Plenary, 19 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, December 19, 2002

Official Report 698KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

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 discuss. (S1F-2368)

I meet the secretary of state regularly and we discuss a range of issues.

At a time when thousands of families are concerned about their future, will the First Minister give Parliament an update on the current European Union fishery negotiations?

As Mr Swinney will be aware, Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley are involved in detailed negotiations today at a bilateral level with other colleagues and the European Commission and tonight at meetings of the fisheries council. They continue to argue strongly the case for Scotland's fishing industry.

Two weeks ago, I argued for the commonsense position that negotiations should take place under the new regime that is coming into force rather than under the old and failed regime—that argument certainly seems to have been accepted by many European countries—and that we should resist panic measures that do long-term damage for supposed short-term gain. Does the First Minister agree that any proposal to limit days at sea can be described only as a panic measure and would be just as economically ruinous and politically unacceptable as the cuts that were originally proposed?

The proposal that days at sea should be limited to the equivalent of seven a month has been under discussion since Monday. That proposal is unacceptable and Mr Finnie and Mr Morley are trying to change it—I wish them well in that task. However, they are far more likely to be successful if Richard Lochhead's behaviour in Brussels this week—which is what is really politically unacceptable—is a bit more in keeping with his position as a parliamentary spokesperson for the main Opposition party. I have a selection of press releases from Richard Lochhead in Brussels. Instead of doing what Tony Blair and I have been doing, which is underlining the case that Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley are putting this week, he has been undermining the case for Scotland. He is attacking not only the individuals who are leading our negotiations, but their strategy. By doing that, he is helping the opposition. That is unacceptable and Mr Swinney should tell him to come back home.

All that I can tell the First Minister to do is explain that message to the fishing communities of Scotland, which want someone to speak strongly for the Scottish fishing industry.

My question to the First Minister was about a compromise on days at sea, which is an important issue. Will he rule out a compromise on days at sea? He said that seven days at sea a month is unacceptable, but what does he consider acceptable? If he cannot rule out a compromise on days at sea, how can Parliament be assured that the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government are doing everything that they can to save the Scottish fishing industry? Can the First Minister say with confidence that, when Parliament reconvenes after Christmas, he will not stand in the chamber to defend a deal that has ruined the economic prospects of countless families in Scotland?

There is an issue about the way in which we conduct ourselves and win in international negotiations. The reality is—[Interruption.] It may be difficult for those who want simply to undermine the case to listen, but it would be better if they did. In international negotiations, we have not only to be realistic about our prospects, but to argue as strongly as possible for Scotland. That is exactly what we have been doing for weeks on end. In doing that, we have received support from the majority of members of all parties and we have had the courtesy to keep people such as the Opposition spokesperson for fisheries involved and informed about the strategy that we are following.

At every stage in the process, we have secured the support of the British Government, including, at the highest level, the Prime Minister in discussions with the President of the European Commission and other European leaders. That will happen again if it has to.

We have to be honest. Of course there will be changes in the North sea fisheries, but we have to ensure that, in the final decisions that are made, the unacceptable closure or anything getting close to closure of the North sea fishery does not happen tonight or tomorrow. That is our objective and I believe that Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley can meet it. However, the Parliament needs to unite behind them instead of undermining them.

There is no way that I would ask the First Minister to reveal to Parliament the UK Government's negotiating position. However, I want him to stop hiding behind vague terms and promises and tell Parliament what his bottom line is. What would he refuse to concede to defend the Scottish fishing industry?

I have only one thing to say to that. I am very glad that today we have someone in Brussels who is not announcing his negotiating position to the world before he goes into the negotiations. We do not have Mr Swinney; instead, we have Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley, who are battling for Scotland and the Scottish fishing industry and who intend to win.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2364)

I am afraid that the agenda for the next meeting of Cabinet has not yet been agreed.

May I suggest that, as a starting point, the First Minister remind the Cabinet of the words of one of his predecessors, the late Donald Dewar? Donald Dewar said that the success of the Parliament will depend not on having 129 MSPs but

"on its ability to deliver"

and

"to respond to Scottish public opinion".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 November 1998; Vol 319, c 386.]

How true those words were.

This week, the Executive awarded itself a 92 per cent pass mark in a paper that it marked itself. However, on the same day, an independent survey carried out by the Electoral Commission found that public confidence in the Administration's ability to improve our health and education services has slumped over the past five years. Given that state of affairs, does the First Minister agree that we need to cut the Parliament and the Government in Scotland down to size and focus them properly on reforming our public services?

No, I do not agree with Mr McLetchie. The worst thing that the Parliament could do is spend the next four years arguing about politicians, sizes and structures instead of dealing with the key issues that face Scotland, such as improving our transport system, tackling crime, improving standards in our health and education systems and growing the Scottish economy. It is time that the Parliament concentrated on those fundamental priorities instead of on politicians.

The First Minister is concentrating on politicians, because his party wants to change the Scotland Act 1998. We simply want to implement what was arranged and agreed in the first place.

As for the priorities that the First Minister has outlined for his Administration, the Executive's report card actually shows a catalogue of broken promises. The Executive promised to improve our schools, yet half our children cannot read, write or add up properly at the age of 14. [Members: "Half?"] That is what the attainment survey shows. Although the Executive promised to improve our hospitals, thousands of people are waiting longer for treatment. Although it promised to tackle crime, violent crime in Scotland is on the up.

The Executive has been successful in a few cases, however. It has successfully poured tens of millions of pounds into a hole in the ground at Holyrood and it has successfully persuaded Helen Liddell to fiddle with the Scotland Act 1998 to suit its own selfish interests. Is that the First Minister's idea of how to regain the Scottish people's trust and confidence in his Administration and the Parliament?

It is not easy to restore public confidence when all political parties do not accept their share of the Parliament's responsibilities or their share of the responsibility for the Parliament's decisions. Mr McLetchie and his party could learn a lesson from that.

As was confirmed again yesterday, Scotland has the lowest unemployment rate for 25 years, the highest rates of employment for almost 40 years, record numbers of police officers, record levels of detection of crime, higher standards in reading and writing than we have had for years and greater investment in transport than we have had for a generation. As far as investment, reform and improving the standards of our public services are concerned, Scotland is getting better. However, all that we have heard in the chamber from the two Opposition parties all year is negative comment after negative comment about Scotland. I wish both of them would cheer up for Christmas.

---

ScotRail (Subsidy)

To ask the First Minister whether a reduction in the level of subsidy to rail operators by the Strategic Rail Authority would have an impact on the ScotRail franchise. (S1F-2371)

No. The funding of the current ScotRail franchise and the next franchise are matters wholly for the Scottish Executive and the Parliament.

I thank the First Minister for clearing up that matter, which was in the news earlier. Does he view the welcome announcement this week of 22 new trains as the answer to overcrowding? Will he give me firm assurances that, with the new rail franchise, passengers will come first and that my constituents and indeed the Scottish public generally will no longer have to endure their journeys to work standing all the way on overcrowded trains that leave late?

As the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning made clear this week, we are not prepared to let those standards continue. We want radical improvements, not only in the rail network and services in Scotland, but in other modes of transport. We are not prepared to wait until the next rail franchise before we see those improvements. That is why those 22 new trains for Scotland will start operating next autumn. We will have new trains and improvements throughout the network to ensure that rail commuters in all parts of Scotland benefit from the investment over the next few years. That is good news for Scotland; it is good news just before Christmas and it should be welcomed by members throughout the chamber.

Will the First Minister confirm that the costs of the Waverley station redevelopment, as a major infrastructure project, will be met by the Strategic Rail Authority and not by the Scottish Executive through the ScotRail franchise or from the block grant?

We continue to have discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority and with the City of Edinburgh Council about that matter.

What effect on rail operators and the wider Scottish economy would a call-up of territorial and regular soldiers have if our depleted armed forces have to be supplemented in the near future?

I do not believe that ScotRail has put in place any specific proposals for that eventuality at this time.

---

Schoolchildren (Filming)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive supports the issuing of guidelines on the filming of schoolchildren. (S1F-2374)

Following the report of the child protection working group in November, we will be issuing updated guidance on the protection of children from abuse early in the new year. It is important that education authorities and schools strike the right balance between recognising the rights of adults and children, particularly in encouraging the involvement of parents in their children's schools, and dealing with the few people in society who pose a threat to children.

Does the First Minister welcome, as I do, the fact that some proportion, balance and common sense have been brought to the issue this week? Does he agree that, although there are genuine issues about privacy and child protection, we must do everything that we can to ensure that the happiness and pleasure involved in bringing up and working with children should not be blighted by a vision of the world that sees bogeymen and potential abusers around every corner?

It is clear to us all that there are a few individuals in our society—primarily adults—who will go to any length to abuse and exploit children in many different ways. Those adults need to be tackled to ensure that we have the protections in place to secure the sort of lifestyle that we believe our children need and deserve. We also need to ensure that parents, family friends, schoolteachers and people who work in the school environment can not only enjoy that experience, but participate whole-heartedly in it. That is why we will support a balanced approach that requires the good judgment of a good head teacher and a sensible approach from education authorities working with the Executive.

---

Bain Review

To ask the First Minister what input the Scottish Executive has had to the Bain review of the fire service. (S1F-2362)

We welcome the publication of Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service. Ministers met Sir George and his team last month and submitted written evidence to the review team. In our consultation paper, which we published earlier this year, we considered repealing section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 to assist with the reforms to improve services locally. Today I can confirm that, in line with one of the recommendations of the Bain report, we will be looking for an early legislative opportunity to repeal section 19 and related provisions in Scotland.

Will the First Minister arrange to have sent to the Scottish Parliament information centre a copy of the written evidence that the Scottish Executive submitted to the Bain report? Does he agree with the view expressed by Jim Wallace in the consultation paper earlier this year that the Scottish Executive will develop a distinctive fire service in Scotland and that the number of fire brigades in Scotland should remain the same? Will he explain why the Bain report recommends a UK policy-making body led by the Deputy Prime Minister and will he say whether he agrees with that recommendation? Will the First Minister guarantee that any operational and policy decisions about the fire service in Scotland will be made by this Parliament and not by the UK Government?

That process would be helped quite considerably if the Opposition spokesperson on the fire dispute was consistent from one month to the next. On modernising the fire service, Tricia Marwick said in an interview on 12 November:

"Let's get the pay dispute solved first and then let's talk about the so called modernising agenda after that."

Just 15 days later, she said:

"We need to look to the employers and we need to look to the FBU and we need to get them round the table to get some settlement to it. Yes, that includes money. Yes, that includes modernisation."

We need a consistent approach from Opposition members if we are ever to get close to answering their questions. Tricia Marwick also said in her question—[Members: "Answer the question."] I am just coming to the question. Her question was about—[Interruption.] I would not make too much noise; members should hear the answer. The question, I believe, was about the importance of our not being part of the UK framework and having our own Scottish decisions. Unfortunately, Tricia Marwick also said in the interview on 27 November:

"it would be wholly wrong of me to suggest that there should be a separate negotiating in Scotland and that is clearly not what I am saying. The Fire Brigades union and employers have entered into a UK negotiation agreement. It will be settled at a UK level".

Will the First Minister tell the Parliament whether a no-strike agreement will be considered during the negotiations?

I do not think that that matter is on the agenda at this time.

---

Argyll and Clyde NHS Board

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to help Argyll and Clyde NHS Board to build on the findings of the support team report into the effectiveness of the board's health systems. (S1F-2367)

We have assisted the board in making key personnel changes and in bringing in its new interim management team. I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on his key role in ensuring that the patients of Argyll and Clyde are properly looked after. We will continue to provide support as the board moves forward to address the issues that face it for the benefit of patients, the public and NHS staff.

I welcome the First Minister's reassurance that the Executive will support the swift and decisive action that is necessary. Does he agree that, despite our problems in Argyll and Clyde, we have a considerable strength in our committed medical and ancillary staff, who have continued to deliver under difficult circumstances? Will he confirm that appropriate support will be available to ensure that the current financial difficulties are not allowed to affect patient services in areas such as Greenock and Inverclyde, which already have a poor health record?

I can certainly confirm that our fundamental approach will be to put the patients of Argyll and Clyde first. That has been the key motivating factor behind the actions that have been taken locally and nationally over recent weeks. It is vital that services in Argyll and Clyde rise up to the proper level and that the funding of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board does not get into the sort of chaotic state that could damage those services in the longer term. We will ensure that the patients in Argyll and Clyde come first. We recognise as a key part of that that the NHS staff in Argyll and Clyde have been going through a period of uncertainty recently and that they, too, need the stability that improved management can provide. We will support Argyll and Clyde in seeking to achieve that objective.

The support team indicated a shameful and shambolic state of affairs in the Argyll and Clyde NHS Board area—one projection is a £30 million deficit for the forthcoming year. Will the First Minister indicate whether any reliance can now be placed on the Scottish Executive's estimated deficits for Scotland's acute hospital trusts? In reply to a parliamentary question, Mr Chisholm said that, as of 30 September 2002, the projected overall deficit for Scotland was £14.2 million and the deficit for Argyll and Clyde acute services was £3.6 million. Should the figure for Argyll and Clyde be reviewed? What reliance can we place on the minister's answer in respect of the rest of Scotland?

The member knows that we obviously want to minimise as much as possible the projected deficit by the end of the financial year. The figures are kept under constant review and will change as we get closer to the end of the financial year. There has been a particular problem in Argyll and Clyde, which Audit Scotland highlighted some time ago. That is one reason why we have been keen to improve management there and secure a management framework that will deliver not just improved services in the future, but improved services within the agreed budget.

I welcome Malcolm Chisholm's decisive action in Argyll and Clyde. What is the time scale for establishing a single NHS system in Argyll and Clyde? What involvement will stakeholders have in shaping the future of the service?

We expect proposals for a single unified system in Argyll and Clyde within six months. The proposals will be an important move towards a better and more efficient management structure in the Argyll and Clyde area. A unified system might be the right option for that area, but it is important that such a unified structure devolves authority and managerial responsibility to hospitals, general practices and others who run the front-line services. That would not be a centralising method of running the health service. I welcome Jackie Baillie's support for the tough action that has been taken to look after the patients whom she represents—I wish that Duncan Hamilton had been as positive on behalf of the SNP.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During 20 minutes of First Minister's question time, the First Minister referred three times, including once at length, to quotations from SNP members. I believe that the standing orders say that questions and answers must relate to matters for which the First Minister is responsible. As he is not responsible for what SNP members have said, will the Presiding Officers advise the First Minister to remain in order during First Minister's question time and answer questions?

That is a byzantine question, Mr Russell. I cannot be responsible for the First Minister's answers. We will move to the next item of business.