Plenary, 24 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2000

Official Report 696KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meeting)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues are likely to be discussed. (S1F-138)

Tomorrow.

When the First Minister meets the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the discussion turn to the additional £100 million that might be required from the Scottish block to fund the cost of the Parliament building in Holyrood?

Given that the First Minister must accept that this project has proceeded with his choice of site, his choice of architect, his choice of project team and even his choice of cost accountants, will he accept personal responsibility for the situation that we are now in and not try to shuffle responsibility on to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, as his press spokesman attempted to do this morning?

I understand that Mr Salmond is anxious to make capital out of the coming situation but I think that it would be wise for all of us to wait for the report, which, as I understand from the statement that was made today, is in preparation. I remind Mr Salmond that it is not for me, at this stage, to infringe on the responsibilities of the SPCB. All of us are anxious to establish that matters are under control. We should not rush to judgment until we have established the facts.

The capital that the First Minister should be talking about is the £100 million of extra expenditure that might be required and which will have to come out of the money that would otherwise be spent on vital public services in Scotland.

Does the First Minister recall that, on 8 December 1997, he decided to put Holyrood on the shortlist of sites for the Scottish Parliament? By 9 January 1998, he had decided that it was obviously the best option at a cost, at that time, of £50 million. Now that the cost might be four times that amount, will the First Minister accept that he made a decision in haste that Scotland is now repenting at leisure?

I am always suspicious of people who are arrogant enough to speak for Scotland. The answer to Mr Salmond's question is no.

The decision on Holyrood was made under terms of the collective responsibility of the London Cabinet. Does the First Minister accept that that means that the additional cost—the £100 million or the cancellation costs that would be incurred by a decision to move to another site—should be borne by the London Treasury and should not come from the Scottish block, which should be used to pay for Scottish homes, schools and hospitals? Surely it would be a disgrace if Scottish services were to pay the price of one man's folly.

That is all very dramatic, but it is nonsense. We must wait for the facts, which will allow us to conduct a more rational debate than this exchange promises. If Mr Salmond wants to erect that constitutional theory, he must recognise that not only the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body but the Scottish Parliament stand behind the decisions that have been taken.

I apologise for the fact that I was not here for the start of question time.

The original contract for the Holyrood site was signed by the First Minister when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland and party to the collective responsibility of the Westminster Cabinet. Can the First Minister therefore tell us whether the contract was undertaken on behalf of the Westminster Government? If that is the case, will the responsibility for any penalty clauses that might be incurred, should this disastrous folly be cancelled, be borne by this Parliament or the original contractor, the Westminster Government?

I make no assumptions about the cancellation of contracts. We all have an interest in approaching the Parliament building project coolly and rationally. I accept that we need facts to illuminate the debate and that we all have a direct interest, as is suggested by our present circumstances, in ensuring that, at the end of the day, we have a good building. That building must, however, be under cost control. That is something that, no doubt, we will turn our minds to when all the facts are available.

---

Ministerial Responsibilities

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to reshuffle ministerial responsibilities. (S1F-137)

No.

The First Minister will be delighted to see that there are many relieved faces on the Labour front benches. There are, however some disappointed faces on the back benches.

If the First Minister will not consider reshuffling his ministers' portfolios, will he consider his own early retirement, in view of his responsibility for the shambles that is the new Holyrood Parliament building?

In response to Mr Salmond, the First Minister said that we need facts. I will give him a few. I remind him that in his previous role as Secretary of State for Scotland, he told the Scottish people, in the white paper that was published prior to the devolution referendum in 1997, that the cost of the building would be between £10 million and £40 million. A year later, that figure had risen to between £80 million and £90 million. On 17 June 1999, the First Minister told Parliament that the building would cost £109 million, and that that was the cost

"that we now hold to."

Admittedly, he qualified that by saying that the Executive would hold to that cost

"to the best of our ability"—[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol 1, c 523.]

but that ability is not great.

We now hear the figure of £230 million being bandied about. Does the First Minister accept that he conned the people of Scotland about the true costs of the building at the time of the referendum, and that he conned his own back benchers into voting for the Holyrood project to proceed without properly considering the alternatives, as he was urged to do by the Opposition?

I am afraid that a holiday in South Africa has not improved Mr McLetchie's temper.

I have made it clear that we must wait for an assessment of the situation. The Presiding Officer is the chairman of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and he has made it clear that, at that stage, he expects a full debate to take place. I welcome that. It is important that we try to ensure that the project proceeds on a proper and controlled basis. I, of course, have an interest in that as a member of the Administration that is the funding authority for the project.

Mr McLetchie and I have a common interest in trying to ensure that this story does not have an unhappy ending. I hope that he accepts that.

I accept that we do not want an unhappy ending, but I fear that there might be one, given that Mr McConnell's budget, which was approved by Parliament barely two weeks ago, must now lie in ruins if tens of millions of pounds must be taken from it to pay for completion of the construction of Donald's dome.

How much will that impact on Scottish health services and schools and on our police force, which is under stress? How many fewer teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers will there be, so that the construction can be paid for?

Mr McLetchie carries a small personal dome around with him, but I would not like to comment on its contents. [Laughter.]

I intend to look carefully at the situation. We all have an interest in doing that. Mr McLetchie is right to say that when the matter was passed to the SPCB on 1 June 1999, the budget for the project was £109 million. That is the figure that is on the table at the moment. If that figure is greatly exceeded, we must make proper arrangements for that eventuality.

We must also be satisfied about the way in which we continue from this point. It will be of interest to all members to see that that is done sensibly and maturely. People are entitled to make political points, but the matter should not become a chase to score such points. That will result in a very unhappy outcome and will be bad for all of us.

I want to follow up the question about the First Minister reshuffling his team. Will he investigate and reshuffle whoever advised him to go to Irvine on 14 February to announce the creation of 700 jobs at Fullarton Computer Industries? Those jobs were highly speculative when he went, and within seven days the company announced 148 redundancies. Will he reshuffle the adviser who gave him that advice and apologise to the people of Ayrshire for misleading them in such a way?

That is a good example of looking for the downside to everything. I regret the fact that 148 jobs have gone at Fullarton. I remind Mr Russell that 1,650 people are employed by Fullarton in Ayrshire. I remind him that the company employs 3,000 people throughout Scotland. I also remind him that it is good news—in my mind, although obviously not in his—if a firm looks at a possible market, believes that it can get into that market and create employment, and is putting £10 million of its own money up front for that purpose. That is an important vote of confidence in the future of the Ayrshire economy.

I remind Mr Russell that any regional selective assistance that comes from the Government is paid only on the creation of jobs. As I am sure he is aware, 1,200 jobs have been announced in Ayrshire, excluding the 700 at Fullarton, since 1 July, and unemployment in all three local authorities in Ayrshire has fallen over the past few months.

---

NHS Emergency Beds

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to increase the number of emergency beds available in the NHS in Scotland. (S1F-149)

The Minister for Health and Community Care announced on 22 February that an additional £6.8 million was being made available immediately to the national health service in Scotland to spend on intensive care, high-dependency beds and new equipment. That formed part of an additional investment of £13.8 million and is further evidence of our on-going commitment to invest in and improve the health service in Scotland.

Does the First Minister agree with me that the real and lasting changes that we want for our national health service are beginning to be delivered by this Administration, putting to shame the Scottish National party's promise to allocate only £35 million to the NHS?

SNP members will not entirely appreciate Pauline McNeill's reminding them of that particular piece of remarkable financial allocation. The idea that £35 million was what a party promised to revolutionise the health service is risible.

It is important that we continue to work hard on the health service. We start with a substantial advantage in terms of consultants, general practitioners and nurses per hundred thousand of the population. This Administration wants to maintain that advantage to the best of its ability, and to make the service more and more centred on patients. I believe that we are making good progress.

I would like to follow on from Pauline McNeill's tough line of questioning on health spending.

Will the First Minister confirm whether the only post-war Administration to cut health spending has been the first Labour Administration in Scotland, under the leadership of Donald Dewar? He and his colleagues are keen to promote the fact that health spending in Scotland is 20 per cent per capita above that in England. Will he confirm whether he will maintain that level of spending or whether it will fall?

I sometimes think that ingenious arguments, by fiddling around—I say carefully—with statistics, can almost border on the misleading. Mr Wilson is guilty of that, although I am prepared to believe that it is intellectual entertainment that leads him on, rather than principle or malice.

We spend heavily on the health service in Scotland. We will spend more than £1,000 per head next year, which, as Andrew Wilson points out, represents a very big margin over the rest of the United Kingdom. The Barnett formula ensures that we continue to receive an absolutely fair share per capita, and we are determined to do everything that we can to maintain that advantage and to deliver services for our people.

We welcome the extra £6.8 million, which is going into critical care services and intensive care beds. Can the First Minister outline the specific steps that the Executive will take to address the need for high-dependency facilities, which the Scottish Intensive Care Society and some consultants have highlighted as being an area of concern?

I understand the important distinction that Margaret Smith draws between intensive care beds and high-dependency beds. Both categories are included in the payment. Sir David Carter is reviewing the balance in that particular form of provision. As the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, Mrs Smith will be aware of that.

If I remember rightly—I look, I hope not too nervously, towards my colleague the Minister for Health and Community Care, who has responsibility for this area of work—since 1997, the number of intensive care beds in Scotland has increased quite significantly. This additional spending means an additional boost to that area.

---

Police (Democratic Accountability)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to increase democratic accountability of Scottish police forces. (S1F-143)

As Jamie Stone knows, the structure of the police in Scotland is currently under review. The review is considering ways of improving quality of service while maintaining local accountability. It is expected that an interim report will be submitted to Scottish ministers by the end of March.

I thank the First Minister for his answer.

Does the First Minister agree that there may be a case for revisiting the perceived dividing line between operational matters, which lie in the hands of Scotland's chief constables, and those matters, of which there are rather few, which can be decided by the democratically elected members of police boards?

I think that Jamie Stone is trying tempt me to enter a delicate area, into which I hesitate to plunge without giving the matter some thought.

The other day, I had a meeting with all chief constables in Scotland. It may alarm Jamie Stone to know—or it may confirm his line of questioning—that the word I got from them was that they were happy with their relationships with police boards and that they felt that the system was working harmoniously. I must confess that that is my experience.

However, the whole business of local accountability and local identification with the force is one of the matters that the review will have to take into account. I suspect that when the interim report is produced—I stress that it is an interim report—in March, there will be a great deal of debate around those particular principles.

Does the First Minister share my concern at the under-representation of women at senior levels in police forces across Scotland? Will that issue be discussed with the chief constables?

We are in consultation and in discussion on that particular point. I want to see women both entering the police service and progressing within it. I want to see a healthy police service at every level. The advancement of women on the basis of merit would be a healthy sign of that.

We also want to maintain the police service properly. I am sure that Linda Fabiani is aware that, next year, grant-aided expenditure for the police will be £742 million, which is an increase of 3.8 per cent on the current year. I hope she finds that encouraging.

---

Child Poverty

To ask the First Minister whether a progress report on the alleviation of child poverty in Scotland will be issued. (S1F-141)

Sir David, I seem to have lost Mr Neil. No—I have found him.

We will publish this autumn the first annual report on progress towards our social justice targets and milestones, including the alleviation of child poverty.

I bring to the attention of the First Minister the report published today by Professor Weaver of the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow. The report shows that nearly one fifth of all children coming into hospital in Glasgow suffer from malnutrition; indeed, they are described as dangerously malnourished, primarily as a result of child poverty in Glasgow.

Does not that make a nonsense of the target set by the First Minister's Administration to relieve child poverty in 20 years' time? Surely today's children deserve better.

As Alex Neil knows—and he is always very vehement and, I believe, very genuine about this matter—there are always difficulties with measurements and standards. Over the next two years, we intend to take 60,000 children out of poverty. The member will know that that is set out in recent Government publications.

It is important to highlight the new deal for lone parents, the working families tax credit, the national minimum wage and the biggest ever increase in child benefit, all of which are having a considerable impact in Scotland. As I understand it, the average family with children will, as a result of the national minimum wage and the two previous budgets, be £740 or £750 better off. That is real progress, although I accept that there is a long way to go. I hope that we will have Alex Neil's support in the progress that we are making.