Plenary, 06 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, October 6, 2005

Official Report 780KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Do you insist on it being taken now?

I would prefer it to be taken now.

Please be brief.

I do not want to interrupt First Minister's question time, but members will notice that question 2, which was to be put by the leader of the second Opposition party, the Conservatives, has been withdrawn. Standing order 13.7.4 is inadequate for such contingencies. The question was not to be asked by an individual member; it was reserved for the leader of one of the Opposition parties.

I understand that Mr McLetchie is, sadly, attending to a family matter. However, in this instance, I would like to claim the spot. As independents, we never get the chance.

Order. The important fact is that Mr McLetchie has had to attend to a close family bereavement. You are quite right: under standing order 13.7.4, the question cannot be substituted. What I intend to do today is take in a supplementary slot and give Annabel Goldie two questions. As for the independents, Ms MacDonald, you will find that they get more than their fair share across the course.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1851)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet we will discuss our progress in implementing our partnership agreement.

On a lighter note, Presiding Officer, I welcome—"note" might be the appropriate word—Stéphane Denève, the new resident director of the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, who is with us in the gallery today. He has come from Paris to live in Glasgow, and he is very welcome. He will, I am sure, entertain us in the years to come, just as he entertained us at the opening concert last Friday night. [Applause.]

I echo that warm welcome.

I draw the First Minister's attention to remarks made in this week's Sunday Herald by the Minister for Health and Community Care. He said that when he took on his job a year ago he was "horrified" by the state of the Scottish Executive Health Department. Is the mess that Andy Kerr discovered in the Health Department down simply to the incompetence of the previous two Labour health ministers, or does the First Minister accept some of the responsibility?

I am afraid that, just as she likes to quote statistics out of context, Ms Sturgeon likes to quote words out of context. She ignores the considerable progress that has been made in the health service in Scotland, not just since 1997 or 1999 but, crucially, in the past 12 months—particularly with out-patients. Some day, at some point, Ms Sturgeon will stand in the chamber and congratulate the doctors, nurses and other staff in our health service on their considerable achievements. If she would do so just occasionally, she might perform better in by-elections.

I have no problem with congratulating doctors and nurses: it is with the incompetence of the Scottish Executive that I have a big problem.

I remind the First Minister that the Health Department that so horrified Andy Kerr had as one of its responsibilities that of setting up NHS 24. I remind him also of a report that was published yesterday on the problems at NHS 24. The report said that the service was overwhelmed by members of the public who, instead of using it just for emergencies, were phoning at any time, day or night, for any reason. However, is that not exactly the kind of service that the First Minister and his ministers told the public that NHS 24 was there to provide? Is it not the case that the real problem is not the high expectations of the public but the failure of the Executive to deliver on its promises?

I find it hard to see how Ms Sturgeon can criticise the commissioning of an independent review into the performance of NHS 24, which was causing concern to all the parties in the chamber, as well as causing concern in the Health Department and to the Minister for Health and Community Care. The independent review has concluded with a proper report that contains a series of recommendations. The Minister for Health and Community Care has accepted every single recommendation and is ensuring that the Health Department and those responsible for NHS 24 start to work on those recommendations with as much speed as is physically and intellectually possible. At the end of the day, Ms Sturgeon feels that that is not an appropriate course of action, but it is the right way for us to behave.

NHS 24 is an important service. It facilitates use of the health services and it should give people the best possible advice in the quickest possible circumstances. It has not been doing that, but it will. As the recommendations have been accepted, they will be implemented.

I am asking questions about the mismanagement of NHS 24 that made an inquiry and report necessary in the first place. I remind the First Minister how the service, which we are now told is for dire emergencies only, was described by the minister who launched it as an all-day, everyday service, not just for emergencies but for guidance, information, advice and reassurance. However, far from delivering what was promised, this lifeline service was, according to the report,

"not far short of chaos"

by last Christmas.

Is not NHS 24 a classic Labour mix of spin, hype and basic incompetence when it comes to delivery? Is it not the case that NHS 24 has been a major public policy disaster and that the First Minister should do the decent thing, accept responsibility and say that he is sorry?

Ms Sturgeon is about six months too late with her argument. We announced the review, which has now been concluded. Every single recommendation contained in the review has been accepted by the minister and speedy implementation of the recommendations is now under way. NHS 24 is not for dire emergencies only, but it should not be misused for run-of-the-mill requests that can be answered in other ways. It is important that, whatever the request from a member of the public, NHS 24 is able to give top-quality advice accurately and speedily and that the member of the public gets the best possible treatment from a hospital, general practitioner or other facility. That is the objective and it is what, in a large number of cases, NHS 24 has managed to provide during the past few years. However, in far too many cases, the service fell short. There are staffing problems and there have been real issues with the management, and those problems and issues have been addressed by the review. As I said, every single recommendation has been accepted and I back the Minister for Health and Community Care in making sure that they are now speedily implemented.

It was not the staff who fell short; it was the Executive. I remind the First Minister that the last time that I raised the issue, he said that he had taken responsibility for it by setting up an inquiry. That has now concluded and one of its conclusions was that the Executive's Health Department did not have a grip on NHS 24. I agree that it is important to support the professionals in getting it right in future, but surely what is missing is an apology from the First Minister for getting it so wrong in the past.

It becomes like déjà vu every week. The reality is that a review was required; there was serious public and, indeed, political demand for it. The review has been conducted and it makes several clear recommendations, each one of which has been accepted by the Minister for Health and Community Care, who is now moving to make sure that they are implemented.

Of course, on such occasions, Ms Sturgeon prefers never to look forward to the future, never to ensure that the service improves, never to back the decisions that require to be taken to ensure that the service improves, and never ever to come up with a constructive idea that would improve the service. She prefers always to look backwards and to criticise those who were involved, and always to gloat and to blame someone else. The reality is that our health service must move forward and find new ways of delivering health services. That is what we are doing, and we will ensure that NHS 24 is a central and successful part of the service in years to come.

For the reasons that I gave earlier, question 2 is withdrawn and therefore falls, but I will go straight to supplementaries and give two questions to Annabel Goldie.

On numerous occasions, the First Minister has asserted his Executive's commitment to business in Scotland. Indeed, I believe that it is still the priority priority of the Cabinet under the much-chanted mantra of a smart, successful Scotland. Does he think that yesterday's figures for manufactured export sales were a hiccup, an aberration or a direct consequence of the Executive's muddle-headed policies, such as abolishing the uniform business rate?

That is muddle-headed thinking. It may have escaped the notice of the Scottish Conservatives—these days they are distracted almost annually by other things—but there have been worldwide changes in manufacturing that have affected every country in the developed world. We face huge challenges, not just from eastern Europe—the challenge that we faced in the early years of devolution—but from China, India and other emerging Asian economies. Those challenges will be met only if we in Scotland invest in our skills and knowledge and in partnerships—not just between business and education inside Scotland, but between businesses in this country and businesses in the emerging economies. Although the figures for manufacturing are as disappointing this week as they have been regularly over recent years, because of significant international changes and, in particular, the change in the international electronics industry, the work that we are doing is the best way of preparing Scotland and of ensuring that we have a competitive position in the global market in the years to come.

The problem for the First Minister is one of trust. The business community is being asked to believe in an Executive that removed the uniform business rate, has presided over a slump in manufacturing and is led by a First Minister who reportedly disparaged two leading businesspeople who criticised Executive policy by calling them idiots. How can business take the Executive seriously when, apart from uttering insults, all that it has done for business is to introduce its promised business rate reduction—so we are told—by instalments? Does he not realise that Scottish businesses have already paid £838 million more than their counterparts in England? That figure could be £1 billion by the time that parity is restored. Is that not more weak-kneed and spineless than smart and successful?

Never could a description be further from the truth. The reality in Scotland is that in the post-devolution years the relationship between Government and business in Scotland—which is a genuine relationship and a partnership—has never been better or stronger. That is the case because the devolved Government listens to Scottish business, acts on its concerns and ensures that the practical action and allocation of resources that we decide make a difference for it.

When Scottish business tells us that we must invest in transport, to repair the disinvestment and decay of the Tory years, we decide to do that by increasing transport spending and investing in roads and railways and in direct air routes that allow our businesspeople to make international connections without having to go through London or Amsterdam, as they did for so many years. Scottish business tells us that it wants us to invest in universities, colleges, schools and the skills of our people. That is precisely what we do, by providing increases in investment in our universities and colleges of more than 25 per cent in the next three years.

The partnerships will make a difference. I could provide an endless list of ideas from our business community that we have implemented. That is why Scotland has the highest employment rate in the United Kingdom and why Scotland's position in the global market is stronger than it has been for a very long time. That is why, when we develop international partnerships, we are welcomed elsewhere, because the knowledge and skills that we can contribute can make a difference and will create jobs in Scotland in the years to come.

---

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-1858)

I have no immediate plans to meet the secretary of state, but I speak with him regularly on a wide range of issues.

Two weeks ago, the First Minister told students from Drumchapel that he wanted a protocol to be put in place to protect children whom the Home Office wishes to remove. He said that that would apply to children under 16 years of age. Does he know that, under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, all those under 18 years old are considered to be children? Will he confirm that the Executive, unlike the United Kingdom Government, still recognises the rights of all children up to the age of 18 under the convention?

Yes, of course I know that, but I also believe that there is particular concern about families with youngsters under the age of 16 for whom deportation or removal from Scotland is impending. In such situations, it is important that we have an agreement with the Home Office about how the families—and, in particular, their children and their children's peers in local schools and the community—are treated.

Two successful meetings between our officials and Home Office officials have been held on the subject since I first raised the matter two weeks ago. We are making progress; we intend to make progress, and we will do so with the right principles in mind.

I am disappointed that the First Minister did not endorse the rights of the child under the convention. He should remember that the mace in front of him is there to remind all of us of the founding principles of the Parliament, perhaps the highest of which is compassion.

One week ago, the First Minister told the chamber that he would ensure that

"we in Scotland have a regime that ensures … that the system operates humanely."—[Official Report, 29 September 2005; c 19655.]

All of us—in the chamber and across Scotland—agree that the current system is inhumane. Will his protocol permit those raids to continue, or will it end them?

I reiterate what I said last Thursday; I think that I said it very clearly indeed. I believe, and I hope that the majority of responsible politicians in Scotland believe, that there should be an immigration system. I believe that if a country has an immigration system, the decisions that are taken in that system need to be consistent. I further believe that those decisions should be taken speedily, although that does not happen in too many instances at the moment. Once a decision is made that someone does not have the legal right to remain in the country, they have to be removed. However, when they are removed, I believe that that should be done humanely, as probably happens in the vast majority of cases at the moment.

However, there have been cases in which the method of removal has been questioned. I would like our education and social work services to be involved in cases that involve children in Scotland. That would ensure that the rights of the children, and the concerns of the youngsters with whom the children have had close contact in the community—sometimes for more than just a couple of years—are taken on board. That is the best way for us to proceed.

As the First Minister said, the huge problem with the system arises when people are not removed speedily and so become part of our communities. He will also remember the fact that the Home Office declared an amnesty back in 2003 for families in such situations. When he speaks to the Home Office about his proposed protocol, will he also seek consideration of an amnesty for families who have been in Scotland for some time and who, through no fault of their own, are torn away from the country that they now consider their home?

It is difficult to advocate a general position on the matter. None of us knows either the circumstances of the individuals who may be affected by such a decision or what it might lead to in this country and elsewhere. I believe that it is wrong that families have to wait in this country for several years until such time as a decision is made on their application. The youngsters in those families then have to leave the young people with whom they have formed friendships in what are their formative years.

Such situations are not always the fault of the state and the system; they sometimes arise because of the way in which people have resisted the implementation of decisions. Whoever is responsible, those situations should not continue. I support fully any moves in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom to speed up the system. When decisions are taken, I hope that those responsible will always take into account the fact that the youngsters have been in this country for some time. I believe that the welfare of the youngsters and of those who have become their friends is, and should be, important to us.

Does the First Minister not find it a bit of a contradiction that he is scouring the world looking for fresh talent when the freshest of talent—namely the Pilana family, the Ikolo family, the Ay family and now the Vucaj family—is being brutalised and kicked out of Scotland?

It is very wrong of the Scottish Socialist Party and others to portray Scotland in that way. I believe that we need an immigration and asylum system; however, in some decisions made under such a system, some people will not be legally entitled to remain in the country. If that is the case, those individuals will have to leave. The same system has to operate in any country around the globe.

In Scotland, we have the best record not just in the UK but probably across western Europe in integrating people who have come from elsewhere. In Glasgow, in particular, and in other areas, we have an excellent record in ensuring that young people attend local schools, are integrated and successfully make a contribution. We should boast about that record instead of using individual examples in the way that Ms Kane has to depict this country as an unwelcoming place. It is not.

---

Reoffending <br />(Impact of Mandatory Drug Testing)

To ask the First Minister what effect mandatory drug testing is anticipated to have on reducing reoffending. (S2F-1862)

For certain offences, we will introduce through the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on Monday, the mandatory drug testing of people arrested by the police. That measure will allow us to identify problematic drug users and to direct them into treatment services. We can make a direct impact on crime by addressing the levels of drug use and breaking the cycle of continued offending, punishment and reoffending.

I agree that the measure will reduce reoffending rates, but will the First Minister assure me that individuals who have not yet come to the attention of law enforcement agencies will still have full access to drug rehabilitation programmes?

It is important not only that there are proper rehabilitation programmes for those who have committed offences or, in this case, for those who are accused of committing offences but that people who have not committed offences but who need and want treatment are able to receive it. This summer, the Deputy Minister for Justice announced a £4 million increase in funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation services, which I think will create an additional 2,000 places. Such a measure must be welcomed, given the representations that have been made in the chamber and across Scotland on the need to improve rehabilitation services. Those improvements are on the way, and I hope that more and more people will take up the services.

Is the First Minister aware that more than 70 per cent of youth offenders have a history of drug and alcohol abuse? If mandatory drug testing and the rehabilitation of offenders are to be effective, rehabilitation services will need the capacity to deal with the matter. What steps will the Executive take to address that issue, especially in rural areas, where the services lack such capacity?

I do not have specific figures for the allocations that were made to each part of Scotland this summer, but they were designed to ensure that good proposals to fill any gaps in provision would be taken forward. Many parts of rural Scotland have made representations on this problem. After meeting families who have been affected, I realise that there can be no worse situation for a mother or father to be in than to have a youngster who cannot get into rehabilitation because there is a waiting list. We need to improve the capacity of services, to ensure that they are more widely available across Scotland and that they are more effective for young people who have decided to get off drugs.

---

Official Visit to Canada

To ask the First Minister what objectives he has set for his forthcoming visit to Canada. (S2F-1854)

When I visit the United States and Canada during the last week in October, I will meet business people, politicians, academics, students and, in particular, the Scottish diaspora in Canada to promote Scotland and encourage investment in the Scottish economy.

I suggest that the First Minister visits Alberta to see how that province has used its oil wealth to tackle problems of poverty and deprivation. Unlike in Scotland, where a quarter of children live on or near the poverty line, Alberta has practically no child poverty. Will he learn the lesson that it is not greedy to use one's oil wealth to relieve poverty and deprivation among one's own people?

We have a new conductor for our Royal Scottish National Orchestra and I hope that he will play some new tunes rather than the same old tunes that we hear from the SNP. I am afraid that such arguments may have been a legitimate part of political debate back in the 1970s, when Alex Neil was a member of at least two other parties, but we now live in the 21st century.

We cannot bring back the oil wealth that was wasted by the characters in the Conservative party who used it to pay for unemployment and social decay in the 1980s and 1990s. Today we can ensure that our energy industries are modernised, can compete internationally and do not just remove and then use the oil wealth that still exists in the North sea, but use the skills that they have developed to expand their activities into other parts of the world. That should be our ambitious challenge for the 21st century. We should not hark back to an old debate involving old figures and the money that was wasted by the Tories. Instead, we should use our resources, skills and brainpower to ensure that we reduce poverty to even lower levels than those that we have reduced it to today.

---

Avian Influenza

To ask the First Minister whether preparations to combat the impact of a possible avian influenza pandemic are well advanced. (S2F-1857)

Yes—plans are well advanced to prepare for a possible outbreak of human pandemic influenza. However, pandemic planning is an on-going piece of work and our plans will continue to evolve as new information and advice emerge.

The United Kingdom health departments, which are at the forefront of preparations for pandemic flu, continue to keep a close watch over developments in consultation with Health Protection Scotland, the World Health Organisation and the Health Protection Agency.

I am grateful to the First Minister for that comprehensive reply, but in view of the continuing publicity about a pandemic in the international media, will he consider scheduling after the recess a ministerial statement on preparations and the production of an information leaflet for the Scottish public?

There are two parts to that question. In relation to the public, I understand that a leaflet is being prepared for use in general practitioner surgeries throughout Scotland and that information is already widely available on the Executive's website. We will constantly monitor the potential for producing further publicity and information, to ensure that people are aware of the latest developments and preparations.

However, we are dealing with an uncertain situation, so there needs to be some flexibility in arrangements because the information can and will change as time goes by. Everything that can be done to prepare for the eventuality to which the member refers is being done and I am sure that the Minister for Health and Community Care will be only too happy to ensure that Parliament is kept up to date with the latest developments, whether through a statement to Parliament, a presentation to committee or some other means.

I am aware that the Scottish Executive has ordered a sufficient number of courses of antiviral products to treat 25 per cent of the population, which is what the WHO recommends in the event of an influenza pandemic. Can the First Minister give me any indication of when those products will be in our possession?

I am not sure when they will be in our possession, but I am aware that they have been ordered. We must be aware that, until such a human pandemic begins, we will not have access to the strain of influenza that is causing the pandemic. Although it is possible to order drugs and to prepare for an outbreak in some respects, we must be conscious that it will not be possible to resolve the challenge immediately because, from wherever in the world a strain starts to encroach, scientists will need to work on it as soon as that happens.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—