stages: a debate and vote on the key principles, detailed consideration in committee, and a debate and final vote on the bill with the amendments accepted by the education committee. We will not deliver a world-class education system overnight, and we must always remember that it is schools, teachers, pupils and their parents working together who will achieve the highest standards. I believe, however, that establishing a clear framework of duties and responsibilities will allow us to focus more closely on the action needed to achieve such a system. Our bill, developed with the help and participation of our partners in the education system and the Scottish people, is an opportunity to do that. It will also set a new standard in consultation that I hope this Parliament will welcome. I commend it to the Parliament. Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP): I have three questions for the minister. It was my understanding, and I think the understanding of most people in Scotland, that today he would outline details of an innovative consultation process. I am struggling to detect the innovation in the minister's statement. If it is, as the First Minister suggested last week, an example of early
Col 669	thinking on pre-legislative consultation, I suggest that the Government should go away and do some more thinking, this time of the creative variety. What is the minister proposing by way of consultation that is new? We all recognise that the committee structure will be a significant improvement in the pre-legislative process, but I am sure that he will agree that consultation at an even earlier stage is essential in education. What he suggests in his statement reflects what already happens-green or white papers are circulated to interested parties, and comments are invited and more often than not ignored. That is the type of consultation that the CSG condemned in its report, when it said: "Consultation, in the form of inviting comments on specific legislative proposals, for example, would not meet our aspirations for a participative policy development process." That is exactly the type of consultation that the minister has just proposed. My second question refers to the content of the proposals; I understand that the minister cannot go into detail today. As publication is only a few days away, it is fair to ask for some early indications. As the minister and his deputy travel round Scotland to take part in their series of meetings, they will detect a fair degree of unease at the contents of the recent white paper, "Targeting Excellence". Will the minister give us a guarantee that his proposals will represent a significant departure from that white paper, which was rejected by people representing a range of interests in education? Thirdly, is the minister yet able to expand on the proposals in the partnership agreement to establish an education forum? Today would seem an ideal opportunity for him to have brought forward detailed proposals for the early establishment of such a forum, so that it could facilitate the type of consultation and participation that the CSG envisaged. The minister's statement was a missed opportunity, but I hope that his answers to my questions will go some way towards reassuring me on those concerns. Mr Galbraith: I am grateful to Nicola Sturgeon for her response if slightly disappointed by its rather ungenerous nature and tone, which does not augur well for consultation. I hope that her criticism will improve in tone in the future and that it will be better than the usual soundbite of "missed opportunity". I would have hoped that we could move on to more constructive criticism. Nicola Sturgeon asks me what is new in the consultation. We are proposing not only the use of new technology but a draft bill along with an explanation of it for further consultation and
Col 670	consideration. If she appreciates that what used to happen was that a bill was thrown at members on second reading and then off it went, she may find that significant. I should have thought that that was to be welcomed rather than slightly sneered at. Nicola Sturgeon also asked about content. We have taken the responses to the white paper into consideration. I cannot say anything more about the forum at this stage, as we are still considering it. Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): I thank the minister for making the text of his statement available early enough for us to give consideration to it. I welcome a period of consultation on the forthcoming bill, but I am naturally quite disappointed that we cannot have the bill prior to the recess. If the document that is to be released in early July is consultative, I am not sure why we cannot see it before the recess. The minister said that the consultation would be the first to launch a bill. Does that mean that it will be the first bill or that there will be other bills that will not have any consultation? I doubt that it is the latter and think that it is likely to be the former. If that is the case, we are not likely see an amended draft and a bill until November at the earliest. Does that mean that-this being the first bill-we will see no bills in this Parliament until November or possibly even next year? It would be useful if the minister gave more detail of the likely timetable for consultation and indicated when the chamber and the committees will have an opportunity to discuss the bill. Will the minister tell us why he did not use the word employer in his statement when he was talking about partnership? It is important that the education that we give our children is world class and is tailored to ensure that they can not only go into academia but obtain employment and contribute to society as a whole. Will the minister clarify the aspects of the bill on which he has had consultation? He says that that might not be possible. A simple example is that when community schools-an idea that was first taken up by the Conservatives in the mid-1970s-were relaunched last year, many agencies such as social work and health were involved and brought into the schools. Does he intend to involve the police in community schools, as they were left out? Community schools are used to bring those agencies together for the benefit of the community, so it is important that the police, who have much to contribute on drug education, should be involved. I should be grateful if the minister responded to some of those comments. Mr Galbraith: I am grateful for the constructive nature of Mr Monteith's comments. The consultation document will contain the draft bill. I
Col 671	am sorry that we cannot produce it earlier, but that is simply because of the time factor involved in delivering on these matters. I want it to come out as soon as possible, but as that will happen after the Parliament rises, I thought that it would be discourteous of me not to speak to the Parliament before the recess. It is not the case that bills will be presented without consultation. I am not yet sure about the train in which the bills will come. The reason for the delay is that we want consultation. We are going into a holiday period and do not want to rush. I want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to comment. Mr Monteith asked me about employers and the police. As always, we consider that employers have an essential role. We are often criticised within the Labour party for adopting that stance. The police are already involved in education in many ways, and that will continue. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab): Will the minister clarify the role of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in relation to the draft bill? Will the committee be able to hear witnesses and give a view at the draft stage, as I expected, or will its role begin only once the bill is fully published? Mr Galbraith: As Malcolm Chisholm knows, the committees are their own masters. They will get a copy of the draft consultation document and it is for them to pursue the matter as they wish. I am sure that they will want to contribute responses. Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): I welcome the minister's statements. I echo his response to Mr Monteith that we do not want to rush the process. In the past, legislation has been introduced too quickly, and on an issue as important as our children's education, we must take a careful approach. In the past, glossy documentation has been thrown at school boards. I have been a member of a school board for some years and have seen that happen. Teachers have said to me, "Do not rush this; do not make change for its own sake. Let us see our way through this issue." They think that things are happening too fast. I would like to know the minister's thoughts on publications being produced which school boards can understand and have the time to read and respond to. The Westminster Government's innovation in introducing the scheme whereby two community schools were to be put into each local authority area was warmly welcomed across the political spectrum. In Highland, where Mr Peacock and myself were formerly councillors, we fairly rubbed our hands with glee when we saw that. I want to make a plea for community schools, as
Col 672	it strikes me that the minister is absolutely right on that point and that it is the way forward. What plans might he have, which he could reveal to us today, to build on the scheme of two schools per authority and to take it further? To help him with his answer, it does not necessarily cost money, as cash can be accessed from a variety of sources to establish such institutions. I would welcome the minister's thoughts on the matter. Mr Galbraith: I like those who ask me questions and help me with the answers. I hope that it is a precedent, as it would be great if it were followed. Mr Stone: I am kind like that. Mr Galbraith: I could not agree more with Mr Stone on the issue of community schools. Only yesterday, I was at the community school in the Raploch, and I was much impressed by the teachers' commitment and by the high standards. In all the schools that I have visited, that has been my experience-commitment and high standards of education. I commend them. Our plan is to keep rolling new community schools forward. I do not see any limit to them. The first batch is out and there are two further batches to come. As we roll them out, our commitment is to two in each education authority. I also have a vision that such schools can be in any area, as long as there is a concept of pulling together. I agree with Mr Stone that we should not have change for the sake of change. That is the worst reason for change. Change should be introduced only when it is necessary to achieve the objectives that have to be delivered, and for that reason alone. In this case, our objective is continuous improvement, and we want to achieve that. However, I can assure members that this is a time for a bit of stability, and for us to settle down, put plans in place and consider what we have done. That is not to say that we do not have to have continuous alterations and improvements, but major, continuous overhauls are in the interests of no one. Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP): I wish to ask the minister two questions, one of which is being asked again. Why cannot the document be published before the end of July? As he knows, schools in Scotland are now well into the final countdown period to the summer holidays for both pupils and teachers, and, by delaying the publication of the document for two weeks, he is effectively taking six weeks from the consultation period. On the consultation process, the minister said in his statement: "The people of Scotland will, therefore, have an unprecedented opportunity to express their views".
Col 673	He went on to say that young people's views were very important to him. However, the list of organisations to which information will be disseminated consists of the same organisations and the same dissemination routes that were used for the white paper, "Targeting Excellence". There is no mention of pupil councils, nor of the many youth forums that have been established around the country; perhaps most glaringly, there is no mention of the Scottish Youth Parliament that is to meet for the first time on 30 June. It is very important for young people to be consulted in their own forum, not through adult forums. I hope that the minister will ensure that that happens. Education is a major priority for Scottish people. To reiterate Nicola Sturgeon's comments, this statement offers no vision of a truly open, accessible and participative consultation process for our first major piece of legislation. Mr Galbraith: I can kill two birds with one stone when I talk to Fiona, as not only is she an MSP, but she is one of my constituents, so she is. Therefore, I will take her questions as if they were from both. The publication of the document is a physical, practical exercise in writing, consulting, putting the words down and getting the document printed. Time constraints are involved, and there is nothing more to it than that. I take to heart Fiona's point about consulting youth, and I am determined to do that. I will take on board her comments about youth forums, which is a good suggestion. I hope that, when the document is sent to schools, it will also be sent to the pupil councils. As far as the Scottish Youth Parliament is concerned, I will be attending the meeting on 30 June as an MSP in order to discuss the document. I am grateful to her, and I will take all her points on board. Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): Does the minister agree that the pupil-teacher ratio in the state sector is one of the major concerns in Scotland? Will the consultative document include the visionary setting of targets, to move state schools closer to the pupil-teacher ratios of private schools? I recently read a report which said that Eton College-the most exclusive of British private schools-had a pupil-teacher ratio of 8:1. That can be compared to Drumchapel High School in the First Minister's constituency, where the pupil-teacher ratio is 30:1. When class sizes are in the high 20s or even in the 30s, the issue of teaching is sometimes surpassed by that of management and control. Will the minister give us information about lowering secondary school class sizes to a maximum of 20 pupils per class by the end of the first Parliament?
Col 674	Mr Galbraith: I am grateful to Tommy for his comments, but he will know that setting targets for class sizes does not require legislation such as this bill. That is dealt with through executive action, but I agree with what he says about class sizes. The bill is about continuous improvement and about continually raising the standards of school education. I will apply the same principle in the education service as I applied in the health service: to drive up the standards in the state sector to make it so good that everyone will want to be a part of it. The Presiding Officer: I will take one last question if it is very brief. Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con): I recognise both the minister's commitment to world-class education and the amount of resources made available by his predecessor at Westminster. I trust that he recognises that, year in, year out, the Conservative Government consistently made better provision for education. Does he agree that the major problem facing Scottish education has been the failure of local authorities to deliver over a lengthy period? Which sanctions, methods of persuasion or encouragement will he introduce to ensure that local government gives us the performance that our children deserve? Mr Galbraith: Mr Aitken will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with all that he says. Can we please put a stop to such language as sanctions, bludgeons and attacks, and to driving wedges between us and education authorities? Bill Aitken: I said "persuasion". Mr Galbraith: I have seen Mr Aitken's kind of persuasion. I greatly deprecate attempts to drive wedges between Government and teachers and Government and local authorities. This is a partnership in which we all have to work together. Having been round many schools in a short time, I have been impressed by the high standards of education, the buzz in schools and the quality and the commitment of teachers. It is time for Mr Aitken and other parties to recognise that instead of attacking us all the time. The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): That concludes the questions and answers on the statement on consultation on the education bill.
Col 675	Devolved Legislation The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): The next item of business is a debate on two motions on devolved legislation to be considered by the UK Parliament. The debate will be divided into two sections. The first section will be on motion S1M-60, in the name of Susan Deacon, on the Food Standards Bill. At 4.30 pm, we will move on to debate motion S1M-61, in the name of Angus Mackay, on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the electronic communications bill and the limited liability partnerships bill. As always, I ask members to keep their comments brief to allow as many members as possible to speak. Will members who wish to speak in the debate on the Food Standards Bill please press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible? I call Susan Deacon to speak on and to move motion S1M-60 on the Food Standards Bill. 15:34 The Minister for Health and Community Care (Susan Deacon): I am very pleased that one of my early outings in this chamber is on the issue of food safety. It is a very important issue with a particular resonance in Scotland, and it is right for this Parliament to discuss it at an early stage. The motion seeks this Parliament's approval for the creation of a UK food standards agency, within which are embodied specific provisions for Scotland. The draft bill currently before the Westminster Parliament is the product of extensive consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. This is our opportunity to endorse its provisions. I want to outline some of the main elements of the proposed food standards agency. I also want to set out some of the guiding principles on food safety that the Executive will follow-now and in the future. I state from the outset that the Executive recognises the public's legitimate concerns about food safety. We are determined to play our part to ensure that those concerns are addressed effectively and responsibly. We want to put arrangements in place that have the best chance of success-the best chance of reducing food poisoning outbreaks, the best chance of improving hygiene standards and the best chance of re-establishing consumer confidence-and I firmly believe that the proposals before us today give us the opportunity to make a start on that. The proposed agency represents a significant and bold step towards rebuilding consumer confidence in the safety of our food. People are
Col 676	concerned about food safety for good reason-nowhere is that more true than here in Scotland. In the 1980s and 1990s, a catalogue of failure produced the BSE crisis and the appalling tragedy of the Lanarkshire E coli outbreak. It is our responsibility in the Scottish Parliament to do all that we can to reduce the chances of such events occurring again. Public confidence has badly faltered. It is not enough to issue reassuring statements to a sceptical public; we have to act and be seen to act to improve food standards. We have to show the public that their interests are genuinely at the heart of food safety decision making. We also have to help educate and inform the public on what they can do to ensure that their food is safe to eat. Creating a new food standards agency is a bold and innovative step to depoliticise food, to further sensible discussion of related matters and to move away from the highly charged and emotive arena of tabloid headlines, of which we have seen so many in recent weeks and months. The Scottish Executive wants a reasonable, responsible, informed and open approach to food safety issues in Scotland. We want Scotland's future food safety policy to be based on the best available expertise and to be anchored in sound scientific advice-the best available. We also want to ensure that that policy is transparent and clearly explained, not in scientific jargon but in terms that are easily understandable to the person in the street. That is our aim in supporting the creation of the new food standards agency. We want it to make its assessment from the standpoint of the best available science; contain people who are skilled in risk management and risk communication; have an open, transparent approach; and be headed by a board that is selected through open recruitment, subject to Nolan committee rules, drawing together experience, knowledge and skills in what is a complex and important area. We also want it to have increased powers to undertake monitoring and surveillance and an enhanced enforcement capability. It will, of course, still be for us as politicians and policy makers to decide how to act, but we will be doing that from an informed position, with access to expert advice and in a spirit of openness. The agency will publish the advice that it gives to ministers-advice that we can choose to accept or reject. We will then be expected to explain publicly why we have reached our decision. That is as it should be. We are doing all this because the public expect-rightly-that those responsible for maintaining food safety put the protection of public health first. The prize to be won is primarily for consumers: the promise of greater assurance over food safety. That is right, but there is also a prize to be won
Col 677	for food producers, processors and manufacturers. Scotland produces high-quality food products and exports to countries throughout the world. If our food industries are to build, retain or regain markets, they must operate from a position where consumers have confidence in the safety of their food and where we have sound food safety policy. For more than a decade, there have been food scares. All too often we have seen well-intentioned interventions, from experts and others, result in contradictory advice, perplexity and confusion. We must break through that. That is why we need a body that can speak authoritatively and give expert advice to the public, to industry, to consumers, to enforcers and to us as policy makers. Such a body will be a crucial component in driving up food standards. Responsible, informed debate and keeping consumer interests at heart are our guiding principles for the development of food safety and standards policy. As the Scottish Executive, that is what we aim to achieve. We must consider how best to deliver change and what mechanisms will work best to further the interests of the people of Scotland. Food is a devolved area. The proposed UK agency provides flexible arrangements for specific action to be taken in Scotland should the circumstances require it. The proposals provide the benefits of flexibility and room for manoeuvre in Scotland, coupled with the consistency and clarity brought by UK-wide arrangements. Food problems do not recognise borders. Food emergencies can quickly spill over from Jedburgh to Carlisle, and in the other direction. An important European dimension should be borne in mind. Food law is voluminous, complex and much of it is EU-derived. One of the key issues for us is to ensure that legal requirements are translated clearly and consistently to provide the basis for efficient and effective enforcement by, for example, local authorities and the Meat Hygiene Service. Again, the consistency of approach that can be provided by a UK-wide body underpins that principle. A large task lies ahead. We now have a significant opportunity to make an impact on this problem and to make a difference in Scotland. This bill gives us the right arrangements for Scotland: a separate Scottish arm for the agency and a new independent Scottish food advisory committee to advise on food safety issues in Scotland. The agency will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament in the same way as it is accountable to Westminster. Through a range of joint decision-making powers and arrangements, that will ensure that Scotland's voice is properly heard.
Col 678	The proposed arrangements offer Scotland the best of both worlds: access to UK-wide resources, particularly science, and the flexibility to deliver Scottish requirements when the need arises. In short, they offer us a strong Scottish voice, yet the ability to be different when we decide. This is our chance, as a Scottish Parliament, to send out a clear message that we are serious about food safety. It is our opportunity to address this issue effectively and responsibly for the benefit of the Scottish people. I recommend the proposals and ask members to support the motion. I move, That the Parliament endorses the principle of a UK Food Standards Agency as set out in the Food Standards Bill and agrees that the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament. 15:44 Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): SNP members welcome the creation of a food standards agency in Scotland. Others will talk about the effect on consumers, but I want briefly to mention the effect on the food industry. The food industry is vital, especially for many rural parts of Scotland. It has many areas of excellence; it is an industry of which we should rightly be proud. As Susan Deacon said, it is essential that we increase consumer confidence and remove the suspicion-not necessarily always justified-that the agriculture department is in the pockets of the producers. The food industry in Scotland thrives because of its high reputation and high standards. Production-agriculture and horticulture-is not the only important area. There are also many downstream jobs-in processing, packaging and retailing. An independent agency should maintain high standards and help to reinforce public confidence. I welcome the Government's change of heart on the proposed levy that was to be placed on food outlets. That would have hit small butchers and other outlets in many parts of Scotland hard. I want to spend some time on the constitutional aspect of this measure. As Susan has said, food standards are a matter that has been devolved to this Parliament. Many matters are devolved to this Parliament by default. In other words, they are not mentioned specifically in the Scotland Act 1998, which lists a great number of matters that are not devolved-that is what schedule 5, on reserved matters, is all about. Food standards, and one or two other matters, are specifically and deliberately devolved to this Parliament, because they are
Col 679	exemptions from the general provision that product safety should be reserved. The precise terms of the derogation, if I may use that term, are that it covers "food, agricultural and horticultural produce, fish, fish products, seeds, animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers and pesticides"- the whole input to the food chain. Those are all matters for the Scottish Parliament-the Parliament that we will open next week with great celebration and royal and prime ministerial visits. However, before we even assume our powers in nine days' time, Westminster is embarking on legislation on an area that is totally devolved. In fact, it has already embarked on the legislation-the second reading debate on the Food Standards Bill took place at Westminster on Monday. I must say that far more people are here today than were present in the chamber at Westminster for that debate. This is not some spin-off from a piece of reserved legislation that happens to touch peripherally on a Scottish devolved matter. It is substantive and deliberative legislation-something for which, in nine days, we will be responsible. Why has the Government decided that it wants to keep some of the devolved powers down at Westminster? Does Westminster not want to let go? Does it want to ram home the idea that, ultimately, it remains in charge? The argument will be made-it has already been made-that there is some administrative convenience in having the same legislation and the same agency across the UK. Frankly, that argument could be applied across practically the whole range of devolved powers. If it is believed that a single policy, a single agency and a single set of regulations are the best way in which to proceed, why devolve anything? The time to decide whether food standards should be a devolved matter was when the Scotland Act 1998 was being considered by the House of Commons. That was when the decision was taken that the matter should be devolved to this Parliament. The essence of devolution, surely, is that we may wish to do things differently from how they are done in other parts of the country, either substantially or on points of detail. When the Scotland Bill was in committee on the floor of the House of Commons and what was then clause 27-about Westminster retaining sovereignty-was being debated, the secretary of state, as he then was, said: "There is a possibility, in theory, of the United Kingdom Parliament legislating across those areas,"- by which he meant devolved areas- "but it is not one which we anticipate or expect."-[Official
Col 680	Report, House of Commons, 28 January 1998; Vol 305, c 402-3.] Donald Dewar has moved on a bit in the past 18 months, because on 16 June he said in this chamber: "There will be exceptional and limited circumstances in which it is sensible and proper that the Westminster Parliament legislates in devolved areas".-[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol 1, c 403.] We have moved on from a possibility in theory to exceptional and limited circumstances-a total difference over 18 months. Despite the fact that these powers have been specifically devolved, apparently food standards are such an exceptional issue that Westminster has to legislate on them. I do not think that they are exceptional enough to justify that; they are certainly not limited, either. If Westminster is going to legislate on this issue for us, one would hope that there would be some consultation. The motion that we are debating today says: "That the Parliament . . . agrees that the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament." The United Kingdom Parliament has slightly jumped the gun, as it has started to consider the bill-it gave it its second reading on Monday. Is the motion worth the paper on which it is written? Theoretically we have the ability to vote against it, but what will happen if we do? Alex Johnstone (North-East Scotland) (Con): Will Mr Morgan give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: We are waiting for the microphone to come on. Alasdair Morgan: All good things are worth waiting for. Alex Johnstone: Those of us who are more concerned about food safety than about constitutional issues would like to know in which areas Mr Morgan believes food standards should differ in Scotland from those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Alasdair Morgan: I will come to that later. What happens if we decide that we do not agree that the bill should be considered by the United Kingdom Parliament? Will Monday's Hansard be torn up? Will the second reading debate be expunged from the record in some Orwellian fashion, reminiscent of "Nineteen Eighty-Four"? We know that that is not the case. Westminster will carry on and legislate anyway. Let us look at some of the detail. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly, please. Alasdair Morgan: The motion says that we should endorse the principle of the food standards agency. What about all the clauses and schedules
Col 681	in the bill? The bill is substantial and I suspect that not every member has considered it in detail. What happens if we do not agree with all or some of the bill's provisions? What about the future? It is clear from ministerial statements that the food standards agency is not the end of the story. This provides a precedent. What happens if the two Parliaments have Administrations of different political hues, as some members in the chamber might wish were the case? We can pass resolutions until we are blue or red in the face, but if the principle that Westminster can legislate in devolved areas is established, the game will be, frankly, a bogey. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab): Do not clauses 32 and 33 of the Food Standards Bill make it perfectly clear that we can opt out at any point in the future, if we so wish? Mr Morgan's points are therefore not at all well founded. Alasdair Morgan: A similar point came up before and I said that it is always easier to get things on to the statute book than to get them off, especially given the mechanisms for bringing a bill before this Parliament, which lie with the Administration. Westminster should take a self-denying ordinance not to legislate on devolved matters. My objections are not only constitutional. If we had our own food standards agency, not only could we could locate its headquarters in the north-east or even in Galloway-I will leave that obvious suggestion aside, although some members may be interested in it-but we could envisage higher or different standards. That would enhance our reputation for high-quality produce, which I mentioned earlier and on which Scotland rightly prides itself. Moreover, although one would not realise it from reading the bill, the Meat Hygiene Service will be part of the food standards agency-that fact is alluded to only in the explanatory notes. Many of our abattoirs are in danger of going out of business because of Meat Hygiene Service charges. Suppose the Scottish Parliament wanted to abolish such charges. I do not think that, under the present arrangements, it could. The Scotland Act 1998 gave us a job to do. Let us start doing it 100 per cent by recognising that devolution is our responsibility. 15:54 Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): I believe that the bill is in the interests of us all, regardless of our different political hues. I find little to criticise in it and the minister has already addressed many of the issues that I want to raise. None the less, I would like to emphasise some of
Col 682	them. I believe that a food standards agency would be in all our interests, and not only for our health. It would allow us to use our resources and it would lead to more jobs and to greater economic growth in Scotland. Anything that we can do to increase consumer confidence in goods produced in Scotland will be enormously beneficial. We welcome the idea of an effective and independent food standards agency that is properly set up and fairly funded. We believe that such an agency would improve food safety and raise public confidence in the British food industry while monitoring standards of food hygiene and addressing public health concerns. Like Mr Morgan, we also welcome the Government's U-turn over the £90 corner shop tax-which, notably, happened less than 24 hours after David McLetchie made his comments in this chamber. I look forward to future speedy responses from the Government to our constructive comments. There is some lack of clarity as to how genuinely independent the new food standards agency would be. For example, could it lift the beef-on-the-bone ban? If ministers routinely overrule the agency's recommendations, it is difficult to see how the agency could win full public confidence. There is also concern that the proposed agency would add to the many burdens that are already imposed on small and medium-size British food producers, because our standards would be higher than those required of imported food. That leads to the crucial question whether we can have the same confidence when we buy imported food in our shops and supermarkets as we have when we buy British food. We must address that in setting up the agency. Will the regulations apply equally to food that is produced in other European Union countries to guarantee British consumers consistent standards and protection? I have raised this point in the chamber before: the bill makes no provision for the environmental impact of the way in which foods are grown. There is widespread public concern over GM foods and crops; the food standards agency could probably help to allay those concerns if it were given the power to investigate. We believe that not giving the agency that power is a serious deficiency in the bill. We are constantly faced with conflicting information and contradictory academic research on environmental and public health concerns. That does not apply only to GM food. A headline in The Scotsman today reads: "Consumers 'being sold poisoned vegetables'". I am pleased that the minister is addressing that. It is time, in her words, that we lived by sound scientific advice and not by
Col 683	the scaremongering headlines that we see week by week. Risk assessment and decisions must be open to public and parliamentary scrutiny. For example, what is the risk assessment of GM food compared with that of beef on the bone? I believe that the public need to know. We need to reassure them over their concerns. If the agency had the power to investigate GM foods, the public could have greater confidence. The food standards agency should not be used to penalise Scottish producers unfairly. The over-regulation of food producers, which is not matched by the regulation of EU and other overseas producers, leads to an overall competitive disadvantage for producers in this country-for our farmers and for our food industries. In addressing the food standards agency, ministers should deal with the divergence of standards and the public health concerns arising from that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I would be grateful if members kept their remarks to around three or four minutes. 15:59 Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab): I want to say how much I welcome this bill and the fact that, in this instance, legislation is covering the whole of the United Kingdom. It is interesting that members of the SNP, in opposition, want to delay the protection of the Scottish community by seeking separate legislation. We already have a full legislative programme and a full consultation programme on other bills. To delay this bill would be very foolish. Susan made the point, very strongly, that bacteria do not respect boundaries. People also move around and it is important that we have legislation that covers the whole of these islands rather than separate legislation. Mrs Scanlon's point was good: in the long term, we require European legislation. However, until we can get our European partners to consider the problems as seriously as we do, that will be difficult. We should not wait for European legislation, but go ahead with the present legislation, which is good not only because it fulfils one of the UK Labour Government's pledges but because it sets out clearly the devolved role and powers of this Parliament. Mr Chisholm has already referred to the fact that the bill does not preclude this Parliament from enacting its own legislation in future if we feel it necessary. However, we should not enact separate legislation simply out of the beliefs that are held by the SNP. Where legislation should cover the whole of the UK, it is appropriate that it
Col 684	does so. The unity of one act, in this case, seems beneficial. I will refer to one example in the bill. Clause 8(2)(b) deals with the powers of the agency to commission specific research. If that is done on a UK-wide basis, costs will be kept down and the Scottish institutions-which punch well above their weight in terms of research-will be able to compete to undertake the research, which would be beneficial. Roughly 12 per cent of total research takes place in Scotland, whereas one would suppose it to be 9 per cent on a per capita basis. If research were separated out, there would be no real benefit. The bill gives us specific powers. For example, we will have our own Scottish director. Indeed, I hope that our ministers will lobby for the agency to be based in Scotland; nothing in the bill precludes that. We also have a number of other powers to scrutinise the agency's work. We have to have agreement on the published objectives of the agency; again, this Parliament will be consulted. Clause 22 of the bill specifically requires the agency to promote links with the Scottish Administration. Beyond that, there are even some powers that must be retained by the Scottish Ministers and that the UK secretary of state is expressly forbidden from exercising. Again, that is entirely appropriate. If we had different legislation now, and later sought more stringent rules, we could affect our food industry, which-as the SNP spokesman said-is very important to us. I see no need for different legislation. Is Mr Morgan suggesting that we should have less stringent rules? If we did, we would not adequately be protecting the Scottish public. I submit that the motion is the right one for this Parliament at this time. 16:03 Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the minister's statement and the style in which she made it. The bill is a most important one, which has been long awaited and long in gestation. It is unfortunate that Alasdair Morgan contributed a carping diatribe about whether the bill should have been introduced as Scottish legislation, instead of giving us the benefit of his extensive constituency and other experience in the field. People are interested in the end result, not in where the bill came from or how it came about. Other speakers have dealt, properly, with the limitations that Alasdair Morgan suggested. I will deal, in passing, with the charge that Mrs Scanlon mentioned. That charge caused huge
Col 685	offence among the 42,000 small businesses in this country. The flat-rate levy was a flat-headed idea and it will not be missed; it was self-evidently unfair that a small village shop should be charged the same rate as a large, wealthy supermarket such as Tesco or Safeway. Although it was hardly necessary to have an expensive consultation exercise to arrive at that conclusion, at least the Labour Government at Westminster has listened and done the right thing in the end. I hope to see the Government pursue that exercise and model on the issue of tuition fees. The Scottish Liberal Democrats can justly claim to have led the way on that issue. We had a commitment in the partnership agreement to find a fairer funding system for the food standards agency in Scotland. We now have that and we must get on with establishing the agency, aiding public health, aiding the struggling agricultural sector and increasing public confidence in our quality domestic produce. The implementation of the bill cannot come a moment too soon. A number of speakers have dwelt on the issue of the position of the Scottish food industry. I think that the presence of higher standards-which have admittedly arisen out of troubles that we have had in the past-is a major opportunity for British and Scottish food. In that respect we should be able to pull ahead of the field because of the high standards that the food standards agency will go some way towards producing. 16:05 Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab): First, I would like to take issue with Mr Morgan's problems about the essence of devolution. It seems to me that the essence of devolution in this respect is that we are having this debate today and that we are making the decision about whether to go ahead. I feel very strongly that we are right to go ahead with a single United Kingdom food standards agency, and to encourage the UK Parliament to proceed with this bill and bring it forward with all possible speed so that the agency is in place by the beginning of next year. I am only just old enough to remember the last typhoid epidemic in this country 30 years ago, during which Aberdeen was placed in a kind of collective quarantine because of a single consignment of infected imported corned beef. Other nightmares are more recent and have been referred to. Human-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is perhaps the most stunning failure of all in food standards. There has been an outbreak of E coli most recently in the north-east in Mr Salmond's constituency, but most disastrous was the outbreak of E coli in central Scotland a couple of years ago.
Col 686	Mr Morgan asked if there are exceptional circumstances. Yes, there are and they include E coli and those other failures of Scottish food standards that should inspire our debate today. The problem is not just Scottish. It is vital that British consumers should have confidence in the food that they buy whether it is British-produced, imported, or from north or south of the border. I think it is appropriate that the standards should be the same. This is not simply a UK bill in the old-fashioned sense. It is a bill that reflects the reality of devolution. As little as a year ago, it could not have been written in the terms in which it has been written. Not only will two of the board members of the food standards agency be appointed by ministers of this Parliament, and not only will there be a separate director for Scotland heading an executive wing of the agency, but there will be an independent Scottish food advisory committee in order to reflect the range of expertise and interests in food safety. I hope that ministers will carry the cause of devolution further forward by locating the Scottish wing of the agency not in Edinburgh, but in Aberdeen, which boasts the highest concentration in Europe of expertise in life sciences, environmental sciences and food sciences. There are more than 3,000 people working in those fields. We must first get the show on the road. The food standards bill belongs to the age of devolution in one respect above all others, and that has been referred to by a couple of my colleagues already. It recognises that the Scottish Parliament can, whenever it chooses, amend, repeal or adjust any aspect of the bill once it is enacted. We get the best of both worlds: quick, decisive action and the power to do otherwise in the future should we wish that. I would draw the minister's attention to a point in clause 42(3) of the bill. That extends the agency's right of inspection and enforcement to territorial waters and the continental shelf. That will have a particular impact on food premises on oil and gas rigs in the British sector of the North sea. There have been some questions in this Parliament about jurisdictional matters in the North sea and I would be very grateful if the minister could answer those. My constituent Professor Hugh Pennington is one of the experts in food safety whom I mentioned. I think that his report on E coli has set the tone for this bill. He has consistently urged ministers for the past two years to get a move on and not to delay, but to get the bill passed into law as soon as possible. I think that we should support the motion and do that.
Col 687	16:09 George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome the minister's announcement of the setting up of a food standards agency in Scotland. It will be one of the most significant new bodies to be established in many years and it will contribute to the prosperity of our food industry. In the past 10 to 15 years, the food industry has undergone one food scare after another, resulting in great crises of confidence in the products that Scotland produces. BSE is a classic example of such a scare, but there have been others. Every time a food scare erupted on the front pages, a politician would try to calm and reassure the public. Who could forget Douglas Hogg? Who could forget John Gummer feeding that beefburger to his children? On every occasion, politicians failed to reassure the public about the safety of the product; many times, they made the situation worse. Why? Because the public does not believe what politicians say about food safety any more. That is the situation that we face and that is why the setting up of a food standards agency is essential. Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): Will George Lyon agree that the statements that were made by Douglas Hogg and other ministers were based on the medical evidence that was available to them? George Lyon: I do not doubt their statements. I was suggesting that, although the statements were based on science, the public was not reassured by them. The key issue in the setting up of the agency must be to ensure that the public has confidence in the agency. The agency must be seen to be independent, particularly of the political process, the food lobby and the consumer lobby. It must clearly be seen to be an independent agency whose sole concern is food safety and which judges all the issues that concern food safety on the best scientific advice that is available. If the agency achieves those objectives, it will be the greatest boost that the food industry will get in the coming years. We must all hope that it frees the food industry from the food scare crises that bedevil our industry year after year. I support the motion wholeheartedly. 16:12 Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab): For one who has never been described as a consensus politician, it is an interesting experience to welcome the consensus that is developing today. We are all on a learning curve and consensus represents my own learning curve, considering my political background.
Col 688	I welcome the establishment of the food standards agency and I want to emphasis the important role that it will have in protecting our families. It is interesting that, because of the food scares, issues of food safety have become universal. Before the scares, questions of health and food were often seen as the province of those with the income and time to move beyond the normal run of food outlets. As the issues have come into the popular domain, we have a responsibility to ensure that they remain there. We all have a role to play in ensuring that we eat safely and healthily. I welcome the decision not to fund the agency by an across-the-board levy on retail outlets. That would have had a significant impact on small outlets as they would have had to make a hugely disproportionate contribution. The debate around the issue has revealed the way in which the big retail companies have concentrated their businesses in a small number of premises, very often to the detriment of local communities. It has been claimed that David McLetchie should get credit for that change. As I am usually reluctant to give the Tories credit for anything, I would like to make another claim and declare an interest. I am supported by the Co-operative party, which is the political wing of the Co-operative movement. The retail wing of the movement is absolutely committed to supporting and sustaining local communities and does that by supporting small shops and establishing outlets, often in remote areas and poor areas. That strategy would have meant that the Co-operative movement would have been heavily penalised by a decision to fund the agency by an across-the-board levy. The role of the Co-operative movement in ensuring that there is not an across-the-board levy should be recognised, as should the fact that the Government was willing to make that change. On the broader question of food safety, I think we should recognise the drive towards uniformity in our shopping habits. That uniformity often excludes the poor, the elderly and those who do not own a car and makes those people more likely to suffer from poor standards of food safety. We should recognise the particular importance of supporting community and co-operative initiatives that relate to food and food safety. Those initiatives are able to address the issues and sustain new developments at a local level, something which will improve the health and safety of all communities in Scotland. We should all welcome the importance of the food standards agency and look forward to the agency doing effective work on behalf of the people of Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the wind-up speeches from the Conservatives and the
Col 689	Scottish National party. They will both have four or five minutes. 16:15 Alex Johnstone (North-East Scotland) (Con): The early days of the Parliament resulted in accusations that the Conservatives and the SNP were working together with an indecent willingness. It is no surprise, then, that we have finally come to an issue on which we are going to throw ourselves in with the Administration-or the Labour party-view. We welcome the terms in which the bill has been introduced. I acknowledge the contribution made by Mr Sam Galbraith in the early stages of this discussion. He took his roadshow around Scotland in the months leading up to the election, and on two occasions I involved myself in discussion with him. I was impressed by his understanding of how important it was that this issue was introduced at a UK-wide level rather than solely at a Scottish level. My primary concern is that we ensure that the bill does not damage Scotland's farming and food-producing industry. The Royal Highland Show, Scotland's showcase for the farming and food-producing industry, will open at Ingliston this week. We must remember that Scottish quality products have a reputation worldwide. Scotland's farmers have nothing to fear from the introduction of a food standards agency, but we must ensure that they are not penalised by the introduction of the agency. As farmers and food producers, we operate in a European single market. It is essential, therefore, that we pursue a single standard wherever possible. We want food standards to be as high as possible; we must have common standards and must accept that if we are to impose higher standards in Scotland, we will naturally disadvantage Scotland's farmers. Worse still, we will take away their greatest marketing tool. Scotland's farmers have high standards and Scotland's food production industry has a worldwide reputation. It is that higher voluntary standard that gives us the marketing edge. We cannot afford legislation that imposes higher standards in Scotland or allow that to affect our farmers. Similarly, we cannot afford to have food imported into the United Kingdom that is produced to a lower standard than that which is produced here. We see examples of that every day. Scotland's pig producers are on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of legislation that disproportionately affected UK and Scottish producers and allowed cheaper foreign product, produced to a lower standard, to compete directly with the domestic product.