Plenary, 08 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 8, 2004

Official Report 739KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

Before we begin First Minister's question time, members will wish to welcome to the gallery the Hon Raymond Keith Hollis, speaker of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. [Applause.]

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I begin by also welcoming to the public gallery campaigners from Stobhill general hospital and the Glasgow homeopathic hospital.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-997)

Obviously, I concur with the welcome that Nicola Sturgeon gave to those in the gallery who have come to lobby the Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is a Parliament of the people and it should be lobbied.

At the next meeting of the Cabinet, we will discuss our progress towards building the better Scotland that we promised in our partnership agreement. As I said yesterday in my statement to the chamber, I hope that, as part of those discussions, we will also encourage further the development of a confident Scotland—one in which we celebrate success.

I do not want to do this every week, Presiding Officer, but the fabulous young Scottish band Franz Ferdinand won a major music prize last night and one of our top-growing companies, Cairn Energy, joined the FTSE 100 today, and I think that we should celebrate both achievements.

I echo the First Minister's comments about those wonderful examples of Scottish success.

Last week, the First Minister asked all members of the Scottish Parliament to mark the opening of this fabulous new Parliament building by raising our game. I know that the First Minister will be keen to lead by example, so I ask him how he, personally, has fallen short of the mark up until now and how he intends to raise his game.

My biggest disappointment so far has been my inability to convince Nicola Sturgeon that we have the vision and determination to secure a future for Scotland both within the United Kingdom and in the wider world that is positive for our citizens and which gives them the ambition and confidence that this country needs to succeed in the very competitive modern world. I look forward to these weekly exchanges. I hope that they will give me the opportunity to convince Ms Sturgeon and her colleagues that we have that ambition for Scotland.

The last time that the First Minister waffled that much, he told himself to sit down.

One way in which the First Minister could raise his game would be to offer firm national leadership on issues of national importance. In almost every part of the country right now communities are up in arms because local hospitals are facing downgrading or closure as services become increasingly centralised. Caithness general hospital, Inverclyde royal hospital, the Vale of Leven hospital, St John's hospital, Stobhill, the Victoria infirmary, the Glasgow homeopathic hospital, the Queen Mother's hospital and many others are under threat. The decisions on those hospitals are being taken in a totally piecemeal manner by unelected and unaccountable health boards that are taking the decisions with total disregard for public opinion.

Rather astonishingly, the Minister for Health and Community Care said this weekend that he has "no control" over the situation. Will the First Minister take control? Will he demand a moratorium on those piecemeal hospital closures and put in place a clear national strategy for the future of the health service in Scotland?

I understand absolutely the concerns that exist in many parts of Scotland about the role of local hospitals in the 21st century and the way in which change can impact on local communities. However, the starting point for any debate on the issue is that there must be a degree of consistency. To call in the same sentence for the election of local health boards and national control is, frankly, a contradiction in terms that will be seen in that light by the people whom Ms Sturgeon identified as having concerns at local level. We need to find the right balance between local decision making and a national strategy, and I believe that that is exactly what we are implementing.

The challenges in the health service are to ensure that local people have confidence in their local hospital and that they are able to access care as quickly as they possibly can, in the right circumstances and with the right level of expertise. The challenge is also to change Scotland's health service for the better, to ensure that we are able to use the new techniques, equipment and expertise that are available and to decentralise services, as is happening across Scotland, to local hospitals and clinics, so as to give local communities more and better access to services. Each of those decisions brings real challenges for health boards, medical staff and ministers, but ministers will make the right decision for local communities and will ensure that their interests are always paramount.

What I am calling for is national thinking and a national plan, so that, throughout Scotland, patients do not have to travel ridiculous distances to access what can be, in some cases, life-saving medical treatment. I suggest to the First Minister that understanding local concerns is not enough; responding to them and acting on them is what the people of Scotland expect and demand.

"the health minister should intervene and require health boards to sustain services."

Those are the words of Bristow Muldoon, Labour MSP for Livingston. Moves to take services away from Vale of Leven hospital are "indefensible". That was said by Jackie Baillie, Labour MSP for Dumbarton.

"This is centralisation on a massive scale … and not in the interests of patients".

That was said by Duncan McNeil, Labour MSP for Inverclyde.

Will the First Minister recognise that those comments reflect the widespread anger and concern that exist right across the country? Will the First Minister recognise what people in Scotland can see with their own eyes and what his own back benchers know to be true: that our hospital services are being decimated without rhyme or reason?

I ask the First Minister again: will he impose some national order on this mess? Will he take control and show leadership or, like his Minister for Health and Community Care, is he saying that he has "no control"? The First Minister should call a moratorium on the piecemeal health closures and put in place a national plan for the future of our health service. In short, will the First Minister raise his game?

For the avoidance of doubt, the Minister for Health and Community Care did not say that he had "no control" over the situation. In fact, this time last year, the Minister for Health and Community Care clearly made a point that I myself have made on a number of occasions: that ministers can say no as well as saying yes to local proposals, following local consultation. The Minister for Health and Community Care did exactly that last year, when he rejected proposals from Argyll and Clyde NHS Board, because he felt that they were not in the interests of local patients.

There has to be consultation and there is consultation in each of the areas that Nicola Sturgeon identified. The proposals that are currently out to consultation are not yet final. When the proposals from the health board are final, ministers can say no as well as yes. We will make a considered judgment in each case. When we do that, we will bear in mind the genuine concern that local people feel not just about the local hospital but about the quality of the totality of their local health service.

I reiterate my previous point: it is not consistent to call for national control—as Nicola Sturgeon did again in the final part of her last question—and to call for elections to health boards at a local level. That is not a consistent position. We need the right balance between local decision making and a national strategy. That is exactly what we are working towards achieving.

Does the First Minister agree that patients should not be transferred from a unit unless they will get a better service? We used to have a gynaecology and oncology unit at Stobhill, which has been transferred temporarily to a refurbished old ward in Glasgow royal infirmary, at a cost of £200,000, instead of being moved into a brand-new unit that is advertised to cost about £5.1 million. That means that the unit has transferred into the royal infirmary without extra high-dependency beds. Does the First Minister not think that that is wrong?

As I have said before, I understand the concerns about the hospital reorganisation in greater Glasgow. I also understand that we cannot stand still and that there cannot be no change in the health service. If we are going to have a health service that will deliver for Scotland in the 21st century, we cannot have no change. There has to be change, improvement, modernisation and reform.

We need to ensure that, as we do that, we improve services to patients. Of course I agree with Jean Turner that that objective should be the underlying principle that governs every decision. In some cases, that will mean services moving, but in all cases it should also mean that other services are decentralised, improved and made more accessible for local people. That means that nurses will do things that doctors used to do and that doctors will do things that consultants and surgeons used to do. There will be the opportunity in multipurpose clinics to access all kinds of services at the local level. Those should be the objectives, while we also ensure that the high-quality service that is needed is available in our specialist hospitals.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1002)

Mr McLetchie may be disappointed, but I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

I am sure that the Prime Minister is bereft at that news. When the First Minister has a little space in his diary to accommodate the Prime Minister, they might discuss one of the Prime Minister's favourite topics, which is, as we all know, education. The Scottish Executive has said that it plans to allocate additional funding to a handful of Scottish schools to fund leadership programmes for head teachers. However, the latest figures show that the proportion of the schools budget that is actually devolved to schools has fallen since 1999, while schools remain firmly under local authority control. Will the First Minister tell us what the point is of giving head teachers leadership skills if they are not allowed to lead?

As we outlined yesterday, and as we will outline in greater detail in the weeks and months ahead, not only are we giving head teachers greater powers to lead and ensuring that they are equipped with the skills that they need to do so successfully, but we are ensuring that they have around them the quality infrastructure—both physical and staffing—that allows them to succeed in their schools.

There is a fundamental difference between the implication behind what David McLetchie has said—which he spelled out in more detail yesterday—and the policies that we pursue. We are interested not only in having the highest quality individual schools that are well led with the right staff, the right buildings and the right curriculum and assessment, but in having all the specialist services that local authorities provide for the thousands of special educational needs pupils from whom Mr McLetchie said yesterday he would take money in order to cut council tax and save money for those whose children do not need such services.

On this issue, there is a real divide between those of us who are committed to school transport, school meals provision, special educational needs provision and all the other services that are provided at local level by our local authorities, and the Conservative position, which is to take all that money away and to reduce all those services to save money for those who currently pay for them. I believe that that is the wrong policy. I am happy to debate it at any time—here or in any other place.

I am delighted to debate those policies. It seems that the First Minister wholly misconceives the idea of freedom and independence of management. He talks the talk but he will not walk the walk by actually giving people freedom, responsibility and control. For instance, the First Minister has said that he wants to increase the number of specialist schools in Scotland. At present, we have seven such schools—that is, seven out of 386 secondary schools in the whole of Scotland. We currently have seven schools that select pupils on the basis of their ability in sport or music. Why is selection acceptable for pupils who have those talents but unacceptable for pupils who have particular aptitudes for mathematics and science?

Here we see the hidden Tory agenda. We say that we want to increase the number of specialist schools that will be centres of excellence precisely because there are currently only seven such centres of excellence. Of course we want to have more than that. Yes, we will encourage such schools and give the head teachers and teachers in them the powers and responsibilities to develop the full talents of the individuals that come before them. However, we will not have academic selection based on the old Tory way. We will not have that here in Scotland. We will not reject the majority of Scottish pupils to a life that is mediocre and inferior. We will raise standards and ensure that we have excellence and ambition for all Scotland's schools, but we will start with those at the bottom and encourage those at the top.

The First Minister's policy, of course, is the elitist policy, because it allocates places in schools on the basis of people's ability to pay mortgages, not on the basis of children's educational needs. The fact of the matter is that there are 386 secondary schools in Scotland, that his so-called leadership programme applies to 20 and that we have seven so-called specialist schools. That is a tiny drop in the ocean. Given the tiny numbers that we are talking about in relation to this much-hyped policy, is not it the case that the First Minister's plans are, at worst, window dressing and, at best, tinkering around the edges?

Not at all. The scale of our ambitions for Scottish education is indicated by the fact that we do not believe that "very good" is enough and believe that Scottish schools that are—increasingly—reaching the standard of "very good" in school inspections should reach higher and aim further. That is why we are going to have an excellence standard for all Scottish schools to aim towards as part of their now regular inspection programme.

That is also why we are going to say to 20 schools, and to more schools in future, "We want you to be schools of ambition too. We want you to have the freedoms and the resources that allow you to pick yourselves up, give your kids a better chance and use your teaching skills and your other skills to secure the future that they deserve." That is the scale of our ambitions—not old-fashioned selection the Tory way and not the cuts in special educational needs provision and in other specialist services that Mr McLetchie called for in yesterday's debate.

Let us have a debate, but let us have a debate that puts education, ambition and excellence on one side—our side—and elitism, selection and cutbacks in services on the Tory side.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

I begin by giving a Green party welcome to the representatives from the Glasgow homeopathic hospital.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1019)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.

Choose life, the Executive initiative set up to improve mental health in Scotland, has a target to reduce suicide by 20 per cent by 2013. We have twice the problem facing England and Wales, yet the First Minister's target is half the target set in England and Wales. Can he explain that?

I do not think that we should underestimate the importance of the choose life campaign and of the issue of suicide in Scotland. Many of us will have personal experience of the tragedy that can occur in families when suicide takes place; however, the reality in Scotland today is that, for the very first time in more than a generation, we have a reduction in suicides. There could be all kinds of reasons for that, but I hope that among those reasons are the improved use of and support for the voluntary sector organisations that support people when they are in difficulties and feel that they are close to that situation, and the improved health services that now make support available for people who are feeling close to the edge.

However, that reduction is not enough for us. That is precisely why we have set a clear target and are taking steps towards it here in Scotland. Others can answer for their own targets, but our target here in Scotland is a genuine one and is clearly established, and it is one that we are already on the way to managing to achieve.

Research published nearly four years ago by Professor Stephen Platt of the University of Edinburgh identified the profile of the young man most likely to commit suicide in Scotland. Too many children end up in care. Too many young people leave care without sufficient further support. Too many then end up homeless, in trouble with the police and arrested for minor misdemeanours, and some are locked up. What has the Executive done over the past four years, and what does it intend to do, to ensure that young men who fit any aspect of or all of that profile get the support and care that they need to keep them from despair?

I share Robin Harper's genuine concern for the individuals who fit each of the descriptions that he gave. However, I hope that he understands and can see that we have taken in recent years and continue to take serious action to deal with individuals who are most at risk and to give them support, not just by improving the educational opportunities, other opportunities and the care and support that people get when they are in care—there have been considerable strides forward in that in recent years—but, much more important, by securing further support for them beyond the age of 16, after they leave care, when they are most vulnerable and most likely to be at risk.

We have also improved significantly the level of service in our prisons, where people in the past have been vulnerable to the risk of suicide and self-harm. One of the improvements that we have seen in the statistics in Scotland is a specific reduction in the number of people who are committing suicide in our prisons. That action goes on in care, in prison and elsewhere, but it is not yet enough. We must go further and I hope that we will have the support of all parties in the Parliament when we do so.

---

Civil Service (Reform and Modernisation)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to reform and modernise the civil service in Scotland. (S2F-1006)

Our programme of reform and modernisation of the civil service in Scotland will help to ensure that it has the skills and expertise to meet the demands of devolution. Changes include having more professional specialist skills, increasing the use of secondments from the public and private sectors, applying new technology effectively and working more closely with external stakeholders.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. I am sure that none of us, least of all the First Minister, would wish to prejudge Lord Fraser's report, but I am sure that many of us have made the observation that the Fraser inquiry has provided a valuable insight into the workings of the civil service in Scotland. Has the First Minister shared that observation and does he agree that a successful post-devolution Scotland must have a civil service with the right culture, the right skills and the right people to do the job? Will he give us an assurance that he will take the actions necessary to ensure that we have that?

I agree with Susan Deacon that we need to have a civil service in Scotland that has the right culture, the right skills and the right people to help us to take Scotland forward and that that civil service should be accountable to the Parliament through Scottish Executive ministers, as it is. I believe that we have made considerable strides during the past five years in developing the civil service, but I believe that we need to go further and I believe that that view is shared by the permanent secretary. I also believe that, in considering the final report of the Fraser inquiry, one of the issues that I am sure we will need to address is how we take forward that agenda. We will announce our intentions on that when we respond to Lord Fraser's report.

Would the First Minister consider setting up arrangements to enable MSPs and civil servants to co-operate constructively on issues in a way that does not currently happen because there is at present a more antagonistic relationship? We all have things to contribute and I think that we could work together better than we do.

There have been improvements in that area in the past five years. I recall that when Donald Gorrie first raised those issues five years ago there were initial problems in the Parliament owing to the open and accountable nature of the Parliament and the fact that it was a system of which civil servants in Scotland had little experience.

I think that there have been considerable improvements over that time in the engagement of civil servants with committees and with members on individual issues in other ways, but I am sure that we can go further and develop further those skills and that engagement, although we must always remember that it is ministers who have to be held accountable to the Parliament and that ministers have to answer for civil servants in their departments—ultimately, that is the core of the democratic structure in which we operate.

Since the Parliament last met, it has been announced in the UK spending review that all

"Departments have agreed targets for efficiency, of at least 2.5% a year over the 2004 Spending Review".

Last week, I read in the media that the Executive intends to exceed those targets in Scotland. Will the First Minister confirm the percentage target for savings in Scotland and by how much it exceeds that in the rest of the UK?

In the United Kingdom, the percentage target for cash savings is 1.25 per cent and in Scotland it will be a minimum of 2 per cent over three years. That shows our determination to secure greater efficiencies in the Scottish budget and to ensure that more resources are taken from the back office and delivered in front-line services. We will lay out our more detailed plans on that when the Scottish budget is outlined at the end of this month.

Now that we have a Scottish Parliament building fit for a Parliament, should we not have a civil service directly accountable to the Parliament? In short, should there not be a Scottish civil service for the Scottish Parliament?

I want to be clear that the civil service in Scotland is accountable to the Parliament through the accountability of ministers. The priorities, actions and accountability of civil servants in Scotland are determined through Scottish ministers, not through ministers in London, and of course ministers in Scotland are accountable to this Parliament and not to Whitehall or the Parliament in London. That accountability is in place. However—and I hope that this is a constructive point—whatever ideologies members have, I hope that they can take on board how vital it is that our civil service in Scotland does not become divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom or elsewhere and the fact that the interchange in Scotland between the civil service and other parts of the public sector—and, indeed, the private sector—and between the civil service in Scotland and the civil service elsewhere helps to develop ideas, experience and careers and helps to secure the best talent for the civil service in Scotland. That is an important perspective, which we must bring to the debate.

---

Smoking Ban

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's plans are in respect of the introduction of a smoking ban in enclosed spaces in Scotland. (S2F-1025)

The public consultation on smoking in enclosed public places runs until the end of September 2004. Responses to the consultation will then be considered alongside a number of research studies commissioned by the Executive. A statement on future action will be made before the end of the year.

The First Minister will be aware that a statement may be needed sooner than that, given the fact that my member's bill will come before the Parliament long before the end of the year. I am glad that the First Minister and the Executive accept that passive smoking kills at least 100 Scots a year and damages the health of many more. Does the First Minister agree that we must therefore follow the Irish and Norwegian examples and introduce a comprehensive smoking ban in enclosed spaces? By backing my bill we would introduce such a ban by the summer of 2005 rather than 2006, as has been widely reported, so that we can save lives and prevent damage to people's health sooner rather than later.

I welcome the support for that position from Mr Maxwell, the new deputy leader of the Scottish National Party and others. It is a constructive contribution to the debate. However, I also believe that we should complete the consultation and that we should listen to what is being said to us. We should then make our decision, justify that decision publicly and implement it quickly. We will do so. There has to be action on smoking in enclosed public spaces in Scotland. The extent of that action will be determined at the end of the consultation, when I believe the lessons in Ireland and elsewhere will have an awful lot to teach us.

---

Sport

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive is encouraging participation in sport and promoting excellence at the highest, and all, levels throughout Scotland following the Athens Olympic games. (S2F-1024)

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate team GB on its success at the recent Olympic games in Athens. To celebrate the achievements of athletes based in Scotland, I am hosting a celebration for them at Bute House tonight. I am looking forward to it. I want particularly to congratulate Shirley Robertson, Chris Hoy, Katherine Grainger and Campbell Walsh. As medal-winning Scots, they will be great role models for the next generation of young Scots.

We are encouraging participation in sport through the significant investment in active schools, which includes the use of sporting champions in our schools and higher-quality and more regular physical education. We are supporting excellence at a higher level through the funding of talented athletes and our continued investment in the Scottish Institute of Sport.

I thank the First Minister warmly for that positive reply. I endorse the work for all sports, especially that at grass-roots level. Is the First Minister aware that one sport with growing grass-roots support is rugby sevens? Given the successful addition of that sport to the Commonwealth games, will the First Minister speak with Lord Coe about Olympic recognition of rugby sevens, which it had until the 1928 Olympic games? In those discussions, will he support Melrose as a potential location for Olympic recognition of the sport?

We have had an interesting trend in the Parliament in recent weeks: we are more and more interested in what is happening in London. I hope that Mr Purvis's interest in London will have benefits for Scotland, rather than take anything away from us.

The London Olympics could be a great boost, not just to sport in London, the youngsters of London and the economy of the south-east; they could boost the economy of the whole of Britain and could certainly encourage participation in sport the length and breadth of the country. I am interested in Mr Purvis's idea, but I suspect that it might be quite a challenge to convince the Olympic authorities that it would be a viable option. However, I am happy to note his idea and his enthusiasm for the native sport of his constituency.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—