Plenary, 17 Mar 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, March 17, 2005

Official Report 757KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

Members will wish to welcome a number of Commonwealth guests: two distinguished New Zealanders, the Rt Hon Don McKinnon, secretary-general of the Commonwealth, and the Hon Russell Marshall, high commissioner of New Zealand; and a delegation from the Canadian Senate. [Applause.]

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1524)

I am sure that the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet will consider the timetable for decision making on the allocation of the additional resources that were allocated to Scotland in yesterday's budget.

At the same time, we might just note the fact that people who live in England are about to benefit from many of the types of services that this Government is delivering in Scotland. They will benefit in years to come from free local bus travel, although in Scotland that will go national. They will benefit in years to come from enterprise education in every school, although in Scotland that is already a great success. They will benefit in years to come from youth volunteering, although in Scotland our scheme will be up and running by May. They will benefit from a school building programme that, although it will be substantial, will still be smaller than the one in Scotland, which is the biggest in Europe. However, they will not have to suffer the cuts that are being proposed by the Scottish National Party and the Tories, therefore in England and Scotland everybody will be grateful.

Why do we not return to a subject where Scotland is definitely still playing catch-up? Last week, the First Minister said that there has been

"a dramatic reduction in out-patient waiting times in Scotland"—[Official Report, 10 March 2005; c 15234.]

Now that he has had time to study the figures that I drew to his attention last week, will he correct that statement?

I do not think that I have ever been more pleased that Ms Sturgeon has asked me a question, because it allows me to put on the record something that she did not put on the record last week in this Parliament. The figures that she quoted were not for people who were waiting more than 12 months for out-patient treatment or an appointment, but for people who had been treated who had previously waited more than 12 months for an out-patient appointment.

Ms Sturgeon failed to mention that the number of people who had been on the out-patient waiting list more than 12 months had been reduced in the quarter. She also failed to mention that the number of people who had been waiting longer than six months on the out-patient waiting list had reduced by 15.9 per cent in the previous quarter. In all those areas—at long last, yes, but thank goodness—we are now bringing down out-patient waiting times. People who wait the longest are now being treated. There is a difference in Scotland in out-patient figures, which we intend to improve on in the rest of the year.

Why does the First Minister still refuse to accept the reality of the situation? The figures that I revealed last week are not a snapshot, like the ones that he uses. They detail the actual number of people who waited more than a year to see a consultant—in other words, they detail the real experience of real patients. Is the First Minister aware that in yesterday's Daily Record—a journal that I know he reads—the Minister for Health and Community Care described the experience of just one Lothian patient waiting more than a year as "totally unacceptable"? Given that figures that I have obtained this week show that 1,805 patients waited for more than a year in Lothian alone, does the First Minister agree that his entire record on out-patient waiting times is totally unacceptable?

Every single target or guarantee that has been set for the health service since I became First Minister has been achieved. Not only have we achieved on the 12-month and nine-month targets, but we are working towards the six-month target and we are managing to bring down out-patient waiting times and the number of people on the out-patient waiting list.

Ms Sturgeon brings a statistic to the chamber and deliberately distorts it by giving the impression that it reflects the number of people who are still waiting, when in fact all of them have been seen. That was an achievement by the health service in Scotland. No matter how many times she does that, she cannot hide the fact that in the health service in Scotland, not only is in-patient waiting reducing and lower than in any other part of the United Kingdom, but now out-patient waiting is reducing. The number of people who wait more than 12 months or six months and the number who are on the list all reduced in the last quarter and will reduce further this year.

The figures detail patients who had waited more than a year to be seen. The First Minister might think that that is okay; I most certainly do not.

Last week, the First Minister said that the number of people in Scotland who wait more than six months for in-patient hospital treatment is

"lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 10 March 2005; c 15244.]

Is he aware that, whereas the most recent figures show that 85.8 per cent of patients in Scotland are admitted within six months, the figures that I received from the House of Commons library last night show that the figure in the worst-performing English health authority is 88.9 per cent? That is better than the Scottish figure. Will the First Minister explain exactly what he meant last week?

Ms Sturgeon might be foxy, but she is also trying to be sly. The reality is that she cannot pick one statistic and distort it. She has been caught out on the statistics that she cited in the chamber last week, which were distorted here and elsewhere last weekend. Those out-patients were not still waiting; they had all been seen. That is to the credit of the health service and of the policies that we have adopted.

When Ms Sturgeon picks yet another statistic and distorts it, and cites incomparable figures to ensure that she has yet again some kind of strange point to score, she misses the point. The real point is about who will invest in the health service and make a difference. Those in the SNP who would cancel the contracts for those in-patients and cut the health budget would, ultimately, create longer waiting times and lists and lead to Scotland having a poorer health service than England.

I do not have to be selective with statistics, because all the statistics show that the First Minister's record on in-patient and out-patient waiting times is woeful. That is why no one believes a word that he says any more.

I will give the First Minister a final chance to show that he means business. He says that no one will wait more than six months for an out-patient appointment by the end of this year. At the end of last year, 35,000 people waited more than six months. Will he give a personal guarantee, for which he will be held accountable, that the figures for the end of this year will show that zero patients wait more than six months? Will he put his job on the line?

To paraphrase what somebody said last year, if elected, I will not resign—would that be right? Some strange comments are made in the SNP about resignations. We should go to the facts of the situation. Fewer people are on the in-patient waiting list in Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The number of people who wait more than six months, nine months and 12 months is lower in Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Scotland is the only place in the United Kingdom where no patients with a guarantee wait more than nine months for in-patient treatment. The median wait in Scotland is shorter than it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Treatment times for our killer diseases that we made a priority, such as heart disease, are by far the best in the United Kingdom.

That is the record that, step by step, is improving the health service. It is added to by the record in the past quarter on out-patients, which will be added to again this year as, step by step, the statistics show improvements in the list and in the times. All that would be at risk if the SNP cancelled the contracts, cut the budget, put instability into our economy and threatened the investment that we are determined to pursue.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1525)

The next time I meet the Prime Minister, I will ask him whether he has a copy of the secret Jimmy review that the Conservatives in Scotland refuse to publish. Just two months ago, Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor, said that there would be £35 billion of cuts in the British economy and public services if the Tories won the general election. He also said that there would be a Scottish James review—let us call it the Jimmy review—which would be published in advance of the election. Last week, Mr McLetchie said that that would not happen before the election. The review is now a secret. Are the cuts so severe that they must remain a secret, or will Mr McLetchie publish the review?

I thought that this was First Minister's question time. I would be happy to switch roles with the First Minister, as I am sure that I would do a far better job.

I draw the First Minister's attention to something a little more pertinent than the fantasy figures that he has quoted today, both to me and to Ms Sturgeon. Does he agree with his new-found friend and colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer that pensioner households in Scotland should pay less in council tax?

Of course, pensioner households in Scotland will benefit from the chancellor's announcement yesterday that later this year every one of those households that pays council tax will receive a payment of £200 towards it. That contrasts with the position of Mr McLetchie, who not only has a secret package of cuts that he will not publish before the election, but refuses to guarantee that the one Conservative proposal on the council tax for the United Kingdom that has been published would apply in Scotland. Will Mr McLetchie guarantee that that proposal would apply in Scotland? I can guarantee that the chancellor's proposal will apply in Scotland and will be delivered to pensioner households this October.

Again, it seems to be leader of the Opposition's question time. I point out to the First Minister that he is meant to be the architect and supporter of a devolution settlement and that responsibility for local taxation and council tax in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive.

I am delighted that the First Minister acknowledges that pensioners in Scotland pay too much in council tax. Will he acknowledge that it is in his power and that of the Scottish Executive to introduce permanent council tax discounts for pensioners, year after year, instead of a paltry, one-off payment in election year, delivered by the chancellor through the social security system, which is what we got yesterday? The Conservatives are offering permanent council tax discounts. When the next Conservative Government announces a cut of up to £500 in pensioners' council tax bills, will the First Minister—whose responsibility it is to administer the council tax system in Scotland—use his powers to do the same for pensioners in Scotland? The question is for the First Minister to answer, not for me.

When the chancellor announces a £200 benefit for every pensioner household in Scotland that pays council tax, I will not ask him to take it back and to give it only to pensioner households in England. I will welcome it and say that pensioner households in Scotland will also welcome it. I will also say to those households that their benefits and services, including the free local bus travel that exists in Scotland and will now be introduced elsewhere in the UK on the same timescale as in Scotland—we intend to make the service national—will be at risk if the secret cuts that Mr McLetchie wants to make to the Scottish budget are imposed on our public services.

Will Mr McLetchie guarantee that the services and benefits that we have introduced in Scotland and which are at risk from the Conservatives—free personal care for the elderly, free central heating for the elderly, free local bus travel for the elderly and the lowest council taxes in the United Kingdom—will not be affected by the election of a Conservative Government? If he can do that, will he prove it by publishing the James review for Scotland?

I guarantee absolutely and categorically and repeat what the shadow chancellor, Oliver Letwin, has said: to wit, that under the Conservatives the Scottish block grant for the current spending review period, which concludes in 2007-08, will be exactly the same, pound for pound, as the one that has been allocated to the Scottish Executive by the present Government and Chancellor of the Exchequer. The key difference will be how effectively the First Minister spends that money—he certainly does not spend it effectively on the health service, as we have heard. Will more money be frittered away by this Labour Executive or will we have an opportunity to use some of it to cut council taxes for pensioners and others in Scotland as the Conservatives have advocated? Does the First Minister acknowledge that, if our £500 pensioner council tax discount stops at the border, it will be because the First Minister stops it at the border instead of using the extra money that he will have to give Scottish pensioners exactly the same treatment?

The member cannot invent a Tory policy on the back of a fag packet and then demand that we implement it for him—that is a ridiculous proposition. The Conservatives have to give that guarantee, and they have to guarantee what they would or would not do should they—it is a remote possibility—win a general election this year. We need to know where their cuts would fall on pensioner services in Scotland. What would the cuts do to the level of the council tax in Scotland?

If Mr McLetchie believes that the architect of the poll tax—one Michael Howard—would impose £35 billion of cuts in England and that not one penny of those cuts would fall in Scotland, he is living in dreamland and I suspect that a number of English Tory MPs and candidates might have something to say about that.

The first two exchanges were rather long and have cut us back to only one constituency question.

Does the First Minister join me in sending the Parliament's condolences to the families of the Loganair pilot Guy Henderson and the paramedic John McCreanor, who tragically lost their lives earlier this week when their air ambulance crashed into the sea off Machrihanish?

I seek the First Minister's assurance that everything possible has been done by the Scottish Ambulance Service, the police and the company to support the families through this very difficult time. I also seek reassurance that everything possible is being done both to recover the bodies and the aircraft and to establish the cause of the crash.

I am very happy to give George Lyon those assurances, but also to relay to the chamber that Cabinet discussed those tragic deaths yesterday morning and that we sent our condolences to the families involved. We will support the Scottish Ambulance Service in any action that it requires to take.

This was a painful reminder that public servants the length and breadth of Scotland put their lives on the line to look after other people. We should all remember that the hard work that they do and the hard work that is done throughout Scotland, not just by air ambulance crews but by others, provides a vital service, particularly for remote communities such as Argyll and Bute. I hope that we will continue to give them as much support as we possibly can across all the parties.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

I sympathise with the sentiments that were expressed by George Lyon and the First Minister.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1542)

My apologies for returning to politics, Presiding Officer, after such an important and sad question from George Lyon. However, when I next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, among the issues that we will discuss will be how we can possibly find out about what the Conservatives are planning to do in Scotland after the general election. I will also reassure the secretary of state that the statistics on the health service that are quoted by the SNP in this chamber are inaccurate and distorted and that the health service in Scotland is better than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Perhaps the First Minister would also like to discuss with the secretary of state the convoluted Cabinet Office and European Commission regulations that appear to forbid our Minister for Environment and Rural Development from giving us details of the 32 infractions of European environmental law that are being discussed with the Commission. The First Minister will be aware that Rob Edwards wrote in an article that it was apparent that some of those infractions were to do with fish quotas, failure to enforce rules on landing, misreporting and under-recording of catches, failure to prepare proper environmental impact assessments on Crown land and lack of protection for freshwater fish and wild salmon.

First, will the First Minister confirm or deny the details that are stated by Rob Edwards? Secondly, does the First Minister agree that, irrespective of the words of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, none of those issues could be regarded as "trivial"? Does he consider—

You have asked about three questions, Mr Harper.

Sorry.

Does the First Minister consider that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development was incautious when he said that some of the cases "may be trivial"?

Ross Finnie provided a comprehensive answer to the Parliament last week—indeed, it was one of the most detailed answers that I have heard being delivered in Parliament for some time. Mr Finnie provided a lot of information that had not been available previously and the tone and content of his answer demonstrated that he takes such matters very seriously, as do I. Not only do we take the proceedings very seriously and act on the matter by providing the right evidence and information or by challenging the proceedings if that is what we should do, but we seek to implement the law in Scotland.

Of course, the issues that Mr Harper raises presented us with some difficulties in that regard during recent years in debates around fisheries policy, because some members of the Parliament were prepared to advocate that fishermen should break the law. We absolutely condemn that and demand that people obey the law in Scotland, and we seek to ensure that when the law is properly obeyed we justify that to the European Commission and others.

The First Minister did not answer my central question. Will the Executive provide full details of the alleged infractions and its discussions with the Commission? I believe that six of the 32 cases are being referred to the European Court of Justice. Which six cases are being referred and what they are about?

In answers to Parliament, such as the answer that Ross Finnie gave last week, and in the information that the Executive provides to the relevant parliamentary committees, the Executive provides the Parliament with the maximum possible information about such cases and related matters. We believe in complete openness and transparency on the matter, but it is important to remember that we are talking about legal cases, some details of which cannot be discussed in public while the cases are in court or in advance of potential court proceedings. We handle such matters carefully and seriously and we will ensure that at all times the Parliament has the maximum information that will allow it to hold the Executive to account.

---

Hospital-acquired Infections

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to address hospital-acquired infections. (S2F-1541)

Earlier this week we announced new measures, which include giving sisters and charge nurses responsibilities and powers to ensure ward cleanliness and a programme to ensure that alcohol hand-rubs are available near every front-line bed by April. However, it is important to acknowledge that cleanliness is everyone's responsibility. Visitors will be engaged to help to keep patients safe from infection that they might bring in from outside. The new campaign, which will be thorough, relentless and systematic, is one of the most comprehensive in Europe, and is backed by £15 million of investment over the next three years.

Tayside NHS Board has done well in that regard. The First Minister said that sisters and charge nurses would be given responsibility and powers, but given the hierarchical structure of the national health service, how will staff at all levels be empowered to play their part? I am thinking in particular about how nurses or ancillaries can ask consultants to wash their hands before attending to patients, because nurses have complained that that is a problem.

What measures will health boards and the Scottish Executive Health Department use to monitor progress in reducing hospital-acquired infections?

It is clear from the programme that was announced earlier this week that clean hospitals and the reduction of infection in hospitals are everybody's business—managers, staff, patients and visitors.

Relevant staff will of course attend training programmes and staff will be encouraged to work with sisters and charge nurses to ensure that they are the first point of contact and can raise matters if parts of a hospital do not meet the standards that we set. As Kate Maclean said, Tayside NHS Board has been leading the way in Scotland in that regard, but we want to ensure that the highest standards are in place throughout Scotland. The best way of achieving that is by creating a culture in our health service in which everyone takes responsibility for and ensures that they personally contribute to cleanliness, rather than doing the opposite.

---

Moray (Royal Air Force Job Losses)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive will take to ensure the regeneration of Moray after the announcement of job losses at RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth. (S2F-1528)

Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise and Moray Council are working with local stakeholders to prepare a strategy for combined action to mitigate the effects of the reduction in Ministry of Defence activity in the area.

The Deputy First Minister and I will meet representatives of Moray Council next week to discuss how we can work with the council during this difficult time.

A 154-page document has already been produced by Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise, Moray Council and other interested individuals. Will the First Minister and officials at the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department read the document very carefully? It contains positive ideas and highlights the impact on our schools, on our hospitals and on all aspects of what is already a low-wage economy.

When the First Minister meets Moray Council next week—I hope that I and the local MP would be invited to such a meeting—will he not only show a commitment to the fresh talent initiative, which we have welcomed, but ensure that we can redeploy the skills of the people who are already there within Moray, to ensure a genuine future and the prospect of a high-wage economy?

I take this matter very seriously indeed. We will ensure that next week's discussions are productive.

We welcome Margaret Ewing's support for the fresh talent initiative, and would welcome any suggestions that she might have to help with the attraction of new enterprise and business to the area to use the skills that, of course, are a positive indication of the commitment and worth of individuals and their families to the local community.

However, it is also important that we continue to have the level of MOD activity and MOD contracts in Scotland that will secure the bases, as well as the jobs, that will remain. I sincerely hope that, come May—if there is indeed a general election in May—the people of Moray and elsewhere will choose to exercise their vote for parties that will ensure that Scotland remains inside Britain and inside NATO, to secure those contracts and those bases for the future.

---

Borders Rail Link

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will recognise the importance of the Borders rail link to Edinburgh, the Borders and the south-east and east of Scotland. (S2F-1527)

On Monday, the Minister for Transport confirmed the Executive's commitment in principle to support the construction of the Borders rail link with £115 million. That figure is, I think, at 2002 prices and will of course be increased for inflation. That support is subject to the project meeting the conditions of its business case, to a positive recommendation by the committee that is considering the project proposal and to the agreement of this Parliament.

Does the First Minister recall that, when the Scottish Parliament visited Glasgow, all parties spoke strongly in favour of the project for a Borders rail link? Will he reassure council tax payers in Edinburgh, the Borders and Midlothian that they will not face massive tax bills as a result of the project?

As requested, we put a clear figure on the project, and the Minister for Transport was clear about our commitment to it on Monday.

The Borders rail link was a commitment in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the Labour manifesto in 2003. This coalition Government is firmly committed to it. I am pleased that the other parties have been converted to the cause and I hope that, in the years ahead, we will see progress.

Does the First Minister acknowledge the welcome from my constituents for the historic funding statement of an 85 per cent contribution from the Scottish Executive to the Borders railway, which is in addition to the 15 per cent that has been promised by the three local authorities? Will he commend the Minister for Transport for making that statement, and commend the minister's predecessor, Sarah Boyack, for the feasibility funding that got the project off the ground? Does the First Minister regret that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—one of Sarah Boyack's predecessors as minister with responsibility for transport—paid no attention to the project and has opposed the Executive's and the Parliament's development of the project?

I am always happy to welcome those who change their views over the years. I am aware, of course, that the Conservatives were not willing to act on this project throughout their 18 long years in power. I am also aware that the SNP did not even mention the project in its manifesto at the most recent election.

I am absolutely delighted that a majority of Labour and Liberal Democrats MSPs were elected to this Parliament and that those MSPs are prepared to give the project their backing. I am delighted that we made this week's announcement.

As the First Minister well knows, since I became an MSP I have fought for the line with every breath. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating the tens of thousands of borderers who signed the petition and brought it to the Parliament? I include among them the Campaign for Borders Rail, of which I am an honorary life member, and people such as Madge Elliot from Hawick, who has campaigned since the day the line was closed. It is their victory. In recognition of that, will the First Minister give an assurance that the first piece of track will be laid in the Borders, towards Edinburgh, and not the other way round?

It would be particularly stupid to put a bit of track somewhere that a train cannot go to. However, I do not think that the Scottish Borders Council—not the Scottish Executive, nor the Liberal Democrats nor the Labour Party—was being stupid when it called on Christine Grahame to stand down as convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Borders rail because it felt that she was damaging the case for the project. I can assure the people of the Borders that—as long as the business case stacks up—we remain committed to the project. I congratulate Euan Robson, Jeremy Purvis, Jeremy Purvis's predecessor, Rhona Brankin, Sarah Boyack, Nicol Stephen, and everyone who has made a real difference to making this happen. I remain committed to ensuring that Scotland's railways improve in the years to come.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—