Plenary, 12 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, June 12, 2008

Official Report 1068KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-869)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Among my engagements, I will present medals to members of the Lancastria Association of Scotland, who are survivors and relatives of those who perished in the sinking of the Lancastria in June 1940, which was the worst single loss of life for British forces during the second world war. I would like to recognise one of those survivors in particular: Charlie Napier of Inverurie, who is with us in the gallery. [Applause.]

I add my welcome.

I am sure that the whole Parliament will wish to extend condolences to the family and friends of all the patients who have suffered as a result of contracting Clostridium difficile in hospital. So far this year at the Vale of Leven hospital, there have been 54 cases, in 41 of which the patient acquired the infection in hospital, and 22 people have now died. Does the First Minister agree that an independent inquiry is now essential?

As Wendy Alexander knows, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has announced robust measures to get control of hospital-acquired infections in Scotland. All members share the regret and mourning for those who have suffered and died in these circumstances. The best thing that we can do is to reinforce the measures that the health secretary has outlined in order to tackle and defeat the scourge of hospital-acquired infection.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the fact that lesser outbreaks at Stoke Mandeville hospital and Maidstone hospital have led to external inquiries. Given that the outbreak may be the most severe ever in Scotland in terms of the mortality rate, an inquiry would be valuable and should be seen to be independent of Government. I urge an inquiry on him.

Given that there was an increase in the number of cases above expected numbers in January and February, why was there a delay until May in investigating the incidents? When were ministers first informed that there was a possible problem?

The Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board inquiry took place when it did—incidentally, we know the full extent of the outbreak because of that investigation—because it was thought that the immediate priority was to take the robust measures that were required to control the rate of infection. I am sure that Wendy Alexander will understand and support that. We now have the information that we have—the appalling detail of the consequences of the hospital-acquired infection—because of the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board inquiry into the precise circumstances. The health secretary is perfectly willing to consider whether further inquiry is necessary and is doing so at the moment.

Many people will be troubled that there was a delay in investigating the incidents until May although there had been a rise in deaths in January and February. That alone deserves to be looked into, but what really troubles many people is that the first outbreak control meeting was called only on Tuesday this week.

I come back to the point about the health secretary's involvement. When was she made aware of the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board inquiry, when was she made aware that 54 cases were involved and what action did she take? Why have there been no public statements from ministers on the matter so far?

The health secretary was informed throughout of the measures that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board was taking. The whole range of circumstances came to light because of the investigation of three cases of C difficile as the health board looked back through its records to see the full extent of the infection. All members must accept that the first thing that one does in such circumstances is to put in place robust measures to control the outbreak. We know the full extent of the outbreak because of the investigation. The health secretary has indicated that she is perfectly willing to consider a wider inquiry and she has made statements to the chamber announcing the initiatives that the Government is taking to get hospital-acquired infections under control in Scotland.

I accept that we as a Government face this responsibility. I hope that all members will regard the control of hospital-acquired infections as a responsibility that we should face as a Parliament and not something out of which we should attempt to make political capital.

I am happy to pursue outside the chamber some of the questions that I have raised, but let us come to today. A management meeting is currently taking place at the hospital. Given that this is one of the most severe outbreaks ever in Scotland, is any member of the Scottish Government health department present at the meeting? What reassurances can the First Minister give to patients and their families that action is now being taken to contain the infection?

The health department is in full contact daily with the health board. The need for a robust response on the control of infections is exactly why we have health boards in the structure that we have in Scotland. Given that I think I am right in saying that the Government has increased expenditure on tackling hospital-acquired infection by 10 times, I do not think that even our sternest critic would accuse us of being complacent in facing this scourge, which we must face together.

Given that the health board has had an inquiry and has published the full extent of the awful circumstances, that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has said that she is perfectly willing to consider a wider inquiry, that the health board is meeting now to ensure that robust procedures are in place and that the Government has increased expenditure on controlling hospital-acquired infection by 10 times, the last thing that we could be accused of is not facing up to the seriousness of this and other hospital-acquired infections.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-870)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting, although yesterday evening I was in close proximity to him in the House of Commons, albeit in a different lobby.

One does not know who to feel sorry for.

It used to be that criminals and their crimes grabbed the headlines; it is now the criminal justice system that is hitting the headlines. This week, we have read about the increasing number of criminals who are not even being prosecuted. Today, we read that the First Minister had to plead with a mother whose son was thumped in an unprovoked street attack not to flee the country because she no longer feels safe in Scotland. I understand that a similar case of another son who was assaulted will hit the headlines tomorrow. Public confidence in our criminal justice system is haemorrhaging and it will be beyond the power of the First Minister to intervene in every case and to plead with every family of every victim. How will the First Minister stem the haemorrhage and restore confidence?

I read some material that the Conservative justice spokesman released this week about the move to summary justice and the reforms which, incidentally, were supported in the previous session of Parliament by every party in the chamber.

One concern that I have with the first part of Annabel Goldie's question is that the summary justice reforms carried all-party support and were the right thing to do. They are in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal Service, which is the envy of the world because of its independence of mind and the fact that it is not beholden to anyone for the decisions that it makes and the manner of prosecutions. I do not accept Annabel Goldie's analysis. I think that we have a fine prosecution service, which is discharging its functions extremely well.

We share in common with many western societies an increase in unacceptable violence and disorder and, although we have it in full measure, an overcrowded prison system. The Scottish Government is tackling both those issues, first by increasing prison capacity and, secondly, by introducing the reforms that are required to ensure that some of the people in prison who should not be in prison are not in prison, so that we can ensure that those who should be in prison stay there for the appropriate time. Those measures, like the summary justice reforms, should carry the support of all parties in the chamber.

My party does not question the Crown Office's right to allow fiscals to use discretion, but we are certainly entitled to question whether that discretion is being exercised satisfactorily. Our criminal justice system exists to deter, punish and protect, and it is failing on all three counts.

I hope that the First Minister read with concern the letter in today's Herald from the Society of Solicitors in Airdrie, in which the society expressed its alarm about the dumbing down of our criminal justice system, including cases involving

"charges of lewd and libidinous conduct against children, assault to severe injury and permanent impairment, a variety of indecency cases (again involving children)".

That is in just one sheriffdom. It is part of a growing trend and it is clearly just the tip of the iceberg.

People can seek to blame individuals in the criminal justice system, but the bottom line is that we are seeing a damaging consequence of the Scottish National Party's relentless drive to empty our jails. Does the First Minister agree that we need to get back to a criminal justice system that is there to deter, punish and protect? Does he agree that we need to get our criminal justice system out of the dock and get criminals back into the dock?

The summary justice reforms, which are being properly applied by the Procurator Fiscal Service, were put through the Parliament unanimously in the previous session—that is, with the support of the Conservative party. The Parliament made those reforms because it trusted our Procurator Fiscal Service to discharge its responsibilities, which it does without fear or favour.

I say gently to Annabel Goldie that many people in Scotland have some degree of concern, some of which is legitimate. For example, one of the reasons for the summary justice reforms was to show that we can afford a legal aid system in Scotland. Inevitably, as we discharge justice more effectively, quickly and practicably, some people will not get the same legal aid funding that they got previously, including some well-known firms of solicitors. I understand their anxiety. We should take the information that comes before us from people who can give it without fear or favour and we should remember that some people might have a little bit of a vested interest in making the comments that they do.

I admire Annabel Goldie's stance on a range of issues, but she is on shaky ground when she talks about criminal justice in Scotland, for three reasons. First, the Conservative party did not build a single prison in 17 years in office. Secondly, it created the automatic early release system in 1993. Bill Aitken describes that system as farcical, but we, with the Conservative party's support, are committed to ending it. Thirdly, when Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was responsible for prisons as Scottish Office Minister for Health and Home Affairs, there were 98 absconds from the open estate in Scotland, as against 69 last year. However, the open prison population then was 290 as against 444 last year. In other words, under the Conservatives, there were three times as many absconds per prisoner as there are now.

I make those points not just to reply in party-political terms to Annabel Goldie—[Laughter.] I said "not just". The Conservative party should take a bit of care and remember its—how shall I put it?—form before it poses as the defender of justice and law and order.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-871)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Two weeks ago, on 27 May, the Scottish Government put out a press release celebrating that "hidden waiting lists" have been removed, and that there is now "full transparency" on waiting times. It said that the Government has got rid of the "smoke and mirrors" and that the number of people waiting for 18 or more weeks is now zero. Does the First Minister think that there are any patients who are not celebrating? For example, does he know how long people are waiting for access to sleep apnoea clinics in Scotland?

As the former Deputy First Minister well knows, such services are not, and never have been, included in the waiting list guarantees. I think that he would be right to recall that smoke and mirrors and hidden waiting lists were the situation when he was Deputy First Minister.

It has all changed now, has it? The chief executive of Grampian NHS Board explains the current situation in a letter about a patient who was referred by his general practitioner to the sleep apnoea clinic at Foresterhill hospital. The letter states:

"The current waiting time for routine appointments is approximately one year … therefore"

the patient

"has waited the average length of time to have these procedures performed."

In opposition, the SNP said that there was a

"gulf between patients' real life experiences and the statistics highlighted by the government."

In June 2008, we find that not just one patient but an entire service has a waiting time of more than one year. Is this the Scottish National Party's new hidden waiting list? National health service patients in Scotland are waiting more than 18 weeks at a time when the SNP has told us that the number of people waiting is zero. How many more patients are waiting more than 18 weeks? Why are patients waiting, when the Government says that no one is waiting?

Not only have we abolished the hidden waiting lists for patients with guarantees, we are expanding the number of services that come under the waiting time guarantee. Audiology, for example, has been moved into the waiting time guarantee.

After some considerable experience of Nicol Stephen, I have learned to ca cannie with some of the facts that he contributes. Last week, he gave the impression that science funding in Scotland, as demonstrated by the situation in Glasgow, was decreasing. The reason why he referred to Glasgow is that the budget is increasing over the next three years—[Interruption.] It most certainly is true. However, the distribution is now based on visitor numbers. I wonder when Nicol Stephen will tell the people of Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen that he wants to reduce the budgets for their science centres by not basing the funding on visitor numbers.

What has that to do with the question?

What it has to do with the question, Mr Rumbles, is this: we have learned to look with some care at the detail of Mr Stephen's remarks in the chamber. If Mr Stephen does not like to be reminded of last week, that is no wonder, because the people in Aberdeen will remind him of the implications of the question that he asked last week.

On the health service, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has already said that she is willing to look carefully at individual cases to effect change. She has already done that for Mr Stephen—one of the few useful things that he has contributed in the Parliament.

I will take a supplementary question from Liam McArthur.

The First Minister will be aware of the impact that the fuel protests by French and Spanish fishermen are having on Scotland's shellfish producers. Buyers and truck companies are now unwilling to risk trying to get Scottish products to continental markets, with potentially dire consequences for fishermen in my constituency and elsewhere. In Orkney, the losses to the catching sector are estimated at around £60,000 per week. The level of borrowing by individual fishermen and the local shellfish co-operative is quickly reaching unsustainable levels. Can the First Minister reassure my constituents that he and his Government, in conjunction with United Kingdom ministers, are doing everything possible, both bilaterally with the French and Spanish Governments and through European Union channels, to bring an end to this damaging dispute? Will he ask the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to give urgent consideration to what short-term support the Government could provide to stop small businesses in my constituency being forced to the wall as a result of the blockade?

I thank Liam McArthur for notice of his question. As he will understand, given that we share a huge fishing interest, I am well aware of the situation.

The Scottish Government has been in constant contact—indeed, on a daily basis—with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UK embassy. Richard Lochhead has written to the Foreign Secretary, and I have met and written to the French ambassador. The UK embassy is pursuing the matter at our urging with the French interior ministry. Seafood Scotland is keeping exporters up to date as quickly as possible with the changing situation—the market is opening and closing as protests take place. That is the full extent and range of the measures that are within our power and province. I cannot stop fuel protests across the continent of Europe, but we are doing everything that we can to ensure that there is free movement and passage of goods for Scottish exporters.

I share Liam McArthur's concern, because seafood export is a sector that is based largely on small companies. There are seasonal factors that make the issue especially acute at this time of year. It is of enormous concern that the losses that may be sustained cannot be recovered and that product cannot be absorbed into the home market. The cabinet secretary is willing to meet Liam McArthur and other concerned members to take the matter forward and to discuss any further initiatives that we can take.

---

Alcohol and Drugs

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the damage caused by alcohol and drugs by 50 per cent before 2025. (S3F-889)

The publication of our new drugs strategy, "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem", on 29 May marked the beginning of a new era of tackling drug misuse in Scotland. I welcome the fact that, on the whole, it has received substantial support from political parties in Scotland. The strategy sets in motion a programme of action in which more people recover from problem drug use, fewer people start using drugs, early intervention prevents and reduces the harm caused by drugs, and communities are stronger and safer places in which to live and work. In addition, we are developing a long-term strategic approach to tackling alcohol misuse. We are facing up to the scale of the problem in Scotland and will publish our proposals for consultation shortly. We are also making significant investments in tackling both alcohol and drug misuse: £120 million and £94 million respectively have been made available over the next three years.

The target that I mentioned is an aspiration that is expressed by Scotland's Futures Forum in its report "Approaches to Alcohol and Drugs in Scotland: A Question of Architecture", which was published this week. The report highlights the need for us to tackle problems in Scotland associated with alcohol, which have grown in recent years. Last month, Scottish Government figures revealed that alcohol misuse is costing the Scottish economy about £2.25 billion each year. What action will the Government take to reduce the impact of alcohol misuse?

Like Nigel Don, I look forward to the imminent publication of our consultation paper on the subject, which will set out a range of measures to enable Scotland to face up to the serious and growing problem of alcohol misuse.

Press coverage of the Futures Forum's report tended to accentuate points of difference with our drugs strategy, which has gathered so much support in the Parliament. That emphasises the importance of moving together in a collaborative way to face up to the drugs problem. As a Parliament, we do ourselves justice and do well when we respond to serious issues in that way. I welcome the cross-party support that the strategy received. I hope that, when we publish our alcohol strategy in the very near future, it will receive similar support and that the Parliament will confront jointly one of the great problems that our society faces.

Does the First Minister agree that it is a matter of concern that workers for a number of voluntary organisations that work on drugs and alcohol face redundancy notices and have done so for a considerable time? Will he undertake to have the Cabinet Secretary for Justice examine the issue? It is a serious matter that such organisations not only do not have three-year funding but do not even have funding for this year. Does the First Minister agree that it is inappropriate that workers in this area should constantly and repeatedly face redundancy notices?

I know that Richard Simpson will wish to provide details to the relevant cabinet secretaries. I will point him to two things. First, the budgets that I have just discussed in response to Nigel Don's question for addressing drug and alcohol problems have been substantially increased compared with previous central Government budgets. I can see by Richard Simpson's gesture that he acknowledges and accepts that. Secondly, he will be aware that, for the first time in a generation, the local government settlement has risen as a proportion of year-by-year Government expenditure in Scotland. I hope that, as we move to single outcome agreements and co-ordinate the work of central Government and local government, Richard Simpson will find much to support in our direction of travel.

---

Domestic Abuse

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to support survivors of domestic abuse, in light of the single outcome agreements due to be signed at the end of June 2008. (S3F-895)

The Scottish Government is committed to tackling violence against women and, within that, to tackling domestic abuse. We will continue to build on the excellent work that has been undertaken in Scotland to date.

As Margaret Curran well knows, we are currently discussing single outcome agreements for 2008-09 with all 32 councils. We aim to complete the process by 30 June. Subject to agreement with councils, all single outcome agreements will be made publicly available shortly thereafter.

There is agreement across the chamber about tackling domestic abuse as a priority. I ask the First Minister specifically to address the issue of what priority will be given to local authority domestic abuse services under the concordat. I am sure that he will be aware of concerns that women's organisations are raising now. They are telling us about a squeezing of services, about posts under threat and about funding being cut and projects merged.

I draw the First Minister's attention in particular to what is happening in the Western Isles, where the local authority domestic abuse co-ordinator post has now been cut. That is a vital loss to the islands community. Women who are experiencing domestic abuse are not part of the concordat discussions, but I do not think that there is one member of the Parliament who does not think that that post in the Western Isles should be reinstated. I ask the First Minister to use his authority and intervene to give the Western Isles back the service that it needs.

We will be discussing such issues with Western Isles Council, as we will with all councils in terms of the single outcome agreements. I do not think that it is possible to doubt the Scottish Government's commitment in this area. We have committed more than £44 million to this agenda for 2008 to 2011, which is an increase of 100 per cent on the £22 million that was allocated by the previous Administration over the previous three years. I do not doubt for a second Margaret Curran's commitment in this area, because I know that it is very substantial. I can only think that she was not able to convince her financial colleagues of the criticality of the position.

In our funding, we have committed support for the national offices of Scottish Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, the Scottish domestic abuse helpline and the national rape crisis helpline. We have continued with the children's services-women's aid fund and the rape crisis specific fund. The Scottish Government supports 19 projects in Glasgow across the range of funding streams, which address a range of violence against women issues. That funding amounts to more than £4 million over the next three years.

On the single outcome agreements, I do not necessarily believe that we are totally at one with Glasgow City Council on every specific issue—as with our discussions on the single outcome agreement with Western Isles Council. It might be that, in Glasgow, the Wendy Alexander approach is taken to class sizes, as opposed to the Fiona Hyslop approach to class sizes. However, I would be astonished if, when the single outcome agreements come out, the issue of women's aid and violence against women is not a huge priority in the single outcome agreement for Glasgow.

As we discuss the matter with councils throughout Scotland, I think that, with the increase from the Scottish Government and with co-operation and parity of esteem with local government, we will arrive at a substantially better position for women who are under threat throughout the country.

---

Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland (Report)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the report by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (S3F-890)

The Scottish National Party manifesto set out our support for the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In government, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's decision to extend access to higher education to children of asylum seekers has made clear that support, as has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's statement on ending the remand of under-16s in prison.

The cabinet secretaries have asked officials to explore what changes can be made to policy, practice and legislation to ensure better implementation of the UN convention in Scotland. That work is under way across a wide range of health, education and justice activity.

The First Minister will be aware that the report painted a pretty bleak picture of the lives of Britain's children, although key issues such as Scotland's children's hearings system were welcomed. He will also be aware that the report states that, although the United Kingdom Government has ratified the convention, it is unenforceable because it is not part of UK law. That inadequacy of protection has led to some laws being introduced that are clearly in breach of the convention.

The Scottish commissioner's office believes that the Scottish Government could play its part in improving matters either by introducing children's rights impact assessments, which the Liberal Democrats advocated in our manifesto, or by introducing legislation that incorporates the convention into devolved domestic law. Will the First Minister commit to delivering for Scotland's children by doing either of those things?

We have decided not to respond to each of the reports that have been submitted to the UN. We plan to respond in detail once we have a clear set of recommendations from the UN, which will undoubtedly draw on those that have been made by the commissioners and the non-governmental organisations. We will answer the point that Margaret Smith makes in that context.

The timetable for submission of the periodic reports started in July last year. Many of the most worrying statistics in the report were historical, but we would be kidding ourselves if we did not believe that we still face serious difficulties on a range of issues. As Margaret Smith will know, the children's commissioner pointed to certain recent actions of Government of which she very much approved, which show that the Scottish Government is trailblazing a better way of representing and safeguarding children's rights in Scotland.

There is also the matter of how many of the issues are not within our devolved competence at present. When we produce our comprehensive response to the final UN report, Margaret Smith will see the Scottish Government's huge anxiety to do everything that we can to entrench and protect the rights of Scotland's children.

That concludes First Minister's questions.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The member may certainly raise a point of order, but I hope that it is not about the fact that I was unable to call her to ask a supplementary question. That would not be a point of order.

Presiding Officer, you were aware of my desire to raise a question, but I recognise that it is your right to select supplementary questions. My point of order relates to the Vale of Leven hospital. I wonder whether you would consider it in order for the Parliamentary Bureau to timetable an emergency statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on the outbreak of Clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital. It is not just a local issue; it is a national issue. Such a statement should set out the timetable for the investigation to date and the measures that are being taken to control the infection. It should also commit the Government to an independent inquiry.

As you, of all people, know, Ms Baillie, that is a matter for you to pursue through your business manager and the bureau.

Unusually, we have further business today, so I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly, please.