Plenary, 27 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, November 27, 2003

Official Report 700KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-379)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again next month. We will continue our discussions on a number of issues, but in particular I would imagine that we will discuss tackling crime, antisocial behaviour and drug abuse across the United Kingdom.

In February 2002, when the First Minister announced the switch from waiting lists to waiting times, he boasted that the average waiting time for patients had fallen to 33 days, but was still too high. After two years in office, can he tell us the figure today?

We do not calculate the average waiting time, as I have tried to explain to Mr Swinney on at least a couple of occasions. The median that we announce on a quarterly basis is not an average. A median is a mid-point of those who have to wait. One of the issues is that the vast majority of people who are treated in the health service are treated either immediately or immediately on referral. That important fact is not reflected in those statistics.

We have a continuing challenge to bring down waiting times in the health service. I said two years ago that the immediate priority was to reduce waiting times for heart and cancer operations and treatments in particular, and the waiting times are being driven down in those areas. We have also been working for two years to bring down the longest waiting times in the health service, and the news on that this morning is very good.

The press release of 28 February 2002 from the Scottish Executive, which I have in front of me, includes the remark:

"the average … waiting time for in-patient and day case treatment was 33 days".

The chamber will not believe it, but the Government then went on to boast about the fact that that was

"a day fewer than a year ago."

The answer that the First Minister was so evidently finding it difficult to get out today is that the waiting time is not 33 days on average—it is 40 days, which is 10 days longer—[Interruption.] No, wait a minute. That is 10 days longer than in 1999, a week longer than when the First Minister made that boast, and the longest wait since records began.

With all the resources that he has had at his disposal, and with all the taxes that people have paid in Scotland, can the First Minister explain how the health service has deteriorated and why people are waiting so long for treatment in Scotland? [Applause.]

I am glad that they applauded at the right time on that occasion. Stage-managed applause does not always work.

We must be serious about this, because the health service in Scotland is a vital national service. It is a service that requires improvement year on year. It requires us to ensure that we are focused on immediate priorities and that we are planning and working for long-term improvements, which is exactly what we continue to do. That is why it has been absolutely right first of all to ensure that we target those long-term waiters.

The figures this morning show clearly that nobody with a guarantee is waiting for longer than 12 months, and we are well on course—subject, of course, to the possibility of flu and other issues—to achieving our target of nine months by the end of this year. It is also the case that the number of doctors, nurses and health professionals is up and the capacity of the system is being increased, which is what will lead in the longer term to bringing down waiting times overall.

A median is not an average. It is a middle point of those who have to wait at all. The immediate priority was, quite rightly, to bring down waiting times for heart disease and save lives; to bring down waiting times for cancer treatments and save lives; and to bring down waiting times for those who wait the longest. That is what we have done. I am proud of that achievement so far, but there is still a long way to go.

Here is the press release from February 2002, in which the First Minister makes the bold declaration:

"To make a real difference, we will bring down waiting times."

Waiting times have risen under this Labour Government.

The First Minister boasts again that he is on target to eliminate for people a wait of longer than nine months. Since he was re-elected to office in May, the number of people waiting more than nine months for treatment has gone up. I see that the First Minister is shaking his head, but the figure has gone up from 662 to 897. That figure is going the wrong way. Fewer out-patients, in-patients and day cases are being treated and more people are waiting longer than ever before. And now, to add to the problems, the Labour Government south of the border is pushing through foundation hospitals that will draw staff and resources from the NHS in Scotland. Is it not the case that, north and south of the border, the Labour Party is a disaster for the health service?

I repeat that a median is not an average, it is a mid-point. I stress the absolute importance of focusing on the things that matter most in the health service at the moment, which are the longest waiting times. That is why we have reduced them, giving an absolute guarantee of 12 months and, as of 31 December, nine months. The other critically important priority, which was identified three years ago and is now being implemented across the health service by expert professionals, who are working hard to deliver our commitment, is to bring down waiting times for heart disease operations and treatments and for cancer treatments. Those were the priorities that we identified and they have been met.

However, there is a longer-term issue, which is to bring down waiting times across the board. That will be done by increasing capacity. That is why, in the past two years, the number of nurses, doctors and consultants has gone up, as has the number of nurses, doctors, and dentists in training. All those figures are going up and that is how, in the long term, we will improve our national health service.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-378)

The Cabinet will, as ever, discuss a number of issues that are important to the future of Scotland. With regard to the immediate future of local government in Scotland, we will discuss next year's local government financial settlement.

I am sure that the First Minister, his Cabinet and all the other members of the self-preservation society in the Scottish Parliament will be delighted that the Queen's speech included a bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 and keep the number of MSPs at an overblown and wholly unnecessary 129. [Interruption.] Of course, most of the unnecessary MSPs are on the Government benches. At the election, the redundancies were handed out on benches other than ours.

As the First Minister knows, our view was that the Scotland Act 1998 should not be so amended, not least because of the problems that will arise from having differing constituencies for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. However, I acknowledge that, at least, the proposal to amend the act had the consent of the Parliament.

Could the First Minister explain how he intends to deal with the problems caused by having differing boundaries? Does he accept that any proposed change to the method of electing members of this Parliament should equally require the consent of this Parliament?

While the issue of any changes to the method of electing members of the Scottish Parliament might be the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament, I believe that such changes should have the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I have always believed that.

I believe that it is right and proper for the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish the commission that was announced by his predecessor to examine the implications of the differing boundaries that were implied by yesterday's announcement to retain 129 members of the Scottish Parliament. We will contribute to that commission when it is established.

However, I should say that it is more important for the Scottish Parliament to be discussing the extremely important issues of health, education, crime, transport and jobs rather than talking about ourselves and self-preservation. Mr McLetchie has his priorities all wrong. What is important is that we deal with the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. When we do that, we will get the credibility that we sometimes demand, but do not always deserve.

It was not I who spent the first four years of this Parliament discussing nonsense and wasting money on an unprecedented scale. The First Minister would do well to take a lesson from the book from which he has just quoted.

I was interested to hear the First Minister's answer about the importance of the principle of consent with regard to changing methods of election, because that does not seem to apply to the method by which we elect our councils.

This week, the Scottish Executive published its Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, which proposes the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for local elections. However, instead of listening to the views of councils and others, the First Minister is imposing a system that was opposed by the majority of respondents to the Executive's consultation; opposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; opposed by the vast majority of his own party, including Labour councils in Fife, Dundee, Stirling and Glasgow; and, almost certainly, opposed by most of his back benchers. Are not our councils having to pay an extremely high price to keep the First Minister and his Cabinet in a job? Does the First Minister relish the prospect of having to rely on the votes of the Scottish National Party to force through this change?

Given how often SNP members change their policy positions, it would be hard to rely on them for anything. However, if they ever come in the right direction, we will be very grateful for that.

The consultations on the electoral system for local government, which have taken place on four occasions now, have shown a majority—I think in each of the consultations, and certainly in the two that have taken place since I became First Minister—in favour of a change in the electoral system to STV. It is right that this Parliament should respond to that clear demand. I look forward to the legislation that was introduced on Monday not only passing through the Parliament and its committees, but being enacted next year.

At the next meeting of the Executive's Cabinet, does the First Minister intend to discuss the very welcome announcement by the Inland Revenue this week to bring 500 new jobs to West Lothian? Does he acknowledge that the Inland Revenue will have made that decision on the basis of the excellent and high-quality work force that is available in West Lothian? Does he acknowledge how well the West Lothian economy has bounced back from the problems in the electronics industry of a few years back?

We are all aware not only of the strength of the economy in West Lothian and the rest of the Lothians, but of the strength of the work force, which has faced challenges as a result of the international downturn in electrical engineering in recent times. West Lothian has maintained a level of economic activity and employment that is really quite remarkable. That exemplifies one of the underlying strengths of the Scottish economy at the moment. I welcome the decision this week to locate Government jobs in West Lothian, but I hope that other parts of Scotland will take up the same challenge. It is right and proper that the United Kingdom Government is redirecting jobs out of London and the south-east. We in Scotland should be trying to capitalise on those opportunities.

What representations will be made to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, regarding the implications for Scotland of his proposal to remove from their parents and place in care the children of so-called failed asylum seekers?

Mr Blunkett clarified this morning that that is a gross distortion of his position. We will continue to have discussions with the Home Office about these and other matters in the normal way.

---

Terrorism (Contingency Plans)

To ask the First Minister what contingency plans are in place in the event of terrorist attacks in Scotland. (S2F-388)

Although the level of risk to the UK from terrorist attacks remains substantial, there are no specific threats to Edinburgh or anywhere else in Scotland.

The Scottish Executive, Scottish emergency services and public agencies work closely with one another, and with UK bodies, to ensure that we are as prepared as possible to deal with any terrorist threat to Scotland. Contingency plans are tested regularly at local level as part of an on-going national UK programme.

I am grateful to the First Minister for that reassurance. Will he also reassure us that sufficient measures are in place, not only to protect all Scottish people from the immediate effects of terrorism, but to protect certain parts of the community who may be at risk from a backlash should an attack take place or the threat of an attack escalate?

One indication in the past 12 months of how society in Scotland has changed and improved over recent years has been the way in which—in the spring, during what could have been a very difficult time, with real tension in communities as a result of the conflict in Iraq—the police forces, the local authorities, the churches and the faith groups generally, and local community leaders came together and ensured that action was taken in schools and communities to reduce tension or to ensure that tension did not arise in the first place. That is to the credit of everybody involved. Such work will continue to be a central part of our preparations for, and our response to, any such situations.

Will the First Minister tell us what role the armed services would play in the prevention of a terrorist attack and in the aftermath of such an attack? What concerns does he have about reports about a reduction in the armed services?

On Mr Gallie's second point, we also heard this week clear denials of those rumours that are being put around—presumably by Opposition parties for the sake of grabbing headlines.

I want to put on record the strong support that I have consistently given—and I hope that everybody in the chamber will learn to give—to the armed forces that are based in Scotland and to those who serve in Scottish regiments. They would play a role if there were any serious incident or threat. That would be part of the normal liaison arrangements between our devolved services in Scotland but, more important, part of arrangements involving the Ministry of Defence and those responsible at a United Kingdom level.

---

Objective 1 Funding (Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister what representations will be made to Her Majesty's Government in order to rectify any error made by the Office for National Statistics resulting in the loss of objective 1 funding for the Highlands and Islands and whether the Scottish Executive will seek compensation for such loss. (S2F-385)

What mattered in 1999 was the outcome for the Highlands and Islands. Because the statistics did not support objective 1 status, the Prime Minister secured, at the Berlin summit, the special transitional programme for the Highlands and Islands, which is broadly equivalent to objective 1 funding and has resulted in the investment in the area that has taken place since then. It will be important to take into account any new data—particularly data at a European rather than a British level—when considering proposals for the next round of structural funds. We will ensure that that happens.

Not for the first time today, the First Minister has indicated that he does not understand statistics, since he thinks that 40 is less than 33. The ONS has admitted that the wrong statistics were submitted and, as a result, objective 1 funding was lost. Transitional aid is automatic in those circumstances.

Does the First Minister recall saying, when he was in the Highlands and Islands during the election campaign—it was recorded in nearly every local journal, including The Press and Journal—that he would battle for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? Will he put up a battle on this issue, and win some compensation for the area, or will we in the Highlands and Islands be socially excluded?

I want to make three points on that. First, the statistics that I think Mrs Ewing is referring to are not yet Europe-wide, and therefore the comparison with the situation in 1998 does not stand. However, if the statistics show that the position in the Highlands and Islands would merit a revision of the analysis back in 1998, we will ensure that that is part of the discussion on the next round of structural funds. We will stand up not just for the Highlands and Islands, but for the whole of Scotland in these decisions. I have recently represented not only Scotland, but the United Kingdom in Rome at a meeting on that very issue. The Deputy First Minister is, at this moment, in Brussels, making representations on these issues. We intend to ensure that our input into these discussions continues.

I have one further point, which is that it would be wrong for the chamber, through the production of these weekly sessions, to give the world the impression that the Highlands and Islands are in some way an economic basket case. There are parts of the Highlands and Islands that are economically strong. Inverness is still the fastest-growing city in the United Kingdom. We should ensure that we promote the positive side of the Highlands and Islands economy and that those severe pockets of economic difficulty in the north-western Highlands and in some of the islands are tackled and supported, not just at a European level but at a Scottish level. That is what this Government will do.

I welcome what the First Minister has said so positively about the Highlands and Islands, but does he realise that there is still concern about the statistics? It would be helpful if those statistics could be considered carefully and quickly. Will he take particular note that important infrastructural projects are still needed for the more remote parts of the Highlands and Islands and will he consider how those can be implemented in the coming years?

Those are important points. Our objective is to influence the next round of European structural fund talks to ensure that, although the statistics—let us talk statistics again—might show that we would lose out in structural funds to the eastern European nations that have just joined the European Union and that are significantly poorer than ourselves, regional support is still available to Scotland as a whole, and in particular to areas that need it, such as the Highlands and Islands. We are fighting that case and will continue to do so.

---

Fisheries

To ask the First Minister what outcome the Scottish Executive expects to be reached on quotas and days at sea for Scotland's fishermen in the forthcoming December negotiations in Brussels. (S2F-381)

Our aim on fisheries for the December council meeting will be to secure quotas that are realistic in commercial and conservation terms and to secure a more effective and equitable effort management, or days-at-sea regime.

Can I tempt the First Minister to be a little more explicit? Recent scientific evidence shows that many Scottish white-fish species are in their healthiest state for a generation and stocks of prawns are reported to be excellent. Will he assure us that instead of Ross Finnie being gutted, filleted and hung out to dry over one species—cod—as happened at last year's fisheries summit, the First Minister fully expects the negotiating team to return with significantly improved catching quotas? Will he guarantee that those who live in Scotland's fishing communities will be able to recognise his unique assessment that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they live in thriving and prosperous places?

I would be grateful if the Conservatives stopped distorting what was said about the fact that some parts of the fishing industry in Scotland are doing better than others. That is an important distinction to make, as it reinforces the member's point that parts of the industry should be better supported by the European management regime.

One of our key objectives for the December council, which will be difficult to achieve—we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge—but which we are working towards achieving, is the decoupling of the Commission's provisions on prawns, or nephrops, from those on haddock and cod. Measures will be needed for cod, but they should not unfairly disadvantage those who fish for haddock or nephrops.

When conservation is important, we want to ensure that conservation measures are applied equally throughout the European Union and that other fisheries that were not as heavily penalised as Scotland was last year take their share in ensuring that stocks are conserved in the seas around Europe. That is a key part of our objectives that we will continue to pursue.

Does the First Minister recall that, after last December's disastrous talks in Brussels, he announced a so-called aid package that would amount to £50 million for Scotland's fishing communities? It transpired this week that the Government has held back £13 million of that package because it miscalculated the amount of cash that would be required for decommissioning. Will he give the fishing industry and the chamber a commitment that that £13 million will be given to our fishing communities, which, although he might disagree, are not thriving but fighting for survival and require that cash?

Nobody ever said that the fishing communities of north-east Scotland—and in particular the white-fish fishing communities—were thriving. That is precisely why last year we agreed the biggest-ever aid package for Scottish fisheries. We are proud of that decision, which Mr Lochhead might still want to criticise, but it was the right decision at the time. It ensured that people got through this year while the amount of activity in the North sea decreased, which is important for conservation, and that those who had less activity and therefore less income could maintain their businesses through the year and into the future. That remains our position.

We always said that the amount of money would be up to £50 million. We have said not that a miscalculation was made, but that we will allocate money only when that is right and proper. We will not throw money at the problem; we will allocate it to ensure that those who are most in need receive it. We will put the overall long-term interests of Scotland's fishing industries first in any allocation of finance and in any longer-term solution.

Does the First Minister agree that what is vital for fishermen in the next few weeks is obtaining the best deal from the fisheries council, which, as he was right to say, should include the decoupling of nephrops from cod, which would mean so much to fishermen from Pittenweem in my constituency? All Scottish politicians should work together to achieve that, instead of engaging in political posturing and making the populist but unachievable claim that we can unilaterally withdraw from our international treaty obligations.

There are two things that the Opposition parties have suggested that would do us most damage in the negotiations. To some extent, there is evidence for that from last December. First, Scotland's fishing communities would be damaged by the constant diversion into the idea that Scotland can go it alone, support a fishing free-for-all and take no part in a Europe-wide conservation of stocks. Such an approach is unlikely to win us any friends or allies when there are votes at the European Council. The nationalists who make such suggestions might get a few cheers in certain small communities in north-east Scotland, but that will not win us any votes in the European Council. Mr Salmond, and others who make such proposals, do a disservice to the communities that they represent.

Secondly, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to stand by the law in the negotiations. People such as Jamie McGrigor, who last year tried to persuade fishing communities in Scotland to break the law—Conservatives proposed that people should break the law—do no service whatsoever to our fishing communities. People at a European level and in countries with which we must work—in Scandinavia and in the European Union—do not believe that we are serious about conservation when our parliamentarians talk in such a way. We need to get serious about the negotiations, have clear objectives, get involved, win friends and allies and stop posturing and damaging Scottish fishing communities.

---

M74

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive's support for the completion of the M74 accords with its sustainable transport policy. (S2F-383)

The M74 completion is only one element of our integrated and sustainable transport strategy. The motorway will bring economic and environmental benefits, which will include allowing a larger share of local road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. That is the sustainable approach.

By the end of 2006, our spending on transport will reach almost £1 billion per year, with 70 per cent of that spending targeted specifically on public transport. That is more than ever before. Such an effective transport system is central to a thriving economy and strong communities.

Does the First Minister agree that the best way to encourage public transport use is to reduce congestion on local roads? As it is estimated that the M74 northern extension will reduce traffic on Rutherglen's main street, which is in my constituency, by up to 69 per cent, does he acknowledge that the completion of the road is an excellent example of strategic transport planning and that we should all work towards its being completed at the earliest opportunity?

I support the construction in question. We have committed ourselves to it, but it is clear that procedures must be followed through. Completion of the M74 will reduce pollution, result in environmental benefits for the south of Glasgow and even for Rutherglen. It is also important that Scotland has a transport network that can get goods to markets, move people around and allow our public transport service to function properly. The completion of the M74 will help us to achieve such objectives.

This week, I had an opportunity to speak at a public meeting on the M74 in Janis Hughes' constituency. At the meeting, I met a woman who has just bought a flat.

The member must ask a question.

The woman has since discovered that the view from her window is about to change. In the light of her expectation that she will live on a building site for years, suffer air pollution caused by thousands of cars per hour passing her flat, that her property value will collapse and that there will be no prospect of compensation for at least a year after the road is open, how would the First Minister explain the concept of environmental justice to her?

In the public inquiry that is taking place and in other decisions that will be required to be taken over the coming period, it is important to take into account the impact on individuals in the area. Doing so is important for those who would be affected by the construction of the new road and for those who are affected by the current traffic flows in the south of Glasgow. It is also important for people who live further west in Scotland, in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and elsewhere, and whose local economies are threatened by a lack of access to markets and a proper transport system.

I believe that certain road networks in Scotland need to be completed and that the M74 is one of them; however, I also believe that we need to improve public transport. Public transport use in Scotland, which reached its lowest-ever level in 1998-99—the year before the Parliament came into existence—has been increasing every year since then and the level has now topped 445 million journeys a year. That is an excellent record for the Parliament and this Government. We are very proud of it and will build on it in years to come.

Given that the report by the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment, which was commissioned in the mid-1990s, found that increased motorway construction creates increased traffic, does the First Minister agree that the £500 million that has been set aside for the northern extension of the M74 would be better spent on public transport and indeed on cleaning up the toxic waste along the proposed route of the extension?

The fact that we are already spending significantly more on public transport than we are on roads in Scotland is a welcome change from the long-term trend in transport budgets and Government expenditure in Scotland. I am personally committed to such change, which was initially driven forward by Sarah Boyack as Minister for Transport and the Environment and has since been driven forward by every minister with responsibility for transport. It is now being driven forward by Nicol Stephen.

Our consistent direction is towards improving public transport in Scotland as well as upgrading or completing the road networks that are vital both to our economy and to reducing the pollution and environmental damage that are caused by overuse of the existing roads. We are taking a good, balanced approach and I look forward to the work being carried out.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—