Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 6, 2004

Official Report 744KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-859)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

This week, once again, a prisoner was released in error from Scotland's courts. Yesterday, a senior official from the Scottish Prison Service told the media that mistakes such as the one this week were fully expected. What allowances were made for mistakes over prisoner release in the contract that was issued to Reliance Secure Task Management?

The references in the contract with Reliance to prisoners released in error—I hope that I am not divulging information too far in advance of the full publication of the appropriate parts of the contract—refer directly to the penalties that Reliance will pay for releases in error.

That raises the questions what those penalties are and why we have waited for so long for the First Minister to publish the contract so that the public can be reassured on the issue.

On 22 April, the First Minister told Parliament that Reliance had failed to implement its contract and that, as a result, it would face a penalty. However, reports this week suggest that no penalty would be paid until 14 prisoners had escaped or had been released in error. Given that the Reliance contract has not yet been published, can he tell Parliament whether a specific penalty will be paid for the release of James McCormick, or will we have to wait for more prisoners to be released in error before the company faces any penalty?

As the Minister for Justice and I have said before, Reliance will have to pay penalties for the prisoners who have been released in error. The contract will be published as soon as possible. It will be published, as was explained in the chamber two or three weeks ago, in the interest of public safety. We will ensure that every piece of information in the contract that can be published in the public interest will be published.

What is stopping the First Minister giving an answer to a parliamentary question about the penalties that there will be for the release in error of James McCormick and any other prisoners? It is now four weeks since the first prisoner was released, so there have been four weeks in which to resolve the issue. We have been told that the Minister for Justice is dealing with it as a priority, but it should take not weeks but days to resolve. Why has the contract not been published and why will the First Minister not accept the enormous public unease about the issue, dump the contract and start to rebuild public confidence?

The way to build public confidence in our justice system is to implement the reforms that we are implementing. Those include not only the reforms to the courts that the Parliament agreed last week, the further reforms that will come in our legislative programme and the reforms that have already been implemented in the Procurator Fiscal Service, which are delivering a more efficient and effective service, but the reforms to prisoner escorts. Not only will the reforms to prisoner escorts release professional officers to do the job that those officers want to do—to catch criminals and prevent crime—but they will ensure that the measurement of problems in the system is done properly, is transparent and, for the first time, allows us to act against those who are responsible.

Why is it taking so long to publish the contract and what are the specific penalties that Reliance has to pay for the release of the six prisoners who have been wrongly released to date?

We have already explained why it will take time to publish the contract. It is because parts of the contract should not be published. That is a clear position.

It is also important that we ensure that not only the prisoner escort service but the justice service as a whole is reformed and improved, and the events of this week merely prove the need for that reform. The fact that a prisoner was being taken to two different courts on the same day is a justification for reform, not an argument against it. Recriminations, rants and rhetoric might be good enough for the Scottish nationalist party's internal workings, but with the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration in Scotland, we get investment and reform and we will get results.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-860)

We will agree tomorrow the agenda for next week's Cabinet meeting.

We await with bated breath the outcome of those deliberations. I suggest that the Cabinet discuss health in Scotland, because I am sure that it and the First Minister are aware that, despite a 30 per cent increase in funding for the national health service in Scotland since 1999, 40,000 fewer treatments are taking place in our hospitals while more than 20,000 more patients languish on hospital waiting lists. Is that not the ultimate indictment of the Executive's mismanagement of our health service?

It is a good thing that millions more people in Scotland are being treated in out-patient departments rather than being treated as in-patients. That is a great development in our health service and a tribute to the staff, including the management and the so-called administrative staff, whom David Davidson was castigating this week and who have dramatically reduced waiting times in Tayside, the area immediately south of the one that Mr Davidson represents in the Parliament. Those members of staff, who have been working hard with the consultants and the professional medical staff to reduce those waiting times, will have found Mr Davidson's comments very interesting indeed.

Mr McLetchie is wrong if he thinks that it would be better for us not to treat people as out-patients and not to increase dramatically the number of people who are treated as out-patients and who are in and out of hospital inside a day, but to force them to stay overnight in hospital beds so that we can keep the numbers up. In Scotland, we should have a modern health service that treats people efficiently, allows them to be in and out of hospital as quickly as is medically appropriate and ensures that they are treated to the highest possible standard of care. That is the objective and what is being delivered; it is certainly not what would happen if the Tories were back in power.

Unfortunately, all the First Minister's fine rhetoric is completely at variance with the facts. If we look at the latest statistics measuring in-patient and day-case discharges from our hospitals that the information and statistics division has published, we find that there are 70,000 fewer than there were in 1999. If we look at the number of contacts with general practitioners in Scotland between 1999 and 2003, we find that there are nearly 1 million fewer. Those are facts from the Administration's own statistical body. If we examine the number of treatments in hospitals, we see not only that 40,000 fewer treatments took place in 2003 than in 1999, but that in comparison with 2001—when the First Minister took over—50,000 fewer treatments took place, and that 20,000 more people remain on the waiting list. Far from getting better, are things not getting worse?

All over the country, families realise that in the health service today a treatment that previously involved a stay in hospital can now be obtained within a day. A treatment that once required a visit to hospital can be obtained in a short visit to an out-patient clinic. It is good that that has happened. We should not reverse that and somehow force people back into hospitals, rather than giving them the care that they need in their community, where they can now enjoy it.

There is a long list of figures that have gone up in the national health service since 1999—it is five years to the day since the Parliament was first elected. The number of staff in the health service is up, but increases apply not only to the total number of staff. The number of nurses and midwives is up 5.3 per cent; the number of qualified nurses and midwives is up 7.5 per cent; the number of medical staff and doctors is up 10.4 per cent; the number of hospital and community health service professionals is up 19.3 per cent; and the numbers of consultants, dentists and practice nurses are also up. That is good for the health service. Those staff are working in communities and making a difference. Some day, the Conservatives will realise that they were wrong and that we are doing it right.

The First Minister tells us everything that is up but forgets the most important matter: results, which are down. That is the key feature of the centralised, target-driven service that he and the Scottish Executive are running. The chairman of the British Medical Association in Scotland criticised that service this morning.

Things are getting worse, not better, so why will the Executive not reverse a process that is failing people in Scotland on health care and instead devolve power and responsibility to give patients and hospitals choice and control over how the service develops in response to their needs?

I reiterate that it is better for people to be treated in their communities than in hospitals. It is better for people to be treated quickly in one day than to be treated overnight. That allows nurses, doctors and allied health professionals to make a better contribution to the health service and to treat people themselves rather than always to refer somebody up the tree. It is better that administrative, clerical and managerial staff take work away from doctors and consultants to free up their time to perform more operations and treatments and to treat people more quickly. That is the way to change and improve our national health service. The Tories cannot even imagine having such a record, but we will have that record.

We will hear two urgent questions.

The First Minister will be aware of Greater Glasgow NHS Board's controversial decision to close the Queen Mother's hospital, which is in my constituency. The regional director of the service for transporting ill babies has described that decision as taking an unacceptable risk. Does the First Minister acknowledge that the foetal therapy department at the Queen Mother's is recognised internationally as the home of foetal medicine? Does he acknowledge that, until now, Scotland has been at the leading edge of tackling neonatal and child illness? Will he assure me that he will not allow that national service to suffer? Will he listen to experts at the Queen Mother's hospital?

Ministers are well aware of the strong support that Pauline McNeill and other members have given to the campaign on the issue. She will be aware that the Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, is considering a proposal from Greater Glasgow NHS Board. He and I have said consistently that the proposal will be considered carefully. All the arguments will be heard. Ministers can say no as well as yes to proposals from health boards. When the final decision is ready, it will be announced to the chamber.

The First Minister will undoubtedly agree that the collapse of the airline Duo Airways was a blow for travellers and employees in Scotland. Does he agree that in the creation of new direct routes, some turbulence must be expected? If so, will he confirm that the route development fund will continue, albeit with a review of its payment methods and operation? Will he undertake to seek new operators for the highly successful routes that operated from Edinburgh to the likes of Oslo, Geneva and Munich?

I am delighted to have Kenny MacAskill's support for our route development fund, which is one of the greater successes of the coalition Administration in Edinburgh. The new routes have been a success. It is clear that the outcome this week for the company that Kenny MacAskill mentioned is a major blow for passengers who had booked to use that company, as well as for those who are involved in it. However, not only will the route development fund continue, it will be reviewed in order to find out whether we need to increase it and develop its use.

I will do a deal with Kenny MacAskill. If he is willing to support the fund and we are willing to keep it going, perhaps in future he will avoid saying in Edinburgh that Glasgow gets too much, and saying in Glasgow that Edinburgh gets too much. If he is prepared to back the fund nationally, we will join him.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues he will prioritise for discussion with the Prime Minister at his next meeting with him. (S2F-875)

No immediate meeting is planned with the Prime Minister.

Last year, the First Minister said in the chamber:

"The mark of leadership in Scotland is to speak on the big issues of the day, but to do so honestly and consistently."—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; c 19437.]

The First Minister also said that military action in Iraq was justified because the Iraqi regime was unwilling to give up its weapons of mass destruction and that he was on the side of the Iraqi people. More than 12 months later, is he honest enough to admit that he was wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? If he is still on the side of the Iraqi people, will he call on the Prime Minister to bring our troops home immediately and to put an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq by British and American troops?

Before the First Minister answers that, I should say that he is, of course, responsible for what he has said to the Parliament and that it is in order to ask him about what he has said to the Parliament. However, it is not in order to ask the First Minister about matters that do not fall within the general responsibility of ministers. So far, I judge Tommy Sheridan's questions to be just within the limits.

I hope that you judge my answer to be just within the limits, Presiding Officer; for that purpose, I will keep it brief.

It would be wrong-headed and extremely ill judged to take British troops out of Iraq at the moment. I cannot think of anything that would make such an unstable situation far worse. It is important that the people of Iraq are supported by Britain and other countries around the world, whether or not those countries were involved in the conflict at this time last year, which, I remind Mr Sheridan, was successful in removing the world's worst dictator from power. It is important that countries that were or were not involved are engaged in supporting the people of Iraq to move as quickly as possible not only towards looking after their own internal and external security but towards democracy and free elections. If we achieve that, we will have achieved something that is very worth while.

Mr Sheridan should remember my ruling.

Around five months ago, the First Minister said that the positive outcome of the illegal invasion of Iraq was that

"The people of Iraq now have a chance to express their opinions."—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; c 3470.]

CNN is a biased source, but even the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that was published last week found that 64 per cent of Iraqis believed that coalition actions have turned out to be worse than they had hoped. Some 57 per cent said that all coalition troops should be withdrawn immediately and 70 per cent said that they view the troops not as liberators but as an occupation force. Those are the opinions of the Iraqi people. Will the First Minister be honest and consistent enough to call on Mr Blair to follow the example of the Spanish socialists and withdraw troops from their illegal occupation of Iraq?

I have expressed my view on the matter. To remove British troops from Iraq now would be ill judged and wrong. It would lead to greater instability and would almost certainly lead to more Iraqis dying in the weeks and months ahead. It is important that we work with those people in Iraq who want to ensure that there is proper security and democracy in Iraq, to defeat those who want to bomb their way out of the situation and to ensure that people in Iraq have a future that they can enjoy in an atmosphere of democracy and peace. That should be our objective and we should stick to it.

---

Tertiary Education

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive plans to improve Scotland's tertiary education sector. (S2F-870)

We want a Scotland that has both world-class universities and top-quality colleges accessible in every community. That is why we are not only investing increased resources but maximising the use of those resources on teaching and research. That will benefit not only individual students but Scotland as a whole.

Will the First Minister reassure those of us who woke up on Friday morning to rather mystifying reports that we might be about to abolish Scotland's universities that that is far from being the case? Will he confirm that, as he has said, we are committed to building on substantial increased investment in our higher education sector; that additional resources for our universities have already been committed through this year's spending review; that we are committed to widening access and supporting students through the abolition of tuition fees and the reintroduction of bursaries; and that the proposed merger of the funding councils will allow us to take fair and strategic decisions that affect the whole of further and higher education in Scotland to allow us to take continued and justifiable pride in the world-class reputation of our universities?

It is important to reduce bureaucracy at the centre and to ensure that resources are devoted properly to teaching and research, whether that is in our colleges or in our universities. Our commitment to increased investment in our universities and colleges remains. Our commitment to improving the breadth of access in our universities, rather than just increasing the numbers, is clear. Our commitment to increasing the numbers of people who have the benefit of further education at all ages in this country is clear. Our absolute commitment not to abolish Scotland's universities—in contradiction of some of the nonsense that was around last Thursday night and Friday morning—or, for that matter, our further education colleges, should not only be clear to the chamber but have been obvious to anybody who thought about the matter for longer than five minutes.

Does the First Minister agree that it makes no sense for Scotland to move away from a distinction between further and higher education just as the Bologna process is getting into its stride and when other European countries are looking to the Scottish system as the ideal? Does he acknowledge that his Deputy First Minister has managed—not for the first time—to create a problem where there was none before? Does the First Minister understand that it is the detail of the draft bill to merge higher and further education that might undermine our position in the European higher education area and damage our ability to attract students from elsewhere? Does he understand that it is the extra details in the bill, on top of the simple merger of the funding councils, that are in danger of causing chaos and confusion where there should be collaboration and co-operation between the university and further education sectors?

I am sure that many people would enjoy the creation of chaos and confusion, but it would be a shame if the debate were to continue in that way. The proposed change is important and it needs to be the subject of proper consultation. Some people in the chamber are not impressed with consultation—we understand that from the Tory perspective—but we are committed to consultation and we will listen to the points that are made.

However, we are determined to ensure that resources are focused on front-line teaching and research; that the highest possible quality exists both in our universities and in our colleges; that the identity of and distinction between our universities and colleges remain crystal clear; and that the seamless transition from school to college to university that exists in Scotland under our qualifications framework is a strong one that is admired throughout the world. That framework is now being taken up by the Chinese Government. It is important that we are able to ensure that we promote and continue to improve our universities, but we must also have a qualifications framework that allows people to climb through the system to reach the very top if they can.

With regard to tertiary education, is the First Minister aware that, as part of the European year of education through sport 2004, a number of projects at local, regional and national level will be selected and co-financed by the European Commission? Will he assure the Parliament that the Executive will give every support to securing as many as possible of those projects for Scottish educational institutions?

There should be no doubt about our commitment to maximise the availability of European funds for the benefit of Scotland and to participate enthusiastically in the symbolic European years to which the member refers and which can be important in raising the profile of certain issues. I only hope that between now and the year in question a Conservative Government is not elected in London, as that might lead to our leaving the European Union and not participating in the year at all.

---

Health Gap

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive is addressing the health gap between rich and poor. (S2F-873)

It is unacceptable that anyone should be consigned to a life of ill health, restricted opportunity and a shortened life span because of the circumstances into which they were born or because of where they live. We have targeted measures at areas of greatest need and developed the most comprehensive health improvement programme ever seen in Scotland. It is working—indeed, it was praised this week by the World Health Organisation—and we are committed to following it for the long term.

Is the First Minister aware that a team at the University of Liverpool recently found that Scotland and London had the widest health gaps between social classes? Does he agree that Scotland's health picture is heavily influenced by the situation in Glasgow, where the reported life expectancy is as low as 63? Although I accept that much good work has been done in this area, is the time not ripe to tackle the city's health problems by setting up a ministerial action team that would establish key milestones to achieve significant improvements, in particular the improvement in health to which the First Minister has rightly given so much attention?

We have already targeted new resources not just at Greater Glasgow NHS Board but at Glasgow City Council, which is funding many of the exercise and diet programmes that are making such a difference in the city. Furthermore, our partnership agreement contains a commitment to establishing a new centre for the study of population health, which will be based in Glasgow. I hope that the centre will not be a symbolic measure but will produce real solutions and offer real opportunities for us to take forward the health improvement debate in the Glasgow area.

I should say that this problem not only afflicts Glasgow in particular but affects many other parts of Scotland. We know for a fact that our diet, lack of exercise and level of smoking and alcohol abuse all contribute to the level of poor health that is one of the country's worst national embarrassments. As we tackle the problem, we need to take people with us and stay with the issue for the long term. We must improve the country's health not only by improving health treatment but by improving individual health and by ensuring that people look after themselves.

---

Economic Growth

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with the growth of the Scottish economy. (S2F-857)

Over the past year, the Scottish economy has shown one of the best growth performances in Europe. The labour market is strong and inflation is low. However, we must do more, which is why our top priority is to encourage conditions for higher growth in Scotland and why we are investing record amounts in skills and training and in transport and other infrastructure.

Even the Executive's recalibrated growth figures, which came out last week, show that Scotland's growth continues to lag behind that of the UK as a whole. Given that we have now had five years of the Executive's economic policies and five years of consistent economic underperformance, what policy changes will the First Minister introduce to turn round that serial underperformance?

Murdo Fraser should be accurate. After all, the recent figures show that for the past two years growth in gross domestic product in Scotland has been ahead of such growth elsewhere in the UK. The fact that the rest of the UK might have been catching up with us in the last quarter of 2003 is—I am sure—a matter of some celebration for them. However, it poses a fresh challenge for us and further policy developments will be announced over the coming months.

I should point out that the best policy changes are those that have been implemented since 1997. For example, the new deal and other initiatives have led to a dramatic drop in the level of youth unemployment and we are now investing in the roads, rail, air and ferry infrastructure that was abandoned and ignored in Scotland and the rest of the UK in the 1980s and 1990s. Because of those policy changes, we are now investing in education, skills and training in a way that ensures that Scotland can once again be the skills capital of Europe and recover from the years when the Tories left so many people on the sidelines. That is the challenge. Those policy changes are starting to work and we will stick with them.

Will the First Minister explain how it is that, when Scotland has many positive attributes and great natural resources, the arithmetic suggests that we have continuing low levels of economic growth as a result of low productivity that is hardwired into the Scottish economy? The registrar general forecasts the loss of 270,000 economically active people by 2027.

Jim Mather is probably the most depressed person in Scotland at the fact that growth in GDP has been higher than he thought it was over the past two years. He might need some counselling to help him, because his whole economic analysis has been based on a rather distorted version of the facts. However, in the coming months, I hope that he will see the light of day and acknowledge that, in Scotland, we need a number of important elements in our long-term plans and long-term commitment to deliver higher economic growth. We need to be part of the European Union; we need to be sure that we are in that single market, contributing to the EU but also gaining from it through thousands of jobs in Scotland. Playing around with the EU constitution in a referendum is not going to help us to achieve that. The nationalist party should think again.

We need to ensure that we have a stable UK economy underpinning our Scottish growth—a UK economy with low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment. The macroeconomic stability that we get from being part of the United Kingdom economy is a great strength for the Scottish economy.

However, here in Scotland, we also need to have our own competitive edge. We need to invest in skills, in infrastructure, in innovation, in research and development, and in companies that can grow. And yes, we have to attract more people into Scotland to help our population to grow again. We can do all that with the powers of this Parliament—if we stick with it and are in it for the long term. Mr Mather might join us some day in doing that.

If it is kept tight, we can have one last question.

What proposals are in place to support further education colleges and other providers to ensure that we have the skills for the various housing, transport and water infrastructure projects that are very much needed for the Scottish economy?

Clearly, one of the significant improvements in skills and training availability in Scotland over recent years has been the substantial expansion of further education provision—both full time and, much more important, part time. The large number of people who are benefiting from that are finding it easier to access new opportunities in the jobs market.

However, one critical change that we need to make—to correct a fault that I strongly believe was made back in the 1980s in our schools—is to ensure that youngsters who want to choose a vocational future have the opportunity at school to start to learn the skills and trades that will benefit them and our country in the years to come. A consultation is currently under way to open up access, through schools and colleges, for young people to have those new opportunities, which have been denied to many over the past 15 or so years. That is a massive and very important change in our school and further education system. Scotland as a whole will reap real benefits from it in the years to come.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In his opening comments in response to the question asked by Tommy Sheridan, the First Minister said that you would judge his answer to be within limits. Will you confirm that you have no control whatsoever over the scope of the First Minister's responses to questions, although you do have powers over members' questions? What steps could be taken to ensure a level playing field?

I most certainly judged the First Minister's answer to be within limits, but you are quite right, Mr Gallie—standing orders are silent on the subject of answers. On the subject of questions, standing orders make it clear that they must relate to the general responsibility of ministers. Mr Sheridan was in order—just—and so was the First Minister.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—