Contents
- Scottish Parliament Thursday 15 November 2001 (Morning)
- Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
- Scotland's Natural Heritage
- Parliamentary Bureau Motions
- Business Motion
- Question Time
- First Minister's Question Time
- School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
- Parliamentary Bureau Motion
- Motion without Notice
- Decision Time
- Rural Economy
First Minister's Question Time
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1372)
The Scottish Cabinet will next meet on 20 November when, as ever, it will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
I thank the acting First Minister for his reply. I am sure that Mr Wallace will share my concern that the office of First Minister of the Scottish Executive and of Scottish public life in general has been undermined by the atmosphere of cronyism and secrecy that has dominated the past few weeks. He will know, as I do, that the root causes of that cronyism are the one-party Labour municipal states in central Scotland. To get rid of those one-party states, will the acting First Minister make it clear today that the support of the Liberal Democrats for the nominee for First Minister next Thursday will be conditional on the introduction of a system of fair voting for the 2003 elections?
Mr Wallace will be well aware that he answers only on matters for which he has general responsibility.
It is probably one of the most open secrets in Scottish politics that the Liberal Democrats support proportional representation for local government. I remind Mr Swinney that, in September, First Minister Mr Henry McLeish said:
"We want to ensure that we can effectively hold to account those who take decisions, so the Kerley principles will be at the heart of our modernisation of local government."—[Official Report, 5 September 2001; c 2202.]
Mr Swinney ought to reflect on the fact that the commitment to make progress on electoral reform for local government was in the partnership agreement and in the second programme for government, which was agreed by both parties and published earlier this year. Progress has been made and will continue to be made.
I can also tell Mr Swinney that, when Mr McConnell comes to the Liberal Democrat group, as he has volunteered to do, it will not only be that subject that we discuss. Unlike Mr Swinney's party, we are not a one-issue party. We will not be seeking to renegotiate the partnership agreement. We will be asking Mr McConnell to affirm—as I am sure he will—his support for the partnership agreement. As Minister for Finance, with the funding that he gave to local government, and as Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, with what he has delivered on McCrone, he has done more than his fair share in delivering on that agreement.
I want to make it clear that Mr Wallace is here as Deputy First Minister and not as leader of the Liberal Democrats. Questions should relate to that general responsibility.
It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are not a one-policy party, but what we want to know is this: are they an any-principle party? Will the acting First Minister take the opportunity today to confirm that, having made no progress for 17 months since the publication of the Kerley report, he will make support for the next First Minister conditional on the introduction of PR for the 2003 elections? Does he not realise that tackling the problems of cronyism must be done by the First Minister—unless that First Minister is corroded by them as well?
Obviously, I do not accept the premise of Mr Swinney's question. However, I would say this. Mr Swinney talks about principles. His party's principle of independence is one that, in most election addresses, he seems scared to mention.
We have taken steps towards putting some of our principles into practice. That is why, over the past two and a half years, the partnership Government has delivered on the abolition of tuition fees, on free personal care for the elderly, on concessionary fares for the elderly, on large increases in teachers' pay, on a record number of police officers and on free nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. That is what I call putting principles into practice. I am pleased to have been a member of an Administration that has done that.
Mr Wallace forgot to mention that 8,000 more people are on waiting lists since the Liberal Democrats came to office, that prison numbers are at their highest, that unemployment has gone up and that manufacturing is in recession. Is it not time that the acting First Minister put some of his principles into practice and did something to live up to the demands of his back benchers by tackling cronyism and by getting fair voting into our local authority elections? When will the principles come forward?
I have heard all that before from SNP members. They said it when the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Labour party went into the Scottish Constitutional Convention. They said that we would never deliver and that we would certainly not deliver proportional representation, but we provided the blueprint for a Scottish Parliament, which now exists, and we delivered proportional representation. If it were not for that, there would be only seven members on the SNP benches and one on the Conservative benches. [Applause.]
Who is next?
I call David McLetchie.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I thought that this was a Parliament, not a pantomime, but seasonal touches on the Government benches are always welcome.
I generously welcome back Mr Wallace for the third time in his capacity as acting First Minister. If we were playing under the Jules Rimet rules, he would get to keep the job, but it is probably just as well for us all that he will not.
I will kick off by asking the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1373)
I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for his kind words of welcome.
I met the Secretary of State for Scotland on Sunday of this week and have subsequently spoken to her on the telephone. I have no immediate plans for a further meeting.
I am sure that the acting First Minister will enjoy reporting to the Secretary of State for Scotland on recent events. As someone with a track record of providing supine support for her bosses, the secretary of state will no doubt have been mightily impressed by the silence of the Lib Dem lambs in the Parliament in the past few weeks.
Mr McLetchie, I repeat what I said earlier about Mr Wallace's role.
I am coming to the question. Will the Deputy First Minister explain how he and his party have the brass neck to claim taxpayers' money as an Opposition party in the Parliament, when they spend their time offering slavish and uncritical support to their masters?
Your question must be on the Deputy First Minister's areas of general responsibility.
It is. The Deputy First Minister is responsible for the rules that relate to Short money in the Parliament. I ask him whether claiming that money is akin to taking money under false pretences. Should not we change the rules to reflect political realities?
I think that the rules to which Mr McLetchie refers are in an order in council under section 97 of the Scotland Act 1998. He has again missed the point. My party, in coalition with the Labour party, has been delivering for Scotland on a range of issues that have mattered to us as a party over many years and—to keep myself in order, Presiding Officer—that matter to the Executive. We have been delivering and will continue to deliver. If the Parliament chooses to elect Mr McConnell next week, we will continue to deliver for the people of Scotland. That is in stark contrast to the kind of opposition that we have been seeing, which rarely mentions the issues that are of importance to the people of Scotland.
The Deputy First Minister has clearly not been listening. We have been focusing on the issues for two and a half years. He has been obsessed with irrelevancies.
People know where the effective opposition lies in this Parliament and where the loyalties of certain people lie. A couple of weeks ago, the Deputy First Minister was so enamoured of his relationship with his Labour colleagues in the Scottish Executive that he declared his undying love in the pages of The Herald. Was Henry McLeish not inadvertently right when he famously said that there was
"only one party in this coalition"?—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c399.]
Given that no one in the Labour party has the guts to take on Jack McConnell, if the acting First Minister wants to prove that he is an independent partner in the coalition, why does he not stand for First Minister next Thursday?
I am not sure how much of that was in order. The article in The Herald to which Mr McLetchie refers stated that the party that I wanted to win was the Liberal Democrats. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. We all know Mr McLetchie's agenda. Since he became leader of the Scottish Conservatives, he has systematically tried to undermine the Parliament. He said in a radio interview at the weekend that, if the devolution referendum were rerun, he still would not vote yes-yes. He confirmed what we all know: he is a no-no man leading a no-no party.
Drug Misuse
To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive is making in tackling drug misuse. (S1F-1386)
We are making solid progress in implementing Scotland's drugs strategy and action plan in our communities, backed by almost £130 million in new resources. Achievements to date include the provision of drugs education in 97 per cent of schools in Scotland and the successes of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which seized drugs with a street value of more than £17.8 million in its first year. Scotland's first drugs court sat this week and my colleague Iain Gray announced plans this week to open another one in Fife.
Will Jim Wallace join me in welcoming that decision to open the second drugs court in Fife and in particular the additional £3 million of resources that will be made available to Fife Health Board and Fife Council for treatment, rehabilitation and work with families and young people? Will he also welcome the support for the Drug and Alcohol Project Levenmouth to develop services for under-18s in north-east Fife? Does he acknowledge that that is part of recognising that drug abuse and misuse is a problem in rural areas as well as in urban environments? Finally, will he indicate what proportion of the Scottish Executive's expenditure on tackling drug misuse is spent on enforcement, treatment and rehabilitation, and education?
On the last part of Iain Smith's question, around 40 per cent of expenditure goes on enforcement, compared with 43 per cent on drug treatment and rehabilitation and 17 per cent on prevention. That underlines our approach to treatment and rehabilitation to enable drug users to put their drug problems behind them and lead normal lives. We are improving services that provide training and education to help that to happen. I welcome the additional resources that have been made available in Fife to the local authority and health board. That will be part of the efforts that are being made in Fife with the drugs court. I accept that there are issues with the provision of services in the rural parts of Fife. It is my understanding that, although gaps exist in the provision of treatment and rehabilitation, they are being addressed by the Fife drug and alcohol action team.
I call Shona Robison. Can we keep questions short and to the point, please?
Is the Deputy First Minister aware of the research report published today showing the prevalence of drug misuse in Scotland? Does he agree that it is extremely concerning that Dundee has the second highest level of problematic drug misuse in Scotland, followed by Aberdeen, which has the third highest? Is he aware that, since 1997, when Labour came to power, the level of problematic drug misuse has been on the increase in Dundee and Aberdeen? Does he accept that those increases are a clear indication of his Government's failure to tackle drug misuse in Scotland?
I am aware of the prevalence study that has been published today and the disturbing figures throughout Scotland, specifically those for Dundee and Aberdeen, as Shona Robison mentioned. I do not think that drug misuse started in 1997 and I honestly do not think that it is a subject that lends itself to the making of partisan political points—the issue should be a matter of concern to the entire Parliament. We should acknowledge that efforts are being made in enforcement, in rehabilitation and treatment and in prevention and education. The package is comprehensive and I hope that it commends itself to all sections of the Parliament.
Is it acceptable for Moray Council to hold back more than £113,000, which was allocated by the Executive for the care and treatment of drug users, while those who seek help are told to come back in four to eight weeks?
I do not have any specific information on what is happening in Moray Council, but I hope that the resources that the Executive is making available to be channelled to different parts of Scotland for rehabilitation and treatment are used wisely and are directed towards rehabilitation and treatment. As I indicated, enforcement is part of the strategy, but so is the need to tackle the problems of those who are misusing drugs so that, as far as possible, they can get back to leading normal lives.
Can the acting First Minister assure us that the cross-ministerial group on drug misuse will study that important prevalence report with great care? As the acting First Minister has said, the figures are disturbing. Almost twice the previous estimate—some 55,800 people—are misusing opiates and benzodiazepines. In light of those worrying figures, will the acting First Minister consider the Executive's strategy and the resources allocated?
I assure Mr Raffan that the figures will be given serious consideration. He mentions that the figures appear to have doubled. It is important to point out that the figure of 30,000 was a guesstimate at best. The important point of the present study is that it is robust and, perhaps for the first time, gives the base data with which we can measure progress and get on with the important jobs that have to be done in tackling drug misuse.
Beatson Oncology Centre
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive will take to improve the quality of care and treatment provided to cancer patients at the Beatson oncology centre in Glasgow. (S1F-1371)
The Executive is committed to improving cancer services in every part of Scotland. We recognise the importance of delivering the right investment where it is needed most. That is why Glasgow is receiving the lion's share of new investment—some £50 million is already committed. The Executive is of course very concerned by the news of recent departures of key staff from the Beatson oncology centre. The Minister for Health and Community Care demanded a report from the NHS in Glasgow. That report was received yesterday and the minister will give it urgent consideration.
Is the acting First Minister aware of concerns in Glasgow that the cancer care situation has got worse instead of better in recent months? Is he aware of information that I received from a senior cancer consultant in Glasgow that, because of staff shortages in the Beatson oncology centre, clinics for lung cancer, breast cancer and gynaecological cancer will be withdrawn from the south side of Glasgow after 1 January 2002? Does he agree that such a loss of services in the city with the highest cancer rates in Europe would be unacceptable? Will he assure us that he and the Scottish Executive will take immediate action to ensure that those vital cancer services are protected?
I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed; we take them seriously. As Nicola Sturgeon will be the first to acknowledge, this is a serious issue. That is why Susan Deacon demanded an urgent report from the NHS in Glasgow and why—as I indicated in the original answer—the lion's share of new resources has been committed to Glasgow. I am advised that the trust is taking steps to provide locum cover to bridge the gap caused by the recent departures and that steps will be taken to fill the vacancies.
I am also advised that a dedicated full-time manager to support the work of the doctors and nurses at the Beatson will start on Monday. By the end of next week, a national team of cancer experts will have been assembled to give Beatson doctors extra support and advice. In addition, we have already committed £44 million to build a new, state-of-the-art cancer centre in Glasgow. I accept that there are concerns, but I hope that Nicola Sturgeon recognises that several specific measures are being taken to address them.
The acting First Minister might be aware that I have been in close contact with the Beatson oncology centre to monitor arrangements for the transfer of the service to a single site in Bill Butler's constituency for the benefit of patients in the west of Scotland in general. Does he agree that the fundamental problem is that we simply do not train and retain enough specialist staff to respond to the demands on cancer services? Training doctors and surgeons is not the only issue—specialist nurses and, in particular, radiographers are important. Will the acting First Minister agree to examine medical school numbers and schemes to retain cancer specialists of all kinds?
I accept that producing skilled cancer consultants is not just a matter of turning on a tap—long lead times are often involved. Pauline McNeill makes an important point about addressing those issues for the future through medical students.
A range of issues must be dealt with. I hope that I have indicated that there is a range of responses. I add that I am advised that the local trust has confirmed that, if necessary, it will headhunt across Europe to find the right people.
Does the Deputy First Minister realise that the plight at the Beatson reflects the whole health scandal in Glasgow, where people die about six years earlier than people on the east coast? I ask the Deputy First Minister to turn his attention to the west, which has been shamefully neglected by the Executive. Does he not think it shameful that, for some cancers, people in Glasgow have the worst survival rate outside Estonia?
In my first answer to Nicola Sturgeon, I said that Glasgow had received a substantial share of the new resources that have been made available. It is simplistic to make a direct comparison to the situation at the Beatson, as was done in that question. It is widely recognised that many of the more deprived parts of Scotland have serious life-expectancy issues. The Executive gives that matter serious attention, but there is no simplistic answer. Our commitment to health promotion, tackling inequalities and tackling poverty has an important part to play in raising life expectancy in some of the deprived parts of Scotland, not least those in the west.