Plenary, 23 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, November 23, 2000

Official Report 490KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's main priorities currently are. (S1F-675)

The Executive's priorities were set out clearly in "Making it work together: a programme for government" which was published last September. The Executive will update its priorities for future action in the light of the substantial progress that has already been made in making a difference for the people of Scotland.

Given that hospital waiting lists have increased by 15 per cent in 12 months, will the First Minister tell us when he will deliver on the Labour election pledge to get waiting lists down and keep them down?

We will be on track to achieve the targets by 2002. The figures are not as good at present as we would like them to be. That is why we are investing record sums of money in the national health service, which will tackle the neglect of 20 years under the Conservatives. We are dealing with this issue in every part of Scotland. I reassure John Swinney that this is a priority for the coalition. We hope that the investment and the changes to structure that we make will help. If we take Tayside as an example—[Members: "Tayside!"] Let us be transparent—we will not run away from the issues. We are making changes to structure and personnel and we are trying to get the financial basis of the health authority in Tayside on to a sound footing. That will allow us to make significant progress over the next few years.

It is not a great omen for the First Minister to cite Tayside, given that his Minister for Health and Community Care managed to go there yesterday to announce the great way forward without knowing that waiting lists in the area have increased by more than 47 per cent over 12 months. The First Minister has given me an assurance, which, he tells me, is based on hope. We do not take that terribly seriously on this side of the chamber. Can he give me an absolute assurance that health waiting lists will be reduced by the time the general election takes place, which was the commitment that the Labour Government gave? When will waiting lists come down and stay down?

I cited Tayside because it is obvious that that is what Mr Swinney has been asking about for the past couple of minutes. We will take this issue seriously. We are waiting to deliver on the targets that we have set in Scotland. I am the first to concede that the figures in Tayside are not what we would like them to be. However, it should be recognised that £339 million is being spent in 2000-01, which will rise to £358 million in 2001-02. We cannot turn around a situation in which the health service had been run down to one in which we can achieve all the targets that we would like to achieve. However, the Administration is optimistic that those targets can be achieved. Many positive things are happening around Tayside. It does not augur well that some issues should suddenly become political footballs, perhaps because of a by-election that is taking place. This is a serious matter for Tayside and the rest of Scotland. This partnership is addressing the issue.

Is it not amazing that politics has suddenly come into the health service? The First Minister was one of the people who, in the 1997 general election campaign, made getting hospital waiting lists down and keeping them down an absolute promise to the people of Scotland.

Is it any surprise that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation survey of this month showed that nine out of 10 Scots do not trust this Government? Is not the sort of evasion that we have heard from the First Minister the reason for that? Will the First Minister explain how, having failed even to stabilise hospital waiting lists—they are higher today than when the Conservatives left office in 1997—he can hope to deliver lower waiting lists? When will waiting lists come down—and how will they stay down?

More people than ever before are now being treated in Scotland. That is an important point to make—after that subtle shift from waiting lists to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. All of a sudden it is about politics.

In the 1997 election campaign, the SNP committed itself to a pitiful increase of £35 million for 2000-01. [Interruption.] Its members may not like the figures, but let us listen a bit longer. We are providing an increase of £1.2 billion. That tells us that the NHS remains the highest priority for this partnership. We will deliver on the pledges that we have made.

At present, a record level of investment applies to a neglected service. When we publish the health plan on 14 December, it will show that there is only one party in this coalition—along with the Liberal Democrats—[Laughter.]—that wants to ensure that the NHS will provide the service that the Scottish people want. I am convinced that we shall do it. We shall.

I ask members to settle down before we come to question 2.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister—when he has recovered his composure—when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-674)

I speak regularly to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the telephone. There is every chance that I will meet him somewhere in Glasgow later today.

At that meeting, the impending further by-election in Falkirk West will no doubt figure prominently, now that Mr Canavan, the runaway bride, has jilted the First Minister at the altar. I am sure that the First Minister would anticipate that election with more confidence if he had a better record to defend.

Mr Swinney referred to Labour's election manifesto commitments on health waiting lists. The First Minister referred to the Conservative record. Will the First Minister confirm that, according to the latest figures, more patients are waiting for treatment in the national health service today than when the Conservatives left power? Is it not the case that Labour set the standard by which it would be judged and that, by its own standard, it has failed—and failed miserably?

David McLetchie's proposition is simply not true. The important point is that, apart from the record sums that we are spending, 50 per cent of patients never go on the waiting list, as they are seen at once. Of the people who go on the waiting list, 43 per cent are seen within a month and more than 80 per cent are seen within three months. We want to build on that record. The suggestion that the situation is worse than it was under any Conservative Administration is simply not true.

I am afraid that the First Minister's grasp of figures is about the equal of that of his Minister for Health and Community Care. He has omitted to note in his research that the waiting list has risen by 2,000—over the period from March 1997 to September 2000. He has failed to note that the proportion of patients seen within nine weeks of a general practitioner's referral was 71 per cent in March 1997 and is now down to below 65 per cent. He has failed to note that the proportion of people who had to wait more than 18 months for an appointment was 8.4 per cent in March 1997 and is 11.8 per cent today.

The fact is that, on all those key indicators, the First Minister has failed and his Administration has failed. With a record like that, is it any wonder that his health minister wants to forget it?

Once again we have a rather selective set of statistics from David McLetchie. Waiting times in Scotland are the best in the United Kingdom. He should accept the figures I gave about the record number of patients who have been treated within the time constraints I mentioned. The key question is, if the health service had been supported by the Conservatives, why would we need to spend £1.2 billion extra on it? That speaks volumes about the situation in which we find ourselves.

Of course the figures are not good enough. The Minister for Health and Community Care and the Executive have said so. We want to ensure that the structural changes and the massive investment that is going into the health service will deliver. That is what we are attempting to do and I am convinced that it will happen.

Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Executive is not responsible for promises made by the Labour party in the 1997 general election, but is responsible for the promises made in the partnership agreement and the programme for government of 1999? The partnership agreement confirms that waiting times, not crude waiting lists, are the important measure in determining how well we are delivering health services in Scotland.

There is an issue over waiting lists and waiting times that the Minister for Health and Community Care will be looking at over the next few months. It is vital that we have a consistent set of measures that everyone can use as a benchmark. This week, political mischief was made over whether a minister publishes a press release every time figures are released. I believe that the best way forward is to be very open and transparent about the figures and to ensure that they are published every quarter. It is immaterial whether the minister puts out a press release, but we should go further than just publishing the figures on the web—so that the people of Scotland and commentators are aware of the figures.

---

Student Support

To ask the First Minister what new action is being taken to expand opportunities for students from low-income families to attend university. (S1F-680)

We are making available £18 million over the next three years through the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to help widen access. That will fund some 800 additional places, to be targeted in such a way as to maximise their take-up by low-income and under-represented groups.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Does he, like me, welcome the articulation agreements between the further and higher education colleges and universities? What steps will the Executive take to ensure that there is equity at the point of entry into university for vocational and traditional qualifications?

That is part of the partnership's plans. Over the past 18 months, we have given a great deal of consideration to higher and further education, resulting in record levels of investment for the next three years. We are determined to ensure that equity remains a priority, for example by the pilot scheme in Ayrshire paying educational maintenance allowances; through ensuring that we get young people with good qualifications; and through building on schemes such as that announced by the Royal Bank of Scotland this week to provide transitional funding to help access for students from low-income families.

The £50 million investment we are already making will provide very substantial grants to young people from low-income backgrounds. It is vital that a higher proportion of young people from less well represented social and economic groups enter higher and further education. The way to achieve that is through a strong relationship between schools and the further and higher education sectors and, as Marilyn Livingstone has said, by making sure that we have a strong link between further and higher education, as the one often leads to progress to the other.

Given that the £750 funding arrangement is available for more places than the number of additional places planned for higher education, will the First Minister give an assurance that no student will lose out on a place in higher education because their parents earn more than £10,000?

No one will lose out in that way. Over the next few years we are expanding the number of places in higher education and we are giving additional support to SHEFC—Brian Monteith may shake his head but this is what we are doing. SHEFC will ensure that there is additional funding so that young people from low-income backgrounds will have support so that they do not miss out on higher education.

Let me nail the Conservative myth that there is a contrast between widening access and excellence—we are pursuing both. I hope that that has the support of the whole Parliament.

---

Renewable Energy

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive plans to enhance its strategy for the development of the renewable energy industry. (S1F-670)

The Scottish Executive is committed to promoting strongly the development of new renewable sources of generation in Scotland. Counting the output from existing hydro schemes and renewables projects that are in the pipeline under the Scottish renewables obligation, we expect that up to 13 per cent of Scottish electricity demand will be met from renewables by 2003.

Do I sense some frustration behind the First Minister's words? He does not enjoy the real, sovereign, political power of his Norwegian counterpart, who has a sense of economic security engendered by the knowledge that he has an oil reserve fund of £60 billion and who would therefore be able to order—now—an upgrading of the electricity grid, were it needed in Norway. It is certainly needed in Scotland. Is the First Minister not galled by the fact that he cannot use—now—the extra taxation that is paid by the oil companies into the Exchequer, to ensure that Scotland invests in wave power to stay ahead of the rest of the world in that technology?

I hope that this will not be misconstrued, but I am not as frustrated as Margo thinks I am, in terms of the question.

Good, Henry.

That is okay. I like to build links with Margo.

We are pursuing a vigorous policy on renewables. That is vital as we move into the 21st century. I believe that, working in Scotland and the United Kingdom, we will be able to move forward quickly. I said that 13 per cent of demand would be met by renewables; it is our aspiration to add a further 5 per cent to that. That would be significant.

On the issue of energy, oil and foreign comparisons, there was a remarkably entertaining article in The Sun this week by Mr Jim Sillars. I do not know whether these qualify as energy renewables, but the article says that

"even with a lighted torch and a can of paraffin in his hands, John Swinney can't set the political heather on fire".

Maybe some renewable energy is required on Mr Swinney's side of the chamber.

On a point of order. Is it in order for the First Minister to aim low blows at a back bencher? [Laughter.]

Low blows have been known before. No doubt they will be known again.

Does the First Minister agree that one of the main blocks to the renewable energy industry—for example the hydro scheme on the River Mouse near Lanark—is the charges for connection to the main network that are proposed by Scottish Power and others? Will he undertake to discuss the level of those charges with those companies and the UK Government? They render many renewable energy schemes uneconomic.

I am certainly willing to give that assurance. When we are dealing with new energy, we need to consider the issues that—although they may seem small when considered from a strategic point of view—are very important to that end of the business. Wendy Alexander, Sarah Boyack and Sam Galbraith will be looking into this matter—I am happy to assure Mr Mundell on that.

---

Coastal Erosion

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to protect coastal areas from the effects of erosion. (S1F-682)

Additional resources have been made available from the spending review to allow councils to take forward coast protection measures that they decide are required.

I welcome that answer and, on behalf of the people of Fife, welcome Sam Galbraith's announcement this week. Does the First Minister agree that one of the major reasons for coastal erosion is climatic change? Does he agree that we need to do all we can to stop fossil fuel emissions in Scotland?

The Executive is considering at least two reports on climate change. Such discussions are, of course, taking place worldwide. We want a rational energy policy. We want to consider carefully the flooding that has occurred and we want to ensure that our environmental policies are as sound, safe and secure as possible for the future of the country.

---

Medical Accidents (Compensation)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any plans to introduce no-fault compensation schemes for medical accidents and mistakes. (S1F-672)

We have no plans to alter the way in which compensation is claimed and settled for acts of possible negligence. Our efforts continue to be directed at ways of continually improving clinical performance and standards and so to reduce the incidence of negligence.

Does the First Minister agree that one of the reasons for shortages in some medical specialties is the fear of litigation? Would not the introduction of no-fault compensation schemes allow greater recruitment into specialties that are suffering shortages because of that fear?

There is one national health service that has such an arrangement—New Zealand. The health departments in Scotland and England are examining the questions of negligence and best practice. Rather than pursue a no-fault arrangement, we are seeking to ensure that we are effective in establishing and operating risk management procedures. That will go a long way towards tackling some of the concerns that have been raised. We are addressing the issue within Scotland and the UK.

Thank you for allowing me to ask another question, Presiding Officer.

Will the First Minister assure me that, as part of the review into compensation that is paid to people who through no fault of their own have contracted some disease or illness, the people who contracted hepatitis C in the early to mid-1980s will be afforded similar consideration as was shown to those who contracted CJD?

Margo MacDonald has raised two issues that are related in some respects, but which are being dealt with entirely differently. I have briefings on both issues and I would be delighted to write to the member on them.