Plenary, 02 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, June 2, 2005

Official Report 796KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1679)

I have no formal plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the report on NHS 24 that the Scottish Executive is refusing to publish until after First Minister's questions, but which has been reported in today's The Herald. The report describes NHS 24 as

"the biggest health project ever launched by the SE … with implications for every household in Scotland."

Why then did the First Minister fail to ensure that it was properly managed?

The purpose of calling for the report in the first place, when we announced the review in February, was precisely to answer some of the questions that Ms Sturgeon's question implies. Although NHS 24 serves more than a million callers every year very effectively, a significant number of individual complaints were made and many other people felt that the service was letting them down, even though they might not have complained formally. There were serious issues to be addressed and an experienced individual was asked to compile a report. I believe that he has done that effectively. The report is being published today and I expect the Minister for Health and Community Care to act on its recommendations.

One of the serious problems that has been identified is the lack of management by the Scottish Executive. I refer the First Minister to page 8 of the report, which says:

"there was no-one within the SE with a programme manager role to ensure that this large and complex project was proceeding as planned."

I remind the First Minister that NHS 24 is a lifeline service. People who are ill or whose children are ill depend on it to access vital medical treatment. Does the First Minister agree that to have had no one in the Executive in overall charge of what is a vital service represents a serious failure to safeguard the public interest on his part and on the part of the Minister for Health and Community Care?

I am not able to comment on individual sentences that might have been taken in or out of context from a leaked report. I hope that Ms Sturgeon will ensure that the Minister for Health and Community Care is made aware of where she received a copy of the leaked report from.

I hope, too, that the report makes a constructive contribution to the improvement of a service that, by and large, delivers its services successfully, but which has failed a number of the individuals who have tried to use it over the course of its existence. As a result of the report and of the experience of NHS 24, action will be required inside both NHS 24 and the Scottish Executive Health Department. That action will be taken properly and the Minister for Health and Community Care will respond to the report's recommendations this afternoon.

It is rather disingenuous for the First Minister to suggest that he has not read the report that will be published this afternoon. I also suggest to him that a Government that had been doing its job properly would have known about the problems in NHS 24 and would have taken action to sort them out. I am referring to problems such as the shelving of the promised pilot project; the lack of any arrangements for rural communities; and the decision to press ahead with the roll-out, knowing full well that too few staff were in place to cope.

Last week, the chair of NHS 24 resigned, obviously because she anticipated the criticism that the report levels at her. When the First Minister gets round to reading the report, if he has not already done so, will he and his Minister for Health and Community Care accept full responsibility for their part in this fiasco, which could have put lives at risk?

I have two brief comments to make, the first of which is that it is important to keep the matter in perspective. Of the 1.25 million calls that were made to NHS 24, 86 resulted in a complaint being made. That said, I believe that not all of those who were dissatisfied with the service complained formally. A number of complaints were made and can be followed through and assessed, but many others would have been made by people who, although they wanted to complain, did not take the opportunity to do so.

We launched the review in February precisely because we take responsibility for these matters. That is precisely why the interim report has been produced so quickly and why the Minister for Health and Community Care will respond exceptionally quickly to implement the recommendations of the report and to ensure that the board and management of NHS 24 and the management of the Executive's Health Department respond correctly in advance of the final report, which is due in September.

The report highlights a lack of management and leadership and suggests that the approach that was taken to the problems in this vital health service was tantamount to someone sticking their head in the sand. Is not the running theme of the Government's approach to health—whether on waiting times or the management of NHS 24—a failure to take responsibility and to act to ensure that the vital public and patient interest is protected? Does the First Minister accept that the buck stops with him?

Ms Sturgeon can try to deflect attention from the figures that were announced last week in my absence, but they show a remarkable reduction in the number of people who are waiting longest in our health service, in the waiting lists for out-patients and in the waiting times for out-patients. The figures are the result of the remarkable achievements by health professionals inside the national health service in Scotland who have been working hard to ensure that targets are met and that they deliver on the waiting times for those who wait longest. We will continue to exert pressure inside the system to ensure that the waiting times come down further for more people and that the lists are affected accordingly.

We will do the same thing with NHS 24. Ms Sturgeon would be entirely accurate to say that no one had accepted responsibility if there had been no review, if there was no report and if the report was not acted upon. Of course, what probably disturbs her most is that I ordered a review in February, it has taken place, it will be published today and all its recommendations will be acted on by the Minister for Health and Community Care. When the final report comes out in September, we will take exactly the same approach.

The thing that irritates Ms Sturgeon most is the fact that we do take responsibility and that we want to solve the problems. Ms Sturgeon and the Opposition find that so frustrating, yet they have proposed absolutely no alternative solutions or actions for the health service—they are devoid of ideas, devoid of policy and devoid of solutions. We are the Administration that is taking the actions and making a difference.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1680)

At our next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland.

Undoubtedly, part of the discussion will be about tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, which we debated earlier this morning. As the First Minister will be aware, two thirds of local authorities and more than 70 per cent of registered social landlords have told the Executive that they are unlikely to use antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s and, as all of us know well, police forces across Scotland are reluctant to use the new power of dispersal.

Is it not typical of a bullying and petulant Executive that, instead of listening to the people who have to tackle and deal with these problems in our local communities, it has tried to force unwarranted and unnecessary measures down their throats and now threatens them with a loss of funding if they fail to toe the line?

It is quite remarkable for the traditional party of law and order, which has changed its colours on many issues in the past decade or more, to change its colours on law and order, too. It is astonishing that Mr McLetchie says that any Government's appropriate response to the decision of some local authorities and agencies not to apply for antisocial behaviour orders because that is too difficult should be to walk away, to leave alone those who commit antisocial behaviour on our streets to continue doing so and not to take action or to raise the issue with local authorities and agencies.

If the Conservatives had any commitment to dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour, they would back Cathy Jamieson and demand that local authorities and agencies implement the law that is available to them and take action against antisocial behaviour.

The trouble with the First Minister is that he is all political posturing and window-dressing. To tackle crime and antisocial behaviour, the police need greater resources to do the job, rather than the window-dressing of law after law that they cannot enforce effectively. That is the real difference between us.

When the measure was passed months ago, the First Minister and his Executive were well told by the police forces of Scotland that it was unnecessary, ineffective and counterproductive. They ignored that. The Executive has been embarrassed today because what we said would be the case has proved to be the case in the light of experience.

Instead of all the window-dressing, the Scottish Executive should listen to people such as the police and the Parole Board for Scotland's chairman. Yesterday, he said that criminals who would be denied parole because they were unfit for release were getting out anyway, because of the Executive's policy of automatic early release.

Question, please.

Why will the First Minister not heed the advice of the people who have to tackle crime, instead of engaging in this window-dressing nonsense that makes no difference at all?

Let us hear again that call from Mr McLetchie. He says that antisocial behaviour orders should not be used, that we should not stand up to antisocial behaviour and that people should just be allowed to continue with the behaviour that is causing havoc in communities. He said that clearly today. I am not normally political about crime and antisocial behaviour, but I advise every Labour and Liberal Democrat member to remind every one of their constituents that the Conservative party adopts that position. It says, "Do not use antisocial behaviour orders; do not take action against antisocial behaviour." It is wrong on both counts.

It is vital not only that the laws are in place, but that they are used consistently. Where they are used, they make a difference. They are making a difference in my constituency and in other constituencies. The councils and registered social landlords that are not yet using them should be, because they should represent their local voters and tenants by taking action where it is required.

Be brief, please, Mr McLetchie.

The First Minister well knows that the power of dispersal has not been used in his constituency and he should not try to pretend otherwise.

The problem with the Scottish Executive's approach to this issue and many others is that it does easy tasks such as passing laws that make no difference but dithers and delays over measures that would make a difference. That is the Executive's characteristic. The police have said that they have no confidence in the Executive on the matter.

There must be a question.

The Parole Board for Scotland has no confidence in the Executive on the matter. If those bodies have no confidence in the Executive, how on earth can the public have confidence in the Executive?

That is complete rubbish. All police associations in Scotland welcomed the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. Police officers who work closest to the ground—superintendents and constables—were desperate to have the powers and they are desperate to use them with backing from other authorities, which should give them that support.

We all know not only that there are record numbers of police officers in this country, which we need—the number is now higher than it ever was in 18 years of Conservative Governments—that there are higher levels of activity by those police officers, that more crimes are being cleared up and recorded and that more action is being taken against crime and antisocial behaviour, but that much more needs to be done, which is why the new laws are so important. Whether or not the Conservatives now advise Scotland's police forces and local authorities not to use the powers in question or to take action, I expect police forces and local authorities to use their powers, to take action and to put local communities first—and I expect that they will do so.

Exceptionally, there are four supplementary questions that I judge to be important and urgent.

What discussions is the Scottish Executive having with the City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders police and event organisers in connection with the G8 summit to ensure the safety and security of local residents and businesses and visitors to Edinburgh? I thank the First Minister for his previous commitment of financial support, but does he agree that we need an urgent review of the city's capacity to accommodate people who have a legitimate desire to protest, given the city's prominence as one of the world's capital cities?

I hope that everybody will calm down a little bit. People are organising legitimate protests. We live in a free and democratic society and protests are possible in this country. Protests should be well ordered, well organised and respectful of the cause with which they are associated. They should also be peaceful. Therefore, I urge everybody who will be involved in protests around the time of the G8 summit to behave in a peaceful way and to work closely with the responsible authorities. We will provide additional funding—which will be measured and appropriate—but we will not sign blank cheques. We will also facilitate discussions among the organisers and the relevant police and other authorities, which we are already doing. Those discussions should continue. If they do so, both legitimate protests and the safety and security of local citizens will be possible.

At the next Cabinet meeting, will the First Minister discuss the content of the "Frontline Scotland" programme that was screened last night? The programme was about Scottish haemophiliacs being infected with hepatitis C and HIV as a result of national health service treatment. Will the First Minister give a commitment today that the Executive will examine the evidence that was contained in the programme and reconsider establishing a public inquiry into the worst medical disaster in the history of the NHS? Such an inquiry has been called for by those who have been affected and their families.

Shona Robison will be aware that Mr Kerr was to attend a recent meeting of the Health Committee to discuss the matter, but that he has been unable to comment further on the call for a public inquiry as a result of court action. We will comment once the courts and the other authorities have dealt with the legal issues appropriately. The need for a public inquiry remains an issue for debate and discussion, but it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further today.

The First Minister will be aware of the publication today of the Accounts Commission's damning best-value report on Inverclyde Council, which has been met with anger and concern—if not much surprise—in my constituency. Does he agree that my community should not be resigned to having poor service from the council? Will he confirm that failure on such a scale will simply not be tolerated? Does he understand my constituents' concerns and doubts about the current leader and chief executive of Inverclyde Council being up to the task of sorting out the mess?

The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform made it clear today that the report on Inverclyde Council should be taken seriously by all local people who are concerned. It is being taken seriously by those with responsibilities at the national level. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform expects urgent action—to which I believe the council has agreed—to address the issues that have been raised and we will closely monitor developments to ensure that there is progress. If there is no progress, further action will be needed.

The First Minister will have seen the deeply disturbing story on the front page of The Herald, under the heading, "Toxic ships threat to Scotland". The story is about a company that owns 60-year-old ships that are full of toxic waste. It wants to buy the Nigg yard, which is in my constituency, and scrap the ships in it. Does the First Minister agree that the Nigg yard is a key asset in the Highlands? Does he agree that we have a skilled workforce and that there are highly desirable alternative buyers, such as the Cromarty Firth Port Authority, which envisages a long-term future for the yard that involves renewable energy fabrication work and a strategic rejigging of all oil, sea and energy-related work in the wider context of the Cromarty firth? Finally, will the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will evaluate all potential buyers in the context of the potential damage to our very special Highland environment?

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential buyers and their role. Our commitment to the development of renewable energy production capacity should be clear to all members, and we will continue to support that in as many guises as we can.

On the speculation today about toxic ships, let me make it clear that any action of that sort at that yard or elsewhere would require the approval not only of the relevant planning authorities, but of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which would need to be assured that there was no threat to the environment either from the removal of ships from another yard to that location or from any work that might take place on the ships in that yard.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1681)

I have no immediate meetings planned with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The First Minister will have seen the documentary evidence that was laid bare in Sunday's newspapers that exposes a highly questionable and even corrupt relationship between Lothian NHS Board and Labour politicians. In the light of those documents, does the First Minister believe that it is acceptable that the chairman of Lothian NHS Board gave a Labour MP the right to edit health board statements on hospital cuts before they were released? Is it also acceptable that the chief executive of the former West Lothian Healthcare NHS Trust circulated confidential, private communications to Labour councillors to give them party-political advantage during a controversial ward closure campaign?

At a glance, having seen the reports, I do not believe that either of those interpretations is an accurate analysis of the facts as they are laid out even in the newspapers. I also regard it as a matter for Lothian NHS Board, which should answer for its own actions.

I am astonished by that answer. Has the Labour Party in Scotland become so mired in these practices that it cannot see political corruption in front of its own eyes? Let me help the First Minister with the answers. It is not acceptable for chairman Brian Cavanagh, a former Labour councillor, to seek Robin Cook's approval of press releases that are issued on behalf of Lothian NHS Board. It is not acceptable that Peter Gabbitas, the then chief executive of West Lothian Healthcare NHS Trust, blind copied private correspondence to Labour councillors in West Lothian for political gain. It is not acceptable for Jennifer Stirton, the director of communications at Lothian NHS Board, to tell her staff to cover up my involvement in a public consultation exercise. Does the First Minister accept that he has a duty to defend integrity in public life in Scotland, and will he seek the resignation of the health board chairman for those clear breaches of public trust?

The Opposition parties—with, possibly, one exception—might want to hang people by newspaper reports, but I do not think that that is an appropriate or fair way in which to behave. Those at Lothian NHS Board who are responsible should answer for themselves. As would be expected of me, I have checked one of the pretty outrageous assertions that Mr Fox makes—the assertion that a health board allowed a member of Parliament, of any party, to veto a press release. That was certainly not the case in this instance. It is entirely appropriate that all health boards work with all local politicians of all parties not just in advance of decisions being made, but to ensure that their constituents can be reassured by the way in which those decisions are publicised. If any of the allegations that are being exaggerated by Mr Fox are true, Lothian NHS Board should deal with them. If Mr Fox is still dissatisfied, there are many other ways for him to raise his issues in the Parliament.

---

Developing Nations (Assistance)

To ask the First Minister how the skills and experience of Scotland's public sector can be used to assist developing nations. (S2F-1687)

The best use of skills and experience from Scotland will be in helping training and trainers in Malawi and elsewhere. In that way, we can help to build their capacity to develop.

Is the First Minister aware that records show that the Boys Brigade took footballs to Malawi in the 1870s, which proves that Scotland was the first to take football to the rest of the world? In spite of Malawi's lack of opportunities, it might well develop enough talent to overtake Scotland in the FIFA rankings very soon.

On a more serious note, given that the First Minister has indicated that Scotland must play its part in developing Malawi's potential, is there a danger that his fresh talent initiative could run counter to that by attracting skilled workers away from working in the public services of Malawi and other poor countries? How does the First Minister intend to prevent that while also attracting new talent to Scotland?

On Michael McMahon's first point, it is the case that Scotland took football to the world, but I hope that it comes back again some day. On that note, on behalf of all members in the chamber, I wish Walter Smith and his team every success against Moldova this Saturday. Thank goodness we are not playing Malawi, as the member's point might then be relevant.

On his second point, there is a serious issue about the potential conflict between our desire to attract fresh talent to Scotland and the impact that that might have on developing countries. From the very beginning of the fresh talent initiative, we have been extremely sensitive to the fact that any recruitment by us of skilled people in Africa and elsewhere could be detrimental to the local economy and local public services. That is why we have not pursued such recruitment as part of the fresh talent initiative and will not do so. In a free world, we cannot stop people applying for jobs here, but we can ensure that we do not actively recruit in Malawi, in Africa and in other developing areas. We will continue to take that approach.

The best way for us to help people in Malawi and elsewhere is to ensure that they are able to build capacity locally. In my discussions with him last week, the President of Malawi mentioned his own idea for what might be called a fresh talent initiative for his country to try to attract some of the Malawian diaspora back even for a short time to help to build skills capacity. We intend to help him with that, with the 5,000 Malawians who are currently based in Scotland.

---

Identity Cards

To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place about the use of data originating from Scottish Executive departments and agencies in relation to the planned introduction of ID cards and biometric passports. (S2F-1689)

We have maintained regular contact with the Home Office on the development of plans for identity cards, including provisions around the verification of information.

The First Minister will be aware of the serious and growing concern about the cost of the identity tax surrounding the proposals. Of equal concern is the important issue of whether data that are transferred from Scottish Executive sources will be treated in a secure way. Does the First Minister share my concern that the technical standards that will be used will allow any commercial organisation to retrieve data from a biometric passport or ID card, without the person even being aware that that is taking place?

Mr Stevenson puts a bit of a hole in his own argument by mentioning biometric passports. He has tried to make a political point about identity cards by making a technical point that goes far wider than the issue of identity cards. I will be happy to respond to him on that issue in due course.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the identity tax that Stewart Stevenson touched on. According to the Home Office, the figure for the cost of an ID card has risen to £93 but, according to independent researchers, those costs will rise further, to up to £300. Does the First Minister agree that even those members of his party who are untroubled by the civil liberties implications of ID cards should be deeply troubled by the social justice impact that such a high cost will have on the poorest individuals in society?

This is about the implications for devolved matters.

The Presiding Officer and members in the chamber will understand that the two parties in the Executive do not share a common view on the introduction of identity cards—

The First Minister is on his own.

No, Mr Stevenson. As First Minister, I believe in doing these things reasonably and fairly, so it would be inappropriate for me to defend the Government's scheme in detail today.

I will say that, in the debates that we have on such issues, it is important that we are accurate and that we refer to the costs accurately. Many of the costs relate to the introduction of biometric passports, rather than to identity cards, and it is wrong to distort the debate in a way that implies something other than that. If Mr Harvie wants to ask me about the implications for devolved matters of the UK Government's bill, I will be happy to address that issue. I am sure that Mr McCabe will address it in the statement that he is due to make to the Parliament.

We started a minute and a half late, so we still have time for question 6.

---

European Union (United Kingdom Presidency)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's priorities are for the UK presidency of the European Union. (S2F-1690)

Scotland's priorities are twofold: first, to assist the UK Government in delivering a successful and well-organised presidency, during which we promote Scotland as a vibrant, dynamic and welcoming country; and, secondly, to influence debate on issues such as better regulation, climate change and the future of structural funds.

Obviously, dealing with the European constitution will take up a lot of time during the UK presidency, but the First Minister mentioned climate change, which Tony Blair has said will be one of his priorities for the UK presidency. When the First Minister next meets Tony Blair, will he take up with him the issue of the proposed wave farm off Orkney? The Department of Trade and Industry is refusing to provide sufficient grant funding for the project, which is important for developing renewable energy and dealing with climate change. There is a danger that the project will not go ahead because of the lack of support from the UK Government.

I understand that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise is in discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on the matter. Bilateral discussions are the right way of handling the issue. This and other important matters relating to the development of renewable energy form part of such discussions on a regular basis.