Plenary, 08 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, December 8, 2005

Official Report 703KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-1979)

I met the Prime Minister last week and I hope to see him again soon.

Under serious pressure from the member for the Western Isles, I warmly welcome the fact that Glasgow Rangers Football Club succeeded this week in becoming Scotland's first ever representative in the quarter finals of the champions league.

I echo those comments and I wish Rangers the very best of luck for the remainder of the competition.

I refer the First Minister to the report that was published today by the Auditor General for Scotland, which at best paints a mixed picture of the First Minister's stewardship of the national health service. No doubt the First Minister will point to the decline in the number of patients with a guarantee who have had to wait more than six months for treatment. I agree that that is progress, but does he share my concern that such progress has been achieved at least partially through a dramatic increase in the number of patients whose waiting time guarantee has been removed altogether?

That is, of course, a distortion of the position. The Minister for Health and Community Care is committed to ensuring that, in years to come, everyone on the lists is in the same position and that we do not have different categories. Clearly, that is to be welcomed. It is also important to note that the Auditor General's report recognises that considerable improvements have taken place in the health service. I hope that Ms Sturgeon is prepared to welcome those.

I started by welcoming the progress that has been made, but I asked a specific question. I point out to the First Minister that, since 2003, the number of patients who have lost their waiting time guarantee has gone up by nearly 25 per cent. More than 23,000 patients have now been waiting for treatment for more than six months and 12,000 patients have been waiting for more than a year. Is the First Minister aware that the majority of those patients are on the hidden waiting list not because they have abused the health service or have a low-priority condition but because, for some personal reason such as bereavement, illness or child care problems, they have been unable to keep an appointment? How can he justify removing their guarantee and, worse still, ignoring their very existence when he comes to judge whether he has met his target?

I would think that the answer is obvious. If someone is too ill to enjoy the benefits of an operation or if they wish to delay their operation, we who live in a democracy—a free country—do not force them into a hospital ward or make them undergo the operation when that would be inconvenient, or perhaps even dangerous, for them. If Ms Sturgeon is suggesting that we should meet the six-month target—which for in-patients and out-patients we will meet, despite her prediction, by the end of this year—for patients whose operations have been delayed for good clinical or personal reasons by in some way forcing them to have their operation within six months, I believe that she is wrong.

My question was why, when someone has to delay their operation for a good reason, they should lose any guarantee of treatment. The First Minister justifies that because he knows that he will hit his target only by getting as many people as possible off the main waiting list and on to the hidden waiting list. Is it not the case that, for many thousands of patients with real ailments, the First Minister's waiting time target will simply not be met, just as, according to the Auditor General's report, the waiting time targets for cancer treatment, accident and emergency care and access to general practitioners are not being met? Does the First Minister accept that he would win more respect if he were honest and did not try to fiddle the figures by telling patients who know better that everything in the garden is rosy?

First, there are no hidden waiting lists in the health service in Scotland, as the numbers that Nicola Sturgeon is able to quote are published and are not hidden. However, let me make a serious point. I believe that it is a disgraceful slur on the medical judgment of doctors across Scotland for Ms Sturgeon to suggest—

Give them back their guarantee.

Mr Stevenson is very keen on shouting out, but he should listen for a second.

If Ms Sturgeon is suggesting that any general practitioner, consultant or other medical practitioner in Scotland has deliberately put someone beyond the six-month guarantee, that is a disgraceful slur on them. If she has evidence that anyone in the health service has done that, she should produce it for the individual case concerned, instead of slurring every member of the health service professions.

Ms Sturgeon should be highlighting from the Auditor General's report all the things that he says are positive in the health service in Scotland. The report says that clinical outcomes are improving, that life expectancy is increasing, that smoking is declining, that the number of deaths from cancer is falling, that the number of deaths from heart disease is falling, that the heart disease target will be met, that the number of deaths from stroke is falling, that the stroke target will be met and that waiting time targets will be met, despite the best efforts of the Scottish National Party to rubbish that possibility and everyone who is working so hard to realise it.

It is a question not of clinical judgment, but of Executive policy. The fact is that 23,000 patients have been waiting more than six months for treatment. The question is, why are they not counted when the Executive comes to decide whether it has met its targets?

The First Minister may not want to listen to me, but what does he say to the independent health economist who was quoted in this morning's edition of The Herald? He said:

"The picture that is presented is a lot of new money going in, some targets being hit, quite a few targets being missed, and quite a few targets which we do not know if they have been hit or not because nobody bothered to check."

Is it not the case that after six years of the Executive that is simply not good enough?

The reality is that we met the target for those who were waiting for more than 12 months for treatment; we met the target for those who were waiting for more than nine months; and we will meet the target for those who have waited for more than six months. Ms Sturgeon's central point in this question-and-answer session is that somehow, somewhere, somebody in the health service in Scotland is deliberately moving people beyond the six-month guarantee in order to hide them and the rights that they have under it. It is a disgraceful suggestion that any doctor or consultant in Scotland would deliberately delay someone's operation—

You are the ones who are doing it.

No—no one on the Executive benches is deciding the timing of people's operations. No amount of shouting from the SNP benches can hide that fact. If a medical practitioner makes a clinical judgment that it may be dangerous for someone to have an operation right now and that the operation should be delayed, or that an operation may be delayed at the request of the patient because the current moment, perhaps before Christmas, does not suit them and their family and they would prefer to wait until the new year, they do so in good faith. If Ms Sturgeon has evidence that any medical practitioner is making such judgments in bad faith and is making the wrong judgments, she should make the proper complaint. She should not seek to distort the hard work that has been done throughout the service in Scotland to ensure that those with the guarantee have it met by 31 December.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1980)

The Cabinet will discuss our progress in delivering the legislation that we promised in the legislative programme and improvements to services in Scotland.

I wonder whether the First Minister will discuss consensus with his colleagues. So far in my new role, I have found precious little on which the First Minister and I agree. However, I have no intrinsic desire to play Judy to his Punch. Does the First Minister's Cabinet have any concerns about the provision of education in our state schools?

Miss Goldie's question has a remarkably similar ring to comments that were made in another place yesterday afternoon. I welcome that approach.

Although we are very proud that results in Scotland's schools have improved every year in virtually every category since the emergence of the Scottish Parliament and devolution in 1999; that the pay, conditions, morale and professional training of Scottish teachers and other staff in our schools have improved in recent years; that we have the biggest school modernisation programme that there has ever been in Scotland's history; and that investment in equipment, technology and new ideas is making a genuine difference in our classrooms, of course we want to go further. In particular, we want to ensure that the bottom 20 per cent of achievers in Scotland's schools have a better chance in the future. The problem is challenging and difficult, but we are dedicated to resolving it. We will continue with new initiatives in the new year to help to improve the situation.

The First Minister might affect some of the characteristics of Mr Punch, but he will not want his nasal proboscis to be confused with Pinocchio's. Let us look at the facts: a million days were lost to truancy last year; 59 per cent of our teachers consider discipline to be a serious problem; 50 per cent of 14-year-olds do not meet the Government's standard for writing; 40 per cent of them do not meet the Government's standard for maths; and 2,730 young people left school last year with no qualifications.

I hope that in the mood of consensus the First Minister will agree that those figures are depressing. Let us try to find common ground to improve matters. Will the First Minister, like Mr Blair and me, accept the principle of greater autonomy in our schools and reflect that by allowing schools to own their buildings and land, employ their staff, set their pay and develop their culture and ethos?

Miss Goldie's question was in two parts with a nicer middle. The first part was about the performance of our schools, but what she does not report is that although the current figures on the levels of achievement, particularly for secondary 2, demand that we invest more in S1 and S2, in primary to secondary transitions and in the challenging work that goes on in S1 and S2 classrooms to raise standards, they are considerably higher than they were when the Parliament was created, even higher than they were when the Conservatives were in power and have improved every year since devolution.

If there is to be a spirit of consensus in education, it would be better to start by addressing the facts and recognising the achievements of those who work in our schools and of recent policy, while agreeing that we have to go further.

I do not agree with Miss Goldie's second point. I do not agree that 4,000 schools in Scotland should each have their own personnel and property departments, lawyers and so on. That would be a dreadful waste of resources. I believe strongly that we must make the most efficient use of resources in Scotland's schools with central administration and must devolve the maximum resources to head teachers, so that they can get on with running their schools, employing their staff and ensuring that those staff make a real difference in the classroom.

There was a certain ambivalence about that response. I listed what is happening in Scottish education. It takes two for Punch and Judy to tango and here am I with my arms outstretched.

Mr McConnell seems to concede that all is not well in our state education sector—his response illuminates that. So let me make a final offer to Mr McConnell. If he concedes the principle that all is not well and so accepts the conclusion that something fairly radical must be done, and if his party in the Executive accepts the need for reform to take place, will he accept my assurance that he need no longer rely on the duplicitous whimsy of his Lib Dem colleagues? If he is earnest in his endeavour to improve the quality of state education provision, I can tell him that my party will support him in much-needed reform. Will he be gracious enough to accept that assurance?

I have a vision in my mind of David Cameron stretching out his arms to Tony Blair next week and welcoming him to his bosom. I do not think that that would be expected in the House of Commons, and although I welcome Miss Goldie's approaches I am not going to respond here and now.

I will also give Miss Goldie some advice. If we are going to have a bit of consensus and try to come together on an issue, I am prepared to listen to her questions and answer accordingly if she is prepared to change the questions that she has written and respond to the answers that I give her. Let us perhaps have that agreement and we will see how far we get.

I am sure that we both agree that the performance of Scotland's schools needs to improve constantly year on year. To achieve that and for our youngsters to learn, we need more resources, better trained staff working to higher standards, better equipment and more modern facilities. We need what the Minister for Education and Young People is achieving: a more flexible curriculum that allows teachers and head teachers to exercise their professional judgment. Head teachers themselves need more power to run their schools and to drive standards up through strong leadership.

The way forward for Scottish education is not the break-up of Scottish education into lots of autonomous units, which I think Miss Goldie and her party would wish for, but real investment and reforms and efforts to tackle the underachievement that still exists in some schools, particularly among the bottom 20 per cent of achievers. That is why we have the schools of ambition programme—and the number of schools on that programme is higher than even the upper limit for city academies down south. It will focus on the ingenuity and innovation of head teachers, classroom teachers, pupils and parents in Scotland's schools. It will see that tail of underachievement driven up in years to come, and we will see the benefits for our society and for the economy as a whole.

---

Cindy Sheehan

To ask the First Minister whether he will accept the invitation from Rose Gentle to meet Cindy Sheehan, the US anti-war campaigner whose son Casey was one of 1,000 soldiers killed in Iraq, when she is in Scotland today. (S2F-1993)

I received the invitation from Mrs Gentle on 6 December. My office replied to that invitation earlier today explaining that I am unable to attend the meeting. However, I am sure that all members of the Parliament will join me in extending our sympathy to all those who have lost family members serving in either the British or American armed forces, in Iraq or elsewhere.

I am disappointed that the First Minister cannot meet Cindy Sheehan this afternoon in committee room 5 at 2.30. He is perfectly prepared to run after warmongers such as George Bush when they are here, but he cannot meet peace activists who come to Scotland, who are left to stand on their own. Cindy Sheehan lost her son in a war that the First Minister supported, yet he cannot even look her in the eye. Rose Gentle gets the same brush-off. Does the First Minister not appreciate the fact that millions of Scots are sick and tired of the never-ending carnage and brutality in Iraq that they see on their television screens, and that his refusal to meet Cindy Sheehan reinforces the impression that he has a closed mind and is wedded to a disastrous strategy?

I do not intend to respond to some of those personal comments, but I will say one thing: whatever differences we have in this chamber and elsewhere over the initial decision to go to war in Iraq or over the decisions that should or should not be taken by Governments now, I would have hoped that we could be united in condemning those who commit terrorist acts against British forces and against innocent Iraqis. I have yet to hear that from the Scottish Socialist Party; I hope that some day we will.

I point the First Minister in the direction of the first post-invasion Iraqi Prime Minister, Mr Iyad Allawi, who said that the torture, death squads and barbarity of Saddam Hussein have now been replaced by a regime equally hated and torturous.

Is it not time that Scotland was synonymous around the world with peace instead of being known for its weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde and its armies in Iraq? Would it not be better if it was a place that had a reputation for welcoming a peace activist such as Cindy Sheehan rather than for turning her away empty-handed?

My view is that Scotland has—as it has always had—a reputation for welcoming people of all races and religions from around the world with all different points of view. The Parliament has exemplified that during its short existence and I hope that we will continue to do so.

At the same time, I believe that we should recognise the role that our armed forces have played in promoting the image of Scotland around the world. Of course, there have been different periods in our history in relation to events that have happened overseas, but by and large the performance of Scottish armed forces as part of the British Army around the world has portrayed this country positively. As we mentioned in the chamber earlier in the year, that was the case when Scots defended Malawi when there was the possibility of it losing the independence that it wanted.

---

Pre-budget Report

To ask the First Minister how the measures in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-budget statement will affect Scotland's economy. (S2F-1991)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a series of measures to promote productivity growth, increase employment opportunities and improve services.

The First Minister will be aware of the burdens placed on individuals and businesses in Dumfries and Galloway and throughout Scotland by the high price of petrol and other fuels. Therefore, does he welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement that petrol and fuel duties will be frozen for the whole of the financial year? Does he also believe that Scottish consumers, businesses and taxpayers who have paid those high prices deserve to share some of the benefit of the increased profits made by the oil companies through high oil prices? Does he agree that the UK, with its marginal taxation rate of 50 per cent, still offers economic advantage over Norway, with its 78 per cent rate, and most other oil-producing countries?

I welcome the announcement that fuel duty will be maintained at its current level for the next 12 months. That is a good announcement for Scotland—in particular for Scotland's rural areas, such as the one that Elaine Murray represents.

The other measures announced by the chancellor have provoked widespread debate in Scotland and elsewhere over the past week. I am sure that that will continue to be the case. I hope that when members examine the pre-budget report, they will consider the balance between income and expenditure and the need to ensure that in the UK we not only spend money on the right things but raise enough money to keep our economy stable and successful.

Is the First Minister aware that Peterhead is the world's biggest offshore oil support base and that many of the small and medium-sized enterprises that contribute to a relatively vibrant economy in the north-east are involved in the oil industry? Given the fact that extracting oil from the Scottish sector is twice as expensive as extracting it from the Norwegian sector and five times as expensive as extracting it from the Dutch sector, what mitigation measures does the First Minister propose to deal with the undoubted loss of jobs in the Scottish oil industry as a result of the chancellor's measures?

Given the incredibly high number of licences awarded over the past 12 months and the positive environment that currently exists in the industry, I hope that we will continue to work with the industry to secure its expansion in Scotland and that of the support services that benefit from the oil and gas industry's work.

I recognise that Stewart Stevenson makes a strong and appropriate local point. I wish that his local member of Parliament had made the same point in Westminster yesterday. He had an ideal opportunity to do so when he asked a question at Prime Minister's questions, but he was more interested in making a sarcastic comment about the schools that the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister went to. I thought that questions about which school someone went to were a thing of the past.

We must concentrate on the issues that really matter. There is an issue about support for the oil and gas industry in Scotland, which concerns not only the taxation regime or the support that we have given and secured through our working pilot with the Department for Trade and Industry and the UK Government for new field exploration, but the support that we give to improve skills that will help the industry in the years to come and to promote the industry and the services that have resulted from it, which are expanding globally.

---

Severe Storms

To ask the First Minister what actions the Scottish Executive has taken to address the potential impact of severe storms, such as those that affected the Western Isles in January 2005. (S2F-1985)

We acted promptly to help the Western Isles following the storms last January. We are committed to learning lessons from those awful events and to improving Scotland's ability to cope with any emergency. We have also allocated resources to help people locally to repair much of the damage.

Does the First Minister realise that Western Isles Council put a conservative estimate of £15 million on the cost of repairing damage caused by the January hurricane, but the Executive has allocated only £9 million, and that little work has been done because of red tape and the need for planning permission? Does the First Minister understand the fear in South Uist communities such as Iochdar and Stoneybridge that they will be cut off by the sea again? Will he ensure that safe exit routes are built, so that the tragic loss of life that occurred in January will not be repeated? Will he assure other vulnerable communities in the Highlands and Islands that the Scottish Executive is logistically and financially ready to deal with the consequences of further severe storms this winter?

A number of positive and constructive meetings took place with other authorities in Scotland after last winter's storms to ensure that lessons are learned and that we are better prepared in the years to come. Considerable resources were allocated in previous budget rounds and they will continue to be allocated for improvements to all kinds of preventive and contingency measures and to deal with emergency planning.

Already, £9 million has been allocated to the Western Isles. In January, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform will meet the member for the Western Isles, Alasdair Morrison, to discuss the next phase of resources that might be required. The elements that have been approved so far were identified by the local authority and, therefore, local people as priorities. It is right and proper that we take our lead from them.

I am sure that everybody who is involved, in particular Western Isles Council, will want to ensure that decisions are made speedily on these matters, although I am sure that, if there are any problems, Jamie McGrigor will raise them with the council. It would not be a good idea to waive planning permission altogether. I hope that if it has caused a hold-up in any way, it is dealt with soon.

---

Police Centre of Excellence

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive's proposed new police centre of excellence is intended to reduce violent crime. (S2F-1996)

Violence in Scotland needs to be addressed with a sustained and determined effort on many fronts. The expansion of the violence reduction unit, together with the other steps outlined by the Minister for Justice this morning, underline our firm belief that the so-called booze and blade culture has no place in today's Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware that some of the information from that excellent unit at Strathclyde police is deeply disturbing? For example, 17 per cent of all knife murderers between 1996 and 2005 were under the age of 18. Does he agree that if we do not challenge such behaviour and the culture, we will not be effective in turning the situation around, and that preventive approaches require the support of even tougher sentences in summary cases and on indictment, as well as for those who have been convicted of knife possession before? Will the First Minister support me in lodging amendments at stage 2 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to bring that about, so that we put the law on knife crime more on a par with the law on firearms?

I will be interested to see those amendments. The approach to tackling knife crime, gun crime and violence in Scotland needs to be comprehensive. It needs to cover tougher sentencing and higher-profile policing, particularly on the streets of our city centres at night. It must also ensure that we change the culture, particularly among young people. We are perfectly willing to hear suggestions from any corner of this chamber that might ensure that, through our schools, youth groups or in other ways, young people are made aware of the likely impact of carrying a knife or a blade when they go out at night.

Ensuring that young people understand the impact of doing that—on themselves, their victims and their life chances—and the sentences that they might face as a result will form a particularly important part of prevention. That will need to be backed up by higher-profile policing and by tougher sentences through the courts.

Will the First Minister say whether the report in The Herald on 2 December, stating that the Executive is considering cutting the number of police forces in Scotland, was accurate?

I do not think that there was any suggestion that we would be cutting the number of police forces, but the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform made a serious suggestion in the article to which the member refers about the need to ensure the best configuration of all our public services throughout Scotland. It is important that we consider boundaries and the shape and efficiency of different organisations across the board.

However, boundaries, responsibilities and reorganisation should not be viewed as the solution to improving and reforming our public services. Improvements and reform of public services must start with the needs of service users and the delivery of quality by those on the front line. That should be our starting point, and the structures should back that up in the most efficient way possible. First and foremost are those who need to benefit from services and the quality of the services that they receive.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—