Plenary, 05 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, April 5, 2001

Official Report 692KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the Deputy First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet last met and what issues were discussed. (S1F-995)

I welcome Ms Cunningham to this ordeal. The Scottish Executive's Cabinet last met on 3 April when it discussed issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I thank the Deputy First Minister. As he will know, over the past four or five weeks the SNP has consistently put on record its support for the Executive's measures to eradicate—[Interruption.]

Order. Please clear the people from the gallery.

Ms Cunningham, would you proceed. [Interruption.]

I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I propose to add the 13 minutes that have been lost to the afternoon schedule. That means that we will finish late. I intend to review all aspects of what just happened and I shall report back to the Parliament after the recess.

As I was saying, the SNP is on record, over the past few weeks, as having supported the Executive's measures to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease, and we continue that support. We have, however, expressed concern over the fact that the support that is being announced for the tourism industry, and for industry as it is affected at large, has not been sufficient, given the extent of the crisis. The Executive has—rightly, in my view—asked organisations such as the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise to take a sympathetic approach if businesses need to defer payments during the crisis.

Why, therefore, was a letter from the Scottish Executive about meat hygiene inspection charges sent to a business in my constituency, telling it that there will be no suspension of any recovery action as a result of foot-and-mouth disease? The letter was sent on the same day as the support package was being announced in the chamber last week. Why is the Scottish Executive demanding that

"continued regular payments must be maintained"

despite knowing that that must mean that firms will have to lay people off?

I acknowledge what you said, Sir David, about looking into that case. Although there is a place for protest in any democratic society, that protest should not disrupt the proceedings of a democratically elected Parliament. I hope that the leaders of the other parliamentary parties will join me in deploring what happened in the gallery today.

I welcome the support that Roseanna Cunningham and her party have given for the approach that the Executive has adopted in tackling the foot-and-mouth outbreak and I acknowledge the constructive response that Fergus Ewing gave this morning, following Ross Finnie's statement.

We will hear a statement on tourism later today and I am sure that Roseanna Cunningham is aware that there has been a substantial boost to the funding of visitscotland and the Scottish Tourist Board to help deal with the present crisis. Those bodies have also added some of their own resources to that effort. The funding is being directed to particular parts of the tourism industry to help with cash flow. It is also being used to pursue international marketing and to help area tourist boards to promote tourism in their areas, because they know best how to do that. The best package that can be given to the Scottish tourism industry is to have people coming back through the door.

I appreciate what Roseanna Cunningham said about the letter to which she referred. Obviously, I was not aware of that letter, but if Roseanna Cunningham makes it available to me, I will ensure that proper inquiries are made.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that. However, I will give him just a little more information. The small business that is affected by the letter is a meat and game dealer, which has done no trading since the crisis began. The staff have been laid off—five people, or six, if one counts the owner. Two weeks ago, the First Minister said in the chamber that

"There is real immediacy and urgency."—[Official Report, 22 March 2001; Vol 11, c 879.]

If the situation was immediate and urgent two weeks ago, it is no less so now. I ask the Deputy First Minister not simply to investigate or look into the matter but to give a clear commitment that the Executive will no longer send out such threatening letters and that it will do in practice what it says that it is asking everyone else to do and stop making such demands on struggling firms.

I indicated that I will look into the matter and I think that that is only proper. I understand from Ross Finnie that 70 per cent of processing is taking place. It may well be that there is an exception in the area that Roseanna Cunningham is talking about. I can do nothing more than say to Roseanna Cunningham that, if there is a problem, we will look into it seriously. The record of the Executive is good: it has faced up to the consequences of the foot-and-mouth outbreak; it has helped the tourism industry; and it has put in place rates relief for small businesses.

Roseanna Cunningham talked about tax and VAT. Clearly, those are matters for the Westminster Government and, although I am not a member of that Government, I recognise that it has worked to address issues such as tax and VAT.

I hope that the Deputy First Minister will look into the matter as he claims that he will. I am sorry that he is unable to make the commitment that I have asked for today. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the question.

While he is looking into the matter, will the minister also consider the advice that is being sent out by Scottish Enterprise? The document that Scottish Enterprise is sending out, presumably as part of the package of measures to deal with the crisis, says that businesses employing staff should consider

"reducing staffing to appropriate levels for continuing business activity."

They are also told to

"advise staff who may be laid off to contact their local Jobcentre".

There is a question about whether such advice is worth the £5 million that is being spent on it. Advice and letters such as that come as cold comfort to those who were expecting concrete, solid support in this crisis. Does not the Deputy First Minister understand the concern that what has been happening in the past few weeks has been nothing other than hyped press releases and that, on the ground, the reality tells a different story?

Speaking of press releases, I would be interested to know how long Ms Cunningham has had that letter, and why she has not passed it on before now.

As for practical measures, I have already mentioned rates support, the £5 million that is being given to the enterprise networks to ensure that advice and support is being made available to businesses and to individuals who have been laid off as a result of the outbreak. In Dumfries and Galloway—Ms Cunningham mentioned people who have been made redundant there—a benefits helpline is being run through the Dumfries jobcentre. It offers advice on benefits for employers and employees. Individuals who have been made redundant through the direct or indirect effects of foot-and-mouth disease will, through the Employment Service, immediately be made eligible to undertake training for work. The normal eligibility criteria have been waived.

Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway, the Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board and the Federation of Small Businesses have organised business advisory workshops. Such support is not just specific to Dumfries and Galloway. The funding that we have made available to the enterprise networks is there in order for advice and advisory services to be channelled to businesses that are in difficulty. By any token, I think that that is a series of very practical measures.

No one can understate or underestimate our commitment to addressing the issue—not only the actual outbreak and containment of foot-and-mouth—and to helping businesses that are affected by it.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Given that the Minister for Justice is standing in for the First Minister today, I was tempted to ask him, "Who shot Phil?" That is Phil Mitchell, not Phil Gallie. [Laughter.] However, given the cuts in police numbers in Scotland, if that crime had been committed here, there would be precious little chance of detection. Therefore, I will instead ask my question.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-984)

Mr McLetchie ought to have appreciated that Phil was shot in the east end of London. Therefore, the matter would fall under the Home Secretary's jurisdiction, not mine. I should also point out that, in April 1999, the number of police officers in Scotland was 14,784; the latest figure is 14,948. For me, and by any standard, that is an increase. Perhaps arithmetic is not Mr McLetchie's strong point.

The First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday 2 April. I understand that they have no immediate plans to meet. Perhaps that is because, at this very moment, my advice is that the First Minister is meeting the President of the United States.

We all hope that that meeting does not cause the First Minister any more little problems—we have heard quite enough about those this week.

I wonder if the timing of elections might be high on the agenda of the next meeting between the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. On Monday, the Prime Minister said that the local elections in England and Wales would be delayed for a month. However, he made it clear that

"we cannot, should not and will not indefinitely suspend the democratic process. A short postponement … is one thing. An indefinite delay is quite another."

Bearing those remarks about postponements in mind, can the Deputy First Minister tell us why the 2002 local elections in Scotland are being postponed for a full year, never mind a month?

I am glad that Mr McLetchie got on to a matter for which I have some degree of responsibility. After he got it wrong on "Who shot Phil?" I thought that he was going to make me responsible for the date of the general election.

As Mr McLetchie is aware, the view was taken that, on balance—and it was a balanced judgment—there were advantages to holding the 1999 local elections on the same day as the elections to the Scottish Parliament. I accept the fact that there are conflicting views on that, but we probably had the best turnout for local elections in Scotland for a very long time, which I think helped add democratic legitimacy to the councils that were elected.

The problem with the Scottish Executive's decision for postponement, bearing in mind its fondness for consultation, is that it was in complete contradiction of the McIntosh committee recommendation that local elections in Scotland should be held at the mid-term point of Scottish parliamentary sessions. The only reason why the Scottish Executive rejected that was that it did not suit the interests of the Labour party, which wants to bury its failures in local government underneath the national campaign. Can the Deputy First Minister tell us why he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues do not oppose that denial of local democracy in Scotland, or is this another example of a professed principle being traded for the trappings of office?

The McIntosh committee recommended that we move to four-year cycles and clearly the decision had to be taken whether local elections should take place between, or at the same time as, Scottish Parliament elections. As I said, that decision was a finely balanced judgment. The point is that there was a large turnout at the local elections. If one analyses the results, one will see that there was clearly differential voting by voters in the votes for Scottish Parliament constituencies, regional lists and local government. Mr McLetchie grossly underestimates the electorate's ability to be discriminating. Perhaps that is because, certainly in the local election results and the first-past-the-post results, his party trailed far behind my party and did not do particularly well.

I return to foot-and-mouth disease and refer the Deputy First Minister to the welfare slaughter scheme that is run by the Intervention Board. Will he confirm that additional helplines will be installed at the Intervention Board, as I understand from the National Farmers Union that farmers who are trying to get through to access the scheme cannot do so?

I hear what Christine Grahame is saying. I am aware that there have been difficulties and I assure her that they are being addressed.

I ask for clarification on foot-and-mouth disease and the island of Skye. Under the licensed movement regulations, Skye is considered an island and no one can get a licence to move animals on to it. I understand that, under the relaxation of movements on islands that was outlined today, Skye is considered to be part of the mainland and will not have movements relaxed. Will the Deputy First Minister confirm whether Skye will be given island status under foot-and-mouth regulations and whether that status will be applied consistently for all those regulations?

The last time I looked at a map, I saw that, notwithstanding the bridge, Skye is an island. I understand that clarification on that point is currently being worked out.

---

National Health Service

To ask the First Minister what new action the Scottish Executive is taking to improve the performance of the NHS in Scotland. (S1F-993)

On 14 December, the Executive launched the Scottish health plan, "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change", which clearly sets out our aims for a patient-centred national health service and is backed by substantial investment—6.5 per cent more money this year than last, and a total of £1.2 billion over the next three years. The plan signals the end of the internal market and places patients at the forefront of an NHS that is designed to meet the expectations of us all for the 21st century.

As Mr Kerr will be aware, in the past two weeks a superb new hospital has been completed at Hairmyres in his constituency and there has been the announcement of an extra 375 junior doctors for the service throughout Scotland. That is concrete evidence, if any were needed, of the Executive's continuing commitment to the national health service.

Kenny Gibson talked about the NHS on the ground. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, on the ground in Lanarkshire, the NHS is witnessing unprecedented investment in and improvements to acute services, for example in the new Hairmyres hospital, the new Wishaw hospital, and the modernisation of Monklands hospital? The First Minister visited Hairmyres on Monday and I extend an invitation to the Deputy First Minister to do so, too. Does he agree that the NHS is not only safe, but prospering in the hands of the partnership?

I am grateful to Mr Kerr for his invitation, which I hope that I can take up, sooner rather than later.

Mr Kerr has listed a number of important points with regard to how the national health service is delivering. At the beginning of spring, when the NHS has come through its most difficult time of the year, it is important to put on record that, as a result of the additional funding this winter, the NHS provided 700 additional beds, 600 extra nurses, the capability to increase intensive care capacity by up to 20 per cent, the largest-ever flu immunisation programme, a reduction in waiting lists of more than 1,200 between September and December last year, and a reduction of nearly 6 per cent between September and December in the number of hospital patients ready and waiting for discharge. That is indicative of our commitment to the NHS. I agree that the NHS is working on the ground.

On NHS performance, we all know that waiting lists are higher now than when Labour came to power. Will the Deputy First Minister explain why, in the past year, waiting times have also risen sharply? In-patients who waited an average of 30 days for treatment last year now wait 35 days. For outpatients, the median wait has risen from 42 to 45 days. Will he say why that has happened, and whether it is a matter of concern to somebody whose party promised in 1999 to reduce patient waiting times?

I make it clear that I attach considerable importance to reducing waiting times, as that is the length of time that a patient who is suffering continues to suffer until an operation takes place.

However, 100,000 more operations took place last year than in 1997. I said already that the waiting list fell in the last quarter for which figures are available and that it has been on a downward path since June of last year. On waiting times, the number of patients waiting for more than 12 months for in-patient or day-case treatment fell from 433 on 30 September 2000 to 13 on 31 December 2000. Eighty per cent of NHS trusts are on track to deliver their waiting list targets—indeed, 12 targets have been met already. That shows sustained progress and is indicative of sustained commitment.

How is the Executive planning to address the differences in NHS provision throughout Scotland? I will give just one example. The Minister for Health and Community Care has advised that digital hearing aids are available to those who need them, but Grampian Health Board says that it does not have the resources to provide them. Will the Deputy First Minister give us an example of how the Executive is addressing those differences?

I have no doubt that Mr Rumbles is aware that national standards are being established. It is important that those standards are then delivered locally, and I do not think that anybody is suggesting that that can be done overnight. However, the fact that health boards throughout Scotland are being given more resources enables them to be in a far better position to deliver throughout Scotland. There might be specific examples of differences in different health board areas, but that should not detract from the commitment that exists to raising standards and to ensuring that proper delivery of those standards takes place throughout Scotland.

---

European Police Force

To ask the Deputy First Minister whether the Scottish Executive plans to donate police officers to a potential European police force. (S1F-996)

The European Union has made a commitment to provide up to 5,000 police officers by 2003, for international peace-keeping missions. Contributions by member states will be voluntary. I am pleased to say that Scotland already contributes five officers to United Nations peace-keeping in the Balkans.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer, and for the way in which he has attempted to answer all the questions during this First Minister's question time.

Will the Deputy First Minister say whether UK and Scottish Executive ministers will retain a veto over the use of Scottish police officers in any future European police force? Will he advise members how many Scottish police officers are serving overseas? How are those officers paid for? How would Scottish police officers be paid for if they were under European jurisdiction?

In case there are some misconceptions, I should explain that we are not talking about a European police force as such. We make a contribution to peace-keeping that takes place outside the EU. I am sure that Mr Gallie recognises the importance of that work, as issues such as drug trafficking often thrive in the disorder that we have seen in the Balkans in recent years. It is well worth while if we, along with other EU countries, can make a contribution to stability in a troubled area such as the Balkans.

I reassure Mr Gallie that that contribution is made voluntarily. The agreement that was reached within the EU does not commit the UK or Scotland to a minimum or a maximum number of police officers as part of the overall target. Where best to deploy officers is a matter for chief constables, who are involved in determining when officers will serve overseas. I believe that that work is important and valued, and it is a tribute to the professionalism of the Scottish police force that officers are able to make that contribution.