Plenary, 13 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, January 13, 2000

Official Report 854KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1F-1) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): To be precise and accurate, I should say that I last met the Secretary of State for Scotland last night, but that was in the street and by chance.

I am sure that Alex Salmond actually wants an answer to his question, so I will inform him that the last formal meeting was on 1 December. The routine has been rather interrupted by the holiday period, but I am looking forward to meeting the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow.

I am sure that no turf war took place in the street last night.

Does the First Minister remember that, last year, when he had something to do with the Scottish Office, the Scottish Office's response to a decline in student applications was that the figures were misleading and not a good indicator? Now that that decline in applications has been transformed into a 2.3 per cent decline in students attending universities and colleges in Scotland, will the First Minister revise his opinion and agree with the central finding of the Cubie committee that the present circumstances of student finance in Scotland, introduced by the Labour party after the election, have been discredited?

Proceedings in the chamber have illustrated the fact that there is always room for argument about the best form of student support. There might be a good deal of agreement about the general principles of fairness and widening access, but there is much dispute about the machinery and the methodology.

Of course, I looked at the figures when they were published the other day. The 2.3 per cent includes quite significant numbers from overseas and from areas for which there are obvious explanations. When that adjustment is made, I think that the decline is just over 1 per cent, which is not quite as significant or exciting as Mr Salmond might like to make it, in particular when it is compared with the high numbers in the immediately preceding year.

I think that a decline in Scottish students attending Scottish universities is highly significant, as is such a decline in students from the rest of the UK, from the rest of Europe and from the rest of the world. The point about the figures is that they show a decline in every category of student at Scottish universities. Given that, will the First Minister say—at the second time of asking—whether he agrees with a central finding of the Cubie committee, that the present arrangements for student finance have been discredited?

I have said to Mr Salmond, and I repeat, that if he looks at the variations in student numbers at Scottish universities over a wide range of years, he will see that small gradations from year to year are endemic. There is a small variation this year, which certainly does not substantiate the general attack that Mr Salmond is attempting to mount.

The Cubie report is a helpful and important document. We have been totally justified in establishing the Cubie committee by the complexity of its findings and by the fact that it has rejected entirely the simplistic nostrums that were urged upon us by both Mr Salmond's party and Mr McLetchie's when first we came to this chamber.

I can give Mr Salmond a promise that the Executive is looking at the Cubie findings with a great deal of care and attention and that, in due course, we will come to the chamber with some recommendations.

But every other party in the chamber, unlike the Labour party, submitted evidence to the Cubie committee. Can the First Minister address the simple question whether he accepts the finding of the Cubie committee that the present arrangements for student finance have been discredited?

Given the commitment in the Executive's programme for government document "Making a fudge together", to increase student numbers in Scotland by 42,000 by 2002, does the First Minister regard the decline this year of 736 as progress towards that objective?

I will not enter into a competition about fudge making with Mr Salmond, as that would not be particularly helpful. The pledge that we made in our document was made with serious intent, and we intend to work to achieve it. It applies not just to universities, but to further and higher education. If Mr Salmond considers, for example, the substantial increase in funding that we have given to further education and compares our funding for higher education with the Conservative party's plans, he will find that it is likely that we will make that progress. We are certainly providing the resources.

For reasons connected with another question, I have looked at Aberdeen College, which will have an increase of over 12 per cent this year against the previous year's funding. That is typical in the

further education sector.

The subject is broader, and perhaps requires a little more preparation and thought than Mr Salmond has given to his particular points.

I think I know the answer, but I will ask again. To ask the First Minister when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1F-5)

As a result of some very sensible decisions that you have taken, Sir David, this might be that question's last appearance. We ought to say goodbye to an old friend with some affection.

I will content myself by referring Mr McLetchie to the answer that I gave to Mr Salmond some minutes ago.

Thank you. I am sure that I will have the opportunity of reacquainting the First Minister with lots of his old friends on future occasions in question time.

At the First Minister's meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow, will he take up with him the recent comments of his colleague Brian Donohoe, the MP for Cunninghame South? In particular, I refer to Mr Donohoe's comment in last week's Sunday Mail:

"If . . . Holyrood starts delivering and stops wasting money on frivolous ideas".

That comment echoes the views of many people in Scotland about the failings of the Executive. Does the First Minister agree that Mr Donohoe's comments are an indictment of the Executive's whole agenda?

Mr Donohoe has possibly made the mistake of concentrating on the ideas of the Conservative party, as expressed in this chamber. I do not agree with him.

I did not expect Mr Dewar to agree with him. At this very moment, no doubt, Mr Donohoe is on his way to some political reeducation gulag run by Mr Campbell. [Laughter.]

I invite the First Minister to consider that perhaps Mr Donohoe is simply reflecting the views of many people in Ayrshire. After all, the health service is in crisis, crime is rising at a time when the number of police officers is falling, and the Executive is intent on taxing motorists off the roads and not investing money in our roads network. Is it not time to face the fact that the Scottish public are severely disillusioned with the performance of the Administration and that the First Minister should be making a new year resolution to put the Scottish Parliament back on the right track?

I notice that the Ayr by- election has started early. I can promise the chamber—and Mr McLetchie specifically—that I will not come to listen to him in Ayr when he makes the same speech again.

Will the First Minister join me in expressing disappointment that my Ayrshire colleague, Mr Gallie, has decided not to run in the Ayr by- election, in favour of Westminster? [MEMBERS: "Answer."] Perhaps the First Minister would care to speculate as to whether that tells us something about how the Conservatives view their prospects in Ayr. [Interruption.]

Order. Questions to the First Minister can be only on matters for which he is responsible. He is not responsible for anything in the Conservative party—of that I am certain.

In that case, I am in some difficulties, Sir David. Perhaps I will confine myself to saying that that is an interesting comment on the priority given to the Parliament by the deputy leader of the Conservative group. I am tempted to remark that on this occasion, Mr Gallie is voting with his feet, which is probably a more effective way of acting than voting with his head. [Laughter.]

Thank you. From the acclaim in the chamber, it is obvious that the Conservatives will do very well in Ayr. Indeed, that will be the case. As far as my own position goes, I have made it quite clear that I support the Scottish Parliament. It is here; it has to be made to stay as part of the union. It is important that it works with Westminster, and on that basis, Westminster will require people who have experience of both Parliaments. I look forward to winning the seat in Ayr on a future occasion. [Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry, First Minister, but we are not going to have questions in the chamber about by-elections. It was not even a question, anyway.

---

National Health Service

To ask the First Minister whether he will outline his plans to alleviate the current pressures experienced by the NHS. (S1F-15) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): My colleague Susan Deacon, the Minister for Health and Community Care, gave a very full account yesterday of the comprehensive action being taken by the NHS in Scotland to deal with the severe pressure currently arising from flu and flu- like illnesses. It is—and we make no secret of it— an extremely testing time for the NHS, but we

believe that it is meeting the challenge and that people are receiving the urgent treatment and care that they need.

I would like to endorse the tribute paid by Susan Deacon to all NHS staff for their whole-hearted effort and commitment throughout this difficult period. I invite everyone in the chamber to join me in doing that.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Given that there has been a chronic bed shortage in the NHS in Scotland since long before the current flu outbreak, with 1,700 beds lost since March 1997, will the First Minister now give an assurance that immediate funding will be made available to local authorities to allow them to place in nursing and residential care the 2,000 elderly people currently occupying acute hospital beds?

Mrs Ullrich has made that point repeatedly; if it was a good point, I would not object, but I think that she is wrong. We do not strip out beds for financial reasons. We strip out beds because, for example, they are in mental hospitals, which are now outdated and surplus to requirements. When it comes down to the acute beds about which Mrs Ullrich is worried, we remove beds on the basis of the best possible advice—acute services reviews carried out by medical men of reputation and skill.

We do not want a great superfluity of beds—that would be wrong. However, we bring beds into commission as pressures increase. Susan Deacon gave the example of 140 extra beds in Lothian as a response to the present crisis. We will continue that policy. Since 1997, we have increased the number of intensive therapy unit beds by 13 per cent. We will continue to encourage the staff of the health service to use their skills and to make proper judgments on the best way forward.

Mrs Ullrich will know that grant-aided expenditure for social work is now £1.1 billion—it increased by £51.3 million this year. A good deal has been done and we hope to see improvements in the future.

These are quite intractable problems, which are difficult to banish, even with the help of an eloquent speech by Mrs Ullrich.

Any average local authority will have assessed about 120 people awaiting placement for long-term care and will have sufficient funding to place four to six people each month.

I take it that the First Minister's answer to my question is no. Does that mean that he is saying that NHS beds will continue to be blocked and that 2,000 elderly people will continue to be denied the quality of care that they deserve?

No. I was trying to explain to

Mrs Ullrich that there has been a significant increase in funding, through grant-aided expenditure for social work. Furthermore, efforts have been made to ensure that there is a proper supply of beds based on the best medical advice available.

I know that there is a great tendency for ministers and MSPs to throw about statistics, but as Mrs Ullrich has asked me, I should remind her that this year there is £300 million of new money in the health service. Mrs Ullrich may shrug her shoulders and sigh, but when she makes the charge of neglecting the health service and putting nothing into it, I am bound to remind her of the facts.

Over the period of the comprehensive spending review, £1.8 billion cumulatively has been added to the plans that we inherited. Of course we will continue to give priority to the health service—we believe in it and are committed to its success and proper funding. However, we will continue to work in the world of reality, within the boundaries of what any Administration is likely to be able to afford.

I do not think—I say this as one who has been subject to the same temptation—that it is helpful to suggest that it is possible to turn on the tap and cure all problems in a short time. That is a luxury which Opposition parties can believe in, but I assure Mrs Ullrich that it is not helpful.

I join other members in thanking the thousands of NHS staff who have worked well beyond the call of duty over the past few weeks.

With reference to Kay Ullrich's question, I must say that while we will always want—and indeed need—more money for the national health service, the simple fact is that in the three-year period beginning with the establishment of the Parliament, there will be more growth in the NHS budget than at any time in recent history.

I agree with the facts and figures that Malcolm Chisholm has just mentioned. The situation is not without difficulty—that is self- evident and has been underlined by the flu crisis. The situation is improving, in terms of the internal machinery of the health service, the co-ordination of the effort and the resources that are available.

---

Govan Shipyard

To ask the First Minister what steps have been taken by Scottish ministers to support the bid to build up to six roll-on-roll-off ferries for the Ministry of Defence at BAE Systems' Govan shipyard. (S1F-17) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): Scottish

ministers are fully aware that that order is critically important in securing a future for the BAE Systems yard in Govan. The Secretary of State for Defence is aware of and appreciates the strong support for Govan's bid from all—I hope—the parties in Scotland. He is also aware of the industrial and strategic importance of that particular order.

I welcome the First Minister's answer, and I am sure that my colleagues in the cross-party shipbuilding group will do so as well.

As the First Minister said, the bid is important not only for people in Govan—many people in my constituency work there.

This is a major contract, and securing it would mean three years of job security and would lay real foundations for a long-term future. Does the First Minister agree that it would be an absolute failure and a severe blow to the industry if the contract went outside the United Kingdom?

As Duncan McNeil and most members will appreciate, one of the problems is that this is not a warship contract—it is a contract for commercially operated ferries. The protection for Royal Navy orders that allows us to confine bids to UK yards therefore does not apply.

It is also fair to remind the chamber that the hulls—which would be Govan's contribution if the Sea Lion Consortium were to be successful—are a comparatively small part of the total contract, which includes the running and management of the ferries over a number of years.

It is a complex and difficult situation. I have great faith in Govan and in the work force there. They have done remarkably well to survive recent crises and difficulties. However, it is only prudent and fair to remind people that this is a competitive tender, and that Govan's bid will therefore have to be competitive. With the workers' skills, I very much hope that it will be. Everyone in the chamber will certainly wish Govan well and will do everything that they can to give it a fair wind.

My colleague Henry McLeish has met not only the representatives of the work force, but senior management from BAE Systems. We all hope that there will be a happy outcome, which the yard deserves.

Will the First Minister make representations to the Secretary of State for Defence, to ensure that Scotland puts forward the best possible case to secure the contract for the two supercarriers that are due to be ordered in the next few years for the Ministry of Defence?

That is a rather more general question about different orders, and I might get into difficulty if I went too far down that road.

We are in an age in which the competitiveness of the tender and the ability to meet the technical specifications are the first essential requirements for any successful bid. Orders of this importance are not and should not normally be settled on competitive lobbying, but are settled on the ability to deliver. That is a truism which we should not lose sight of.

We will have one last question, from Jamie Stone.

As I will not get to ask my coppers question, I will repeat Ben Wallace's question and ask the First Minister to consider the BARMAC yards and—

I called Mr Stone to ask question 5 on police funding. He has blown it, Mr Dewar, but you may answer.

The BARMAC question definitely goes somewhat wide of the original question 5, but I understand Jamie Stone's concern and interest. The situation is difficult, because we have lost a large number of jobs up there in what is, admittedly, a cyclical industry. The support group for oil and gas fabricators is sitting at the moment. The Government is at that table along with the owners, and we will do all that we can to encourage the industry—although, as I am sure Jamie Stone recognises, the present stage of development in the North sea makes it harder to find the kind of large platform orders that have traditionally gone to BARMAC and yards like it.

It may be of little comfort at the moment, but I was pleased to see that the yard at Methil had this week at least obtained an order worth, I think, £14 million for a structure. We have to hope that the steps that the Government has taken to stimulate the oil industry and exploration in the North sea will, over a period, bring some recovery to an industry that is of real importance to the Highlands.