Plenary, 11 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, September 11, 2003

Official Report 716KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

It is 12 noon and time for First Minister's question time.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-178)

The Cabinet will discuss progress on our legislative programme and on implementing the partnership agreement.

I hope that you will allow me, Presiding Officer, to record the fact that today is the second anniversary of the terrible tragedy that took place in New York on 11 September 2001. The Parliament has shown a consistent concern over that event and a relationship with our colleagues in the United States of America that remains strong today, two years on. The resilience and friendship that underpin that relationship was shown this week by the fact that so many people are travelling between Scotland and the United States that we are to have a new aircraft service between Edinburgh and New York, which I am sure will be well used by many in years to come.

I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks and thank him for his answer.

This morning's newspapers are full of reports that the Scottish Executive is to be involved in dialogue with the Home Office about the Dungavel detention centre. The issues associated with that are very much part of the amendment moved in this morning's debate by Mr Robert Brown, which we are led to believe has the support of the First Minister. If that is so, what is the First Minister's reaction to the flat rejection of that position this morning by the Home Office minister, Beverley Hughes?

In a letter to our Minister for Communities, Margaret Curran, Ms Hughes said that Home Office ministers will continue to discuss with the Scottish Executive and South Lanarkshire Council how to take forward the recommendations of the reports of both Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons and our own inspectors of education on the education and welfare services of children in Dungavel, particularly for those who, in exceptional circumstances, are there for longer than six weeks.

It is important to deal with the facts of the case. Such discussions are nothing new. I was interested to hear Ms Sturgeon talk about silence towards the end of the previous debate. When I was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, I answered a question from Ms Fabiani about the situation in Dungavel, two years ago this month, in September 2001. The answer recorded was:

"Officials of the Executive are liaising with the Home Office and South Lanarkshire Council regarding education provision in the centre."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 25 September 2001; p 128.]

Such discussions are nothing new; the education inspectors' report takes them further forward. It is critical that we remain engaged in those discussions and available to assist, where that might be appropriate, in the interests of the children.

The interests of the children are paramount in all that we do here, First Minister.

About 20 minutes ago, the Home Office minister said on BBC Scotland:

"There is no deal … what we'd be looking to do instead is to make sure that the best possible education is provided in the centre".

There is no talk whatever of any child getting out of the centre to be educated. The First Minister boldly accounts for his previous parliamentary answers. He gave that answer on 25 September 2001. Why has he not done something about it? There are concerns from across the Parliament about the poor education and the conditions in which children are living. Would it not be simpler if the First Minister just took a stance on the issue and said that it was immoral to imprison innocent children in Scotland?

It would be entirely wrong to deal with a serious issue relating to the welfare and education services of children who are, at that particular moment, residing in Scotland, on the basis of some artificial deal. Of course there is no deal. This is not about deals. It is about the children, Mr Swinney, which is a fact that seems to have escaped the Scottish nationalist party consistently this morning.

On the matter of following up that answer from two years ago, Scotland's education inspectors—who are admired the world over—were involved in the production of a report, which was published last autumn. Since the production of that report, the inspectors have also been involved in assessing how much progress has been made to implement its conclusions.

Last month, they produced a further report—they provide a high-quality, professional service—in which they advised the Home Office to make further changes. We will be involved in discussions on that, too. That is a good way for a First Minister and a Government in Scotland to behave. That is the right way to progress the improvements that are required at Dungavel. It is immoral for Mr Swinney to use the children involved for political ends in the way that he has.

We raised the issue because we read the reports of HM inspectorate of prisons and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which express concern about the quality of those young people's education and, most important, the damage that is being done to their lives because they are imprisoned in Dungavel.

The First Minister says that he has been taking action. We got the same answer in April 2002 and February 2003 that we got to a written question in September 2001, and we continue to get reports that say that children are suffering because this Government will not protect them by getting them out of Dungavel. Why does the First Minister not give a lead and say to the people of Scotland, "Our human rights are paramount; we will not have children imprisoned in Dungavel, because that is immoral and unacceptable"?

I have never been silent on the issue; I am just not saying what the member wants me to say. That is the fundamental difference.

As I said to the Parliament last week, I am proud of our record of supporting asylum seekers and refugees, and their children, in Scotland. That assistance has produced—in Glasgow and elsewhere—some of the best schooling for asylum seekers' children, not just in Scotland, but in the UK and probably in Europe. It has included the provision of training, education, child care and other facilities for asylum seekers and refugees in communities throughout Scotland.

What is wrong with the SNP's position is what is wrong with everything that Mr Swinney has done in the past few weeks. He showed no interest in the issue when he was a member of Parliament at Westminster. Mr Swinney talks about my silence. I invite him to tell me the parliamentary question on asylum seekers' children in Scotland that he asked during his years as an MP at Westminster. If he shows me such a question, I will be happy to acknowledge his effort.

The interests of the children must come first. In every case in which a child stays in Dungavel for longer than the initial period for which they have to be there because their parents are going to be deported from the United Kingdom, the children's interests must come first. Any decision that is made about their welfare or their education should be made not on the basis of an independent immigration policy for Scotland or the winding up—for political ends—of the debate, but on the basis of the interests of those children. If we do not put them first, we abdicate our responsibilities in the Parliament.

In view of the First Minister's direct question to Mr Swinney, I will allow him a final, quick supplementary.

The First Minister knows that I have visited Dungavel and taken an interest in the issue. The answer to the First Minister's question is that Dungavel opened once I had ceased to be a Westminster MP, so I could not have asked a question on it. The First Minister should stop coming to the Parliament to throw insults about. Does he approve of the imprisonment of children in Dungavel—yes or no?

We note the fact that Mr Swinney did not answer the question.

The Scottish nationalist party did not refer to Dungavel or the children of asylum seekers in its manifesto for the 2003 Scottish elections, which were held only three or four months ago. Mr Swinney should not be a Johnny-come-lately on the issue; he should put the interests of the children concerned first. If it is in the children's interests not to be taken away from their parents, as Mr Swinney has suggested this morning, he should recognise that that is the case.

We need an honest policy on immigration and asylum in Scotland as well as in the rest of the UK and that is what members will get if they back Robert Brown's amendment.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-180)

I plan to meet the Prime Minister later this month.

I am pleased to hear that. I hope that the Prime Minister will be interested in something for which, regrettably, Mr McConnell is all too responsible—the state of the health service in Scotland. I am sure that the First Minister saw the stories in a national newspaper this week about a constituent of mine—Mr McLaren—who is not covered by any so-called waiting list guarantee and has had to wait five years for facial reconstruction surgery. I have previously written to the Minister for Health and Community Care about Mr McLaren's case.

In yesterday's Daily Record, Mr Chisholm promised that Mr McLaren would get his new face and no less than an appointment with a consultant within a week. However, in a reply that I received on the same day from Mr Chisholm's deputy, Tom McCabe, I was told:

"Ministers cannot intervene in individual cases".

Which of those ministers are we to believe? Has the national health service in Scotland reached such a state that people such as Mr McLaren must go to the papers to receive treatment within a reasonable time?

Mr McLetchie is well aware that decisions on someone's position on a waiting list and on when their treatment becomes available are made on clinical grounds in the Scottish health service, which is the right basis on which to make those decisions.

That is not what Mr Chisholm told the Daily Record. He is dishing out appointments with consultants to suit the demands of the Labour party's publicity machine.

Mr McLaren's plight is indicative of our unreformed and unreconstructed health system. Mr Chisholm tells us that his National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill will set out a coherent reform programme, but the reality is that he spends his time trying to micromanage his way out of the many deficiencies of the health service with sticking-plaster solutions, such as paying consultants an extra £1,000 a week to do more operations—that is an old-fashioned waiting list initiative by any other name—and intervening in cases such as Mr McLaren's when it suits his purposes and publicity ends to do so.

Patients in other European countries, such as Germany, France and Switzerland, do not have to put up with the waiting lists that we endure, so why should we not learn lessons from that and have a system of which people can be proud and which does not fail people, as Mr McLaren was failed time and again over five long years?

The straightforward answer is that we do not have such a system because it takes an awful lot longer than five or six years to repair all the damage that was done in the previous 18 years by the Government of the party that Mr McLetchie represents.

Mr McLetchie is keen to abuse First Minister's question time by raising constituency cases. It is a bit rich to call one day for the minister to do something and to criticise him the next day for having done that. That is a bit ridiculous.

At the election four months ago, electoral platforms were put to the people of Scotland. Mr McLetchie's position of abolishing the comprehensive system of health care was soundly rejected by the people of Scotland at that time and will be again.

Of course some health service issues require to be addressed, and of course our pressure for waiting times to be reduced goes on and on, but it continues to deliver. Throughout Scotland, people are waiting less for treatment for the key killer diseases such as heart conditions and cancer. Just two weeks ago, great figures were published about breast cancer treatment. Hard work is being done out there by doctors, nurses, consultants, radiographers and the many other people who work in our health service. It is time that the chamber praised and supported them, rather than always criticising them.

Is the First Minister aware that the Ministry of Defence is seeking proposals from companies in the United Kingdom to decommission nuclear submarines and store the resulting nuclear waste on site? Two weeks ago, Sir Robert McAlpine informed me that McAlpine proposes to use the former oil production site at Ardyne point on the Cowal peninsula for such a purpose. What role will the Scottish Executive play in shaping the MOD's final decision on where that contract will be placed? Will the First Minister confirm that the Executive will have the power to prevent the proposal at Ardyne from proceeding, as it has powers over planning matters?

Complex planning matters will affect the final outcome of the consultation. I understand that the consultation has not yet reached conclusions about sites or about how the material will be handled. Clearly, we will have an interest in environmental and planning concerns during the consultation, rather than an interest only in the consultation's outcome. We will take such responsibilities seriously.

---

Local Authorities (Facilities for Young People)

To ask the First Minister how many local sports centres, community centres, youth clubs and other facilities that provide activities for young people have been closed by local authorities in the past seven years and how many of those facilities have been subsequently replaced. (S2F-184)

Decisions regarding facilities that are owned or managed by local authorities are for local authorities. However, through our Government's new schools building programme, the quality-of-life improvements that we are funding in local communities and the New Opportunities Fund for sport in schools and out-of-school activities, the number of facilities and opportunities is increasing throughout Scotland.

The First Minister avoided the specifics of the question. Seventeen facilities have been closed in Glasgow alone, but the First Minister has not mentioned replacing any of those facilities.

The issue gets to the heart of the First Minister's obsession with youth disorder and his desire to criminalise and stigmatise the young people of Scotland. When will he recognise—as the police, children's charities and the young people of Scotland recognise—that young people need more facilities and more investment in youth services and support and fewer cheap stunts and headlines from his Executive that try to criminalise and stigmatise the young people of Scotland? [Interruption.] When will the Executive start to invest in facilities and stop stigmatising our young people?

The member's comment about cheap stunts received the appropriate response from members.

Since I became an MSP, I have opened new community centres in Glasgow, including one at Westercommon in Patricia Ferguson's constituency. Many new facilities are opening. If Mr Sheridan spent some time out talking to young people in Scotland about what they want in their communities instead of trying to persuade them that he wants to legalise heroin and other drugs, he would find that they want not only community centres, but facilities in local open areas, too.

In the past 12 months, the most successful facilities that I have seen in Scotland have been in places such as Kelty in Fife, where a new skateboard park has reduced youth crime to almost zero, and Alness in the Highlands, which I discussed with Rob Gibson yesterday. When I came out of a community centre there to talk to older people about the problems of youth crime in the area, young people came up to me and said thank you for the Government money that built the facility. They know what is going on in Scotland. Young people in Scotland also want youth crime to be reduced and to be able to use facilities without being terrorised by gangs or other people. They certainly do not want lectures in community centres about legalising drugs from Mr Sheridan.

The First Minister will know that I have written to him about leisure facilities for young people—I hope that he does not regard my doing so as a cheap stunt. He has agreed to meet me, but will he consider as a way forward the possibility of a national survey of five to 18-year-olds so that exactly what young people would like to do with their leisure time can be established? The First Minister shares my passion for the music industry. Could that interest be used to draw young people into the music industry?

The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport might have been sharing such an interest last night at a concert somewhere.

It is important that ministers remain in contact with young people in a variety of settings and that we seek the views of young people. A national survey might be appropriate, but I suspect that young people might enjoy more face-to-face contact, direct dialogue and more chances to express views and discuss solutions in their communities. As First Minister, I certainly try to provide such chances when I am out and about in the country. Many other ministers provide similar chances.

---

Scottish Enterprise

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with the performance of Scottish Enterprise. (S2F-187)

Scottish Enterprise is performing well against its targets, but I am particularly pleased with the impact that it has made in supporting innovation and emerging high-growth companies.

I thank the First Minister for that response. What would be the impact of a reduction of the Scottish Enterprise budget, in particular on the provision of skills and the ability, for example, of Scottish Enterprise Fife to implement the action plan for the economy in my constituency of Central Fife, which still has some of the highest rates of long-term unemployment in Scotland?

The impact on the Scottish economy of abolishing Scottish Enterprise—as the Conservatives want to do—or cutting the budget significantly, as the Scottish nationalists want to do, would be dramatic.

The efficiencies that have been driven through Scottish Enterprise in recent years have reduced administrative costs, focused its activities on fewer areas and ensured that its resources are targeted at the right areas to try to improve Scotland's growth rate. Those are good initiatives and have ensured that from a slightly reduced budget in real terms we are getting more for that money. That is an effective use of public resources.

However, to sizeably cut the budget and thereby to reduce the budget for training in skills and for supporting companies across Scotland would be a disastrous measure. It would be as disastrous in Fife as it would be anywhere else.

When will a new chairman and a new chief executive of Scottish Enterprise be appointed? Will the First Minister give an undertaking on behalf of the Scottish Executive that the new chairman and the new chief executive will have the proactive support of the Executive? Will he tell the civil service to stop trying to micromanage the agency and let it get on with its job?

The new chair and the new chief executive will be appointed as soon as possible. Those two individuals will have the full support—when they are doing the right thing—of Scottish ministers and this Government. Neither ministers nor civil servants want to micromanage the work of the agency, or attempt to micromanage the Scottish economy. However, we have a role in allocating public resources and being responsible for the strategic direction of Scottish Enterprise. We take that responsibility seriously and will continue to exercise it. The chair and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise will have operational independence, but the strategy should be democratically set by the Government and Scottish Enterprise should and will be accountable to the Parliament.

---

Holyrood Building Project (Inquiry)

To ask the First Minister when the inquiry by Lord Fraser into the Holyrood building project will be completed. (S2F-170)

Lord Fraser's terms of reference require him to report to the Parliament and the Executive as soon as is reasonably practicable. Lord Fraser has indicated that he intends to hold to that requirement and that he hopes to produce a report by next summer.

Lord Fraser has indicated that he needs a budget of £1.2 million. The Presiding Officer and I have agreed that it is important that Lord Fraser should have the resources that he considers necessary to undertake a thorough and independent investigation of all the facts. I can confirm that we are therefore willing to make available a budget of up to £1.2 million.

Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish public will be concerned about the apparent delay in the expected conclusion of the Fraser inquiry? Does he agree that the part of the report on the findings of the first section of the inquiry, which deals exclusively with decisions that were taken before devolution—the choice of site, architect, contract and construction manager—should be published as soon as it is completed? Publication of that section of the report should not wait until completion of the second section of the report, which will deal with what happened after devolution. Does the First Minister agree that the report on the findings of the first part of the inquiry could be published by the end of the year?

I have made it clear that I am keen that there should be an independent inquiry into the escalating costs and the time delays and that Lord Fraser, as an independent person, should head up that inquiry. It would be wrong of me to interfere with the administration of Lord Fraser's inquiry, which must be carried out independently.

I have made it clear to Lord Fraser and to anyone else who has asked me, in advance of the inquiry and since its establishment, that it is important to complete the inquiry as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is also important to ensure that people co-operate with the inquiry as much as possible.

Whether Lord Fraser wants to produce any interim statements at any stage along the way and how he wants to conduct the timing of that inquiry—about which Mr Ewing seems to be well informed, but which, I believe, Lord Fraser will set out tomorrow—is entirely a matter for Lord Fraser and one on which I am sure that he will be happy to answer questions.

Is the First Minister satisfied that the inquiry's terms of reference are sufficiently wide, but simultaneously sufficiently focused to enable Lord Fraser to report back fully and firmly on the matter, which has become a national embarrassment?

That is a great question from the Conservatives: "Is the inquiry sufficiently wide and sufficiently focused?" I certainly hope so.

As members know, I seek only to spread sweetness and light on the matter. As a result, I do not think that Lord Fraser will object to my sharing with members the letter that I had from him a couple of days ago:

"There is little or no difficulty over the early policy decision to locate at Holyrood rather than Calton hill or over the control and direction of the project while still in the hands of the Scottish Office and subsequently the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. On these matters, I aim to report about the middle of next year, not 2005, as the media have erroneously reported."

Is the First Minister aware, as every member should be, of the legal implications of Lord Fraser rushing to comment on design and construction matters before we know the project's completion date? I assure the First Minister that some of us have looked into the matter. Does he agree that it would not be clever for us to end up in the European courts under the European convention on human rights if we were to move too quickly? I am assured—and I hope that the First Minister agrees—that Lord Fraser is tackling the matter methodically. We should put our trust in him.

Whenever Margo MacDonald is helpful, I am happy to agree with her.

---

Borders Railway

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will support the construction of the Borders railway link. (S2F-194)

"A Partnership for a Better Scotland" confirms our commitment to support the construction of the Borders rail line.

The support that we have already given has assisted the Waverley railway partnership in preparing the parliamentary bill for authority to proceed with the rail link. I understand that the bill will be formally introduced later today.

I hope that the First Minister agrees that the introduction of the bill for the railway is an historic occasion for those who have campaigned for a generation for that railway. Will the First Minister ensure that the Executive continues its support and gives its full support to the Waverley railway partnership through the legislative, tendering and construction process so that the infrastructure link, which is vital for my constituency, is completed?

We will, of course, continue to provide appropriate support and will determine the level and nature of that support as individual decisions are required and the months go by.

Is the First Minister aware of the importance of the Borders rail link to my constituency? Midlothian currently has no rail links at all, and 60 per cent of its population travels to Edinburgh to work, with attendant congestion problems.

I am aware of that and the matter has been raised with me on visits to Rhona Brankin's constituency. I understand the interest that there is in that matter in her constituency, and will endeavour to ensure that the Minister for Transport informs her fully about developments.

I will press the First Minister on the definition of support. With construction costs rising annually by 10 per cent to 15 per cent, will he confirm today whether there is a Borders rail bank account, whether it is inflation proof, how much is in it and what the conditions of withdrawal are?

I do not like the sound of a public project the costs of which are increasing by that sort of percentage year after year. That is a bit worrying. I wonder whether Christine Grahame is perhaps calling for a public inquiry into the cost of the Borders rail link. I hope that that is not the case either. Her question also indicates how important it is that we assess the support that might be appropriate when decisions are required on the Borders rail link. It would have been silly of us to determine in advance any sort of contribution or support to the rail link, given the facts to which Christine Grahame alludes today.

When Mr Iain Gray was the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, he repeatedly stated that Executive funding for the construction of the rail link would be based on a business case. Is that still the case? If so, what criteria will be applied in that business case?

Ministers' assessment of any request for a contribution will be based on the business case. We will make that assessment with all the relevant factors taken into account.

I very much welcome the commitment that has been made by the Executive today. I ask the First Minister to remember, in discussing the matter with the Minister for Transport, that the trains on the new Waverley line will need somewhere to park, where passengers may get on and off in a high-quality, accessible station. I ask him to ensure that Waverley station is improved as part of this welcome step forward for public transport.

That might be a slightly opportunistic question from Sarah Boyack, but she makes the extremely relevant point that there is no point in the Parliament regularly discussing individual rail line improvements throughout the country if the main hub in Scotland remains constrained. The redevelopment of Waverley station remains a matter on which ministers spend an awful lot of time and attention to ensure that that central improvement in the rail system will lead to other improvements elsewhere.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—