Plenary, 16 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, November 16, 2000

Official Report 720KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-661)

I speak regularly to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the telephone, but I have no immediate plans to meet him.

When he next meets the Secretary of State for Scotland or talks to him on the telephone, will the First Minister discuss unemployment in Scotland? The SNP welcomes any new jobs created in Scotland and any decline in unemployment. However, I draw the First Minister's attention to some worrying new research that landed on my desk this morning from the Scottish Parliament information centre, which shows that only half the people who have left the unemployment register in the past year have gone into employment. Is the First Minister aware of that fact, and is he satisfied with it?

The Administration wants to trumpet full employment. We also want to ensure that when people leave the register, they end up either in productive work or in training or education that enhances their opportunities. If there is evidence, we want to examine it, but the figures are excellent—unemployment continues to go down and there has been a cut of 5,000 in the International Labour Organisation figures. Those figures are welcome. In addition, we have record levels of employment in Scotland, low levels of unemployment and an economy that is moving forward. Everybody in the chamber should welcome that.

Does the First Minister accept that many of the points that he made could have been made by Michael Forsyth, Ian Lang or Malcolm Rifkind, speaking about the way in which they went about things? We have a First Minister who makes second-hand excuses for the previous Administration. From his answer, am I to assume that the First Minister accepts the research that I have presented to Parliament today, which shows that of the people coming off the unemployment register, only half go into employment? Yes or no?

Another yes-or-no question. If John Swinney takes employment and unemployment seriously, he will listen to what I said. If he wants me to look at any bit of research in Scotland, that is fine. However, the key issue about lowering the number of people on the unemployment register is to get people into productive work, which is employment, or into education, training or skills enhancement.

The issue is far more complex than John Swinney would have us believe. As for his suggestion about Ian Lang and Michael Forsyth, the answer is no, because they never had the privilege of being able to say that full employment could be a reality in their generation. They did not have the benefit of being able to say that we have the highest employment figures since 1966 and the lowest unemployment since 1976. If anyone wants evidence of real economic success, they have it.

I am afraid that the First Minister has not listened to some of his ministers. The Minister for Social Justice, in response to my colleague Mr Quinan, has just said that the Government's priority is to get people back to work. I took that as a measure of the Government's priorities, but let us move on.

The Government is undertaking a policy review with Mr McCabe at the helm. Will the First Minister give Parliament an assurance that he will propose solutions—specific new initiatives—that address the fact that 50 per cent of the people leaving the register are not going into employment, or is that something he leaves to his friends at Westminster to decide? Will the First Minister give us first-class answers rather than second-hand excuses?

It is evident that we have no shortage of second-hand questions.

This is a ridiculous situation for any party leader to be suggesting. I have made the point that we have low figures for unemployment and high figures for employment. It seems to me that the balance of advantage between the two is right. Forgive me for repeating myself, Sir David, but if people leave the register, they want to go into productive work, education, training or skills enhancement.

Let us not forget a fact that the SNP might want us to forget: we have the possibility of getting the unemployment claimant count in Scotland below 100,000. Also, if the figures for vacancies in job centres are multiplied by three, as John Swinney has done, we have more than 120,000 vacancies. The SNP peddles dismal stories, but we have a success story on our hands, which everyone in the chamber should welcome.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-662)

I last met the Prime Minister on 23 October. I have no immediate plans to meet him again.

I wonder whether, when he next meets the Prime Minister, the First Minister will raise with him the issue of the link between the number of Scottish MPs in Westminster and the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, which was enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998.

This week, the First Minister was reported as saying that he wanted to end that link and he is now busily engaged in a rewriting of history. Before all the errors are snopaked out, would he remind us who was responsible for piloting the Scotland Act through the House of Commons and why he voted against Conservative amendments that would have broken that link? As Hardy might have said—let me just find my piece of paper—"Is this not another fine mess you have got us into and another residue of a badly drafted piece of legislation?"

I think I enjoyed the pause more than I enjoyed the question. Sir David—

I am quite sure that the First Minister enjoyed the pause more; the question is highly embarrassing for him.

I apologise for being distracted by another sedentary intervention from Phil Gallie.

This is an important issue for Scotland. I should have the support of the whole Parliament when I say that, when the legislation went through, the Scottish Parliament did not exist and neither did the Scottish Executive. It makes sense for this Parliament to say that the political circumstances have changed since that event. I have always been a believer in flexibility.

My position—and I hope it has the support of David McLetchie—is that, as we unfold the boundary review of the number of MPs going to Westminster, we will have to consider seriously the issue of the automatic link between the numbers of members in Westminster and Holyrood. That is pragmatic, sensible and reflects the new circumstances. I invite David McLetchie to support the position that I am making public today in the chamber and which I also made public on a television programme earlier in the week.

Of course we support the position. We were the ones who got it right two years ago; the First Minister is the one who got it wrong. We welcome this latter-day conversion on the road to Damascus.

Another legacy of the Scotland Act is the dual mandate. On a day when 70,000 council workers throughout Scotland are on strike, can the First Minister tell us whether he thinks that it is right that he, his new-found friend Dennis Canavan, the self-styled workers' champion Sam Galbraith and Malcolm Chisholm should receive golden handshakes of up to £48,000 for giving up their Westminster seats when, as MSPs, they already receive far more than the council workers could ever dream of? [Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the answer, please.

The problem that Mr McLetchie describes is not one that the Conservative party will face, given the results of the 1997 election. There are few Conservative MPs who will be in a position to accept money as a result of the dual mandate situation.

This is a serious subject and I have made my position clear. I will not benefit from what it has been suggested that certain MPs will get from Westminster. I also defend the right of every MSP who is also an MP to consider their own situation and make a judgment. I do not want to pry into the financial affairs of any member, but I put on record that I will not take financial advantage of the situation. I hope that David McLetchie will acknowledge that that is an honest response, which leaves it open for other members to make individual judgments on the matter.

When the First Minister next meets the Prime Minister, will they reflect on the issues relating to unemployment that John Swinney raised a moment ago? Will they reflect on the fact that only one in three of the people who had been long-term unemployed and who left the register found work, and that only 7 per cent of those people moved on to training schemes? Is it not the case that those people are leaving the register and going out of the Government's mind, although the Government should be paying attention to them?

Some of my colleagues are slightly puzzled by this question, because I thought that I was asked why 50 per cent of people leaving the register did not end up anywhere.

I asked about the long-term unemployed.

We are now jumping to the long-term unemployed. Let me give members a bit of good news. There has been an enormous reduction in the number of long-term unemployed since Labour came to power in 1997. The efforts of the leader of the Opposition and the shadow finance minister are touching on the margins of this important issue. We have said that people should leave the benefits register with a purpose, and they are doing so. The simple fact that the SNP cannot erase is that employment is at a record high in Scotland and unemployment is at a record low. Those two figures represent a substantial boost to the Scottish economy. The hallmark of this Administration will be full employment.

Will the First Minister ask the SNP where unemployment comes in its list of priorities after its top priority, which is a referendum on the constitution?

The First Minister is not responsible for what the Opposition parties do.

---

BSE

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive will take to reassure people on the public health implications of recent reports of inadequate BSE controls in France. (S1F-655)

On questions of food safety the Scottish Executive is advised by the Food Standards Agency. The agency welcomes the more stringent BSE-related controls that are now applied in France and across the European Union. Such controls have been common in the UK for many years. The agency has made it clear that it will move swiftly if there is evidence that imports from any overseas country constitute an unacceptable risk.

Does the First Minister agree that measures that have been taken in Scotland, such as the ban on the feeding of meat and bonemeal to animals, including pigs and poultry, the over-30-months scheme under which we slaughter every animal that is over 30 months of age, the removal of specified risk material, and some of the tightest regulations of any abattoir industry in the world mean that Scotch beef is the best and safest product in the world? In view of the rise in the number of cases of BSE in countries such as France, can he assure me that he and his ministers are pressing the European Commission to come up to the same standards that we have to meet in Scotland?

I share the sentiments on this that George Lyon has expressed. The very much higher level of BSE in Britain continues to justify our stringent controls. However, the Food Standards Agency will expect the new French controls to apply to any exports to the UK and will pursue the matter with the European Commission and the French authorities. The Executive wants to press the Commission to ensure that the stringent controls that we have developed in this country are applied in every part of the European Union. We owe it to consumers, farmers and our colleagues in Europe to ensure that those colleagues learn from the best steps that have been taken. I assure George Lyon that we will be to the fore in pressing home those points.

How can the people of Scotland be reassured, given that the Scottish Executive did not attend the agriculture council on 23 October and that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Joyce Quin, did not arrange to put this matter on the agenda, even though it was known by mid-October that the French BSE crisis existed? All the unionist parties claim that Scotland has great clout because it belongs to the UK in Europe. Is this an example of that great clout?

Winnie Ewing is fundamentally wrong in principle and in her political analysis. We are part of the United Kingdom—that is the settlement. It is largely ludicrous for the SNP to suggest, in the way that SNP members do, that we are not as involved and as committed. In every Executive department we work closely with our colleagues. It trivialises an issue of European-wide significance that is of great significance for our farmers and consumers to reduce it to Edinburgh versus London, Scotland versus England—more like a football match than a serious consideration of important issues.

---

Public Bodies

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive intends to set a target for a reduction in the number of quangos in Scotland. (S1F-656)

Our overriding objective is to ensure value for public money to the people of Scotland. That is why our starting point will be to ask the fundamental why question of every public body. Each body will need to convince the Executive that it should continue to exist and that it carries out its functions effectively and efficiently. If not, it will be abolished and its functions carried out in another way.

Honestly, that was not a planted question. I welcome the Executive's pragmatic bonfire. Is the First Minister aware that, when I was at the rural affairs department, I was asking fundamental questions about the Forestry Commission, a quango that is responsible for around 17 per cent of the land area of Scotland?

How can we tolerate a situation where the unelected Forestry Commission has the power but elected ministers are left to pick up the tab? I was still waiting for answers to some of my questions when I left the department. I urge the First Minister and the Executive to include the Forestry Commission in a radical review of Scotland's quangos.

I have an early meeting with Andrew Smith at the Treasury in relation to the Forestry Commission. I acknowledge John Home Robertson's concerns and am happy to discuss them further with him. [Interruption.] The question of quangos is important for Scotland. The situation, if the SNP would listen for a moment—

Order.

We now have a Scottish Parliament and an Executive. That was a major constitutional change. Local government is being reformed and renewed. It is essential that we look at the very important area of quangos, which spend nearly £6 billion of public funds. I hope that that will have the support of the whole Parliament. Surely we must want to strengthen scrutiny and accountability, and if we find that a journey for a quango is no longer necessary, that journey should be terminated.

Will the First Minister indicate when he hopes to conclude the review of the quangos and when the parallel review of the system of public appointments will be completed and announced? Does he have a target number in mind for the reduction of quangos? Will the Executive support my member's bill to democratise public appointments in Scotland?

I can answer some of Alex Neil's questions, but not the latter point. We want the review to be done speedily. There is likely to be an outline paper to Cabinet before Christmas the implications and details of which will ultimately be made available to Parliament. I very much want to see consensus on the issue. Public money and the way we do business in Scotland is important to Alex's party as well as to mine, and to others. We will move very quickly. The paper will include the point about an appointments commissioner. I hope that, early in the new year, the Parliament as a whole can tackle this radical issue.

---

Paediatric and Maternity Services

Skin and teeth come to mind, First Minister.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will issue guidance to health boards regarding their provision of paediatric and maternity services. (S1F-659)

The national acute services review, published in 1997, set out a pattern for specialist paediatric services in Scotland. Early in the new year, the Scottish Executive will be publishing a framework for maternity services. Both documents will guide health boards and NHS trusts in the planning and delivery of paediatric and maternity services across Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware that large areas of Scotland are at risk of having inadequate access to acute maternity and paediatric services as the different health boards configure their acute services independently of one another? How far does the First Minister think it is right for women and children to travel to access care?

Is the First Minister aware that changes made to services in Stirling, and the threatened withdrawal of acute paediatric and maternity services at Perth royal infirmary, mean that women and children in a large area of central Scotland will be left with no easily accessible services at all? Is it the stated intention of the Executive—

Order.

This is my last question, Sir David.

You are supposed to ask only one question.

Is it the stated intention of the Executive to condemn the women and children of Scotland to second-rate health care, or will the Executive simply let that happen by default?

Nothing will happen by default in a major and sensitive set of services. We want everyone to have access to services, and they do have access. There are debates in Tayside and the Forth valley about the nature of service provision. As far as specialist paediatric services are concerned, we are looking into neurosurgery and the transport of critically ill and injured children.

As I have said, early in the new year, we will be taking a detailed look into maternity services. It is the hallmark of this Administration that we take health very seriously indeed. It is of major importance to the people of Scotland, and it is one area where we want to improve services. Susan Deacon and the Executive will not let anyone down in the areas of maternity and paediatric services.

Given the question mark over maternity services in Caithness, does the First Minister agree that any proposal that expectant mums should travel more than 100 miles from Caithness down to Inverness would be entirely unacceptable?

We are one country, but there are different problems in different parts of it. In any reviews that we undertake, we are mindful of the question of distance and of the particular problems in rural areas.