Plenary, 28 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, April 28, 2005

Official Report 744KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1597)

The Cabinet will meet briefly next Wednesday and discuss issues of importance.

On 20 March 2003, the First Minister praised the United Kingdom Government for being the first Government "in living memory" to

"put the possibility of going to war to a vote in the House of Commons".—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; c 19800.]

Does the First Minister agree that MPs should have been made aware of the grave doubts that we now know the Attorney General had about the legality of the war in Iraq before they were asked to vote to send our servicemen and servicewomen to war?

I make it clear at this point that the First Minister is responsible for what he says in Parliament and in the country, but not for what others say elsewhere.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If you allow this question to be debated at First Minister's question time, I insist that you allow the same latitude to back benchers.

I made it clear that the First Minister is responsible for what he says in the chamber and for what he says in the country. He is not responsible for advice given by the Attorney General to Government at UK level. The question is, therefore, to Mr McConnell.

I am not responsible for that advice, but I am happy to refer to the fact that that advice was published this morning. Ms Sturgeon will see from what was published that what she claims is, in fact, wrong. I said at that time—and I absolutely adhere to that position today—that it was right and proper for this British Government to be the first ever to put a decision to go to war to a vote in Parliament and to secure the support of the British Parliament for that decision. I have absolutely no doubt that that was a tough decision for the Prime Minister to take and that that difficult decision was not made lightly. I also have absolutely no doubt that members of Parliament from all parties, when they voted on that decision in the House of Commons, voted having given it due consideration. Ultimately, I believe that they made the right decision.

I make it clear that my line of questioning is entirely based on comments made by the First Minister in this chamber. This is a question of whether the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the public were given the facts about the reasons for, and the legality of, the war in Iraq.

On 13 March 2003, the First Minister left us in no doubt that he thought that United Nations resolution 1441 provided, if necessary, a legal basis for war. He said that there was

"no doubt that it was a serious and final declaration."—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; c 19435.]

Before he made that unequivocal statement to the Parliament and to the Scottish people, had the First Minister seen or asked to see any legal advice from the Attorney General to back it up?

No, of course I had not, but I absolutely stand by that judgment. I quote for Ms Sturgeon what the Attorney General himself said last night, without even the additional information that we have this morning. The Attorney General said last night that what the document published yesterday does,

"as in any legal advice, is to go through the complicated arguments"

that led to his view. Far from showing that he

"reached the conclusion that to go to war would be unlawful,"

it shows how he

"took account of all the arguments"

before reaching any conclusions. That is exactly what any Government expects from its law officers. If Ms Sturgeon is claiming that the Government went to war on the basis of an untruth, or something that was hidden from the public, she is calling the Attorney General, not the Prime Minister, a liar. If she is calling the Attorney General a liar, that is a very serious accusation indeed to make of a law officer.

I was asking the First Minister about the legal basis for the comments that he made in this chamber on 13 March 2003. I asked him that question for a reason. We now know that the only legal advice that the Attorney General had issued at that time was issued on 7 March. On 7 March—just six days before the First Minister said that there was no doubt about resolution 1441—the Attorney General said that

"the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear".

In other words, there was very real doubt. Does the First Minister not feel angry that he was not made aware of what, at that time, was the Attorney General's only legal advice and, as a result, was put in the position—albeit inadvertently—of misleading this Parliament?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

This is getting skewed for reasons that we all understand. I will take Mr Lyon's point of order.

As the First Minister is responsible for the Executive's policy, how can he comment on events and issues that were decided at the Houses of Parliament in Westminster? Ms Sturgeon is straying far from the subject of what the First Minister said in this Parliament. Presiding Officer, it is time that you took action and ruled this out of order.

As I have made clear before, the First Minister is responsible for what he says in Parliament and in the country. He is not responsible for advice that is given to the United Kingdom Government. I leave it to the First Minister to reply or not, at which point I might be moved to move on.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that we should have some consistency here, because it appears that your authority is being challenged. I have been chucked out for less. [Interruption.] I will repeat that, because members were laughing. I have been chucked out for less. What about George Lyon?

Before we move on, I ask the First Minister whether he has anything to add.

It is clear to everyone that Ms Sturgeon would rather debate matters from another place than debate the responsibilities that we have in this Parliament. It is critical that we ensure that the Parliament debates critical issues such as growing the Scottish economy, improving our health and education services and tackling crime.

However, I am also very happy to answer for what I say in this Parliament and elsewhere. I am clear that my opinion, which I genuinely held at the time, is one that I stand by today. I have known Iraqi civilians for more than 25 years and know that today they are freer, live in a more democratic society, are happier to return home and are pleased with the action that the British Government took. I stand with them now, just as I did then.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed between them. (S2F-1598)

I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after next Thursday's election, and will decide what I discuss with him when that meeting is arranged.

I am sure that Mr Howard will be delighted to see the First Minister in the interests of co-operation with the UK's devolved legislatures and Executives.

However, on a matter for which the First Minister is undoubtedly responsible, will he tell us why, after eight years during which waiting lists and times in our national health service in Scotland have risen, hospital-acquired infections have multiplied and doctors have complained about being forced to work with outdated equipment, it takes a general election campaign to prompt the Minister for Health and Community Care to start talking about reforming our NHS by setting a national price list for operations and procedures?

Never have so many untruths been spoken in one question from one member of the Parliament. It is simply not true that waiting times have gone up. As Mr McLetchie knows, when his party was in government, the target for waiting times in the NHS was 18 months. Not only has that target come down to 18 weeks, but Scotland is increasingly ahead of the UK on in-patient waiting times, with people who used to wait more than nine or 12 months now waiting six months.

Not only do we have a stabilising and, I hope, given all the Minister for Health and Community Care's actions, falling level of MRSA in our hospitals, but we can at least measure these matters. The Conservatives did not properly measure out-patient waiting times or even the level of hospital-acquired infections. Mr McLetchie's claim that the health service in Scotland was in a better condition then than it is now is simply untrue. He knows that, and he cannot create a smokescreen by claiming that the Minister for Health and Community Care said something this week for the first time. In fact, the minister talked about a national price list in this chamber back in December. It was as clear as a bell. If Mr McLetchie reads the Official Report, he will see for himself that that is the case.

The First Minister knows well that the statistics that we have been quoting in the Parliament for weeks were collected and put on record by ISD Scotland in 1997, just as they are in 2005. In that time, the median wait for an out-patient appointment in Scotland has gone up from 34 days to 56 days, which is an increase of more than three weeks. That is on the record and it is indisputable.

Let us not pretend that this week's comments by the Minister for Health and Community Care are anything other than a humiliating climbdown, which was no doubt brought about by the criticisms that the Prime Minister made. Let us consider the substance rather than the timing of the proposals, because that is the real issue. Mr Kerr said that a national tariff had been proposed as a means of comparing the cost of operations in different NHS hospitals and in the independent sector. That is what he said. If, as a result of that comparison, it turns out that patients in Scotland can be treated more quickly and for less in the independent sector, will the NHS under the First Minister's stewardship pay for that treatment or will that be vetoed by his Liberal Democrat allies in the Scottish Executive?

We have made it perfectly clear that we already use the independent sector when it is appropriate to do so and that we will make greater use of it in the months and years to come. I know that in Dundee, Grampian, Glasgow and other parts of the country the Scottish National Party is opposed to such contracts and would rather that people waited longer, but the reality is that we already use the independent sector and that we will make more use of it in the months and years to come. The Minister for Health and Community Care made that clear in December; indeed, his predecessor had already made it clear some time before then.

The difference between that position, which is about ensuring that patients in Scotland are treated according to the principles of the national health service, and the position that Mr McLetchie is trying to hide from voters in Scotland during the current election campaign, is that he would take that money out of the NHS and use it to ensure that only those patients who could afford to pay for their operations—not those patients who most need operations, who have waited longest, who are in most pain or who, in the clinical judgment of the medical profession, need operations most quickly—would be subsidised to do so. The existence of that fundamental divide is precisely why I will not be meeting Mr Howard as Prime Minister after 5 May. The reason for that fundamental divide between the Executive and Mr McLetchie's party is that his party is interested only in subsiding those who can already afford to pay, whereas we will use health service resources according to health service principles to make a difference to those people who most need operations. We will use both the health service and the independent sector to do that.

There is a fundamental lack of logic in the First Minister's answers. Why is it all right for the health service to use taxpayers' money to pay 100 per cent of the cost of an operation that is provided by the independent sector, but not all right for the health service to pay 50 per cent of that cost and to keep the other 50 per cent to treat patients who are still on the Executive's lengthy NHS waiting lists?

Precisely because of the point that I have just made. I know that it is quite hard for a Tory to understand those basic principles because the Conservatives opposed the creation of the NHS. I can tell Mr McLetchie that the people of Scotland expect decisions in their NHS to be made on the basis of clinical need, the urgency of the case, the level of pain that a patient is in and their medical condition as assessed by medical professionals rather than on the basis of the size of their wallet, how much they are paid or how much they could contribute to their treatment. That is a fundamental divide.

We stand for a health service to which access is free at the point of need and determined on the basis of need; Mr McLetchie stands for one in which people can jump the queue because the state will subsidise them if they can already pay for their treatment. He is wrong.

---

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 intends to discuss. (S2F-1614)

Mr Harper will not be surprised to learn that I am in fairly regular contact with the Secretary of State for Scotland at the moment and that I expect to see him again over the next few days.

Last week, the report of Clive Fairweather and Charles Pelling on the Airborne Initiative (Scotland) was published. It identified Airborne as a success, in that it drew international interest and was the only strategy of its kind that helped high-tariff offenders not to reoffend. The evidence shows clearly that support for the Airborne Initiative should have continued. Does the First Minister agree that the decision to close Airborne was, at worst, a caving-in to nimbyism and misinformation and, at best, precipitate and unwise?

No, I do not. Large parts of that report show just how little success the Airborne Initiative achieved. Scotland has the opportunity not only to deal with more of its young offenders, but to deal with them much more effectively and to ensure that fewer of those young people who were involved in persistent and dangerous offending, reoffend.

The decisions that we took then were right. Those decisions will lead to an improvement in tackling both offending and reoffending.

From 2000 onwards, the Airborne Initiative beat prison and probation. On every count, Airborne did better, including with regard to reconviction rates after release. In the last year of Airborne's operation, all of the changes recommended by two social work inspections that wanted to see Airborne succeed were instituted.

Despite repeated invitations to visit and see the improvements, the Minister for Justice and the Deputy Minister for Justice refused to see Airborne for themselves. Does the First Minister agree that this failure was at best an example of poor ministerial practice and at worst an example of a cavalier dereliction of ministerial duty that this chamber has a right to know will never happen again?

I am surprised at the way in which Robin Harper raises these issues. His claims are outrageous and untrue. I will ask the Minister for Justice to write to him in some detail to refute the outrageous allegations that he has made about the work of the Minister for Justice and the Deputy Minister for Justice.

I reiterate that the Airborne Initiative needed to be replaced. It is being replaced by programmes that will treat more young offenders more appropriately and effectively, as part of the system. It will also build upon those elements of the Airborne Initiative that are worth retaining. Although we learn from the good parts, at the same time, we recognise when systems are not working and we replace them with systems that are more effective for more people in the longer term.

---

Economy (Access to Broadband)

To ask the First Minister how improved access to broadband will help the Scottish economy. (S2F-1607)

Broadband offers the prospect of lower costs and higher sales for Scottish businesses through improved access to markets. It also offers reduced prices for consumers and more opportunities for people to develop their skills. Every community in Scotland will have access to broadband services by the end of the year, and I am very pleased that we are delivering on that commitment.

I welcome the additional investment that was announced this week. The First Minister will be aware that in constituencies such as mine, access to broadband can enable the development of local businesses in more remote communities. What steps have been taken by the Executive to harness that potential? What advice and guidance is being given to Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire to ensure that it harnesses such potential in the Clydesdale constituency?

Considerable guidance is being made available. I will ensure that Karen Gillon is sent copies of all relevant material.

Throughout the time in office of this Executive, businesses the length and breadth of Scotland have not only been encouraged to take up broadband services but to make maximum use of them. It is important that a country such as Scotland, on the north-west periphery of Europe, has such electronic connections. We have worked hard to ensure that access is available in both urban and rural Scotland. We are ahead of the rest of United Kingdom on that and we should be very pleased when we see Scottish businesses benefiting as a result.

Does the First Minister recognise that many potential users of broadband are still being denied access for technical reasons, such as distance from the exchange or lack of fibre optic cabling? What support will he offer to those in that position, such as my constituents in Kingswells, to plug gaps in provision?

We will have full provision in place by the end of the year. The Deputy First Minister announced on Monday the contract that will ensure that those final elements are delivered. I will be happy to ensure that he informs Mr Adam what will be available for his constituents.

---

Capital Equipment (NHS Greater Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has had any meetings with NHS Greater Glasgow to discuss the provision of capital equipment. (S2F-1604)

Officials meet on a regular basis with NHS Greater Glasgow to discuss operational and financial matters.

After two years' delay, the Minister for Health and Community Care has finally intervened to ensure that the Western infirmary's aging scanner is replaced within three months. However, the Western's problem is not an isolated example. The correspondence that ministers received—of which I have a copy—refers to another out-of-date scanner at Gartnavel general hospital, but no action has yet been taken to replace that piece of equipment. Will the First Minister announce today that Gartnavel's 15-year-old scanner will be replaced at the same time as the one in the Western?

First, it is inconsistent of Mr Monteith to demand—as both he and his leader have done regularly in the chamber—that ministers take a more hands-off approach and intervene less on behalf of the people of Scotland in the running of the health service if he also wants to suggest, as he seems to do in his question, that it would be right if ministers intervened more.

It is absolutely right and proper that ministers do not make decisions on individual pieces of capital equipment in the local health service. Local health boards and their committees, which are advised by the medical profession, should make such decisions on the basis of local needs. In the case to which the member refers, we know that Greater Glasgow NHS Board decided that the scanner in Stobhill should be replaced first. I am not in a position to question that decision. If that was the local health board's assessment, those who use Stobhill hospital will be pleased with that. Although those who use the Western infirmary might have been disappointed with the decision, they will be pleased to know that the Western's new scanner will be in place within the next few months. In fact, both scanners were ordered at the same time so that the Western's scanner would be available at the start of the current financial year so that it could then be put in place.

The reality is that the improved provision of cancer and other scanning equipment is one reason why the rate of cancer deaths in Scotland has reduced since 1997. Partly because of that investment, we have been able to make that difference. I think that cancer patients across Scotland would take Mr Monteith's protests as being a little more genuine if today he backed the bill to ban smoking in public places, put his days as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry behind him and supported the health of the people of Scotland.

As the First Minister will be aware, in February of this year I wrote to the Minister for Health and Community Care to express legitimate concern that, although the replacement of a magnetic resonance imaging scanner and the provision of additional X-ray capacity at the Western had been agreed in principle, no funding had yet been identified. Therefore, I welcome what the First Minister has said today. However, does he agree that the Conservatives did little to modernise imaging equipment when they were in Government? Does he agree that the Conservatives' timing in raising the issue—[Interruption.]

Order.

Does he agree that the Conservatives have raised the issue at this time in a vain attempt to persuade the public in the general election that the Conservatives can be trusted with the national health service? Does he agree that the public will not trust the Conservatives with the NHS?

Clearly, I agree with Pauline McNeill that the Conservatives have made a politically inspired attempt to undermine the health service.

Both to cancer patients and their families and to those who are concerned either about cancers of which they are currently aware or cancers that they worry might affect their families in future, I stress that we are determined that, step by step, we will ensure that Scotland offers the best facilities, equipment, staff, waiting times and services for those who are affected by cancer. We are determined to do that not just inside the national health service but also by supporting the voluntary sector, such as the Maggie's Centres. Across the length and breadth of Scotland, people are concerned about cancer in their family and among their friends and relatives. We want to reduce those worries by ensuring that services are improved and that we continue the progress that we have made in reducing cancer deaths in Scotland.

---

Wind Farms

Now that the lights have come back on, we can turn our attention to energy.

To ask the First Minister what steps have been taken to provide guidance to local authorities on suitable locations for wind farm developments. (S2F-1602)

Guidance on identifying sites is provided in "National Planning Policy Guideline 6: Renewable Energy Developments".

Can the First Minister confirm that new guidelines will be issued to local authorities to ensure that wind farm developments are sited at appropriate locations? Will he give a commitment that new guidance will be issued in the coming months, and not in a matter of years, given the huge concern that is being expressed by communities and developers the length and breadth of Scotland? Will he also explain how he intends to achieve his target of getting 40 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020? Is he simply going to rely on onshore wind farms? What is he doing to promote other renewable sources?

We are pursuing a number of different sources to ensure that we meet that renewables target. We are proud of having set that target, but we are also determined to meet it. We will do that not only by investment and by having the right guidelines in place, but by consistency. We know that, in this area perhaps more than in any other, we have seen ridiculous inconsistency from Mr Lochhead and others. On the one hand, they say that they support renewable energy—Mr Lochhead himself talks about trying to ensure that Aberdeen is Europe's energy capital—but they oppose wind farms and create a scare about wind farm developments, both onshore and offshore. If we are to deliver renewable energy in Scotland and if Scotland is to be ahead of the game in the industry rather than behind it, we must be consistent and ensure that, where those guidelines are met, we support the developments and ensure that local people are not wound up to oppose them for the sake of support for the SNP or anything else.

The First Minister should be aware that there is widespread concern among rural communities in Perthshire, and right across Scotland, about the fact that they are being swamped by large-scale wind farm applications coming in hand over fist. Is it not time that the Scottish Executive introduced national strategic guidance on locating wind farms and, in the meantime, brought in a national moratorium on wind farm applications that face substantial local opposition, as the only way to protect those communities?

We all know that the Tories would like us to return to the days when our industries were behind those of the rest of the world and we were falling behind because we were not investing in or ensuring that we capitalised on Scotland's potential and assets. We know that Scotland has not only the capacity and skills to generate renewable energy, but the fantastic natural resources that allow us to do so. We must ensure that Scotland is ahead of other countries—ahead of the game and not behind it. We intend to do that, but we also intend to do it using properly formulated national policies that ensure that fair and consistent decisions about wind farm development are made across Scotland. Those guidelines are in place. They are, of course, reviewed when they need to be, but they should be applied by local authorities, and MSPs and local authorities should not pass the buck to the Executive when difficult decisions are to be made. Difficult decisions need to be made. We should make them, back them up and ensure that Scotland leads the world in that industry.

Does the First Minister agree that the development of renewables gives huge opportunities for engineering jobs in the north of Scotland, particularly in the Moray firth area, whether in wind power, wave power or tidal power?

We have potential opportunities not just in the generation of electricity from natural resources—which is a good thing for Scotland, particularly now that we can export electricity to England and beyond as part of a proper, fair UK energy network—but also in construction and manufacturing. There are skills in Scotland, particularly in the north of Scotland as a result of the oil and gas industry, and we want to ensure that those skills are used. That is why we are in discussion with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and others to ensure that more such work is done for the Highlands and the north of Scotland.

Will the First Minister join me in commending Aberdeenshire Council for developing supplementary planning guidance on the use of wind energy in Aberdeenshire? The council also plans to introduce supplementary planning guidance on biomass and small-scale energy generation. Does he agree that we need to promote the maximum possible use of all forms of renewable energy if we are to make any impact on slowing down or reversing climate change? Does he also agree that the Scottish Executive could support local authorities by encouraging Scottish ministers to determine those applications for which they are responsible as expeditiously as possible?

I absolutely agree with Nora Radcliffe's final point about the need for the expeditious determination of those applications for which we are responsible. Action is being taken to reduce the delays that have been experienced by many of those who make those applications. We want to ensure that further progress is made.

I have not seen the documents that have been produced by Aberdeenshire Council, but in principle I certainly agree that that kind of local approach would be very welcome and I hope that other councils can follow suit.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—