Plenary, 23 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, February 23, 2006

Official Report 735KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2121)

First, I congratulate Andy Murray on being, last weekend, the first Scot to win an Association of Tennis Professionals tournament in the United States. [Applause.] When I meet the Prime Minister tomorrow, I might point out to him that the first Brit to win Wimbledon for a long time might be a Scot.

We all wish Andy Murray the very best at Wimbledon later this year.

I remind the First Minister that the main reason that the Executive gave yesterday for not ordering a public inquiry into the Shirley McKie case was that a public inquiry would impinge on the Lord Advocate's decision-making process and would somehow undermine his independence. Why was that not a concern with respect to the Chhokar inquiry? When the Lord Advocate set up that inquiry in November 2000, he said:

"There has … been criticism of the Crown's decision making in this case. It is because of that … that I have commissioned the … independent inquiries".—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol 9, c 411.]

We carefully considered the comparisons between the two cases in responding to the calls that were made two weeks ago for a public inquiry, and we are clear that the cases are entirely different. We must be clear—as the First Minister, I certainly want to be clear—that I would seriously consider the case for a further inquiry if we did not have a transparent system in which the Minister for Justice commissioned reports to deal with concerns about the fingerprint service back in 2000, published those reports and accepted all the recommendations; if there had not been an acquittal in the Shirley McKie case and there were public concerns about another verdict; if there was no settlement—as we now hope that there is—in the McKie family's current action and the Executive was in some way acting improperly in that context; and if there had not been a series of actions over the past six years to implement every recommendation in the original independent reports and inquiries by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I would seriously consider the case for a further inquiry if all those things had not happened, or even if one of them had not happened. However, the reality is that all of them have happened and they can give us confidence in our justice system. The Scottish National Party should accept that.

We will undoubtedly return to some of the points that the First Minister has made.

The First Minister is right in one respect. There is a difference between the Shirley McKie case and the Chhokar case. I will tell him what that difference is.

Is the First Minister aware that the Chhokar inquiry specifically examined Crown Office decisions, yet there was no concern that doing so would undermine the independence of the Lord Advocate? In the Shirley McKie case, there is not even a suggestion that the Lord Advocate's decisions should be the primary focus of an inquiry, but an inquiry was ruled out yesterday because, according to ministers, it would be "dangerous" to go down that road. Is not the Executive using the Lord Advocate's independence—we all agree that he should be independent—as an excuse not to have a public inquiry in this case? In the light of the Chhokar precedent, will the First Minister now lay that argument firmly to rest and make it clear that a public inquiry would in absolutely no way jeopordise the Lord Advocate's independence?

Yesterday, the Scottish nationalists called for what they described as consistency in prosecution decisions. There was the ludicrous suggestion that the Lord Advocate should not consider the evidence in every case, but that he should simply make a general judgment that a number of cases should be prosecuted because they are in some way connected. The one thing that has been missing in the debate over the past fortnight has been consistency by those people, such as Miss Sturgeon, who have called for a public inquiry. Different reasons have been given almost every day for having a public inquiry. When one reason is shown to be flawed, another reason pops up. That is not a responsible way in which to conduct a debate about our justice system, the fingerprint service or the individuals who are involved in the case.

There are many reasons—some of which I have just given—not to have a public inquiry, another inquiry or another investigation into the case. Inquiries and investigations have taken place, their results have been published and all their recommendations have been implemented.

It would be entirely wrong for politicians—whether from the SNP or from anywhere else—to question the judgment of the Lord Advocate in individual prosecution cases. The SNP cannot have it both ways. It cannot describe the Lord Advocate—as Alex Neil did yesterday—as a political tool of the Executive and say today that its position has changed again. That would be entirely wrong. The Executive has done much to reform, open up and make transparent the justice system, and we will continue to do that, but we will do it by defending its core principles, which have made the Scottish legal system the pride of Scots the world over.

Does not the First Minister appreciate the point? The Lord Advocate opened an inquiry to review his own decision-making process in the Chhokar case. I am asking the First Minister for consistency in his policy decisions.

I put to the First Minister the questions that could and should be answered by a public inquiry. Was a mistake made in the identification of Shirley McKie's fingerprint? The First Minister says yes; those who made the identification say no. If there was a mistake, how did it come about? We do not know the answer to that question. Is there any substance to the allegation in the Mackay report that, instead of owning up to the mistake straight away, a systematic attempt was made to conceal it? Those are fundamental questions. If the First Minister can answer them here and now, so be it; if he cannot, will he accept the clear and overwhelming need for a public inquiry that can answer those questions?

On the final point that Ms Sturgeon makes, the Lord Advocate answered well yesterday, making the case against politicians interfering in prosecution decisions. For Ms Sturgeon and the nationalists to persist with an argument that the collation of evidence and advice by the Lord Advocate and Crown counsel in making decisions about prosecutions should be open to scrutiny by politicians is a fundamental mistake. It shows that the Scottish nationalists are unfit to govern Scotland—ever.

The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice—as he then was—Jim Wallace made it clear in the chamber nearly six years ago that we accepted the court judgment in the case of Shirley McKie. Shirley McKie was not found guilty; she was acquitted. The Executive accepted that judgment absolutely; investigated and inquired into the future of the fingerprint service; and implemented and published every one of the recommendations of those independent inquiries and investigations. Yesterday and today, not once has the SNP questioned whether those recommendations have been implemented or whether they were the right recommendations. Today, our job is to move on, building on the new confidence in the fingerprint service and ensuring that everyone who is involved in the case can move on with us.

I make it clear to the First Minister—he obviously has difficulty in understanding this—that I do not want prosecution decisions to be revisited; I want answers to the questions in the Shirley McKie case that remain unanswered. I remind the First Minister that the key public concern that led to the Chhokar inquiry was the fact that ultimately no-one was convicted of Mr Chhokar's murder. As we have been reminded today in the newspapers, no-one has yet been convicted of the tragic murder of Marion Ross. For that reason, as well as for all the other reasons that I have given him today, will the First Minister, at long last, do the right thing and order a public inquiry into the matter?

I remind Ms Sturgeon that, following her references today to the Mackay report and her references yesterday to both that report and the Executive becoming party to a massive cover-up of the truth—an outrageous allegation that is of massive significance for future confidence in our justice system, for the independent role of the Lord Advocate and for people's confidence in the current state of the fingerprint service after all the recommendations have been implemented—she cannot say that, in some way, she has changed her mind and does not believe any more that politicians do not want to interfere in the decisions of the Lord Advocate. That is simply an inconsistent and untenable position for the nationalist party to hold if it claims to be a party of Government.

I say again that if there had not been inquiries and investigations; if Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the chief police officers of Scotland had not had their reports published by the then Minister for Justice and every single one of their recommendations implemented; if Ms McKie had not been acquitted; and if she and her lawyers had not been able to reach a settlement with the Executive, there may well be a case for a further inquiry. However, to continue with this political attempt to undermine and interfere with the legal system of Scotland does the nationalists no good whatsoever. It does not allow the fingerprint service, the family and everybody else involved to move on and have confidence in the future.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2122)

It probably does not take a magic wand to work out that one of the issues that might be discussed at next week's Cabinet meeting will be some recommendations on the Forth road bridge.

That promises to be an extremely interesting discussion; I am sure that many of us would like to be flies on the wall.

I want to bring us to more immediate matters. No doubt the First Minister has seen the latest figures on waiting times, published this morning. They show that 10 per cent of out-patients are not receiving appointments within 26 weeks, and that 10 per cent of in-patients are not being admitted within six months. Those are breaches of specific pledges that were set out in the partnership agreement. For the First Minister's benefit, the pledges are on page 21, paragraphs 3 and 5, and were to be delivered by the end of 2005. Why have those pledges to all patients been broken?

Boy, the Tories hate it when the health service is doing well—they absolutely hate it.

The Scottish health service this morning reports, independently, on the guarantee that we gave for in-patients and out-patients. It was a guarantee that the Tories did not believe and that Ms Sturgeon said I would probably have to resign over—and I just remind the chamber that this time last year 55,000 out-patients in Scotland were waiting longer than six months for treatment, and that the figures were high and needed serious attention. The guarantee was that in-patients and out-patients would receive treatment and appointments within six months. The report today says that, apart from four administrative cases that were all dealt with immediately after they were identified in the early part of January, the guarantee was met for Scots the length and breadth of our country.

There will be all sorts of attempts today by the Tories and the nationalists to try to portray that there is some sort of hidden figure or some sort of secret list somewhere. The reality is, for those who do not know about the guarantee, that the list is published every single quarter. Nine out of every ten people on the list are people who have chosen to delay their appointments, and the others are on it for medical reasons.

The reality is that the guarantee has been met and that, at six months, it is one third of what the Tories guaranteed back in 1996-97. That shows why a change of Government, and why the work of this Executive and this Parliament, is making a difference to Scotland, and why we should never go back to having the Tories in power.

The First Minister can bluster all he likes but the fact remains that, on the figures published this morning, the Executive has failed to meet two specific commitments on health that were in its partnership agreement.

I want to debate how we can improve our health service. In an article last week in Scotland on Sunday, the First Minister's colleague, Mr Jim Murphy, argued for greater patient choice to be introduced in Scotland as the key to progressive reform. What does the First Minister say to his colleague, and where is the Executive's much heralded reform agenda in Scotland? For instance, where are the independent treatment centres and the national health service tariff system that we were promised last year by the Minister for Health and Community Care, Mr Andy Kerr?

All those changes are progressing, and that is precisely why we have met the guarantee, precisely why we have implemented the target that we set out and precisely why the agreement has in fact been implemented.

No attempt by Miss Goldie to move on the agenda or to talk about other things can detract from the fact that we have delivered on that commitment in Scotland through the reform that we have implemented, through the investment that has been secured, through the political and administrative leadership that has been given inside and outside the health service and, crucially, through the tireless work of the members of staff of that service. I think that that is worth while and is something that even the Conservatives should be able to praise. I challenge Miss Goldie to stand up and say, "Well done," to the doctors, the nurses, the administrators and all the other professional staff in our health service who have delivered on that commitment and made life better for Scottish patients.

Last question, Miss Goldie.

The First Minister refuses to admit that when targets are not met—two targets have not been met—and the national health service fails to deliver, it is the poorest people who get the roughest end of the stick.

Research by the former number 10 adviser, Julian Le Grand, and the Department of Health in England has shown that in an NHS without choice—which is not what Mr Murphy advocates—it is the least well-off who are the most disadvantaged. They use health services less than the better-off, get fewer hip replacements, receive fewer consultations and are given less time with general practitioners. I know that in Scotland some work has been done on health inequalities, but is it not about time that the Executive commissioned a thorough investigation to determine the extent of the problem, not to satisfy Mr Murphy, but because our duty is to people who are in the greatest need?

It is a bit rich for the party that has opposed our main measures on health improvement to start talking about health inequalities in Scotland today. It is particularly rich for them to do so, given that even Mr Cameron has now ditched the patient passport, saying that it would be a wrong move that would disadvantage people who used the health service and that it would be wrong for the Tories in England and Wales to support money being taken out of the health service to support the treatment of people who can already afford private provision. The Scottish Tories are the only rump of the party anywhere in the United Kingdom that still supports that policy and I hope that they will see sense, agree with their party leader and make the necessary change at their conference this year.

I will take one supplementary of national importance.

In December, the First Minister told me during First Minister's question time that Scottish Water's investment plans were on target. Now that the chairman of Scottish Water has resigned because of a lack of ministerial confidence in the organisation's investment plans, will the First Minister tell me what deficiencies ministers have identified, when they were identified and when they will be remedied? What reassurance is there for the communities in my constituency and throughout the country in which the development constraints of Scottish Water are a significant impediment to economic growth in Scotland?

I thank Mr Swinney for his question. He has been right to be consistent in raising the issue of development constraints. We were concerned about how Scottish Water's previous strategic plan dealt with the matter and about the relationship between that plan and the information that local authorities provided. We were determined to correct that in Scottish Water's current strategic plan as it looks forward and that is precisely why we have insisted not only that it should agree to stay within the financial constraints that the regulator has laid out, but that it should have a plan for implementing its strategic objectives within those financial constraints that has the confidence of ministers, the regulators and the other bodies that must have confidence in its plans. That is the objective that we have set. We will ensure that a new chair of the Scottish Water board is appointed quickly, but none of that should detract from our absolute determination to have the right plan implemented and to secure throughout Scotland improvements both in water quality and in the quantity of provision, so that the development constraints that have affected a number of areas will not apply in future.

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (S2F-2131)

Unfortunately, I will not see the chancellor this weekend, but I hope to see him again soon.

When the First Minister eventually meets Gordon Brown, perhaps he could tell him how little the 2 per cent pay award to Scotland's health workers will do to release them from the misery of low pay. Is the First Minister prepared to offer health service staff more than the warm words that he has just used? How much does he think that we should offer our dedicated and hard-working national health service staff to reflect our recognition of the superb job that they do?

Through the significant pay awards that have been made in the health service in recent years, we have recognised the importance of pay. We also recognise the importance of providing career development, training and support for staff and of ensuring that the system is flexible enough to mean that people are not expected to have a standard working week or a standard working year, but have opportunities to be flexible. That is why agenda for change has been important for individual members of staff and for the service. That flexibility, together with career development, new skills and ways of working in the health service and the financing of agenda for change through pay deals, has contributed to the remarkable reduction in waiting times that we see published today. That is one of the reasons why I congratulate all health service staff on their achievements.

I am grateful for the answer, but perhaps the First Minister could return to the question. Is he aware of the immense anger among NHS staff about the below-inflation pay rise? One health union has denounced it, saying:

"The 2 per cent settlement is simply not good enough. It fails to reflect our skill and dedication in delivering high quality patient care. 1 in 3 staff are now considering refusing to work unpaid overtime. They feel undervalued and ignored by this government."

Is it not the case that this—in real terms—pay cut will set back efforts to entice workers into a service that is already short of staff? Does the First Minister agree that the settlement does nothing whatever to help NHS staff on to the housing ladder in cities such as Edinburgh?

If we have independent pay review bodies, it is important that we take account of what they say and that we implement, as far as we can, their recommendations. It is also important that we do that within the context of wider change in the health service and with the recognition that there should be incentives for new ways of working that put patients first.

I want us to work very closely in partnership with the trade unions in the health service and elsewhere, but we do not have to accept everything that they say about every agreement. We should be perfectly capable of having honest disagreements.

---

Disadvantaged Communities

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will respond to the recent report by Professor Malcolm Hill and Peter Seaman for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on parenting and children's resilience in disadvantaged communities and their reference to street gangs. (S2F-2133)

I have not had an opportunity to study the findings in detail, but I understand that the key issues are education and employment opportunities, drug misuse, support for parents who need it and positive and safe alternatives to getting involved in offending or antisocial behaviour for our young people. The issues are at the heart of our agenda. That is why we have increased resources for youth activities, changed and improved Scottish schools, delivered new powers to disperse groups or gangs and, this week, announced further action on education and employment for disengaged youngsters.

Does the First Minister agree that recognising the research finding that many young people gather together in groups for safety should not distract us from the reality that a minority of gang members are intent on disrupting communities and neighbourhoods and making them intolerable for the decent majority?

Does the First Minister welcome the operation tag initiative of Strathclyde police's G division in the south side of Glasgow, which covers parts of my constituency? In that initiative, the division is targeting the individuals who cause most disruption to the community.

I strongly support the example that G division has set. I hope that others will follow its example in the months ahead. The presence of gangs and large groups of youngsters is intimidating for people of all ages. It is regularly highlighted as being intimidating for pensioners and vulnerable people in the community. It is also intimidating for other young people. It drives them into similar groups and gangs and often means that they are scared to go out at night, thereby preventing them from using facilities and taking up opportunities that they would otherwise enjoy.

It is important that the police tackle gang and group culture in the way that G division has done; the main force of the law needs to be used against that culture. It is also important that the new powers that we put in place, despite the opposition of some in the Parliament, are used to secure peace and quiet in our communities. It is even more important for us to give young people a positive alternative, both in their schools, where we should be motivating them with new choices and opportunities, and outside school, where we need to give them the facilities, opportunities and support to make something of their lives.

---

Avian Flu

To ask the First Minister whether, in the context of avian flu moving towards Scottish shores, the Scottish Executive will give priority to producing a vaccine or antiviral agent to prevent the spread of illness within Scotland. (S2F-2123)

Avian flu rarely affects humans, but it represents a significant global challenge. The latest assessment identified the risk of introduction of the disease to Scotland as low. However, ministers and departments are working closely with the European Union and the United Kingdom Government. In the event that the disease should occur, we will be ready to respond quickly and effectively.

Does the First Minister accept that, if Scotland is, in time, confronted with a pandemic, it would be necessary, far-sighted and prudent to have antiviral drugs available for our entire population and not just for 25 per cent, as planned?

In that plan, we are working to World Health Organisation guidelines. It is important that we have done that and that precautions have been taken. However, the most serious issue is that we do not and cannot know, until and unless the avian flu virus develops a human strain, exactly what medication may be appropriate to deal with it. Therefore, the ability of the science community, probably assisted by scientists in Scotland, and of the medical community to respond quickly will be absolutely fundamental. In addition to taking the appropriate precautions under the WHO guidelines, we are determined to be able to play our part in any international response to ensure that we identify a strain and tackle it when it occurs.

Will the First Minister assure me that precautionary forward planning is taking place on two issues? The first is the shortfall of specialist isolation units as a result of the development of our health services. That issue must be considered. For example, we no longer have a sufficient number of qualified specialist nurses. I do not mean to be light about the issue, but my second point is that, because migratory wildfowl are found across the road from the Parliament in St Margaret's loch, we are within the 1-mile radius that Her Majesty's Government recommends for quarantine should any affected bird be found. Has anyone given any thought to what we would do if we were banged up with one another in this place for heaven knows how long?

I can think of few things that would give me more pleasure than being here with Margo MacDonald for a considerable period of time—I am sure that that would be both entertaining and educational. I am not absolutely certain that the comments in the first part of her question were accurate, but I am happy for the Minister for Health and Community Care to respond to that in detail.

---

Airports (Expansion Plans)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive considers that expansion plans at Scotland's three biggest airports are at risk from a takeover of BAA and, if so, what representations it has made to Her Majesty's Government and the Civil Aviation Authority. (S2F-2126)

Given the Scottish National Party's long-term campaign to sell off BAA, I was a bit surprised by Fergus Ewing's question, but I will answer it nevertheless.

Ministers have no reason to believe that the development of Scotland's three biggest airports will not continue along the lines set out in the draft masterplans for Glasgow international, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports. I await the supplementary question with interest.

It is not who owns the airports that counts; it is the investment in them. Surely the First Minister is aware that any bidder is likely to be interested solely or primarily in BAA's London airports. Will he therefore tell Parliament whether he has yet met with BAA or the potential main bidder, Ferrovial, and, if not, who has? Given that the Department for Transport has said that it will do nothing whatever to intervene in the process, who will articulate Scotland's voice? Will it be the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Transport, or do they take an interest in transport matters only for the duration of parliamentary by-elections in Scotland?

Those matters will be dealt with by the competition authorities. I have kept in touch with BAA and it has offered to keep us fully briefed in the circumstances. Its recent record on investment in Scotland, based on a commercial assessment of the worth of that investment, has been substantial. For that reason, it has joined us in the air route development fund—a fund that the SNP described as a waste of money because more people would want to leave Scotland than come here. Despite that, more people are coming to Scotland than ever before. All sorts of routes are being established between Scotland and Europe, Dubai, America and elsewhere.

The substantive point, however, is the position of the SNP on the future of BAA. Today, Fergus Ewing asks a question in support of BAA and its continued ownership of Scottish airports, but as recently as 2003, the SNP's then shadow transport minister, Kenny MacAskill, said that it is

"time for Aberdeen to have a new owner."

As recently as 2002, the SNP said that BAA does very little to support Scotland's airports. It said that Aberdeen is "stagnating", Edinburgh airport is "under-performing" and Glasgow is "going backwards". It was only on 6 January 2003 that Brian Adam, who is sitting next to Fergus Ewing and who should be defending his airport and the investment in it, said:

"The time for excuses has past and the time for action has arrived. ... The BAA monopoly is killing the airport's development and it's time for it to end."

If there is a company anywhere in the world that is looking to buy up BAA, the one organisation in the world that has been encouraging it has been the Scottish National Party. For goodness' sake, the SNP should be consistent for once. It should stand by its policies and defend them in the chamber. That would allow us to have a decent debate.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—