Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 24, 2001

Official Report 652KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S1F-1094)

On that occasion, will the First Minister ask the Prime Minister why he has failed to deliver lower class sizes in Scotland as he promised at the last election?

I fear that the leader of the Opposition is getting angry early.

Presiding Officer, I did not have the chance to discuss this with you earlier, but today we have a delegation from Russia—from Ekaterinburg in west Siberia. Their visit is part of a Council of Europe project, and I think that we should greet them in the spirit of friendship in the normal way. [Applause.]

I last met the Prime Minister on 14 May and we have no immediate plans to meet, although, as I have said in previous weeks, that could change quite soon.

The First Minister will be aware that proportionately more people die from cancer in Scotland than in any other European country. In those circumstances, does the First Minister believe that it is fair for Scotland's share of health spending to fall?

Again, we have a situation in which the SNP wants to distort the facts on the quality of health care in Scotland and the volume of investment. Let me repeat that, in 1999-2000, the figure was £4.9 billion. That will rise to £6.7 billion by 2003-04. That gives the lie to the SNP's constant attacks, which are totally groundless and which, of course, are to do with scaremongering. We appreciate, as does the Minister for Health and Community Care, that we want to do a great deal more, especially in relation to cancer. That is what we will be doing. That is why we look forward, in the next two years before 2003, to implementing further investment.

I am glad that the First Minister got back to the issue of cancer. I will read him a quote from the head of the Beatson oncology centre in Glasgow, who says:

"In the past couple of years we have seen a substantial increase in demand with no extra resources. We can't treat patients the way we want to."

In addition, waiting times for chemotherapy in parts of Scotland have trebled under the Labour Government. I know that the First Minister does not listen to doctors and I know that he does not listen to nurses, but perhaps he will listen to his Minister for Health and Community Care, who has demonstrated that, last year, this year, next year, the year after and the year after that, Scotland's share of United Kingdom health spending will fall. Does the First Minister believe that that is fair?

I am not normally in a position to give advice, but I will say that, if John Swinney was less angry and more constructive, we might have a serious debate on a serious issue. Let us acknowledge, as I have done, that a great deal more needs to be done. That is why we will see significant investment in the whole cancer programme very soon indeed. Let us also acknowledge that breast screening has been extended to women up to the age of 70, that cervical screening technology has seen improvements, that £13 million has gone into radiotherapy equipment replacement, that £16 million has gone into imaging services to ensure faster and better diagnosis, that there are six extra cancer consultants and, of course, that £38 million is in the pipeline to rebuild Glasgow's cancer centre.

The coalition cannot be accused of inaction on this serious issue. Especially against the background of what will happen in the next two weeks, it will be more important—instead of talking about cuts and about separation, as the right-wing alliance of the Conservatives and the SNP is doing—to talk about sound investment in schools and in the health service. That is what we will continue to do.

Is not the reality that this Labour Government was the first Government in the post-war period to cut health spending in Scotland? Is not the reality that Scotland's share of UK health spending has gone down this year and will go down next year, the year after and the year after that, as the Minister for Health and Community Care—who has just made a spectacular entrance back into the chamber—confirmed? Is that fair, or is the Labour Government presiding over the relative decline of Scotland's health services?

It is not fair because it is not true. Once again, Mr Angry has decided that he will go with a flawed analysis of where we are. I repeat—I am sorry to do so, because you will probably have heard this before, Presiding Officer—that we are going from £4.9 billion to £6.7 billion by 2003-04. Is that the mark of a coalition that is turning its back on the health service? [Members: "Yes."] Of course it is not. It is the mark of a coalition that takes seriously the public services in Scotland. Against the background of some of what has been coming from the SNP, we take public services seriously. The SNP does not; it is simply playing politics with the public services of the people of Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1096)

I last met the Secretary of State for Scotland on 21 May. We have no immediate plans to meet, but that may change in the next few days.

At their next meeting, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will raise with the First Minister the scandal of the amount of taxpayers' money that has been wasted to date on the Holyrood project, because it is long overdue that the First Minister and the Executive should accept financial responsibility for the project. No Scottish Executive minister contributed to our debate on the subject two weeks ago, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including the First Minister, voted down our motion for no more to be spent on Holyrood than the £195 million that the Parliament has authorised. Today, I ask the First Minister how much more taxpayers' money he is prepared to allocate to the Holyrood building project or whether he is just going to write a blank cheque and stump up whatever is demanded.

I get increasingly saddened by the fact that, despite two years since it was delivered 16 MSPs by a new electoral system, the Conservative party still does not have its heart in devolution. Against that background, the Conservative party wants to insult Scotland and this Parliament about the Parliament that we are building at Holyrood. We will take no lectures from a party whose leader can get minus 46 per cent in a national opinion poll. The Tories are out of touch in virtually everything that they do. We would be happier this afternoon discussing David McLetchie's view on "never, never in Europe". Alas, he may not want to do that.

I am always happy to debate issues with the First Minister. However, he ought to realise that this is First Minister's question time, so I ask the questions and he gives the answers. He has two more years to practise for being in opposition, after which he can sit where I am sitting and ask questions, which I will answer.

As usual, we see the First Minister entirely fail to answer the question, but he cannot escape the fact that it is well known that the budget for the building is bust and that another £50 million is likely to be needed on top of the money that has been authorised. The First Minister and the Executive have a duty to tell us where the money is to come from. Are we going to have a repeat of last year's raid on the health budget? Will the money be found at the expense of Scotland's schools? What is the First Minister's priority? Is it a plush Parliament building or is it Scotland's schools and hospitals? I ask him please to answer that.

I fear that David McLetchie is treading on thin ice when he talks about cuts and plush parliaments versus public services. Let us remind ourselves of the £20 billion of cuts that the Conservatives are proposing with regard to the future of public services. How many teachers, how many nurses and how many doctors in each constituency in this country will be affected by the Tory proposals?

Answer the question. How much will it cost?

I appreciate that Phil Gallie is getting excited. I visited Ayr yesterday. He should get more excited, because I fear that he will be in this Parliament for a very long time.

The serious issue is that we are talking about a unique historic achievement—a Parliament in Scotland. The group that is looking after the Holyrood project is doing an excellent job. I say to David McLetchie that he comments from the sidelines. His party was invited to join the Holyrood progress group.

The First Minister refuses to put a minister on the group.

David McLetchie may shout from a sedentary position, but the Conservatives refuse to join the group. I will tell members why. The Conservatives do not want the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. They want to sit on the sidelines and carp.

As a member of the Holyrood progress group, I welcome the First Minister's comments. Does he agree that it is no wonder that the Scots will not vote for the Tories? If the Tories had their way, we would end up with a half-baked Parliament constructed through the cheapest possible method.

I find it easy to agree with that comment. The Scottish Parliament and everything that we do in this building for the next two years is a serious issue for the Scottish people. When will the Conservatives start to take devolution seriously? Their carping-on about costs makes little impact when they have yet to show faith in the Holyrood project. I challenge the Conservatives to say when they will take devolution seriously.

---

European Nations Football Championship

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made with the feasibility study into the possible staging of the 2008 European nations football championship in Scotland. (S1F-1093)

The Scottish Football Association commissioned a feasibility study from independent consultants. The study was completed and submitted to the SFA. Allan Wilson and I discussed the report with representatives of the SFA. I understand that no firm decisions have yet been taken on whether Scotland will bid for the 2008 football championships. Any decision to bid is for the SFA to take.

Securing the championships would be an enormous economic boost for Scotland and a great boost to the Scottish game. Moreover, it would save us all the hassle of nail-biting qualifiers, as we would automatically qualify. Given that many political parties have petitioned the Scottish Executive to support any bid that might be made, what plans does the First Minister have to involve representatives from around the chamber in the launch of a formal bid, to avoid any electioneering in the coming weeks?

I agree about the nail-biting qualifiers. Avoiding them would be a huge benefit of holding the 2008 championships.

The First Minister might return to the game. He would be better at that.

That must be the kindest suggestion that the leader of the Opposition has made. I fear that the mind is willing but the heart is not.

Scotland wants to be taken seriously in world sport. We are bidding for the Ryder cup in 2009. Achieving that would be a significant step forward. With the SFA, we are scrutinising the details of making a bid. A bid would be good for Scotland and the sport and would allow Scotland to take football further forward.

As for Richard Lochhead's final point, if the Administration takes a decision that will have implications beyond one or two parliamentary sessions, it is right that Scotland should know that such a bid is supported by the whole chamber and every political party in Scotland. That would be the most serious way of making progress. I give the assurance that, once the bid is developed, we will find out what the outcome is. If the possibility of a bid exists, it will be right for Allan Wilson and me to speak to MSPs from all parties to ensure that we have a united Scotland with a united bid to host the 2008 championships.

There are two supplementaries. I ask members to keep their questions tight.

Does the First Minister agree that, if the bid is to go ahead, it would require the building of new stadiums, which should be built not only for football, but for the community? They should be multipurpose stadiums that could engender sports interest across the spectrum, not just in football.

I can feel a wave of enthusiasm beginning to develop around the possibility of the bid. However, it is important to draw back slightly and say that at this stage we have not agreed on a bid. Clearly, expenditure items would be involved and those would have to be looked at very seriously. If a bid goes forward, it has to reflect the whole of Scotland and football in the whole of the country. First, we would need to look at geography. Secondly, we would need to ensure that any public investment results in long-term community benefit. If we look at sport in the widest sense, the benefit could go beyond football. That would be a positive ideal.

I am interested to hear the First Minister's answers to questions about bringing Euro 2008 to Scotland. It would be a terrific project if we could all succeed together. On working together, will the First Minister consider the possibility of a joint bid, possibly with football associations from Wales or Ireland? Will he say that he will not rule that out, given that competitor bids may come from Scandinavian countries and from Austria and Switzerland bidding together? Those joint bids will offer fierce competition against a bid that was made by Scotland alone.

The points that Brian Monteith has made are absolutely right and valid. We know that we face competition from four major bidders, which involve fairly elaborate relationships between countries, particularly in the case of the Scandinavian bid. I confirm, for the record, that the feasibility study looked at the possibility of Scotland's making bids with other countries in the United Kingdom and with Ireland. The SFA is looking closely at that possibility, but a decision will not be made at this time. However, I confirm that those possibilities have not been ruled out.

---

Rural Transport

To ask the First Minister what new initiatives the Scottish Executive is taking to improve the availability of transport in rural areas. (S1F-1101)

Our rural transport fund is funding new and improved transport options across Scotland. In Dumfries and Galloway, we have invested £1.4 million in 39 new or improved bus services and 13 community transport projects.

I have recently had conversations with constituents who have indicated that the availability of transport is an issue of great importance to them and a vital factor in social inclusion. It is unfortunate that one of the major private bus operators in my constituency has recently withdrawn a number of routes. How can the Executive's intentions to improve public transport be safeguarded against the vagaries of the deregulated public transport that we inherited from the Conservative Government?

I recognise the point that Dr Murray makes about bus services, as small-scale changes have been made to services in her area. One reason why we want to invest in public transport alternatives is to ensure, in rural areas in particular, that those services are made available. Operators cannot be forced by the Executive or local authorities to do this, that or the other, but bus services are vital. The Minister for Transport is listening to the contribution that Dr Murray has made and she will take that matter up on her behalf.

---

European Union Structural Funds

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in recent discussions in Brussels regarding European Union structural funds. (S1F-1102)

The Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government led a strong Scottish delegation to the cohesion forum on 21 and 22 May, which launched the debate about the future of structural funds following EU enlargement. Like other speakers, he stressed the need to ensure that the new regional policy framework deals effectively with the new challenges facing regional and human resource development in an enlarged Europe, while recognising that there are remaining difficulties in urban, peripheral and rural areas in existing EU countries.

The First Minister mentioned some of the benefits that come from participation in Europe. Does he agree that recent pronouncements from leading Conservatives about Europe not only threaten Scotland's economic well-being but introduce a tone of intolerance that could destabilise the political progress and lead to future tensions and conflict, which would damage Scotland's interests?

I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed. I would go further. About 300,000 jobs in Scotland are linked to Europe, so the issue is very important.

As I said earlier, we do not really know what the Conservatives' policy on Europe is. The Conservative leader in the UK says never in the next Parliament. Mrs Thatcher returns to just saying never. Francis Maude says that we will never have a set of circumstances in which we will go into the euro. We simply do not know. Let me conclude by saying that that reminds me of the old song:

Never ever have I ever felt so low
When you gonna take me outta this black-hole?

That is the Conservatives' policy on Europe. The quicker it is clarified, the better.

One cannot beat a pre-prepared joke at question time.

Why has the First Minister done nothing to prevent the Treasury from blocking a Finance Committee inquiry into the Treasury's theft of European structural funds from Scotland over the past 25 years and into the years ahead? Why do the First Minister and the London Treasury seek to hide that fact from Scotland? Why will the First Minister not stand up for Scotland on the issue?

Again, there is constant wailing and carping from the SNP and talking down of Scotland. The SNP says that it stands up for Scotland, but it is standing still for Scotland while the coalition moves smartly forward.