Plenary, 18 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, November 18, 2004

Official Report 734KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1204)

At next week's meeting of the Scottish Cabinet we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland.

This morning the Parliament debated the Fire (Scotland) Bill. One issue that was discussed but on which the Parliament will not be given the chance to vote is the proposal that the Government is considering to cut the number of emergency fire control rooms in Scotland from eight to three, or possibly to just two or one. The First Minister will be aware that the proposal is opposed by a range of experts, who fear that it could result in fire engines taking longer to get to fires and that lives could be lost. This morning, the Deputy Minister for Justice indicated that the Executive would reflect further on those concerns. Given the views that have already been expressed, will the First Minister take this opportunity to go one step further and rule out the centralisation of yet another vital public service?

As we promised, the Executive will consider the responses to the consultation that we established. We will also consider the expert report that we commissioned, which made the recommendation that Ms Sturgeon has outlined. When we have considered the responses and the report in full, we will make a decision and announce it to Parliament.

The expert report to which the First Minister refers was produced by a group that had already recommended centralisation south of the border, so it could hardly be expected to contradict itself north of the border. The Executive has said that before taking a decision it wants to listen to and consult the key stakeholders in the fire service. However, those people have already made their views well known. The majority of fire authorities are opposed to the proposal. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is made up of the fire service employers, says that the proposal represents centralisation. The chief fire officers—those who manage the fire service—say that it is seriously flawed. The firefighters—those in the front line—say that the loss of local knowledge from local control rooms will result in longer response times, more injuries and more deaths.

If those who run, manage and work in the fire service say that it is wrong to cut the number of control rooms, what on earth makes the First Minister think that he may know better? Why will he not listen to the voices of the experts, stop prevaricating and say no now to cuts and centralisation?

Because it is important that we have the best possible fire service for Scotland. That is why this morning we debated a bill that will modernise fire services in Scotland and ensure that the Scottish fire service is focused on prevention of fire, life rather than property and the best use of resources. For precisely that reason, we need constantly to consider how to ensure the most efficient use of resources and the best possible use of the staff and technology in our fire service. That is precisely what we will do in relation to control rooms, just as we would in relation to the other aspects of the fire service that have received such large increases in additional resources in recent years.

It is interesting that, although the experts have made their views abundantly clear, today the First Minister has not offered a single good reason why cutting the number of control rooms should even be on the Scottish Executive's agenda. Could that be explained by the fact that for the First Minister the proposal has nothing to do with improvements in the fire service? In reality, it is all about cutting costs and helping him to meet his efficiency savings target.

I suggest to the First Minister that if he really wants to cut costs he should start by putting his own house in order. While he is contemplating cuts in the fire service, the Executive's office overheads budget—the budget for parties and paper-clips—has gone up by more than £10 million in the past year alone. That is more than three times the amount that he is trying to save by cutting the number of fire control rooms. Why does he not do something about the waste and inefficiency in the Government and, while doing so, say a clear, unequivocal no to cuts in the fire service that would compromise public safety and put lives at risk?

I understand that Miss Sturgeon's point about paper-clips is completely untrue. I will be happy to ensure that she receives a written statement on that in due course.

I make it clear that the investment that we are putting into fire services in Scotland has increased by 40 per cent in the years since devolution. That represents about £70 million of additional investment. The challenge for good government in Scotland is to ensure that that additional money is best used on the front line to prevent fires, to secure and save lives and to ensure that our fire services are as efficient and effective as possible.

The Scottish National Party has consistently opposed the process of modernising our fire services, just as it has opposed every reform that would improve public services in Scotland, because it is not prepared to make the hard decisions that release resources for improvements in front-line services. We see the SNP's true colours week after week. As we proceed to modernise and reform our fire services, just as we should modernise and reform our services in education, health and other areas, we will ensure that resources are increased and redirected to, not taken away from, front-line services to save lives and to maintain the good-quality and efficient fire service that Scotland has had, but will have to an even greater extent in the future.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1201)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

When the First Minister does so, he might like to explain to the Prime Minister why he has grossly exaggerated the level of public support in Scotland for a total ban on smoking in public places, given that the Executive's own—eventually published—market research demonstrates that only one in six Scots supports Mr McConnell's fundamentalist and wholly unreasonable position.

Instead of flaunting the issue like some kind of political virility symbol, will the First Minister listen to the widespread concerns that his proposals will lead to more people smoking at home and exposing their children to that and will cost thousands of jobs in the hospitality industry in Scotland? Will he consider adopting a more balanced and reasonable approach?

I can think of few things that it would be more balanced and reasonable for the Parliament to do than to reduce smoking and the number of deaths from smoking in Scotland.

All the international evidence is that, where a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places is in place, lives are saved, the number of smokers is reduced, the amount that people smoke is reduced and, ultimately, people can enjoy their leisure time without smoke. More and more people enjoy their leisure time without smoke and I believe that the challenge for our hospitality industries in Scotland is to sell the whole idea of smoke-free leisure and smoke-free public places as a positive incentive for the vast majority of Scots who do not go out to the pub or to many other public places partly because of the atmosphere that exists in those places. A ban on smoking in public places represents both an economic opportunity and a great health opportunity for Scotland. The Parliament should support it for those two reasons.

Perhaps the First Minister would like to talk about—[Interruption.]

Order.

Perhaps the First Minister would like to talk about the economic opportunities that are available to the 2,000 Scots who, according to the analysis by BDO Stoy Hayward that was published this morning, will lose their jobs as a result of his measures. Since his initial statement to Parliament, we have had the opportunity to consider the proposals that have been put forward by his Westminster colleague Dr John Reid, the Secretary of State for Health. Is the First Minister not aware of the fact that the measures that have been proposed down south are a good deal more reasonable and balanced than those that have been proposed up here? Why should there be such a significant difference in treatment?

Part of the reason for devolution was to ensure that Scotland could be ahead of the game, not behind it. We want to be ahead of the game in Scotland. We have a different licensing system and a different legal system and we certainly have more challenging health problems. We all know that and we all talk about it, but it is time that we did something about it, too. I believe that, although a smoking ban on its own will not totally transform Scotland's national health, it can be a really good start and will send a signal, not just here at home but abroad, that this country needs to be a different kind of country in future. Yes, we will need to convince those throughout the country who are not yet convinced that having a comprehensive smoking ban is the right thing to do, but it can be good for not only the health but the economy of Scotland.

Will the First Minister advise us how what he calls a "comprehensive smoking ban" will be achieved in workplaces in Scotland, given that that clearly involves reserved issues? If he seeks to pursue that aspect of the proposals that he outlined, does he acknowledge that he will have to secure the co-operation of the Government at Westminster and the self-same Mr Reid?

No. When the bill is introduced Mr McLetchie will see that we are talking about a public health measure. Public health legislation is devolved to this Parliament. We have the full competence and ability to achieve the measure through our own legislation and we intend to do so. On the survey that Mr McLetchie mentioned, which was published this morning, I make the point again that businesses throughout Scotland need to see the ban as an opportunity. They need to seize the opportunity to set up an implementation group, help us to implement the ban and make the most of it for Scotland—not campaign against it, not run scare stories, not exaggerate the impact, but seize that opportunity. That is what modern Scotland should be all about and I hope that they will be part of it.

We have one extra question, from John Swinburne.

In the light of the totally unacceptable figure announced this week that 2,900 elderly people died needlessly of winter cold-related illnesses in 2003—an increase of 400 on the previous year—and the Met Office warning of falling temperatures and widespread frosts as December approaches, what emergency action is the Scottish Executive taking to halt such annual increases and present Scotland with the enviable record of zero deaths from cold-related illnesses in 2004?

Mr Swinburne asks an important question. For precisely the reason that he outlined we will continue with the measures that have been pioneered here in Scotland. Those measures are to ensure that all pensioners have a decent central heating system; that fuel poverty is alleviated; and that the Minister for Communities tackles the fuel companies and asks them to provide specific assistance for pensioners. We will also work with the Westminster Government to ensure that more and more pensioners every year are lifted out of poverty and can afford decent heating and a decent home and we will ensure that we work closely with Age Concern Scotland and other pensioner charities. Those measures will make—and are making—a difference year after year and it is vital that we continue to pursue them.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1206)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Page 119 of the Scottish Executive draft budget shows that the road haulage modernisation fund is included in spending on public transport. The document states:

"The Road Haulage Modernisation Fund budget will be used to help modernise and increase the efficiency of the road haulage industry".

How can the Executive justify the spending on the private road haulage sector as part of spending on public transport?

If we are going to improve the transporting of freight on our railways, which is another significant part of our budget plans, we need to ensure that companies can not only get their goods to market but can get their goods to the rail freight pick-up points, which they require to do.

There are a range of reasons for ensuring that we have an integrated transport policy that not only supports improved roads, railways, airports, air routes, trains, train stations and so on but improves the way in which transport moves around and carries goods, particularly on our roads and railways and in the air. That is why we take a comprehensive approach and support all aspects of improvements in transport, including improving and modernising—for what are sometimes very good reasons—the road haulage industry.

Will the First Minister please answer the question? Is the private road haulage sector viewed as being public transport?

The answer is no, Jack.

Phone a friend!

Ask the audience!

Order.

I note with great interest those members from rural Scotland who mock the road haulage industry, which is important to those parts of rural Scotland that need to move goods to market. I say to members of the Scottish National Party that the people I meet when I visit parts of the Highlands and Islands, who tell me about the importance of the road haulage industry, do not expect members of the Scottish Parliament to laugh and joke about the road haulage industry. [Interruption.]

Order.

Assisting the road haulage industry to modernise and move goods around assists with the overall improvement and use of public transport in Scotland. There are parts of Scotland that are not reached by forms of public transport that move freight to ports, airports or the railway system. Therefore, improvements in the road haulage system are required in order to support the improved use of public transport. That might be a difficult concept for some parties in this Parliament to grasp, but it is a fact of life for people in large parts of rural Scotland. If we are going to have successful companies in rural Scotland that can get their goods to the markets, they need to use decent, modern road haulage systems in order to access the other forms of public transport.

---

Community Right of Appeal

To ask the First Minister what effect a community right of appeal would have on new building developments and planning applications to local authorities. (S2F-1208)

The impact of wider rights of appeal in planning would depend on the details of any new system. Our objective will be to modernise the planning system so that communities can properly participate and Scotland's long-term economic needs are met.

Will the First Minister say whether he believes that the current 13-stage planning process is too long, discourages individuals and communities from effective participation, has been the subject of criticism from community groups and organisations such as the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and others, can damage business and leads to a sense of frustration and unfairness? Further, will he share with the chamber any initial conclusions that he has drawn from the current review relating to ways to shorten the process, increase public participation and trust and accelerate sustainable economic and infrastructure development?

There are two important sides to this debate and both have been reflected in the consultation that has taken place. Businesses and others who are affected have lobbied strongly in support of significant improvements being made with regard to the efficiency of the planning system. Quite rightly, communities have lobbied strongly for improvements in relation to fairness in the planning system and their ability to participate in that system. We need to ensure that we adopt a balanced approach to the proposals that are made.

When the Executive announces its proposals, which I believe will be early next year, we will ensure not only that we improve the way in which communities and individuals participate in the planning system but, significantly, that we improve the efficiency of the system, speed up the system, improve enforcement and ensure a much more effective delivery for those who are making applications and objecting to them.

Does the First Minister accept that the most significant application that many communities can face is one for opencast mining? Although the Scottish Executive's consultation on new guidance for opencast mining is welcome, does he share my concern that, in the period between now and the introduction of that guidance, a number of applications might go through that would otherwise be refused? Will the Scottish Executive therefore consider placing a moratorium on opencast mining applications until the new guidance is in place?

We must be careful about announcing moratoriums on planning applications while consultation takes place on new guidance. It is important that planning authorities are able to implement the current guidance consistently. If there is a problem with the current system, the perception that local communities sometimes have is that the guidance is not implemented consistently and effectively. We must ensure that the current guidance is implemented consistently, but where that guidance requires to be updated—as we believe it does in relation to opencast mining—we will move speedily to update it. However, we will ensure that the views of local communities and others are taken on board in the process.

In considering the new planning legislation, will the First Minister give a guarantee that he will make provision for communities that are blighted by sewage being dumped on their doorsteps and by landfill where no planning permission is needed because of the past history of those sites? There is no communication with or democracy in those communities. Will he guarantee that things will be changed?

As I said earlier in response to Christine May, in modernising and improving the planning system, it is important that we should have a regime that works more efficiently and which is enforced more effectively, so that the conditions in respect of any successful application are made clear and that such conditions are properly applied and enforced. That is our objective and I hope that it will be clear that we have achieved that objective when the minister announces our plans.

I welcome what the First Minister says about having a balanced response. However, does he agree that local communities currently feel alienated in the planning process and that introducing a third-party right of appeal in the coming legislation would go some way towards tackling that feeling of alienation? Will he say whether a third-party right of appeal will be included in the new planning legislation?

I recognise the support on the SNP's front bench for a full third-party right of appeal. However, we believe that we must take a balanced approach to the matter and that we must ensure that local communities have improved rights, as well as ensuring that there is a more efficient and effective system. When we bring forward our proposals, members will see that our approach can be welcomed both by people who need to ensure that development takes place in their community and by people who wish to stop development.

I strongly welcome the First Minister's open mind while we consider our approach to a community right of appeal. It appears that he recognises not only the strong views of many communities that are frustrated by the unfairness of the system, but that we should go beyond the issue of modernising participation. Does he therefore agree that key to any proposal for a community right of appeal is ensuring that the system deals with applications speedily and on clear and defined grounds that do not impose undue delays? Does he further agree that if such a proposal is on the table, it should be seriously considered by the Scottish Executive?

As I said, the proposals that come forward must have a balance that ensures that communities and individuals not only have, but feel that they have, more opportunities to influence decisions that are made, particularly by local planning authorities, and that local planning authorities operate a system that is more efficient from beginning to end and more effectively enforced afterwards. That is the challenge in modernising Scotland's planning system. Doing so is not an easy task. Strong views have been expressed about the lack of participation by some local communities in the system and their frustration with planning authorities. People who support development and wish to see development where it can be justified and meets local plans have also expressed strong views. Ensuring that we have an improved system that can meet those two objectives is a challenge. The minister will outline our plans in the new year.

---

Public Water Supplies (Fluoridation)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is on the fluoridation of public water supplies. (S2F-1212)

I confirm that we are currently considering our full response to our consultation on improving the oral health of Scotland's children. Given the public interest in the matter, I can confirm that, having listened to the views that have been expressed, we will not be changing the current legislation on fluoridation of water supplies in this Parliament. We will, however, introduce a range of other measures to improve the dental health of children, especially in the early years.

I welcome whole-heartedly the First Minister's response. Scotland's poor oral health is a given. Will he now promote increased action through schools and health visitors to encourage good tooth-brushing technique among children, perhaps backed up with free toothbrushes and free toothpaste?

There are a number of good examples of, for example, school and community breakfast clubs that are assisting with the brushing of young children's teeth early in the morning. That is partly a way of training them in that basic skill, but it is also a way of encouraging them to improve their dental health.

We should not underestimate or play down the importance of the issue. Although, for obvious reasons, we cannot go out there and brush people's teeth for them, we can—[Interruption.]

Order.

We can try to create a culture in which young people and their parents take the issue more seriously; in which more parents are encouraged to register their children with dentists; in which there is a greater availability of services; and in which young people are motivated to continue not just brushing their teeth, but looking after their dental hygiene as a whole. That is a real challenge for us. When we outline our proposals for improving oral health in Scotland's children, a comprehensive package will be put in place.

The Scottish Executive has long professed neutrality on this issue. I welcome the First Minister's confirmation that fluoridation will not be carried out yet, or under the forthcoming bill; however, can he explain why a neutral Scottish Executive has been funding the pro-fluoridation lobby for many years? Those are not impartial experts giving neutral advice, but pro-fluoridation lobbyists giving advice to the Scottish Executive and funded with taxpayers' money. Is it not true that the Scottish Executive has been doing that for far too long, needs to stop doing it and needs to accept that fluoridation has been rejected by the Scottish people as a wasteful, polluting, untargeted move and a distraction from the food issues that affect the Scottish diet?

It might have been better just to say, "We welcome the announcement."

Over the past two months, members of all parties have talked a lot about raising our game in the Parliament. We are talking about a serious issue that affects the hygiene and health of thousands of young Scottish children every year. First, we need to have a sensible debate about the matter and, when we agree, we should not make up false disagreements. Secondly, we do not need the laughter and the calls of "Whitewash," that have come from the Scottish National Party when we talk about a basic issue of children's health. If the Scottish Parliament is going to do anything for this country, it is going to improve the health of the population. I believe that trying to tackle poor oral hygiene in young children is just as important as trying to tackle smoking.

---

Hospital-acquired Infection

To ask the First Minister how many cases of hospital-acquired infection there are and what targets the Scottish Executive has set for its control. (S2F-1215)

There are too many cases of hospital-acquired infections. That is why we have established national cleaning specifications, a detailed code of practice and other actions to target the causes of those infections.

I thank the First Minister for a partial answer. No doubt, he is aware of the Scottish infections standards and strategy group, which is based in Aberdeen. That group agrees with me that we must start a programme of screening and isolation of new patients who enter hospital. Does the First Minister agree that we must screen not only patients, but staff and regular visitors and give responsibility for infection control and cleaning to sisters who are in charge of wards?

The Minister for Health and Community Care will outline further actions on the matter over the coming weeks. I do not want to pre-empt that announcement, which will be made to Parliament in the proper way. However, I want to make it clear that we need a tough programme not only of setting national standards, but of ensuring that those standards are implemented. We need to publish the performance of hospitals against those standards and to ensure that, throughout Scotland, individuals in wards have a clear responsibility for ensuring that improved cleaning standards are met. However, we also need to ensure that our response is proportionate and that individuals take some responsibility for this matter. A proportionate response is one thing, but the tough top-down regime that will implement those standards and ensure that performance is measured against them and published will be outlined by the minister soon.

Does the First Minister agree that the first step towards tackling infections such as MRSA is for our health boards and authorities to be open and transparent when they are having difficulties? Earlier this week, NHS Grampian was not forthcoming when it was asked to acknowledge the number of MRSA cases in its hospitals. In fact, the information had to be prised from it. Does he agree that we really have to open and transparent before we can tackle the problem?

I do not want to comment on an incident when I am not aware of all the facts, but I am happy to ensure that it is looked into if Mr Rumbles so wishes. That said, I believe that openness and transparency will be part of the solution to this issue, because if we put standards in place we must ensure that we know the areas in which they are or are not being met. That is why we will move further towards publishing appropriate information next year.

That concludes First Minister's question time.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—