Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 20 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, January 20, 2000


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


West of Scotland Water

1. George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD):

To ask the Scottish Executive what consultation was carried out with businesses and the general public by West of Scotland Water prior to announcing its plans to introduce a levy to cover costs of collecting, treating and disposing of rainwater. (S1O-946) The Minister for Transport and the Environment (Sarah Boyack): In December 1999, West of Scotland Water sent more than 15,000 letters to its business customers and representative groups to consult them on proposed changes to the way in which charges are calculated.

So that letter was the consultation process, and no consultation took place with businesses before it was sent out. Who will cover the cost of measuring the roofs to calculate the amount of money that businesses will be required to pay?

Sarah Boyack:

This is a wonderful opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings. Mr Lyon's remarks make a great headline, but the reality is that the business community—in particular smaller businesses—requested a fairer assessment of how its water charges are calculated.

Extensive consultation took place before the 15,000 letters were sent out by West of Scotland Water. The proposed changes were also approved by the former Water and Sewerage Customers Council as a better way of assessing the charges. The charges are not new, as the headlines would suggest, but are a reassessment of the existing charges to make them fairer, in particular for some of those businesses that had complained to West of Scotland Water. It is hoped that the previous consultation exercise and the information that went out before Christmas will make the situation much clearer.

If any disputes arise over the amount that businesses have to pay—that is in working out the roof areas that they will be responsible for paying for—is a mechanism in place to resolve disputes between customers and West of Scotland Water?

Sarah Boyack:

In the first instance, such disputes would have to be taken up with West of

Scotland Water. I would hope that an amicable agreement could be reached once the principles of the charging approach had been discussed in detail and understood. West of Scotland Water's view is that it will not cost any of those businesses any resources to calculate the new figures. The process that has been adopted should not require any extra resources.


NHS Pay Review

2. Mr Duncan Hamilton (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will list the professions within the national health service in Scotland that are currently excluded from the pay review process. (S1O-934) The Minister for Health and Community Care (Susan Deacon): All staff in the NHS in Scotland have their pay reviewed annually.

Mr Hamilton:

Does the minister recognise the historical disparity between the pay offers to those within the official pay review process and those without? Does she accept the claim of many staff within the NHS structure that they are the forgotten professions because they are excluded from the review process? Will she take this opportunity to offer to include officially in the pay review process all staff within the NHS who wish to be part of that process?

Susan Deacon:

I regret that—perhaps not for the first time—Mr Hamilton's debating skills are more finely honed than his grasp of the facts.

NHS pay and conditions are a matter of some importance to me and, I am sure, to most members, so I will outline the exact position. Certain professions within the NHS are covered by independent pay review bodies. Those bodies reported this week and I am very pleased to say that the Scottish Executive announced that it would implement in full the recommendations made by the bodies for nurses, midwives, health visitors, professions allied to medicine, doctors and dentists. Other staff in the NHS are covered not by independent pay review bodies, but by separate negotiating machinery. An offer is being considered by the unions' representatives through that negotiating machinery at the moment, and I hope that a settlement will be reached.

In the longer term, we are working actively to put in place a modern, effective pay system for the NHS in Scotland and, with our partners, throughout the UK.

Mr Hamilton:

Does the minister concede that some of the offers have still not been agreed from last year, never mind this year? I ask her again, does she recognise that those who have not been covered by the pay review bodies historically have been offered lower rises than those who are covered by them? What will she do about that?

Susan Deacon:

I repeat that, for the current year, the offer for non-pay review body staff is being considered by the unions, and I hope that a settlement can be reached.

As I have said on many occasions, pay systems and structures across the health service owe more to the NHS of the 1940s than they do to the NHS of the 21st century, which is why, through the agenda for change, we are working with the other three UK health departments. We issued a joint statement in September with all the staff negotiating bodies and trade unions setting out how, over the coming period, we will put in place an effective, modern pay system for the NHS in Scotland.


Public Finances

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it recognises the existence of the "Barnett squeeze" on Scottish public finances. (S1O-939)

The Barnett formula delivers the same increases or decreases in spending per head on comparable programmes in Scotland as are planned in England. As Mr Wilson knows, that spending per head is considerably higher in Scotland than in England.

Andrew Wilson:

Is the spending per head that the minister outlined fair or not? Is the minister aware of the publication this week by the Scottish Parliament information centre of a review of Mr Blair's uncosted commitment to a 5 per cent increase in health spending over the next five years? Is he aware that that independent report finds that once the Scottish share of the funding has gone through the Barnett squeeze—which is real—it will be £500 million less than it would have been if it were in line with the share for the rest of the UK?

Mr McConnell:

I am pleased to have Mr Wilson's support for the promised significant increase in health spending that was given by the UK Government, for which Scotland will get an equivalent per-head share in the years ahead. Mr Wilson is already aware of the £1.8 billion of health spending, which is new money in Scotland, this year, next year and the year after. That money is now guaranteed to continue under a Labour Government at Westminster and an alliance coalition at Holyrood.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces the mini-budget or autumn supplement, what will be the mechanism for Scotland to access its slice of the cake?

Mr McConnell:

When comparable programmes are announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and significant funding increases go ahead, Scotland receives an equivalent per-head share of the cake automatically under the funding policy that was agreed. That is a good deal for Scotland, and it is one from which—as will be seen in the supplementary estimates that are published tomorrow for the use of the Finance Committee next month—we are benefiting already in this financial year, as we will do again next year.


Rural Schools

4. Alex Johnstone (North-East Scotland) (Con):

To ask the Scottish Executive what powers it has to protect fragile communities by preventing local authorities from targeting small rural schools such as Boharm primary school in Moray for closure. (S1O-933) The Deputy Minister for Children and Education (Peter Peacock): In limited and defined circumstances, decisions of councils are referred to ministers for approval. Moray Council's decision on Boharm primary school is one such example.

In that case, will the minister take into account during his considerations the details that were supplied to Mr Dewar in a letter, dated 10 January, from the local councillor of the ward in which the school is situated?

Peter Peacock:

I can assure the member that in all such circumstances ministers take careful account of all the representations that are made. However, I am a tad surprised that the Tories are raising this matter, because during the period 1979-97, more small, rural schools in Scotland were closed than under any Administration during the entire century. To see the Conservatives now trying to defend this school, when the pressure came from them to close rural schools, is quite rich.

I hope that the tone of the minister's reply does not mean that he has made up his mind about Boharm. What factors will he bear in mind when considering the closure of schools such as Boharm?

Peter Peacock:

I assure Brian Adam that we take such matters seriously, as we recognise the importance to small communities of local schools. A predecessor of mine, Brian Wilson, set out a test of proportionate advantage when considering such matters. The impact on the children in the school must be weighed against the wider interests of the community and the long-term responsibility of a local authority to plan education provision for this generation and future generations. All those matters are put into the melting pot for consideration.


Rail Transport

5. Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to make any representations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of the proposed Transport Bill as it relates to railways in Scotland. (S1O-936) The Minister for Transport and the Environment (Sarah Boyack): The UK Transport Bill makes provision for the devolution of certain executive functions relating to the operation of railways in Scotland. That is in line with the announcement made by Henry McLeish on 31 March 1998. The Scottish Executive is in regular and close contact with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on those matters.

Mr MacAskill:

Is the minister aware that section 192 of the bill transfers the powers of the British transport police to the strategic rail authority and not to this Parliament and that section 194(2)(c) gives the powers to make byelaws prohibiting and restricting the smoking of tobacco to the strategic rail authority and not to this Parliament? Is that not both evidence of a democratic deficit and an absurdity?

Sarah Boyack:

Once again, we will have to agree to disagree on that matter. I have had some fruitful discussions with the British transport police, examining their strategic priorities for Scotland, tackling the problems of safety on the railways and examining how that fits in with our local community safety strategy. The Transport Bill gives us substantial powers in Scotland to get the railways that we want and need for the future. That is the challenge that we face and we are in regular contact with our colleagues in the rest of the UK to ensure that such matters are delivered throughout the UK.

Will the minister indicate what criteria might be used when the ScotRail franchise comes up for renewal and whether the opportunity will be taken to set a future vision for the railways in Scotland?

Sarah Boyack:

The shadow strategic rail authority has already begun the franchise replacement process. The issues that it is highlighting are relevant. Commitment to higher investment and better service, safety and value for money—those are the things that Scottish passengers want from our rail service. Throughout the franchise replacement process, those are the things that will be at the forefront of my mind.

Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con):

Will the minister confirm that the annual subsidy to ScotRail will fall from around £300 million a year in

1995 to £200 million by 2002 and that all the savings will accrue to the Treasury? Does she agree that, if the Transport Bill allowed the Scottish Executive to control those funds, they could be invested in what the minister referred to as the railways that we want and need for the future—electrification of the railway between Aberdeen and Edinburgh, the Waverley line, the Alloa-Stirling line and so on?

Sarah Boyack:

We have just heard a fairly fundamental misconception. The fact that the ScotRail franchise costs us less money every year is a result of the original franchise agreement. The investment is coming into Scottish railways. It is a good news story, not the bad news story that Mr Tosh suggests.

There are many issues that we need to consider in terms of the vision for the future of railways in Scotland: the Stirling-Alloa-Dunfermline line; the Borders railway issue; improving the number of services on our lines rather than simply adding more lines; and opening new stations. We want to ensure that we deliver benefits for every rail passenger in Scotland.


Tourist Boards

6. Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP):

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to ensure security of funding for local area tourist boards. (S1O-921) The Deputy Minister for Highlands and Islands and Gaelic (Mr Alasdair Morrison): We will announce shortly the outcome of our review of the method of funding area tourist boards.

Mr Ingram:

Will the minister provide assistance to area tourist boards to bridge the funding gap that was created by the Executive's failure to have the applications system in place to access objective 2 funding from the EU in time for the new financial year? What assurances can he give the tourism industry in areas such as Dumfries and Galloway that were hit by the loss of objective 5b funding that the promotion of the area will not falter because of cuts in area tourist board budgets?

I can give the assurance that strands of objective 1 money were used to develop tourism infrastructure. European funding is important throughout our programme.

I believe that the Executive's strategy for the tourism industry is due to be announced soon. Will the minister tell me what is proposed to tackle the challenges facing the tourism industry in the Highlands and Islands?

Mr Morrison:

Mrs Macmillan raises an important question. Seasonality and regionality are challenges that we will address in our strategy, which will be launched in a few weeks. I cannot go into specific details, because we are still finalising the strategy, in constructive dialogue with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. However, I can assure Mrs Macmillan, and other members who represent rural communities, that the question of seasonality and regionality will be addressed.


NHS Dental Services

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it intends to take to ensure that dentists can continue to offer services uniformly to NHS patients throughout Scotland. (S1O-954)

A number of measures, including the Scottish dental access initiative and the appointment of salaried dentists, are already in place or are being developed to ensure the availability of NHS dental services in Scotland.

Allan Wilson:

I thank the minister for that positive response. Access to NHS dentists is critical to those on fixed or low incomes—who do not have the resources to be treated privately— and to the wider dental health strategy. Will she specify what initiatives have been implemented or are being considered at a local level to deal with Scotland's generally poor dental health record? There is an example of such an initiative in Cunninghame North to improve the dental health of my constituents.

Susan Deacon:

I agree with Allan Wilson that access to NHS dental services is crucial. I am pleased to say that Mr Wilson's constituency is one of the areas that has benefited from the extension of the provision of salaried NHS dentists in Scotland. That is the direction in which we intend to continue to move. As he rightly identified, we have to get better not just at treating dental decay, but at preventing it from occurring in the first place. The Executive is working actively to consider how to drive forward a range of measures, both nationally and locally, to improve the nation's dental health, particularly that of our children.


Economic Development Services

9. Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):

To ask the Scottish Executive what the gross annual cost is, including salaries, office provision and support, and loan and leasing charges, of the delivery by local authorities in Scotland of economic development services. (S1O-958) The Deputy Minister for Local Government (Mr Frank McAveety): I am delighted to tell the

member that that information is not held centrally.

Miss Goldie:

I thank the minister for a reply that, if not explicit, is certainly significant. I inquire how, on the basis of such ignorance, his colleague Mr McLeish can announce a business initiative such as he did in The Herald yesterday. There is apparently no means of assessing whether that is the best means of delivery, given that we have no means of quantifying the performance audit of such activities.

Mr McAveety:

I am surprised at the substance of that question. At the weekend, the Conservatives were speculating that £2 billion was being spent on local economic development. Any reasonable analysis would show last year's figure to be £46 million. Unless we are engaging in what I would call the Norman Lamont counting house scenario, we cannot give any credit to that suggestion. Fundamentally, local authorities themselves will be engaging in local economic development. There are two major inquiries at the moment: the first, on the enterprise network, was announced by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning; and the second is being undertaken by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Those will dovetail, and I hope that by the summer we will have a fuller response, which could inform this debate much more than some of the speculation at the weekend did.

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):

In the light of the helpful way in which the minister answered that question, does he understand that there is a growing and full debate in Scotland on the most effective way of delivering local economic development services? Does he not think that the contribution that has been made by parliamentary committees on this subject is an interesting example of how the Parliament can truly work to deliver value-for-money services and sustainable economic benefit for Scotland, in addition to what customers are looking for?

Mr McAveety:

I recognise what John Swinney has said—my comments identified his work in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Many of the strategies adopted in the 1970s and 1980s need to be revisited. I hope that the report will endorse that and address many of the points that need to be considered in detail. The work of committees is important in ensuring that the Parliament works effectively for the people who elected its members.


Drugs Education

11. Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD):

To ask the Scottish Executive what the reasons are for the comprehensive audit of all resources currently directed towards drugs education and rehabilitation announced by the Minister for Finance on 6 October; whether it will be carried out independently of the Scottish Executive and, if so, by whom, how long it will take and how much it will cost. (S1O-945)

The Deputy Minister for Justice (Angus MacKay):

The policy unit of the Scottish Executive was commissioned to audit the Scottish Executive's expenditure on tackling drug misuse, identifying the resources that are going into each strand of the drugs strategy. The work will inform policy making across the Scottish Executive and should be completed by the end of April 2000. No additional costs are involved in the project.

Mr Raffan:

Will the minister assure me that the audit will not simply be a financial one, but will measure outcomes where possible? Will he also assure me that the public health policy unit will be included in the audit, given the crucial cross-cutting role that it plays in the Executive?

Angus MacKay:

The purpose of the audit is to inventory every penny that is spent by the Executive in relation to drug misuse. Therefore, the public health policy unit will be taken into account—as will every other unit in the Executive. Measurement of the outputs of organisations is work that might follow at a later stage, once the audit has reached its conclusions.


Influenza Immunisation

12. Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):

To ask the Scottish Executive whether, consequent to the recent influenza outbreak, it has any plans to improve uptake of the influenza immunisation programme by vulnerable groups in future years. (S1O-949) The Minister for Health and Community Care (Susan Deacon): As part of its aim of continual improvement of services for patients, the Scottish Executive—as I said in my statement last week— will be reviewing winter planning arrangements, including the flu vaccination programme. Part of that review will be to consider ways of improving uptake.

Dr Murray:

I thank the minister for her assurances about the promotion of the immunisation programme. Will she comment on recent suggestions that an anti-viral drug might be used as an alternative to immunisation? Does she have any information about the relative efficacy of those treatments in preventing influenza and whether there are any contraindications or side effects associated with the use of anti-viral drugs?

Susan Deacon:

Anti-viral flu drugs have been available for several years—Amantadine, for example. The available evidence suggests that such drugs have limited efficacy; they treat only one flu strain and must be taken for the duration of the flu season. In so far as flu can be prevented,

vaccination remains—according to the advice that we have been given—the most effective method, particularly through the targeting of vulnerable groups. We constantly listen to advice from clinicians on these matters and we continue to prepare policy in the light of that advice.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):

Will the minister agree that, given that the uptake of the flu vaccine by the over-75s was 25 per cent, the campaign was a failure? Will she agree that her advice to people not to go and bother their general practitioners was just the kind of advice that would be taken to heart by elderly people, thus compounding the failure of the campaign? Will she also agree that this year we require additional resources—to which she has not committed herself—for a proper information programme for the immunisation of the over-65s in Scotland?

Susan Deacon:

The advice issued over the winter—not just to the elderly, but to everyone in general—was not issued by me, but by the chief medical officer for Scotland. I suggest that politicians are best placed to listen to medical experts on such matters. We will continue to invest on the basis of that advice and to take appropriate steps to protect the health of the Scottish people.

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):

Will the minister consider giving resources to Scottish GPs to cover some of the costs of administering the flu vaccine, as happens in England? Does she agree with the view of the British Medical Association that the lack of resources meant that the high uptake that is necessary for a truly effective vaccination programme could not be achieved?

Susan Deacon:

I addressed this issue fully in my statement last week and in response to questions. However, I am happy to return to the point.

In the current financial year, we have fully funded a flu immunisation programme, spending approximately £2 million in making the vaccine available free of charge to GPs across Scotland— that system does not exist in England, where GPs are required to purchase the vaccine. We will continue to develop the arrangements that are right for Scotland; we will continue to invest record amounts in the health service in Scotland; and we will continue to take practical measures to protect the health of the people whom we represent.


Vulnerable Witnesses

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to progress the issues in relation to vulnerable witnesses raised in the report "Towards a Just Conclusion". (S1O-955)

The Executive is still considering the way forward in the light of responses to the consultation document and developments since the paper was published.

Johann Lamont:

Will the minister explain the apparent delay in bringing forward proposals? The consultation closed in the spring of last year. Will he assure the chamber that the Executive will give the highest priority to bringing forward legislation to prevent the cross-examination of the victims of sexual crime by the accused? That legislation will give the women of Scotland the same important protection that is being put in place in England and Wales.

Mr Wallace:

I assure Johann Lamont that we have not lost sight of this important issue. I accept that there have been delays owing to a number of factors, including the response that we had to make to the Macpherson report following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, and work of the Lord Advocate's working party on the evidence of child witnesses. We are continuing to address those matters.

In the consultation paper, aggressive cross- examination was considered and the conclusion was reached that common law as it stands is sufficient to give protection. The paper did not address the issue of any kind of cross-examination by the accused. We recognise the concerns of many women on this issue, but I say to Ms Lamont and the Parliament that any change would give rise to a number of practical issues, including the need to adhere to the European convention on human rights. We want to bring forward legislation, but it is far more important that that legislation is robust and can stand up to challenge than it is to rush things and get the legislation wrong.

Johann Lamont:

I am not sure that I would use the word "rush" to describe what has been done thus far. The practical problems that the minister identified seem to have been dealt with south of the border. If it can be done there, surely the Scottish Parliament can do the same here.

Mr Wallace:

It has always been recognised that the measures that were introduced south of the border last year could not readily be applied to Scotland for a whole host of reasons, including the rules on cross-examination in Scotland. That does not mean that we should not consider an appropriate Scottish solution. However, in all such matters, it is important to balance the rights of the woman who has gone through a trauma with the rights of the accused. If we produced a system in which a person was acquitted on appeal because we had got the balance wrong, everyone would agree that that would not serve the interests of justice.


Breast Screening

14. Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab):

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to encourage women, particularly those in the most vulnerable groups, to attend for breast screening. (S1O-956) The Minister for Health and Community Care (Susan Deacon): Breast screening attendance is closely monitored by the Scottish screening programme's central co-ordinating unit, which shares evidence of good promotion initiatives with the screening centres across the country. Health boards are responsible for health promotion work in their local areas and for taking a range of measures at local level to improve take-up of screening.

Patricia Ferguson:

Given that the target for take-up across Scotland stands at 75 per cent, what action would the minister recommend to Greater Glasgow Health Board—which covers an area where the take-up is only 64 per cent—to encourage women to attend for that vital screening?

Susan Deacon:

I am glad that Patricia Ferguson has raised the issue of breast screening, especially in the light of recent press coverage. I take this opportunity to reinforce the message that it is important that women attend for breast screening when called.

I have looked at the figures for take-up in Glasgow, and I am pleased that the most recent figures show that the take-up has increased to

69.9 per cent. That is to be welcomed; it is one of the largest increases in the country. However, we want to do better. Greater Glasgow Health Board is putting in place more mobile screening, promoting local media campaigns and working with ethnic minority groups to encourage take-up. I, too, encourage women in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland to make use of the screening programmes. Ms Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (SNP): I should perhaps declare an interest—I am a patron of the Scottish Breast Cancer Campaign. Will the minister work in partnership with that organisation, which can reach the women that very often official bodies cannot? That might prove a very cost- effective way of spreading the message.

Susan Deacon:

I thank Margo MacDonald for her point. A few months ago, I had a constructive and informative meeting with the Scottish Breast Cancer Campaign and was delighted to hear directly about its experience of representing women who have had breast cancer. I hope that we can continue to work in partnership with that organisation in developing policy and designing services for women with breast cancer.

Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab):

What measures are being taken to encourage health boards to advertise the fact that voluntary breast screening is available to women over the age of 65? Does the minister agree that the uptake of such screening is growing in some areas, which has put some pressure on the service?

Susan Deacon:

As I said, various local initiatives have been introduced, which is very often the most effective way of getting across information about screening facilities. It is important that we continually work to increase uptake. Screening plays its part in giving us the figures that we now have—three out of four women are now surviving breast cancer. Although health services for women are improving all the time, women need to get better at using them, and I will continue to work with local health authorities to ensure that that happens.


Cancer

15. Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):

To ask the Scottish Executive what long- term measures it is taking to reduce the number of cancer-related deaths in Scotland. (S1O-948) The Minister for Health and Community Care (Susan Deacon): Tackling cancer is one of the three clinical priorities for the NHS in Scotland. We are committed to promoting better health to avoid people getting cancer in the first place, and to ensuring both early detection and earlier, more effective treatment.

Karen Whitefield:

Does the minister agree that a healthy diet can protect against cancer later in life? Furthermore, does she agree that initiatives such as the food co-op in Caldercruix in my constituency, which is run by local people in partnership with the local primary schools, help to encourage children to eat fresh fruit and vegetables? What other steps are being taken by the Executive to encourage and support healthy eating?

Susan Deacon:

Karen Whitefield touches on the important fact that so many cancers are preventable. Cancer Research's figures, which were published a week ago, suggest that as many as a third of all cancers in Scotland could be prevented and that diet is one of the main factors of the high incidence of the disease in Scotland. We are taking forward national work in that area through the Scottish national diet action plan and are encouraging local initiatives such as the food co-operative that Karen Whitefield mentioned. We are about to appoint a national co-ordinator in that area, which we hope will mark a further step forward.

Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con):



Given that more people contract cancer in

Scotland and that cancer survival rates are much lower than in many other developed countries, how can the Scottish Executive ensure that the Scottish cancer group can effectively tackle what is one of the health service's chief priorities, when the NHS holds no data centrally on recent investment in cancer services?

Susan Deacon:

I have to question Mr Fergusson's premise. In fact, experts have recognised that the work being done in Scotland is very much at the leading edge of UK-wide work on cancer. The Scottish cancer group's work in collecting, monitoring and using data for long-term planning of services is the way forward and is a model that will be followed by other parts of the UK and the world.

Mr Kenneth Gibson (Glasgow) (SNP):

Does not the minister agree that it is absolutely appalling that lung cancer survival rates are lower in Scotland than in Poland? Furthermore, is not it unacceptable that there is a 24-week wait at the Southern General hospital in Glasgow for ultrasound diagnoses and the same wait at the Western Infirmary in Glasgow for a barium meal test? Finally, is not she absolutely embarrassed by the fact that, after five years, prostate cancer survival rates are 36 per cent in Scotland compared with 86 per cent in the US?

Susan Deacon:

As was reported in a national newspaper this week, I like to see the glass as half full rather than half empty. Rather than bemoaning some of the statistics on Scotland's health record, we should celebrate the fact that more people than ever before are surviving cancer. It is important that we send that message out, so that, as a society, we remove the taboo that has surrounded cancer for so long.

That said, I am the first to say that we need to continue to work to improve treatment, diagnosis and prevention. However, rather than living—as the Scottish National party does—in the world of quick fixes and magic wands, I want to continue to take practical measures that will make a real difference to the people of Scotland.


Domestic Abuse

To ask the Scottish Executive what consultation it had, if any, with local authorities on the subject of the establishment of a domestic abuse service development fund prior to the announcement of that fund. (S1O-940)

The establishment of the fund and the issue of the application guidance were undertaken in full consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Was the matched funding method of financing the domestic abuse service development fund taken into consideration when local authorities' budgets were set?

Mr McAveety:

COSLA agreed with the broad strategy of the fund and the need to address the issue of finding more resources for this critical social problem. Many local authorities, along with other agencies such as Scottish Homes, have engaged in the process in many ways. We have arrived at a flexible arrangement to deliver an increase in the resources available to tackle the issue.


Scallop Industry

18. Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure the future of the scallop industry. (S1O-923) The Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr John Home Robertson): We want to ensure the continued good reputation of Scottish shellfish products in general and of scallops in particular. Scallop licensing was introduced recently to ensure the sustainability of stocks, and technical conservation measures to support that are being developed.

Following the closure of the scallop fishery in certain waters last year because of the presence of the amnesic shellfish poisoning toxin, we are discussing with the industry a long-term strategy to deal with the problems of ASP should they continue to arise in the future.

Yesterday, a round-table meeting was held with the industry catchers, farmers and processing interests at which public health, testing procedures, research into the causes, licensing arrangements and options for the diversification of the scallop sector were discussed.

Mr McGrigor:

I am aware that the ban has been lifted in four new areas, but 32 areas are still closed. Licensing restrictions have been eased, but that will allow only an extra four boats to fish. I know also that the minister has had one meeting. Can he explain why the Irish Government is able to protect its consumers' health by end-product standard testing, whereas the Scottish Executive rural affairs department insists on a draconian ban on all scallop fishing? To get this highly significant industry going again, should not we follow the common-sense approach, supported by the Scallop Association and the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers, that scallops should be tested when they enter the food chain?

Mr Home Robertson:

The overriding priority must be public health. That is why Susan Deacon and her officials are, quite rightly, enforcing the regulations in accordance with the right practices for Scotland, the United Kingdom and the

European Union.

I welcome the fact that Susan Deacon was able to reopen the scallop fishery in part of the Minch earlier this week. As Mr McGrigor has acknowledged, at the meeting that we held with the industry yesterday, I was able to announce a relaxation of licensing requirements for fishermen with category C licences to help those who are most seriously affected. I understand also that Highlands and Islands Enterprise can, in special circumstances, give help to fishermen to allow them to diversify.

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP):

Does not the minister agree that in many areas the end product that would be produced if the fishermen were allowed to catch it would be well within the permitted toxin limits? Therefore, do not we need to pursue end-product testing with a great deal of urgency, rather than through the rather protracted negotiations that are going on in Europe just now?

Mr Home Robertson:

I must reiterate the overriding importance of protecting public health. Alasdair Morgan's question should perhaps be more appropriately addressed to the health department. It would be wrong for the department which sponsors the industry to be seen to be leaning on health officials. Surely we have learned from the BSE crisis. The overriding priority of protecting public health is what Susan Deacon and her colleagues are dealing with.