Plenary, 18 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 18, 2001

Official Report 747KB 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-770)

I speak regularly with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I expect to meet him next week. May I say on behalf of the whole Parliament that we are delighted that John Swinney feels comfortable here and is staying with us.

I am grateful for the First Minister's warm welcome. I assure him that it is not reciprocated. I ask the First Minister about his discussions with Westminster ministers. On 14 December, the First Minister said:

"In England and Wales they have decided not to proceed with personal care costs, but as far as I am concerned . . . I am committed to this idea."

Following his discussions this week with Alan Milburn MP, the Secretary of State for Health, is the First Minister still committed to funding the personal care costs of all elderly people?

Colleagues would want some consistency. John Swinney mentioned 14 December, but on 26 October, 9 and 13 November and 10, 14 and 17 December I said that I want to see personal care as part of long-term care to be the subject of a review. [Interruption.] SNP members sit there in a frenzied, excited way. We are only a few days away from a statement on this subject to the Parliament and the Scottish people. I would add that what I said in the interviews, I meant.

Okay—we may be getting somewhere on this one. Let us see whether the progress is maintained. The First Minister said what he said about the consistency of his line of argument. I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers—although I recognise that press reports have given the Executive some trouble today already. A press report today suggests that the First Minister wants to apply a means test to payments for the personal care costs of the elderly, to avoid damaging tensions with England. Will the First Minister tell us whether the Executive is committed to announcing free personal care for all elderly people—or are we looking forward to a humiliating climbdown?

John Swinney is not listening. If he believes everything in the press, he will believe that I am going to the Tower of London next week—

Good idea!

Sir David—

Then, if we are not going to the Tower, the project is to be dumped. I then read that an envoy is coming up for special negotiations—a bit like the United Nations. The reality is that I made a commitment. The statement will take place next week.

I am delighted that the care of the elderly has grown and grown in stature as one of the most important political issues, and I am grateful to the press for helping us to make that happen. I think that Scottish people—especially older people—want a commitment to progress. What we have said has been consistent.

Today, The Herald says:

"Record employment. Boom economy. Have we ever had it so good?"

It also asks:

"Are we living in a golden age?"

Is it not time to accept that we will deliver on our commitment to older people in Scotland? Let us celebrate success. The SNP will never be able to do that.

The Herald also says that the Labour Administration in Scotland is leaving some people behind. Will the First Minister stop telling us about review after review and start telling us about answer after answer? Is the Executive committed to paying the personal care costs of all elderly people, or will the Labour Administration leave some elderly people behind?

I recognise synthetic indignation when I see it. I will repeat my point. John Swinney started by talking about people being left behind in Scotland. He may have read today's Herald, which is a good read by any standard. We believe that there are still inequalities in Scotland. There is much more to do, but we should celebrate the facts as we see them. The number of Scots in work is at a 40-year high. The number of unemployed people is at a quarter-of-a-century low.

As John Swinney asks me to stop having review after review, I will illuminate the issue. There is only one review—the one that has been undertaken by Susan Deacon, the Minister for Health and Community Care. The outcome of that review will go before the Scottish people and the Parliament next week, as it should.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-767)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the British-Irish Council in Dublin on 23 January.

Sadly, I cannot comment on whether David McLetchie is returning to Westminster because the Tories have not been there for many, many years.

That was an obscure remark, but I am sure that I will have many colleagues to visit after 3 May, 5 April or whatever date the election is held.

Once the First Minister has done his spot of metaphorical kissing and making up with the Prime Minister at the British-Irish Council, I hope that they might get round to discussing the rules that will govern the conduct of Scottish Executive ministers and civil servants during the forthcoming general election campaign. Will the First Minister give an undertaking to follow the precedent that the Prime Minister set at the time of the Scottish Parliament elections and ensure that clear guidelines are in place for ministerial announcements so that there is no question of compromising the integrity and independence of our civil servants during the campaign?

I give the undertaking.

I thank the First Minister very much for his answer. That was a good answer, which was welcome. I commend him on his brevity. As the First Minister has put so much time at my disposal, will he agree that if any further proof were needed of why such guidelines are necessary, it came this morning when Scottish Executive ministers were finally brought to book for treating the Parliament with contempt over announcements? Angus MacKay categorically denies giving a leak or a brief about his statement to the press. I believe him when he says that, but the First Minister must know who was responsible, because the information came from within the Executive. Will the First Minister name the guilty man?

I can be brief. The question was will I name the guilty man. No, because the parliamentary authorities and the business managers are examining the issue that was raised earlier today. If we seek a political knockabout, there is a grave danger that we will undermine the serious procedures that govern business in the Parliament. I want always to see fair procedures in the Parliament. I hope that matters will be resolved and that we can get back to normal business.

When the First Minister meets the Prime Minister, will he discuss with him the current situation in the trade dispute between Europe and the USA, which may have a significant effect on the Scottish cashmere industry?

Can the First Minister confirm that he is aware of the substantial job losses in the knitwear industry that devastated the small Borders town of Innerleithen this week? Will he given me his assurance that the Executive will make strenuous efforts to assist the local enterprise company and other agencies to promote investment in the area, in both the textile sector and other industries, to provide job opportunities and diversification of the economy?

I am pleased to give that assurance. What I said earlier about the Scottish economy booming is important, as that does not necessarily mean that we do not have outstanding issues to tackle in certain parts of Scotland.

I regret very much the losses that were announced in Innerleithen this week. Officials from Scottish Enterprise Borders have met the company involved regularly. The Executive has made a commitment to use the new facilities that are available through PACE, the partnership action for continuing employment, to ensure that the skills training, specific counselling and every assistance that may be required are given to ensure that alternative employment can be found. We want to work with local MSPs to ensure that that is done.

---

Child Protection

To ask the First Minister whether there are any plans to review child protection procedures in Scotland. (S1F-766)

There has been considerable focus in recent years on child protection procedures. Now our emphasis must be on ensuring that those involved in child protection have the skills and training to provide the basis for good decision making when following those procedures. The Executive is taking a range of measures to achieve that.

I thank the First Minister for that answer.

I am sure that all members were shocked and horrified by the news last week of the tragic death of Anna Climbie in London.

Given that there are 32 local authorities, 15 health board areas and eight police forces, does the First Minister agree that it is essential to have effective child protection procedures that are reviewed at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure proper, effective inter-agency working?

The whole chamber will agree with Scott Barrie's comments. Not only was that a tragic death, it took place in despicable circumstances, about which everyone will be concerned. My first response is that there should be absolutely no complacency in child protection procedures.

Presiding Officer, you will forgive me for taking a few more lines than usual to tackle Scott Barrie's comments. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 provides for a range of measures that, if used appropriately, should protect children who are known to be at risk of harm from their parents or guardians. However, we cannot be complacent, which is why we are improving training for those involved in child protection.

On the large number of agencies involved, we are concerned—as everyone should be—that some cases may slip through the net. In 1998, we issued guidance on inter-agency co-operation, which was well received and is widely used. Guidance for inter-agency child protection committees is being revised and strengthened.

I wish to make a final point to allay fears about complacency at the heart of government. We have also set up an inter-disciplinary action team to consider joint working among local authorities, the health service, the voluntary sector and the other organisations that are involved in children's services. While that work is not just about child protection, it is relevant to child protection.

We await the outcome of the inquiry in England. Apart from saying that we are concerned about such deplorable activities, we are doing everything possible to tackle them.

Against that background, will the First Minister explain why, according to health professionals I have spoken to recently, his Government is unable to meet, because of chronic underfunding, the recommendations of a 106-page document that was published in January 2000? The document to which I refer is called "Protecting Children – A Shared Responsibility". The First Minister's share of the responsibility is proper funding, but when will he provide it?

I am not sure that the tone of Christine Grahame's question was helpful. I am willing—[Interruption.] The question was about underfunding and the issue is serious.

That is why I asked a serious question.

We have just expressed the concern of the whole chamber. If there are specific concerns about documents, reports or resources, or if there is anecdotal evidence from health care professionals, let me hear it so that we can respond appropriately, but the Parliament must not make throwaway comments on serious issues such as this—every party should adhere to that rule.

Does the First Minister agree that any review of child protection should include a review of the law on adoption? In view of the recent public concern about the money-for-babies scandal, will he consider whether a change to Scots law is necessary? Secondly, will he ask the Bank of Scotland for a report of its investigation into how one of its visa cards was used to finance a practice as unacceptable as the buying and selling of babies?

People will forgive me for not answering Dennis Canavan's second point. Jack McConnell will make a statement quite soon on Dennis Canavan's first point. It is a matter of reassuring the public about such activities. The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health and a range of other ministers south of the border are doing that. We should await Jack McConnell's statement and allow MSPs to debate the matter then.

---

Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine

To ask the First Minister what measures have been taken in response to drops in recent years in the uptake of the MMR triple vaccination. (S1F-775)

I preface my answer by saying that I was glad to see Lloyd Quinan at the launch of the arts exhibition by the cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder. It is first class. It takes place in the Parliament and allows parliamentarians to participate on issues on which there should be consensus.

There are on-going public education measures by the Health Education Board for Scotland. The chief medical officer has written to health professionals on several occasions reaffirming that expert advice remains that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine provides the best protection against those three potentially serious diseases, and exhorting them to continue to encourage parents to bring their children forward for immunisation.

On behalf of the many parents and children who provided material for the exhibition, I thank the First Minister for being kind enough to open it for us last week.

Does the First Minister agree that the current climate of concern, trepidation and fear that is being experienced by parents over the MMR vaccine is not helped by the introduction of spurious studies from Finland, and that the easiest and quickest way in which we could remove some of the fear would be to make the single vaccine available to those parents who ask for it?

A medical expert sitting on my right tells me that there is no spurious research. We should not dismiss research of such importance from Finland. If concern about the MMR vaccine is expressed throughout the country, people need reassurance. The Executive makes every effort to use science to confirm to people that the MMR vaccine is a safe method. It has also been claimed that there are links with Crohn's disease and autism, but there is no robust scientific evidence to suggest that that is the case.

It is also important to note that the single vaccines carry difficulties and health threats. I will write to Lloyd Quinan to give him a fair amount of background material on the triple vaccine as well as the single vaccine and to say what the Government is doing to reassure people in every public utterance. We want to meet the target of 95 per cent immunisation. We can all attempt to do that.

Does the First Minister agree that using terms such as "spurious" to describe the research paper from Finland, which involved 18 years of research and 2 million individuals, does not serve the case of those parents who have understandable concerns about the increasing rates of autism?

If there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, there is a danger that those parents are going down a cul-de-sac and pursuing a wholly spurious cause, which may ultimately be damaging for them.

I have suggested that advocacy of concern should always be put into perspective. There is a danger that the uptake of immunisation will fall. That would not be good for children or for the health of the country.

On such issues, we have to build on facts. We can do that, and we can ensure that parents appreciate it and understand it. We must do as much as we can to reassure them. I take Richard Simpson's point entirely.

---

Health Service

To ask the First Minister whether sufficient information is available to patients in the NHS in Scotland to enable them to make an informed choice about their hospital referral and treatment. (S1F-768)

The Executive is committed to improving the range and quality of information available to patients and the public. As the Scottish health plan indicates, we will invest £14 million over the next three years to make this happen.

Will the First Minister confirm or deny reports that the Scottish Executive's head of presentation attempted to gag hospital trusts that wanted to give information that is contrary to that promised in the health plan? Does he accept that patients and general practitioners have a right to know mortality rates and hospital-acquired infection rates for every hospital in Scotland?

Much of the information that Mary Scanlon is talking about has been published. I do not think that I want to get involved in the issue of The Sunday Times health guide. It is more important to focus on three things that we want to do.

First, we want to ensure that relevant, high-quality information is available to patients where and when it is needed. Secondly, we want to establish a network of information points that will help people to identify their care and treatment options and the services that are available to them. Finally, we want to ensure that all clinical guidelines have a version that is specifically written for the people who use the services. I think that that will be £14 million well invested. We want to be transparent and we want real choice. That will require proper information.

As the First Minister will be aware, the report in The Sunday Times claimed that hospitals in the Argyll and Clyde area, which serve my constituency, have the fewest doctors and nurses of all the hospital trusts in Scotland. Will the First Minister undertake to find out whether that is true? Can he explain why that might be the case?

George Lyon is tempting me into areas that I am trying to avoid. That was not the only statistic that was wrong in that health guide. There were some substantial errors. I say to people that that guide—which has caused what I regard as a storm in a teacup—should not be taken as the total repository of our attempts to get information into the public arena. I will respond to George Lyon with specific details on the matter that he has raised.