Plenary, 06 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, September 6, 2001

Official Report 656KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S1F-1206)

I met the Prime Minister on 1 September. I have no immediate plans to meet him again.

This week, the attempt to construct new nuclear power stations gathered pace. There is talk that conclusions may be reached within the next month or so.

The First Minister wrote to me on 23 August, saying that

"any application for a new power station in Scotland, whether nuclear or not, must be made to Scottish Ministers; they have the power to grant consent or otherwise."

We now know that the First Minister has the power to grant consent to construct more nuclear power stations in Scotland. Will he tell the Parliament today whether, in principle, he will use his powers to block any expansion of nuclear energy in Scotland?

It has not been a long, hot summer and the questions have not changed over that period. I remind John Swinney of the answer that I gave when the matter was raised previously. We take the issue of energy seriously, as should every member of the Parliament. The Westminster Government is conducting a review, which will examine every aspect of energy and the environment, and we are looking towards a time scale of the next 50 years. Would it not be correct for us to listen and to make submissions with the interests of Scotland at heart, whether they be the environment or the economy? It is simply not acceptable for a party such as the SNP to knee-jerk its way to a serious issue by constantly ruling out serious debate on serious issues and instead looking as usual to score a cheap political point.

The questions do not change because the answers never come from the First Minister's side of the chamber.

The First Minister might want to wait to express his opinions, but that has not stopped a number of his colleagues. George Foulkes has told us that we have to consider nuclear energy "as a realistic option". Brian Wilson has said:

"I'm personally in favour of a Hunterston C".

The SNP is vehemently opposed to nuclear power station development and the Liberal Democrats fought the general election on exactly the same policy principle. Will the First Minister, at the second time of asking, tell us that he will use his powers to block the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland?

John Swinney simply does not listen. The point is that we have not made specific comments about any form of energy—the power stations in question could be coal, renewables, oil, gas or nuclear ones. My concerns and interests go much wider than the partisan interests that are being paraded today by John Swinney. Let us make it clear: we have the planning powers and various environmental controls to be deeply involved if we reach a point at which such an application is forthcoming. When we consider the serious environmental issues affecting the planet and the need for a sensible energy policy in the years ahead, it makes absolute sense for us to contribute to the current review, to consult in Scotland and then to come up with a policy—not to satisfy any individual political party, but to satisfy the environmental and economic needs of our country.

I am pleased that the First Minister has mentioned environmental considerations, because the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—a statutory organisation commissioned by this Parliament—has told us that until the issue of the disposal of spent nuclear fuel

"is resolved, it would be imprudent to encourage the further development of new nuclear generation facilities".

If that is the environmental advice, why does not the First Minister adopt a position of principle in which he speaks for Scotland and for the majority of members of this Parliament, and rule out the development of any nuclear power stations in Scotland? His refusal to do that today and to set out the Scottish Executive's position can only be interpreted as opening the door to more nuclear power in Scotland.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A review has been established—[Laughter.] The fact that SNP members can laugh about such a serious energy issue underlines the fact that the SNP has come knee-jerking back into the Parliament after being out of action for two months.

Very soon we will publish an issues paper. The issue of radioactive waste has been raised. John Swinney will find that that technical issue relating to the generation of nuclear power is dealt with very effectively in our report, which will be available in a few days' time in the Scottish Parliament information centre. We are taking seriously the practical point that has been made today. Before this debate goes much further, we should have regard to the consultation that is taking place on radioactive waste, because the two matters are closely linked—both relate to the environment. If the SNP has views on nuclear power, we can discuss them in this Parliament. However, it should also submit them to the advisory group and to the review that is taking place. That is important for Scotland. We will not move from our position until we have taken part in the review. We can then see how the situation develops.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-1205)

The Cabinet will next meet on 11 September, when it will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I hope that at the next meeting of the Cabinet the First Minister will ask the Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon, to explain why our local hospital services are under threat, why our general practitioners are in revolt, why 83,487 patients are waiting for treatment in Scotland and why, instead of accepting her responsibility for that situation, she has the effrontery to accuse national health service staff of making demoralising and dangerous claims about the state of the health service. Who does the First Minister think the people of Scotland trust and believe about the state of the NHS—the dedicated staff who work in it or Susan Deacon, probably the worst health minister we have ever had?

We can bandy around the idea of trust about the state of the NHS, but there is one place where no trust will be invested—the Conservative party. Forgive me if I do not miss the opportunity to say that. People do not need a long memory to recall 19 agonising years during which the NHS was caught between low investment and privatisation. We will not take lectures from David McLetchie on the future of the health service. Currently we are involved in the biggest building programme that the NHS has ever seen.

You inherited it.

The Conservatives want to claim some credit for the NHS building programme. Why did they not commit themselves to building when they were in power and deliver on that?

The health service is about new environments, but it is also about staff. We have repeatedly said in this chamber that the quality of the health service depends on the commitment, enthusiasm and skills of the NHS's total work force. I could not make that clearer. There are success stories in the NHS. It is important for the morale and future of the service that occasionally we talk those up. There are challenges and every day the Executive is investing resources, time and attention to ensure that the Scottish people receive the quality of health service that they want. We have made a substantial start and we will continue to move forward.

The First Minister talks of success stories and, yes, there are a few, such as all the new hospitals that were planned by Michael Forsyth and Ian Lang. He now runs around Scotland opening those hospitals and trying to steal the credit for them.

The truth of the matter is that the NHS in Scotland has been reduced to such a state that patients may be forced to go abroad to get the treatment that they need within a reasonable time. Why does not the First Minister practise what he preaches? Where is his famous progressive pragmatism? Why does not he put pragmatism before ideology? As a first step towards trying to improve standards of care in Scotland and to bring them up to the best European levels, why will he and his Administration not sign an agreement with the independent sector in Scotland to give NHS patients who are ill in Scotland the treatment that they need in Scotland? He knows perfectly well that Mr Blair and Mr Milburn have already signed such an agreement down south. If such an agreement is good enough for patients in England, why cannot we have it for patients in Scotland?

As usual, the question starts off talking pragmatism and ends up talking ideology. It seems to me that David McLetchie is downplaying and talking down significant achievements in our national health service.

I have said on every platform that there are formidable challenges, such as investment and attracting new employees to the NHS, but a start has been made. I find it contemptible that a party that presided over the rundown of the NHS should sit in any Parliament lecturing us on how things should be done.

I repeat: we are investing heavily in the NHS, with £1.8 billion extra over three years; we are recruiting more manpower into the service; and we are building quality environments for the staff to work in. Since its inception in 1948, the NHS has been close to our hearts. Today's contribution suggests that it is not yet close to the hearts of members of the Conservative party.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating the Paisley Daily Express on its role in exposing the scandal of a patient who had to wait 89 weeks for treatment? Will he assure me that the Scottish Executive will make it clear to local health agencies that action will be taken if they fail to deliver improvements, given the record investment that is being made in the health service?

I am pleased to align myself with Hugh Henry's comments. Today, Argyll and Clyde Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which will be the subject of a fairly major review, has issued waiting list guidelines.

Let me be tough: Hugh Henry is absolutely right to say that it is totally unacceptable for any person in any part of Scotland to wait 89 weeks for a barium meal. I say that without qualification because, at the end of the day, I expect a significant return on the £1.8 billion investment for the patients who are being served. I agree with him that that means that some trusts, boards, managers and members must recognise today's message that the sort of situation that emerged in Paisley will no longer be acceptable. I hope that they are listening, because we mean business as far as such unacceptable situations are concerned.

---

Cities Review

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to ensure that its review of cities will be open to all interested individuals, groups and organisations within local communities. (S1F-1200)

Central to the review will be an open dialogue with each of the cities. The review team is in the process of visiting the five cities and those visits will be followed late this year by two ministerial visits, which will involve a wide range of local interests. A sounding board and an academic panel have been established to advise the work of the review. The review team is also meeting relevant national organisations.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Is he aware of the strength of feeling among many of my constituents in Glasgow Pollok about the disproportionate burden placed on them in delivering economic, social, leisure and cultural opportunities not just to Glasgow but to the west of Scotland and to Scotland as a whole? Is he further aware that many individuals consider moving across the city boundary simply on the basis of a financial calculation? Those decisions could have immense consequences for the sustainability of Glasgow, as Glasgow City Council has highlighted.

Will the First Minister ensure that the cities review will have at its heart not only an academic overview of patterns, processes and population movements but the direct experience of individual Glasgwegians who want a fair deal for themselves, for their families and for Glasgow?

I am pleased to respond positively to that request. People are at the heart of the success or failure of any great city. It is right that the cities review should have an academic input, but organisations and individuals should also be part of it. The review should reach out not only to those parts of the city that are always involved in consultation but to parts of the city that sometimes feel that their voice is not heard.

Boundaries and the tax base of our cities will also be part of the review. I have given an assurance to our civic leaders that the review will not simply be one that is developed in Edinburgh for the consumption of MSPs; it must work and be relevant. As a consequence, all the great issues that affect our cities will be included.

I note that the First Minister has said that the review will cover boundaries and tax bases and that the report will be ready in early 2002. Will he ensure that any recommendations that the review makes will be backed up by the necessary investment? Will he give a guarantee to the Parliament and to the people of the cities on which the review will concentrate that resources will be made available to implement any solutions that are identified?

Let me make it clear that our cities play a major part in the economic, social and political life of our country. That is why we decided that a review should look at current policies to consider what further benefits and action we could be involved in. It is important that the review takes place. We will then assess and acknowledge what resources might be required in addition to what we are doing. It is also useful to say that significant resources are going into all our cities from every department that is represented on the front bench. That will continue. Our cities are vibrant and there is a lot happening. Of course, some of our cities have additional problems that we need to tackle. Those problems will be very much at the forefront of the agenda.

---

Asylum Seekers

To ask the First Minister what the timetable is for the completion of the Scottish Executive's review of devolved services for asylum seekers. (S1F-1198)

We have said for some time that, some 18 months after its implementation in April 2000, we would review the operation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in Scotland, particularly in relation to devolved matters such as health, education, housing and the police. The overall aim is to assess the effect of the implementation of the act on asylum seekers and devolved services in Scotland. The work has been put out to tender and we hope to let a contract shortly. The review will be thorough and we expect it to be complete in the spring.

First, as part of the review, will the First Minister visit areas such as Sighthill to see at first hand what the problems are and what needs to be done? Secondly, the First Minister indicated in the chamber yesterday that he is making representations to Westminster on the voucher scheme. Will he give us details on those representations? Finally, will the resource at Dungavel be part of the review? Will the Scottish Executive ensure that the provisions of the European convention on human rights are fully adhered to in all that is going on at Dungavel?

I anticipate and know full well that all the proper procedures, including the protection of human rights, will be adhered to at Dungavel. Although it is on what was formerly a Scottish Office location, the Dungavel detention centre is a reserved matter and I suspect that it will be part of the on-going reviews at Westminster.

It is important to reflect calmly on what has happened in Sighthill. Everyone in the chamber would share the view that we want normality to be returned. We want asylum seekers and the local community to work together so that we can see real progress.

In addition to the review of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which will take place 18 months after its implementation, I hope that a report will go to Cabinet next week considering some of the devolved responsibilities. The report will look at what more we can do at the present time to ease some of the burdens on the resident community and on the asylum seekers. Two reviews are also under way at Westminster. One is considering dispersal—clearly, we have a voice on that—and the other is reviewing the voucher system. Those four areas are vital for Scotland and for Sighthill. I appeal for a degree of consensus and unanimity so that we can go forward together constructively. I hope to visit Sighthill soon to see at first hand what has happened and—equally important—what will happen in the future.

When the First Minister visits Sighthill, will he meet the groups that have been supporting asylum seekers for some time? Those groups have not received the positive media attention that they deserve. Media attention has touched on the negative aspects of the minority in Sighthill. The majority in Sighthill are good people, many of whom have lived there for 30 years—people such as my grandmother, who was one of the first tenants of Sighthill and who was a tenant until she died. Those are good people who support asylum seekers and have supported overseas students, who have been living in Sighthill for more than 15 years. When the First Minister visits, will he ensure that he seeks the views of the local organisations such as St Rollox church, Sighthill out-of-school care and Fountainwell tenants association?

I start my answer by congratulating Paul Martin, the MSP for the area, on the work that he has done with his illustrious father, who is the Westminster MP for the area. A lot of hard work has been done, for which the Executive and, I hope, the Parliament are grateful.

In any modern democracy or society, there is always a temptation when such issues emerge for them to be developed in the media. To be fair to the media, this is a big issue. In Sighthill, the asylum seekers and the local community want to find a way forward. Scotland is a welcoming nation. We have an internationalist reputation and we want to provide the best for those who come to our shores. This is an issue for Scotland and, as we have seen recently, it is a global issue. I say this to the Parliament today: let us all work together to make the aspirations and ambitions that Paul Martin has for his area a reality.

I have discussed a visit to Sighthill with Paul Martin. That visit will happen very soon. I hope to accompany the local MSP to ensure that we talk to ordinary people—asylum seekers and the local community—to find a way forward.

In conclusion, I thank the police for their assistance during a very difficult time. We have seen a team approach emerging in Sighthill, involving Glasgow City Council and the Executive. I also applaud the other political parties: this has not been, as it could have been, turned into a more politically sensitive issue.