Plenary, 20 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, December 20, 2001

Official Report 485KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-1511)

When I next meet the Prime Minister, I intend to raise the reliability of waiting list statistics, because he and I share a commitment to having accurate and up-to-date data available for parliamentary scrutiny. That is why, on 13 December, I said in this Parliament in reply to Mr Swinney:

"If another waiting list in Scotland is not taking referrals, we will act to deal with the fact that we did not get accurate information."—[Official Report, 13 December 2001; c 4864.]

I will tell the Prime Minister that, on 18 December, further information from health trusts showed that there were six waiting lists with restricted access. We wrote to instruct all trusts and boards that it was unacceptable to have any restriction placed on waiting lists for any patients. That same day, I instructed the national health service chief executive to invite Audit Scotland to conduct an independent check on how well waiting lists are being run.

The next day, the Minister for Health and Community Care issued clear instructions to NHS Scotland to guarantee that all patients who need treatment will be accepted on to a waiting list. I am pleased to say that, that same day, Audit Scotland accepted the invitation to review and scrutinise independently all the issues relating to waiting lists.

That is what I mean by openness and accountability, and that is why, on 22 November, standing where I stand today, I said that we had

"to be open and transparent in all that we do".—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; c 4154.]

That is what I mean by action: action to obtain the information that we need and to improve services for patients. When I next meet the Prime Minister, in 2002, I will be happy to tell him that.

We can always tell by the length of the answers how defensive the Executive feels. The only problem with the First Minister's answer is that it took him a fortnight to get round to giving it. Last week, I raised with the First Minister the case of one of my constituents. In a matter of hours, the apologists for the First Minister had gone round the press gallery to rubbish my constituent's claims. In 24 hours, the chief executive of the NHS in Tayside was on the phone apologising unreservedly. What sort of way is that to treat members of the public? Having misled Parliament in two successive weeks, will the First Minister apologise to the Parliament for misleading it and to the public of Scotland, whom he has let down?

The chief executive of the NHS in Tayside was right to apologise. I hope that Mr Swinney accepted that apology for a mistake that I do not believe was made at the chief executive's level, but for which he took responsibility.

We must be clear. The issue is serious, but we must keep it in perspective. Six lists were identified this week; there may be more—if there are, Audit Scotland will identify them. Six lists from 6,000 throughout Scotland were identified. There are no closed waiting lists all over Scotland in the national health service. Scotland has more doctors, more nurses, more operations being performed, more consultants, more appointments and more, newer, hospitals. That is the reality in the health service.

When Mr Swinney runs his campaign all over Scotland saying that everything is bad in the health service and that patients are all getting a raw deal, he is the one who misleads Scotland. What he says is untrue. It is an insult to the hard work of doctors and nurses, porters, ancillary staff and ambulance paramedics right across Scotland who will be working next week when we are at home not working.

The difference between the First Minister and me on this issue is that I told the truth throughout the whole process.

Last week, the First Minister said that there were no closed waiting lists all over Scotland. Today, he has admitted that there are six closed waiting lists: they are in Lothian, Lanarkshire, Lomond and Argyll, Renfrew and Inverclyde, Tayside and north Glasgow. According to information that patients have given to my office, that is also the case in the Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust, in Aberdeenshire and in other places.

I want to probe the First Minister on his personal assurances to the Parliament. He has just repeated something that he said to me a fortnight ago. He told me that the number of operations, patients and consultations is up. Is that true?

Yes, it is. The truth about the situation in relation to the case in the Lothians has already been the subject of a reply from Mr Chisholm. I am glad that Mr Swinney took the advice that I gave him last week to ensure that he got a reply in advance of today's question time. I am also pleased to see that, exactly as I expected, he has ignored the reply.

There are not closed waiting lists all over Scotland. Mr Swinney is wrong to imply that that is the case. Of the 6,000 waiting lists in Scotland, six examples have been identified. It is wrong for Mr Swinney to frighten patients and others in this way. It is an insult to the hard work of those in hospitals and in other places across Scotland who are working hard to serve our patients and to bring down waiting lists. The challenge that is in front of us and the challenge that we will continue to follow is to put patients, rather than political posturing, first.

It is also wrong of the First Minister to keep on misleading the public. There are closed waiting lists around the country. I have a different list today and I will pass it to the Minister for Health and Community Care this afternoon. Last week, our claims were rubbished and yet they have been backed up by the information that we have put to Parliament.

I asked the First Minister a direct question. I asked whether the number of operations, patients and consultations was up. Is it true? There was no answer to that question. [Members: "He was saying ‘Yes'."] Oh, was he?

The reason is that hospitals are seeing 8,000 fewer day patients; 5,000 fewer in-patients; and 78,000 fewer out-patients—over 100,000 fewer people are being treated in Scotland's hospitals. Those are the facts. Whose facts are they? They are the Government's statistics, from its own website. How on earth can we hope to improve waiting times in our hospitals if we are treating fewer patients? How can we address the problems of the health service if the First Minister will not tell the truth about them?

That is absolutely not the case. There are 58,000 more in-patient treatments; 31,516 more accident and emergency patients; 100,000 more general practitioner consultations; 1,300 more student nurses; 269 more hospital doctors; 215 more consultants; and a massive £1.1 billion more going into the national health service in Scotland. Those are the facts. Mr Swinney should tell the truth and he should stop his campaign of trying to mislead the public by suggesting that there are closed waiting lists all over Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-1512)

Following a decision to change the day of the meeting, the Cabinet will next meet on Wednesday 9 January at 9.30 am, when it will discuss improving public services in urban and rural Scotland.

I am delighted to hear that the improvement of public services is high on the agenda and, in particular, the health service, which has been discussed in today's question time.

As the First Minister will be aware, down south the National Audit Office report uncovered evidence of systematic fiddling of waiting list figures to meet Government targets in every hospital that it investigated. It found that appointments were timed deliberately to clash with holidays, which meant that when appointments were cancelled, the patient disappeared from the main waiting list. Is that going on in Scotland? Can I have the First Minister's guarantee that the Audit Scotland investigation to which he referred will cover those areas and look into those issues?

I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for his serious question, which demands a serious response. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health made it clear yesterday that the information that was published by the National Audit Office yesterday was shocking. I hope that it will result in action throughout the service to stop the situation happening again.

That is precisely why I wanted to ensure that the Auditor General in Scotland would conduct an investigation. It is right and proper for that to happen independently of the Scottish Executive or its health department. I hope that any investigation will have conclusions that will justify to everybody in the Parliament exactly what is going on. However, if there is anything wrong in relation to the publication of waiting list statistics, or if there is movement of people around waiting lists for purposes that should not exist in our health service in Scotland, I can assure the member that we will take action to stop it.

I thank the First Minister for his assurance.

In the spirit of openness, honesty and truthfulness, I ask the First Minister to reconsider something that he said at question time last week in response to a question from me. He said that the Conservative Government

"did not build any hospitals".—[Official Report, 13 December 2001; c 4866.]

Well, I have a little list: Raigmore hospital in Inverness; Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline; Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley; Borders general hospital in Melrose; Ferguson day hospital in Prestwick; Ayr hospital; Lorn and Islands district general hospital in Oban; St Johns hospital in Livingston; and Lochmaben hospital in Dumfries and Galloway. They were only part of more than 100 major NHS developments in Scotland from 1979 to 1997. On top of that, seven of the eight major hospital developments that are part of Labour's NHS building programme were initiated and approved under the Conservatives, for example Edinburgh royal infirmary, Wishaw general hospital, Hairmyres hospital and East Ayrshire community hospital. I think we are getting the point.

The First Minister claims that he wants to put an end to political point scoring and to have a serious debate about issues affecting the NHS in Scotland. He seems happy, when it suits him for the purposes of these exchanges, to adopt a kind of Pol Pot year zero approach to the health service in Scotland. In the light of all that information, and in the spirit of openness, truthfulness and honesty, will the First Minister acknowledge that what he said last week was inaccurate and set the record straight?

I would strenuously deny any similarities between myself and Pol Pot. I recognise that Mr McLetchie can be sensitive about such matters, but it is important to recognise that the picture in the health service has been considerably different since 1997. The figures that I outlined earlier to Mr Swinney—who clearly has some difficulty in listening to such matters—were the differences in the number of patients, doctors and nurses in our health service since 1997. That has been a substantial change, which has benefited patients directly.

Although the Conservatives like to claim the credit for seven hospital projects that were at least on the starting grid before 1997, they should remember that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke, said after the election that there was no way that the Tories could have implemented their spending plans in the way that they were laid out. It is important to recognise that. The Conservatives had no intention of building those hospitals. We did, and we are very proud to say that we have.

---

Rural Economy

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive is making in improving the rural economy. (S1F-1507)

The rural economy sits within the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom, and the underlying fundamentals are relatively strong, thanks to the good stewardship of the UK chancellor. We are committed to building a prosperous and vibrant rural economy. Some of the evidence shows that it is improving, with, for example, higher employment than in our urban communities. However—members may not want to pay attention to this point, but it is important for people who live in rural areas—average earnings are still lower than earnings elsewhere in Scotland. Our rural communities have faced additional problems this year. As a result, we have taken action to invest in transport, tourism and the foot-and-mouth recovery package.

Is the First Minister aware that there are hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in our rural communities who had hoped for more from the Government over the past two and a half years? In many areas of Scotland, affordable housing, tourism and affordable public transport are in decline. Will he be brave enough to publish a report early in the new year, detailing the impact that his policies have had on rural Scotland over the past two and a half years? Does he accept that it is not this Parliament that is letting down our rural communities, but the Westminster Labour Government and the Labour-Liberal coalition that runs the Government here in Edinburgh?

I do not accept that. If I am to be consistent, I must say clearly that what we do not need in rural Scotland is more reports. We need action on tourism, action on farming and action on fishing. Regarding action on fishing, I seem to remember, only a fortnight ago in this chamber, that Mr Lochhead said that the UK would somehow let Scotland down on fishing. Well, I would like to congratulate not just Ross Finnie, but Elliot Morley on representing Scotland's fishermen in Brussels on Monday and getting improvements on at least three different quotas. If Mr Lochhead had any dignity, he would apologise to the chamber today.

Does the First Minister agree that the attempt by the Scottish Executive, through Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway, to reinvigorate and improve the rural economy of that region post-foot-and-mouth, by giving businesses access to interest-free loans of £5,000, displayed absolutely none of the flexibility and innovation for which members from all sides of the chamber asked? Given the continued parlous state of the economy of that region, will the First Minister ask the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to explore fully the possibility of turning those loans into grants, so that true economic improvement can take place in the region?

There is, of course, a difference between a loan and a grant, as I am sure Mr Fergusson is only too well aware. It would be wrong of me, on the hoof, to commit to budget expenditure in that way. It is important that we have a recovery package, but it is also important that that recovery package works successfully. If there is evidence—in Dumfries and Galloway or anywhere else—that systems are breaking down and that the delivery of support and services is being affected as a result, we would definitely want to examine that evidence. I give a commitment to do that.

Does the First Minister agree that putting an additional £150 million into agricultural subsidies, £30 million into the rural transport fund, £30 million into foot-and-mouth recovery and £25 million into a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry represents a strong commitment to the rural economy by the Executive?

I do not think that there is anybody who has been genuinely listening to the debates in this chamber over the past two and a half years who would say that this Parliament has not taken rural affairs in Scotland seriously. It is true that, this year, the total income from farming in Scotland is up; that the total expenditure by the Executive to support tourism is up; and that the support given by the Executive to rural housing in Scotland is up. This year, the money that is given to rural transport projects, of which there are now around 380 in Scotland, is also up. In all those areas and many others, there has been a commitment in the Executive and in the Parliament to rural Scotland, which matches the commitment to urban Scotland. We should see Scotland as a whole, we should work for both urban and rural Scotland and we should be proud to do so.

---

Homelessness (Families)

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to tackle homelessness among families. (S1F-1518)

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 gave new rights to homeless people. For the sake of families with children in particular, we have acted to reduce reliance on bed and breakfast accommodation. We allocated £5.3 million to the 15 local authorities that had the highest use of bed-and-breakfasts, to fund new alternatives. That money provided 200 units of temporary accommodation, and another 64 are planned.

More generally, £27 million has been given to councils to help implement the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. That money will also fund new and better temporary accommodation.

I welcome the reduction in the number of families who are living in temporary accommodation, but does the First Minister agree that it is grossly unsuitable for children to be brought up in such accommodation? Will he assure me that the Executive will continue to work to reduce the number of children living in such households?

Yes, I can give the member that assurance. This is a traditional time of year for addressing issues around homelessness, not just for children and families who face the prospect of spending Christmas or new year in bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation, but for many other people across Scotland who have to live with temporary homelessness or the threat of it. Our thoughts should be with them this Christmas and our support for them should continue in the new year.

We have run over time. Our next item of business is—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the importance of the closure of the individual learning accounts, will you under standing orders exercise your discretion to extend First Minister's question time by enough time to reach question 6? It is critical that the chamber receives the proper information on the closure of the accounts, because its cash effect could be very damaging to colleges and others over the holiday period.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Is it the same point of order?

Yes. I already intended to raise the point of order. One of the companies to which the question refers contacted me immediately before question time to tell me that, because of lack of funding, it has been obliged to lay off training staff just before Christmas. As a result, I feel that it would be useful to proceed with the question.

It may be useful, but unhappily the business motion that the Parliament agreed to stipulates that, at 3.30 pm, we move to the next item of business. I have no power to vary that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to clarify something to the chamber. We were aware that the chamber was rising this afternoon for the Christmas and new year recess. The announcement of the decision to suspend ILAs and of some of the technicalities around the suspension of ILAs in Scotland was due to take place tomorrow in conjunction with another announcement elsewhere in the UK. We brought the announcement forward to today and ensured that it took place before this question time session to give us a chance to address the matter if we reached question 6. The Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning has written today to every MSP to set out the current position clearly and she will be happy to take further correspondence and questions from members before the chamber returns if necessary. I hope that that clears up the matter this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Just a second. I want to return to the main point of order. The Parliament itself decides on the order and timing of business and I have no power to vary that. Sometimes we manage to reach question 6; very often we do not. The length and number of supplementaries is entirely in the hands of members. I do my best to keep things going.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it possible to lodge a motion without notice to change the business bulletin in order to put back the next item of business so that we can extend First Minister's question time and hear the answer to question 6?

That would require to be a Parliamentary Bureau motion. [Interruption.] Order. We have listened to the exchanges on this matter. The First Minister has given us a helpful answer and we should leave it at that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have been informed by the former Minister for Parliament that you have already set a precedent of extending question time at your own discretion. Given that you have already set that precedent and that the clear will of the chamber is that we should have the chance to ask the First Minister questions on the matter, I really think that you are duty-bound to give the proposal more serious consideration.

The member is quite correct. I occasionally turn a blind eye to the clock and allow question time to go on. However, I have no power to go from question 4 to question 6. Members must be reasonable. Frankly, the matter is in members' hands. We did not make much progress today either in question time or in First Minister's question time. The issue is all to do with the length of supplementaries and answers.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If Nora Radcliffe were to withdraw question 5—which she might be persuaded to do—we would be able to take question 6.

I have already ruled on this matter.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It was said that the business managers would have to come forward with a further business motion to change the time for decision time. Perhaps, given this delay and the fact that we will almost certainly bring forward decision time, the business managers could ask for the concession that members so clearly want.

That is not a matter for me. I have no motion before me.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek clarification. Is it in order for a member to move a motion without notice after question time has concluded? As we know that the work has been done, the First Minister could lodge a motion to the effect that the Parliament notes it. Could that be done?

I have answered that question already. The motion would have to be a Parliamentary Bureau motion and I have no such motion before me. A motion cannot just come out of the blue.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek further clarification. Can only a bureau motion be accepted?

No. However, to change the order of business requires a bureau motion.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would it be in order for me to move a motion that we do not conclude business at 3.40 pm, as has been agreed, but that we continue until well after 4 o'clock, if necessary, to give us the opportunity to find out what is going on with the ILAs?

We would still need a bureau motion to do that and I have not got one. We must proceed to the next item.