Plenary, 13 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, February 13, 2003

Official Report 703KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-2493)

I plan to meet the Prime Minister in the next few days and we will discuss a number of important issues. [Interruption.]

Order. There should be no interruption from the public gallery. [Interruption.] Order. The people who are creating a disturbance will leave the gallery. I will allow injury time, as we have lost a minute. [Interruption.] Let us settle down. I want to hear what is happening on the floor, not upstairs.

Today, the First Minister met chief constables to discuss domestic security, and I welcome those discussions. Does he accept the concern in our community that a unilateral strike on Iraq might increase the risk of a terrorist attack in this country?

It would be wrong to pre-empt the important discussions that will take place at the United Nations in the next few days, which will determine the situation. What is important now and has been important since September 2001, which was almost 18 months ago, is that we in Scotland are as prepared as people in any other part of the developed world should be for the possibility of a terrorist attack somewhere in the United Kingdom.

The chief constables of Scotland are well prepared for that eventuality. The meeting this morning was comprehensive and thorough. I am sure that they have the resources at hand that will help them to deal with such a situation.

On the day when the First Minister took office, he told the chamber that he would always

"stand for and speak for … the people of Scotland".—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; c 4154.]

This week, it was revealed that nine out of 10 people in Scotland oppose a unilateral military strike on Iraq. Will the First Minister be true to his pledge to the Parliament, speak for the people of Scotland and tell the Prime Minister that when it comes to the Prime Minister's plans for war, the people of Scotland say, "Not in our name"?

The opinion polls also showed that the majority of people in Scotland would back the United Nations if it passed a resolution that supported action against Iraq. That is not the Scottish National Party's position and Mr Swinney should be consistent. If the United Nations is good enough to support, it is good enough to support when it wants to take action. I urge Mr Swinney and his party to change their position and to back the United Nations. [Interruption.]

Order.

If the First Minister had attended the parliamentary debate on the international situation, he would have heard the position of the Scottish National Party, which is not as he misrepresented it.

This weekend, the people of Scotland, the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, four political parties and many other organisations will gather to oppose unilateral military action. On this vital question, and given that nine out of 10 people in Scotland oppose unilateral military action, does the First Minister back the people of Scotland or the Prime Minister in London? The Prime Minister is lobbying for war. Will the First Minister join the rest of us in arguing for peace?

The Prime Minister is not lobbying for war. He is lobbying to ensure that the United Nations carries out action, if that is required, to implement its previous resolutions, which require action by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government. It is simply not good enough to play party politics with such a serious issue. [Interruption.] I attended the debate. I heard it said that the Scottish National Party would not support the United Nations if it decides to take action in Iraq. Mr Swinney reserved the right to contradict the United Nations in that situation.

The majority of the people of Scotland support the idea that if the United Nations makes the decision, the United Nations should act. If the United Nations does act, I hope that Mr Swinney will back it.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2507)

Among a number of important issues, at its next meeting the Cabinet will discuss health issues and children's services.

I hope that, following the First Minister's meeting this morning, the Cabinet will also consider the security situation in Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that language has become so debased, has been used so manipulatively and has been elevated to such a fine art in recent times that the public in many instances no longer know what to believe?

That was exemplified yesterday and this morning in the furore over Mr John Reid's statement, which has confused and worried the public. Does the First Minister agree that we need clarity of purpose and expression if we are to reassure the public at this time? Will he do everything he can to ensure that a measured approach is adopted in Scotland to issues of public safety?

I agree with Mr McLetchie on the matter. I believe that it is vital, in Scotland as it is elsewhere, that we are clear not only in reassuring the public that there is no specific threat to Scotland at this time but in saying that there is a general threat to the United Kingdom. In that situation, we have to be well prepared, not only at our airports, as was identified this week, but in other parts of our country and in our lives here in Scotland. I want to ensure that the arrangements are properly in place. I believe that this morning's meeting with the chief constables—[Interruption.]

I believe that the Scottish Parliament has conducted itself well in the debate on the matter. It was right and proper that we had a debate on the subject and it was right and proper that we conducted the debate in a proper way. [Interruption.]

Order. It is bad enough having shouting from the gallery; we do not want it in the chamber as well.

Those who seek to suggest that the Parliament does not represent the views of the people of Scotland on the matter are wrong. It is important that we take the issues seriously.

You were not prepared to debate the matter.

These are not issues for catcalling in the chamber or for abuse of the sort that we have seen today; these are issues that have to be taken very seriously indeed. That is why, in the face of public concern about a security threat, clarity was as important yesterday as it is today and why we will continue to have the clarity that Mr McLetchie has requested. I will ensure, as the Deputy First Minister will ensure, that we work closely with the chief constables and other services in Scotland. To do so will ensure that Scotland is as safe a place as it can be.

On matters concerning the state of preparedness, is the First Minister aware of the National Audit Office report into national health service planning? The report, which was published last November, exposed significant shortcomings in the preparation for major casualty incidents south of the border. In particular, it highlighted concerns about a lack of communication between the NHS and the emergency services. Will the First Minister tell me how effective the NHS in Scotland has been in putting our equivalent guidelines in place? Is he satisfied that the NHS is prepared for contingencies?

On a wider note, following the meeting this morning to which he referred, is the First Minister satisfied that everything that can realistically be done to protect the public is being done? Are we striking the right balance between giving the public adequate information on the one hand and not causing undue alarm or compromising police operations on the other hand?

On David McLetchie's second point, there is, at times, a difficult balance to strike. It is not just a matter of confidentiality of information, but of not compromising police operations or the court proceedings that are likely to happen in Scotland this year in relation to the terrorist suspects that are currently accused and in Scottish jails.

Six have been released.

If Mr Sheridan thinks that it is a joke that people in Scotland are accused of terrorist crimes—

Seven were arrested, but six have been released.

Order. Mr Sheridan, you must stop shouting during answers.

I would not take anybody's name in vain, and it is important to use the words "suspects" and "alleged" in relation to these matters. The reality is that there are people currently charged with terrorist offences here in Scotland. Therefore, we need to be alert and vigilant to the overall threat that exists in the United Kingdom, and we are. As part of that, we have a proper emergencies committee, which includes the health service, that is examining all eventualities. I believe that the state of preparedness is significantly better than it was 18 months ago at the time of 11 September 2001. I have every confidence in our health service, our police forces, our Army and anybody else who might need to be involved in ensuring that we have in Scotland good co-ordination and preparedness in the event of any terrorist attack on Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom.

---

Thomas Hamilton (Release of Papers)

To ask the First Minister what time scales have been set for the release of papers relating to the Central Scotland police investigation of 1996 regarding Thomas Hamilton. (S1F-2512)

It is imperative that personal data are not made available during the lifetime of the children who are named or identified in the reports and their families. However, I can confirm that the Lord Advocate is actively considering what access can be made available to productions lodged with Lord Cullen's inquiry, including police reports, that are closed for 100 years.

Obviously, the matter is very sensitive and affects a great many of my constituents. Will the First Minister reassure them that the public inquiry had unrestricted access to all papers relating to the police investigation? Clarity is needed on the matter, but I hope that any review would take on board primarily the views of those most affected by the tragedy.

Will the First Minister also reassure Parliament that the confidentiality and privacy of those involved will not be breached, because the feelings of those involved in the tragedy must be paramount? I hope that those in the chamber will respect that.

I am happy to give those assurances. I know of Sylvia Jackson's interest in the matter, not least because I am an ex-resident of Dunblane.

One of the most important aspects of the situation since 1996 is the way in which representatives of all parties have done all that they can to ensure that no one has made political capital or points out of any events relating to the tragedy. Michael Forsyth, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, conducted himself impeccably at the time in liaising with other parties. I certainly commit myself to doing the same.

The ultimate interest has to lie with the children and their descendants. I want to ensure that anybody who had contact with Thomas Hamilton over the years, and who may be mentioned in the reports, is not in any way compromised or embarrassed by that in the future. That said, it is also important that we make available, if at all possible, any information that relates to people who are in the public eye, not just to reassure the public, but to make sure that nobody's position on the matter can be distorted in years to come.

Does the First Minister accept that the original decision was a matter for Lord Cullen and the Crown Office, and that whatever view is taken of the terms of that decision, it was made to protect the children concerned, and made in good faith?

I am not just happy, but keen, to give that assurance. I believe that the decisions made by Lord Cullen at the time were made in the interests of the families in Dunblane. Any decisions subsequent to that have been made with the same interests firmly in mind.

The tragedy happened only seven years ago, and the memories will be very sharp indeed for the families. I urge all members in the Parliament to remember that and to respect the fact that it is important to put the interests of the children and families of Dunblane first.

The First Minister will be aware that the 100-year rule has been applied to a number of documents relating to the Dunblane incident, some of which make absolutely no reference to children. Will the First Minister confirm today that the Lord Advocate's review will include all documents that have had the 100-year rule applied to them? Will he also explain to the chamber the procedure and tell us who is responsible for deciding whether the 100-year rule will be overturned?

The rule has been sensibly applied, and indeed was applied partly on Lord Cullen's advice. I do not think that anyone over the years has criticised Lord Cullen for the way in which he handled his inquiry and set out his recommendations, or for the entirely appropriate manner in which he dealt with sensitive information not just about families in Dunblane but about the many people who had been in contact with Thomas Hamilton in the years before. It is important to remember that decisions were made on that basis.

In his review, the Lord Advocate will be happy to take up matters of concern where those have been properly expressed. That said, I urge members in the chamber not to make the matter into a party-political issue but to put the interests of the children and families first.

---

Prevention of Illegal and Sectarian Activity

To ask the First Minister what arrangements the police and other agencies are making to ensure that convicted or suspected criminals from Northern Ireland are prevented from continuing illegal and sectarian activity if they choose to take up residence in Scotland. (S1F-2492)

As the chamber knows, I want to end sectarian activity in Scotland in any form. In this instance, there should be no doubt that those who commit criminal offences, wherever they come from, will be pursued with the full force of our current laws. I am also certain that the proposed new law to deal with sectarianism will provide Scottish police forces with an additional advantage in the fight against sectarian crime.

There has clearly been a great deal of reporting on the links between some of those who have come to Scotland—not just in recent weeks, but before now—and organised crime in Scotland, specifically drug dealing. Certainly in Ayrshire, as in many other parts of Scotland, drug dealing is out of control and is causing an absolute disaster in many communities. Will the First Minister assure me, the chamber and Scotland that the police will be extra vigilant on this matter and will ensure that any money that comes into Scotland is not used to finance drug dealing and the death of our young people?

I am happy to give that assurance.

Does the First Minister agree that, notwithstanding the established freedom to travel within the UK, some of those who have recently come to Scotland bring with them attitudes that are alien to the vast majority of Scots? Does he further agree that it is essential that people do not react to any provocation that is caused by their presence?

Yes, that is certainly the case. I think that it would be very easy to react to the presence in Scotland of people who are associated with criminal activity, sectarian crime or terrorism in Northern Ireland. I hope that people in Scotland will not overreact to the situation, but will support the police in their job, which they did very well in Cairnryan and south-east Scotland last week. They will do so again when they are called upon and needed to do so.

---

Her Majesty's Government Initiatives (Consultations)

To ask the First Minister what arrangements are in place for advance consultations on initiatives by Her Majesty's Government that impact on Scotland. (S1F-2501)

The memorandum of understanding and bilateral departmental concordats underpin all consultations and information exchange between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. Consultations on UK Government initiatives that are likely to have an impact on Scotland take place frequently at official and ministerial levels.

In the light of the recent controversy over fire service settlement legislation and matters such as the effect on Scotland of top-up fees being imposed on universities in England, does the First Minister accept that current arrangements are not working as smoothly as they might? Does he envisage any change in those arrangements to strengthen the direct links between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government? Furthermore, does he regard the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland's office as a help or a hindrance in that context?

The Scotland Office is certainly of great assistance to the Scottish Executive in such matters and regularly represents Scotland's interests in the UK Government, even when we are not directly involved. That is for the benefit of Scotland.

There have been recent instances—for example, in relation to fire services legislation—where there could have been closer liaison in both directions. It is important that we learn from those examples and that we improve the situation. I believe that one of the remarkable successes of devolution is the fact that relationships between the Parliament and the Executive and the Government in London have been cordial and satisfactory during the past four years. That is the strength on which this young Parliament can build in its second term.

A few months ago, the First Minister announced that there would be an announcement soon on initiatives—presumably in relation to reserved and devolved matters—to deal with the falling population in Scotland. In the light of the census report this morning, will he tell us when those measures will be announced?

I expect to refer to those matters in the very near future.

I said that I would allow injury time. Question 6 is from Bill Butler.

---

Health Policy

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's policy paper on health will be published. (S1F-2511)

We will publish a health white paper in the next few weeks, setting out how we will improve health and deliver better health services for the people of Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his succinct answer. Most of my constituents would say that reducing waiting times is the central challenge facing the national health service. Undoubtedly, some progress has been made with the purchase of the former Health Care International hospital, but other factors impact on cutting waiting times, such as staff recruitment. Given the socialist belief in a health service that is freely available to all at the point of need, will the First Minister assure the chamber today that meeting the Executive's target of no one waiting more than nine months for surgery by the end of this year will be central to the strategy outlined in the coming white paper?

Mr Butler raises two issues. The first was in relation to the former HCI hospital—now the Golden Jubilee national hospital—in Clydebank. I confirm that the new hospital is well on its way to reaching its target of 5,000 additional operations in its first year of operation. That is of remarkable benefit to the people not just in the west of Scotland but throughout Scotland who are undergoing those procedures.

On the wider issue of waiting times and the target of nine months by the end of this year for those with a guarantee, I confirm not only that we are well on the way to reaching the target by the end of the year, but that if any health boards in Scotland do not reach the target, they will pay for people to have their operations carried out elsewhere.

When finalising the health white paper, will the First Minister reflect on the news that the former HCI hospital was forced to send hundreds of patients away in December because of a shortage of staff? Will he guarantee that the white paper will include a series of practical measures to tackle the very serious recruitment crisis that lies at the heart of many of the problems facing the NHS today?

The Golden Jubilee national hospital did not turn away hundreds of patients—that is a distortion and one that demeans the staff in the hospital. It is wrong to repeat it in the chamber. I met staff from the former HCI hospital in Clydebank last night at a reception in Edinburgh Castle to celebrate the work of NHS staff. Their commitment to working inside the national health service and to delivering a national service was very good to see. It was also good to see their appreciation of the wider range of staff available in the hospital, the additional operating theatres and the additional operations that are being carried out. They see the benefits for patients, not just in the west of Scotland, but throughout Scotland. The thousands of patients who will benefit from the purchase in the years to come will not be happy with the sort of statements that have been made today.

That concludes question time. Since we were interrupted several times, I assure the chamber that I will discuss the implications with our security staff.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the debate on the international situation that was sponsored by the SNP on 16 January, the member for Hamilton South, Mr McCabe, said that he was moving his amendment on behalf of the Labour party and went on to say:

"The question is not whether the SNP is entitled to pursue its aims, but how and when it should do so and whether it should be able, without being open to the charge of opportunism, to raise issues for which this Parliament has no responsibility."—[Official Report, 16 January 2003; c 17024.]

He went on to talk about "unpardonable folly".

In the light of that, will you tell me whether you think that the First Minister is in breach of the ministerial code and misled Parliament when he said today that he thought it right and proper that Parliament discussed the matter and that he supported having the debate?

There are two answers to that. First of all, the ministerial code is not a matter for me—it is not a matter of order in the chamber. Secondly, I think that Mr Morgan is trying to continue the argument after we have finished question time. We must move now to our next item of business.