First Minister's Question Time
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what exciting issues they will discuss. (S2F-2230)
I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, but I will be delighted to meet, with other members, Scotland's winning rugby team from this year when they arrive at the Parliament with the Calcutta cup shortly after First Minister's questions.
I think that we can all share that sentiment.
I do not know whether the First Minister managed to catch any of what was a constructive debate this morning about drugs—I hope that we can maintain that constructive tone in this exchange. Does he agree that drug misuse is at the root of many of the problems that we face as a society and that tackling it must be a priority?
Cracking down on dealers is an on-going challenge and we should congratulate Strathclyde's police on their efforts in Glasgow this morning. Does the First Minister agree with me—and with many of the speakers in this morning's debate—that access to the most appropriate treatment for addicts who want to give up drugs is absolutely essential?
It goes without saying that drug misuse is at the heart of many of the social problems that we have in Scotland today. We need to have a consistently implemented strategy that deals with both supply of and demand for drugs. That entails the extensive use of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and local police forces throughout Scotland, not just in Strathclyde, where this morning the largest ever series of raids took place. I hope that that has tackled effectively a number of people who are alleged to be involved in the drugs trade in the west of Scotland. Earlier this week, we saw similar effective action by the local force in Aberdeen. It is essential that such action is taken locally and nationally.
However, it is also essential that we tackle the issue of demand, because without demand there is no need for supply. That is why drug education programmes and drug rehabilitation programmes are so important and why we have increased significantly resources for both.
I acknowledge the success in tackling the supply of drugs and the attempts that are being made to improve rehabilitation and treatment services.
The First Minister will be aware that before an addict can receive appropriate treatment, they have first to be assessed. I refer him to a contribution made this morning by Jeremy Purvis—not a man I quote often—who expressed concern about an addict who had to wait three weeks just to be assessed for treatment. Is the First Minister aware that two years ago, 30 per cent of addicts referred for treatment had to wait more than three weeks for assessment? Is he concerned, as I am, that two years later, the official statistics show that more than 50 per cent of addicts now have to wait more than three weeks to be assessed for treatment?
It depends on the context. If, as in other areas of the health service, the priority has been to reduce the longest waits for assessment and treatment, which has resulted in a small increase for those who have previously experienced shorter waits, that would be justifiable, at least in the short term. However, it would not be justifiable in the longer term. We have to ensure that initial assessment, treatment and access, if necessary, to proper rehabilitation facilities—preferably away from the home, where it can be so difficult for people to give up their addiction and sustain their progress—are more available, more consistently in more parts of Scotland. That is why we have increased investment and made this area such a priority, and we will continue to do so.
The fact that more addicts are waiting more than three weeks for assessment is a matter of concern.
I put it to the First Minister that there is an even bigger cause for concern. He mentioned the longest waits. I draw his attention to information that was provided to my office during the Easter break by the Government's statistics department. It shows that in the last quarter of last year, of the 7,000 new addicts referred for treatment, nearly 1,000 waited more than six months just to be assessed for treatment, and 400 waited longer than a year. Does he agree that, when we have a strategy that rightly encourages addicts to seek help and to take personal responsibility for their lives, such waiting times are just not acceptable and will undermine an approach that we all support?
Ms Sturgeon started well and consensually but, as ever, she managed to depart from that approach. Over the past six months, we have seen consistently the utter distortion of waiting times statistics by the Scottish National Party. Last year, the health service in Scotland made a concerted effort to reduce the longest waiting times by tackling the cases of those who had the longest waits, which has produced the statistics that Ms Sturgeon quotes month after month. It is a good thing that the people with the longest waits were treated and that the longest waits, therefore, came down. That was the right thing for the health service in Scotland to have done, and I will justify it whenever I have to, including here at First Minister's question time.
The real issue is whether the drugs strategy is working in practice. This morning in the west of Scotland, it has been shown yet again that the resources that have been allocated and the policies that are administered by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency are working, because officers are out there tracking those who are accused of supplying drugs on our streets, catching them and ensuring that they are put through the proper prosecution procedures. We know that the number of problematic drug users among young people is going down. For the first time in a long time, the use of drugs by schoolchildren is stable. Since 1999, acquisitive crime by drug users has fallen by 24 per cent. This is still a huge problem in Scotland, but we are tackling it. Tackling supply and demand—ensuring that we deal with both—is the right approach. That approach is now proving effective across Scotland.
I remind the First Minister that I acknowledged the successes of the Government's drugs policy. However, consensus does not mean sweeping problems under the carpet—it means being prepared to turn our minds to seeking solutions to those problems. I ask the First Minister to turn his mind to a very simple question and, for a change, to try to answer it. What specific action is the Scottish Executive taking to reduce substantially waiting times for assessment for drug addicts who want help to get off drugs?
As I have already explained, there are additional investments in the health service to deal with assessments. There are also significant new investments to ensure that people have access to rehabilitation treatment that was not available before. In many parts of Scotland, the waits were not just long but at times completely open ended. Families whom I met would tell me about the agonies that they were going through in order to get their youngsters into rehabilitation places. It is critical that we tackle the supply of drugs and enforce the law effectively. We are doing that more effectively than we have ever done. However, we also need to tackle demand. That means having education programmes to stop youngsters getting into drugs in the first place and ensuring that those who are addicted are able to go through the right process and programmes to rid themselves of addiction. The additional investment will make even more of a difference than the previous investment has already made.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2231)
The Cabinet will discuss a range of issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I can report to Parliament that yesterday the Cabinet congratulated the Lord Advocate on his elevation to the House of Lords. It is entirely appropriate, especially post devolution, that our Lord Advocate should represent Scotland in the House of Lords. I am delighted to congratulate Colin Boyd here again today.
I do not wish the Lord Advocate any ill will at all, but it is perhaps unfortunate that, having got into the House of Lords, he seems to have suffered from political ambivalence and is having to sit as a cross-bencher. Then again, if the Scottish Executive does not know its political colours, what hope is there for the Lord Advocate?
Since I last raised the subject of Scottish Enterprise with the First Minister, disturbing headlines in various newspapers have suggested that the organisation is squaring up for a fight with the Executive and is being unco-operative about appearing before the Parliament's Enterprise and Culture Committee. Although I gather that Scottish Enterprise officials will appear before the committee next week, the episode only adds to the growing public perception that a major part of the problem with the organisation is that it is becoming a law unto itself. Will the First Minister remind it that, as a public body funded by taxpayers, it is accountable for its actions properly and timeously to the Parliament and that the Parliament has a duty to hold it to account?
There is no need for me to do that, because the board and officials of Scottish Enterprise are well aware of their responsibilities to and their relationship with Government in Scotland and this Parliament. I understand that the report of the organisation's internal audit committee will be made available to the Enterprise and Culture Committee in the timetable that was set down, and we will publish the report on Scottish Enterprise's financial position that was commissioned by the minister from the auditors KPMG LLP.
That said, although the current flurry of activity by the Conservatives and nationalists to rubbish Scottish Enterprise might suit their goal of reducing its budget and level of activity, it does not suit Scotland's goals. During the tartan week celebrations, I had the pleasure of announcing a deal between Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Scottish universities that is one of the biggest for the future of our biotech industries and life sciences. The deal could have been concluded only through Scottish Enterprise's strong leadership and determination to focus on national priorities and to make a real difference not just to the organisation itself, our Government or this Parliament but to the future of Scotland. The right strategy is to focus on the right long-term objectives, and we support Scottish Enterprise in implementing that strategy.
I have never rubbished Scottish Enterprise. Indeed, such language is unhelpful to the political debate. The organisation might well be in grave danger of rubbishing itself with its activities, but that is a matter for it to determine.
The other public concern is that an agency charged with improving our economic performance does not seem to be able to balance its own books. Indeed, Karen Gillon has expressed the fear that the problem with Scottish Enterprise is similar to the situation with Scottish Opera
"in which an organisation believed that it could spend ad infinitum"
and
"that, at some point, the Executive would probably have to bail it out."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 28 March 2006; c 2863.]
To allay those very legitimate fears, will the First Minister make it absolutely clear to Scottish Enterprise that the party is over, that it will not be bailed out again and that, like every other organisation that receives public money, it must learn to live within its means?
I want to make three brief comments in response to that question. First, it would be wise for us to wait for the publication of the audit reports and to examine them before we pass judgment on what has happened. However, I am certain that, if procedures require to be improved, Scottish Enterprise will make those improvements.
Secondly, our budget decisions will be based on Scotland's needs and the need for investment in certain areas. As ever, we will make those decisions properly and annually.
Thirdly, despite the need for Scottish Enterprise to address the current financial issues and to take action on various internal procedures, I believe that its strategy is right. Because of its considerable success in implementing that strategy, it deserves more support from this Parliament than it appears to have received from Opposition parties over recent weeks.
The fundamental problem is that Scottish Enterprise is an unwieldy, bloated organisation. I am delighted that the Executive has made a start by acting on my suggestion that Careers Scotland should be removed from its functions. However, what other functions does the First Minister think could be stripped out or cut back to streamline Scottish Enterprise?
We would look at any proposals of that sort on their merits, but it is important that we have an economic strategy that is based on the skills of our people and on the knowledge of our universities, companies and research establishments. That is how Scotland will compete in the future, so there is a clear need for Scottish Enterprise to be involved in regeneration, in the promotion of Scotland overseas, in support for the creation and building of successful Scottish companies and in skills. Those things should always be kept under review as we focus in on the right economic strategy for Scotland and implement it. In the meantime, the key priority must be not to shake up Scottish Enterprise or to act on the Tories' proposal to cut back its activities, but to support Scottish Enterprise in implementing Scotland's economic strategy, in creating jobs for Scotland, in building investment and in building Scottish companies. That is what we should be about.
I shall take two back-bench supplementaries, the first of which is from Dr Elaine Murray.
The First Minister may be aware of two announcements that were made last week, about the closure of the Ring True call centre in Dumfries and about the Hunter Rubber Company going into administration. Almost 100 jobs have already been lost in the town through those two events, and a further 60 may be lost if a buyer is not found for the Hunter Rubber Company. Does he agree that those are significant losses for a town with a population of 35,000? How can he and the Scottish Executive ensure that the internal problems of Scottish Enterprise do not diminish its efforts and its role in securing new businesses to take over both those high-quality sites and provide employment for those whose jobs have been lost or are in jeopardy?
We would clearly wish to support those affected by those decisions and to assist the local agencies that have responsibility to assist the individuals involved and to promote the economy of the Dumfries and Galloway area. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning would be willing to meet Elaine Murray to discuss those issues in more depth in the weeks ahead.
Last evening, I was contacted by some distraught parents in the north-east of Scotland about the threatened closure of Keith Lodge in Stonehaven, which is a facility for young people with disabilities of varying kinds that also provides respite care to people who do not come only from the north-east of Scotland.
Keith Lodge is run by the Church of Scotland, which claims that it cannot afford to keep the doors open. I recently got an answer from one of the ministers indicating that, because the facility was run by an independent organisation, the Executive had no role. I beg the First Minister to intervene in the situation to see what he can do to provide not only a short-term solution to the loss of that care facility but a long-term solution. It is a public matter and public money is used to support those young people and their families, for whom I think that we have a duty of care. Therefore, I ask him to agree today to intervene personally in the matter.
I did not have any advance warning that that specific issue would be raised, but my guess would be that the funding relationship with that institution has been dealt with in the past through Aberdeenshire Council. I am certain that the minister responsible will be willing to try to facilitate discussions between Aberdeenshire Council and the Church of Scotland on the issues, although we must be careful not to be seen to intervene in the internal decision making of the Church of Scotland, which is clearly an independent organisation. I would be deeply concerned if young people who needed access to services were being affected, but there may be other local factors that we need to consider, and I am sure that the relevant minister will be happy to respond.
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he next intends to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2244)
I have no immediate plans to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I expect to have a conversation with him next week.
When the First Minister speaks to Gordon Brown next week, will he tell him that, given that this week of all weeks is the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and that the death toll from that nuclear explosion could exceed 100,000, Scotland does not want nuclear power stations? Does he agree that the £70 billion earmarked by Gordon Brown for the second generation of reactors would be better spent developing renewables and other safer forms of energy? Will he take the opportunity today to come out categorically against more nuclear power stations in Scotland?
I am happy to repeat the points that I made yesterday in my speech to a conference organised by the trade union Amicus.
As a devolved Government, we have a strong policy not to endorse the creation of new nuclear power stations in Scotland in advance of any proper resolution of the issue of nuclear waste. I posed two questions yesterday, and I pose them again today. Organisations and individuals who are opposed to the development of further nuclear power in Scotland have to answer the question of where the power will come from that is currently provided by nuclear power stations in Scotland. [Applause.]
Before the enthusiasts cheer too loudly, there is an equally important question for them. Those who support the development of further nuclear power in Scotland must answer the question of what we will do with the waste that currently exists and what will be done with waste in the future. Given the talents and abilities that we have in this country of ours—academic talents, natural talents, commercial talents and technological talents—it is not beyond our wit to make a major contribution to those two debates, but both must be carried out properly and openly.
I am grateful to the First Minister for asking the questioner a question. However, I already replied to it, from the perspective of those who are opposed to nuclear power, in my initial question. The answer is to develop renewables and other safer forms of electricity generation.
Given that spent nuclear waste remains extremely dangerous for a thousand years, given what happened at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and given the post-9/11 threat, does the First Minister understand why the Scottish people will not accept his promoting further nuclear power generation? Does he accept that his current position puts him on a collision course with Tony Blair, who has set his sights on building several more nuclear power plants, irrespective of the conclusions of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management? Tony Blair argues that nuclear power plants meet CO2 emission targets and provide stability, in comparison with gas. What assurances can the First Minister give that his view, and not that of the British Prime Minister, will hold sway in this Parliament and that the views of the Scottish people will be protected?
I will try to be brief. First, I restate our commitment to renewable energy. I remind Parliament of the significant investment that has been made in and progress that has been made on renewables in recent years and the further progress that we hope to make, particularly in biomass and, potentially, in wave and tidal energy in the years to come.
Secondly, although there is scope for the further development of renewables—we have set a very high target—and for greater energy efficiency, we need to be certain that there will be an appropriate level of energy supply for domestic and commercial use in the years to come. That is why the question about supply is so important.
I say clearly to Colin Fox that the decision on whether a new nuclear power station will be built in Scotland will be made by this devolved Government. We have the responsibilities and we will take them seriously. We—and no one else—will take the decision.
Avian Influenza (Contingency Planning)
To ask the First Minister whether enough precautions are in place to combat bird flu. (S2F-2236)
The response to the single case that was identified recently showed that contingency plans were well prepared and comprehensive.
I would like to thank the minister, Ross Finnie, other ministerial colleagues, the state veterinary service and the other officials involved for their quick and effective response, which involved close work with other agencies, such as Fife Council and the emergency services. I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in thanking them. [Applause.]
Subject to no further findings of disease, I expect that we shall be able to lift the wild bird protection zone on Saturday 22 April, followed by the lifting of the surveillance zone and the risk area on 1 May.
I would like to record how proud I am of the behaviour of people throughout Scotland, who have not panicked and have responded calmly and reasonably to the incident. I think that we all know the damage that can be done when people panic—it is normally wise not to do so.
Does the First Minister agree that during the recent episode, when an infected swan was found in Fife, the emergency services, the relevant authorities and, in particular, the public of Fife demonstrated a commendable ability to react vigilantly and proportionately? Can he assure the public of Fife that all that can be done will continue to be done to help them to move on from the incident?
Clearly, my comments about people throughout Scotland reflect particularly well on the people of Fife. They were the focus not only of what could have been a scary incident for them but of national media attention, which is probably at least as scary for people who have not experienced it before. We should acknowledge the contribution made by the people of Fife and the agencies of Fife, who worked together very effectively.
I assure Helen Eadie that, although we hope to have the risk area and the zones lifted within the next 10 days or so, we will continue to monitor the situation not only in Fife but across Scotland. The ministerial group on civil contingencies—which is chaired by the Minister for Justice—will meet shortly to ensure that any lessons that have to be learned from the recent incident are taken on board in our precautionary procedures for the future. We will continue to liaise closely with the United Kingdom Government and with other agencies outside Scotland to ensure that any required improvements in liaison are put in place—and before any further incident that might take place.
I am the MSP for Cellardyke, where the swan was found, and I add my personal thanks to the various agencies that were involved. I particularly thank the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie.
Will the First Minister add his congratulations to those already offered to the folk of Cellardyke on their good sense and on the way in which they reacted to the situation? [Interruption.]
Does the First Minister agree that the important thing now is to make it clear to the people of Scotland and the wider world that Scotland is still open for business and that there is no immediate risk of bird flu? Does he further agree that it is important that, this weekend, we build on the successful tourism week in Cellardyke and ensure that people return to the east neuk of Fife and take advantage of our facilities? Finally, does he agree that our poultry farmers in particular must be assisted so that there is no lasting effect on the egg and chicken production industries in Scotland? [Interruption.]
This is a very serious issue—it could have been very serious for people in Fife—and the behaviour of some members today while questions are being asked has been unacceptable. It shows disrespect for the individuals and businesses that could be affected.
Businesses across Scotland have reacted and responded well to the appropriate agencies' need for further information. It is because of their response—and because they have been shown to be good businesses—that we have been able to decide to lift the zones over the next 10 days.
Bird flu is not a human disease. That is one reason why we have put out a very strong signal that people should still come to visit Scotland. This is a great country to visit, and there is no reason why people should not come. I am delighted that it appears that—even in Fife last weekend—the numbers visiting are up. I hope that, over the summer, our investment in tourism will lead to more visitors coming to Scotland, not fewer.
Terrorism Act 2006 (Guidance)
To ask the First Minister what guidance the Scottish Executive will issue to police forces in relation to the new offence of glorifying terrorism, created by the Terrorism Act 2006. (S2F-2243)
The Terrorism Act 2006 is reserved legislation and the Home Office has issued a circular on its application. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has received a copy of the circular, and it is also available on the Home Office website for everyone else to see. It is largely informative and does not include instructions to police officers about the investigation or reporting of offences.
The First Minister will be aware that the guidance in the circular states that
"glorification of distant historical events is unlikely to be caught"
by the 2006 act. That is a relief, given the violent past of both the Borders and Scotland. However, does he share the deep concern that the circular contains no reference to the need for the right to freedom of speech—a cherished right in Scotland—to be protected? That right is often challenged by people with abhorrent and disgusting views, and it should not be put at risk by this United Kingdom legislation.
Does the First Minister also agree that much of the guidance offers the police and prosecutors subjective views on what is indirect encouragement of terrorism? What will he do with regard to policing in Scotland? What discussions will he have with the Lord Advocate to ensure that the right to freedom of speech—which is often challenging—remains robust and protected in Scotland?
My understanding of the circular is that it is an information circular that describes the legislation rather than a circular that expresses any opinions or gives any guidance to police officers or others on the implementation of the legislation.
It is clear that the provision of guidance to police officers in Scotland would be a matter for the Lord Advocate, but he would rarely issue such guidance because responsibility for the operational activities of police officers in Scotland lies with the chief constables. The Lord Advocate would intervene only when he felt that there was a need to give detailed guidance. However, it is appropriate for him to be responsible for the provision of any operational guidance to procurators fiscal. Such guidance will come from his office in Scotland rather than from the Home Office.
Osteoporosis
I thank all MSPs and Parliament staff for their messages of sympathy and condolence over the past weeks, which have been of great comfort to me and the Ewing and McAdam families.
To ask the First Minister what improvements have been made in respect of the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of osteoporosis; what further plans the Scottish Executive considers should now be made, and over what time period they will be implemented. (S2F-2233)
I thank Fergus Ewing for his comments. It is good to see him back in the Parliament. The memory of Margaret will always remain with us.
The clinical guidelines on osteoporosis that were published in 2003 set out the best ways to support people who have osteoporosis in managing their condition. We expect NHS boards to implement those national guidelines locally. In addition, we have increased the local availability of DEXA scanners throughout Scotland and there is a scanner at the Golden Jubilee national hospital that is available to the whole of NHS Scotland. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will publish an appraisal of drug treatments for osteoporosis later this year.
I thank the First Minister for that answer and for his kind comments.
Yesterday, as the Parliament's representative, I attended a meeting of the European Union's international panel on osteoporosis. Delegates from other countries recognised that progress has been made in Scotland, not least by the fracture liaison unit in Glasgow and through the fracture audit work that has been carried out in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I can tell members that delegates from England were particularly jealous, as well they might be on many counts. Does the First Minister accept that early identification, diagnosis and treatment of people who are at the highest risk of sustaining fragility fractures because of osteoporosis should be a priority in our health care strategy?
I have a further, specific question, of which I gave the First Minister advance notice this morning. Yesterday I learned that the Austrian presidency of the EU is making osteoporosis and the care of fragility fractures a priority. The issue will be discussed at an informal meeting of health ministers at the Council of Ministers next week. Given that one in two women and one in five men in Scotland who are over 50 face fragility fractures and the misery and diminished quality of life that they entail, does the First Minister agree that, like Cyprus, Latvia, France, Germany and Austria, the nation of Scotland should make the issue a priority for the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives could be improved immeasurably?
I am getting looks from the Presiding Officer about the time, so I will be very brief.
The phrase "national priority" has a particular connotation in the context of the national health service in Scotland and there are many demands for additional national priorities. What I would say is that the implementation of the guidelines for local health boards on the best ways to support people with osteoporosis should be a priority, and boards should be in no doubt that we expect them to treat the matter accordingly.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—