Plenary, 28 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, September 28, 2006

Official Report 754KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

---

Wet Age-related Macular Degeneration

To ask the Scottish Executive what treatments are currently available for wet age-related macular degeneration. (S2O-10678)

I call Andy Hughes—I mean Andy Kerr.

We were married for a fleeting moment there, Janis.

Two treatments are available for wet age-related macular degeneration: photo-dynamic therapy, which makes use of the drug verteporfin; and a drug called Macugen, which was recently recommended by the Scottish medicines consortium.

I am pleased that the minister mentioned Macugen. As he will be aware, research has shown that Macugen can reduce the risk of moderate to severe vision loss and can even improve vision in some cases. Can he assure me that the treatment will be readily available to those patients for whom it is deemed to be clinically appropriate?

The point that medicines should be used where they are clinically appropriate is important. Clearly, a clinical judgment needs to be made for the individual patient. Following the drug's approval by the SMC in August 2006, health boards in Scotland should be working to ensure that it is provided according to clinical need. Some ophthalmology departments may still be establishing their processes, but on the member's behalf I will make inquiries to ensure that the drug is in use in our health service as quickly as possible.

---

Nuclear Waste Storage

To ask the Scottish Executive how many nuclear waste storage facilities are expected to be built in Scotland in the next 20 years and where these will be sited. (S2O-10645)

Current plans from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority indicate that, over the next 20 years, four radioactive waste storage facilities are expected to be built in Scotland: three at Dounreay and one at Hunterston. The authority will also conduct feasibility studies on the provision of waste facilities at Chapelcross.

As is clear from its strategy, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is conducting a review of its interim storage requirements for intermediate-level waste. The Executive, the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assembly Government are also conducting a review of low-level radioactive waste policy.

Will the minister confirm that spent fuel that is now transported to Sellafield is unlikely to be reprocessed, given the proposed closure date for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP—of March 2011? Will on-site storage of such material now be considered?

I have responsibility neither for the nature of what is done at THORP nor for how business is conducted there, but I am happy to look into the issue and advise the member. I am aware only of what we have been advised by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in respect of its proposals for storage facilities in Scotland.

Has the minister's department received inquiries from the Scottish National Party about possible storage locations for the waste from Scottish power stations that has been stored at Sellafield over many years? Presumably, in the event of independence, such nuclear waste would be returned to Scotland as it is Scottish nuclear waste. I think that people would like to know the full costs and implications of the nationalists' programme.

Representations, yes; responsibilities, no—does Mr Finnie want to add anything further?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The point is no doubt of immense interest to members, but it might more properly be directed to the SNP.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management report identified deep geological storage as the least worst option for legacy waste, but it also strongly advised that we need more research into deep disposal. Has the Executive pressed the UK Government on undertaking such research?

As was announced at the time of its publication, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government will respond to the CORWM report. When we make that response, which we will do very shortly, we will address the report's recommendations, including those on the need for further research on deep geological storage, to which Nora Radcliffe referred.

---

Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to include in the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill measures to ensure that pre-school children are served only healthy, nutritious meals and snacks at nursery. (S2O-10672)

All food and drink provided by local authority nurseries will be subject to the nutrition requirements of the bill. In addition, earlier this year we published nutritional guidance for all providers of early years education and child care. That guidance provides nutrient standards and offers advice on menu planning.

I accept that there will be a duty on local authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to ensure that food and drink supplied in the schools meets the dietary and nutritional standards. Are there powers to extend that provision to all nursery schools—including those in the private sector—to ensure that the same standards are met?

The bill's specific provisions cover local authority nurseries. However, we also have powers under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 to issue statutory guidance, to which providers must have regard.

As I indicated, we issued nutritional standards earlier this year for that sector. In addition, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education have powers to inspect all the providers of early years education. The care commission in particular will include in its inspection process specific questions about the nutritional standards of the food offered. We believe that through that mechanism we can get enough purchase in that sector to make the changes that are necessary and appropriate.

---

Glasgow (Metropolitan Status)

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it will give to Glasgow being granted metropolitan status. (S2O-10636)

As the member will be aware from Mr Kerr's previous answer to this question, there is no such designation as metropolitan status in Scotland. Metropolitan status is an English term used by the United Kingdom Government.

Perhaps the minister should tell that to Glasgow City Council and its ruling Labour group. The council uses the term in "Metropolitan Glasgow—A Vision for a Region" and a document that was sent to the minister and to the Finance Committee refers to metropolitan status for the city of Glasgow.

Is the minister aware that if metropolitan status or, as it is sometimes called, city status, is granted to Glasgow, council tax payers would save £150 per year on their houses? Is it not time that Glasgow was considered for metropolitan status? Will the minister take up the issue?

I am concerned that the member, who represents Glasgow, does not know that Glasgow is a city. I think that that is well known throughout the rest of Scotland.

As I said in my original response, and as Mr Kerr said in his response, there is no such thing as metropolitan status in respect of how we distribute money here in Scotland.

Glasgow receives the highest grant aid per head of any mainland authority in Scotland—£1,969 per head for this year. There is a £29 million increase in central funding this year alone and, on top of that, in recognition of its city status Glasgow received £18.1 million from the city growth fund this year. In addition, Glasgow benefits from targeted programmes such as the community regeneration fund, from which it will benefit to the tune of £124 million over the next three years. Glasgow will receive £10 million from the working for families programme over the period between 2004 and 2008. Glasgow will also receive £10 million from the vacant and derelict land fund between 2004 and 2006. The total for the city growth fund that will go to assist Glasgow between 2003 and 2008 is £76 million. Members can see that this Executive recognises the city status of Glasgow.

---

Cattle Breeds (Commercial Viability)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will review the effect of recent regulatory changes on the commercial viability of those cattle breeds whose meat is typically best after 24 months. (S2O-10630)

The European transmissible spongiform encephalopathy regulation classifies vertebral column as specified risk material and requires its removal from bovines aged over 24 months. The Scottish Executive supports and is leading the United Kingdom's efforts to have that age limit raised and the European Commission has asked the European Food Safety Authority for an opinion on the matter.

As the minister knows, there is a real problem for butchers who specialise in slower maturing beef breeds, such as the Galloway. There is also a knock-on effect on the breeders of such stock. There is some indication of effects on market prices for that kind of beef. Has the minister, or his department, undertaken any investigation into price movements and can he give us a timescale for when we may look for the 24-month limit to be replaced by a 36-month limit, which was originally in place?

As I said in my first answer, the overall European position was a 24-month rule and it was difficult to upset that as part of the negotiations to get beef exports reinstated. We must consider the whole picture. However, I take Alasdair Morgan's point. I am sure that he is aware that, following our representations on behalf of the industry to the Food Standards Agency, it recommended that we take up the derogation that allows butcher shops, which I think are the traditional retailing outlet for such beef, to be authorised by local authorities to remove vertebral column from 24-month-old to 30-month-old cattle. I appreciate that difficulties are attached to gaining that authorisation, but nevertheless that facility exists. In the interim, the trade should look again at that derogation to see whether it offers an interim position prior to our persuading Europe to raise the overall age.

---

Fostering Strategy

To ask the Scottish Executive when the national fostering strategy will be published. (S2O-10642)

As I said during the recent stage 1 debate on the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill, we are developing the fostering strategy, which we hope to publish for consultation before the end of the year.

Does the minister acknowledge that we as a society continue to fail the 5,000 or so children and young people who are at any one time looked after away from home in residential or foster care? The patchy nature of services, lack of training for foster carers and poor levels of financial support, which have led to significant problems with the recruitment and retention of carers, are endemic in the current system. It is little wonder that the outcomes for children who are unfortunate enough to fall into the system are so poor. Is not the minister ashamed of the Government's track record? How does he intend to respond to the manifesto for looked-after children, "No Time to Lose", which was launched in the Parliament yesterday and has been endorsed by 68 organisations—children's organisations and others—in Scotland?

Adam Ingram is well aware of the complex and important nature of this area of policy. That is why we are producing the national strategy and why we will involve all the stakeholders in discussing it. A meeting of a reference group in October will involve the major stakeholders. We intend to involve the Education Committee, too, in discussion of the issues.

Fostering is a complex matter and many of the issues are interrelated. Issues around recruitment and retention, and training and support, are important because of the increasingly complex nature of some of the young people concerned.

I share with Adam Ingram the desire that all Scotland's children should have the best possible opportunities in life. That is very much part of the Executive's strategy, building on the £12 million support that went into local authorities over two years, which has been well used to improve all levels of support and back-up for foster parents in our society. This is a key policy area and we are determined to ensure that there are significant improvements in how Scotland deals with looked-after children.

In developing the strategy, will the minister take into account calls from the Fostering Network and Barnardo's that there should be a cap on the number of children that any foster family can take on at once in order to make certain that there is a high standard of individual care?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton makes an important point, which will be examined as part of the national strategy consultation. We must consider how all these things work together. At the moment, we are not persuaded that putting a cap on the number of people who can be fostered would be the right way forward. The key underlying issues are the recruitment of more fosterers and the provision of proper training and support for fosterers who are currently in place. That will be part of the consultation and we look forward to engaging in the debate about it with the various interested stakeholders.

---

Hunterston B Power Station

To ask the Scottish Executive how many cubic metres of packaged intermediate and low-level waste and tonnes of spent nuclear fuel are expected to be produced by Hunterston B power station if its life is extended by 10 years. (S2O-10643)

As Michael Matheson is aware, no decision has been taken to extend the life of Hunterston B; that would be a commercial decision for British Energy.

However, based on the information that was reported in the 2004 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory, a 10-year life extension of the Hunterston B advanced gas-cooled reactor would generate approximately 350 tonnes uranium of spent fuel. If processed, that spent fuel would generate in packaged form approximately 25m3 of high-level waste, 700m3 of intermediate-level waste and 600m3 of low-level waste.

There would be additional waste at Hunterston B arising from operating the two reactors for an additional 10 years. That is estimated to be 700m3 of intermediate-level waste and 2,300m3 of low-level waste, quoted in packaged form. The additional operational waste arises irrespective of the spent fuel's management route.

I thank the minister for his full and detailed answer. Have any discussions been held between the Scottish Executive and the London Government or the operators of Hunterston B on the possibility of extending the power station's lifespan? What criteria will the Scottish Executive use in considering whether it would support such a proposal?

I am not aware of any such discussions. On the criteria that we would use, any application or requirement to extend Hunterston B's lifespan would need to satisfy the safety and environmental requirements of the regulators—HM nuclear installations inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

---

Anaesthetics

To ask the Scottish Executive whether a reduction in training opportunities in specialist training posts in anaesthetics as part of the modernising medical careers programme will reduce the anaesthetics services available in St John's hospital in Livingston. (S2O-10702)

The answer is no.

Is the minister aware that, whether he likes it or not, the new fixed-term contracts for junior doctors are considered to be second-class training and that, already, our best trainee anaesthetists are leaving Scotland? Is he aware that, as consultants told MSPs last night, many of the trainees who will fill contracts in August next year will not be ready immediately to fill on-call rosters, which will mean that women in labour and people in need of emergency surgery may need to be transferred from district general hospitals such as St John's to bigger acute services hospitals? Does he agree that that is no way to run a health service and that he must act now to stop junior doctors voting with their feet?

That is an outrageous assertion in so many ways and I will try to address many of those points.

There will be sufficient training opportunities in Scotland and we will sustain our services throughout the transition to modernising medical careers. Lothian NHS Board has confirmed that the implementation of MMC will not adversely affect the anaesthetics service at St John's hospital. The way to resolve those matters is by discussion with the chief medical officer, who is leading the MMC implementation throughout the United Kingdom. The royal colleges and other observers recognise that, in Scotland, we are ahead of the game on MMC.

I am more than happy to meet clinicians and trainee doctors, as I did yesterday, to reassure them that a lot of the stuff that they are reading and which people such as Fiona Hyslop perpetuate is inaccurate and untrue. It destabilises and undermines our NHS staff.

I wish that Andy Kerr had listened to the information that the doctors presented. Will he confirm that their analysis that they will not be able to fill one rota in three comes from the Executive's leaked workforce planning statistics? Will he confirm that the Executive's workforce planning will mean that all current rotas will be able to be filled in the future and that we will not witness further closures of acute services such as accident and emergency in NHS Lanarkshire because there not enough anaesthetists?

Now we get to the nub of the problem. Miss Leckie referred to a leaked document. That document was, in fact, a consultation document with our health boards on how many junior doctor training posts we require in our national health service. I repeat the point that, as a result of that consultation, we will ensure, first, that there are sufficient training opportunities for our junior doctors in Scotland and, secondly, that our hospital services are safe and will continue to be delivered throughout the implementation of MMC.

Members will wish to join me in welcoming to Parliament His Excellency Jaakko Laajava, the ambassador of Finland to the United Kingdom. [Applause.]