Plenary, 28 Oct 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, October 28, 2004

Official Report 755KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

On behalf of—I think—most members, I wish John Kerry every success in his attempt next week to remove the warmonger from the White House.

I ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1144)

We may enjoy quoting that comment back at Nicola Sturgeon during the next four years, should Mr Kerry win next week.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I am sure that George Bush will take great heart from the First Minister's support.

A letter that the First Minister sent to me yesterday states that a woman who spent 11 hours on a hospital trolley and then 12 hours in an assessment unit before being moved to a general ward, all in a hospital that is 30 miles from her home and her three disabled children—to which she would never have had to go if his Government had not allowed the emergency surgery unit at her local hospital to be closed—was

"probably looked after as well as any other patient".

The First Minister might think that that is acceptable, but I do not.

When will the First Minister stop spinning like a top and start listening to and acting on the real-life experiences of patients such as Marion Kyle?

Earlier this year, I made a big mistake in deciding not to accept an invitation to the D day commemorative ceremonies in Normandy. On that occasion, I was big enough to change my mind and apologise within 24 hours. The issue that Nicola Sturgeon raises is very serious. In a letter that is not from me, any other politician or Lothian NHS Board, but from the three key medical consultants and other staff who were involved in the provision of services to Marion Kyle, those staff, on behalf of all health care staff at the royal infirmary of Edinburgh, ask Miss Sturgeon to apologise for the unfounded, and—to use their word—disgraceful statements that she made in the Parliament three weeks ago. I realise that Nicola Sturgeon is still new in her job, but is she prepared to accept that, on this occasion, she was wrong and should apologise to Parliament and, more important, to the health care staff of the royal infirmary of Edinburgh?

It is the First Minister who should apologise—to Marion Kyle.

For the First Minister's benefit, I will repeat what I said on 7 October: national health service staff do their level best and I pay tribute to them. The pressures under which they work and the experiences of patients such as Marion Kyle are caused by one and the same thing: the failure of his Government to get to grips with the NHS. I am criticising the First Minister, not NHS staff, and I will not stop criticising him until he stops failing patients and the staff who look after them.

The chair of NHS Lothian told me that when any patient feels that they have had as bad an experience in the health service as Marion Kyle feels that she had, the health board has lessons to learn. If the chair of the health board accepts that lessons can be learned, why will the First Minister not accept that?

I have said before that if genuine cases are brought to me, in the chamber or outwith it—as are brought to me by members from all parties—I take them seriously, even when they are exaggerated by the politicians. I believe that people deserve the best possible care from the health service and that they should be supported accordingly by the Government.

The request for an apology has come not from me or from the chamber, but from the staff of the hospital, and it is important to state clearly what they have said for the Official Report. Contrary to what was said in the chamber three weeks ago, they say that Mrs Kyle did not request any pain-killers during her first 24 hours in hospital, despite being prescribed the pain-killers that Nicola Sturgeon said that she was denied. They say that Mrs Kyle was not on a trolley, but on a state-of-the-art mobile bed—[Interruption.]

Order.

I will quote what the consultant surgeon and the consultant physician said. They said that she was on a mobile bed

"to enable easy access to diagnostics with as little disruption to patients as possible."

The same letter from the consultants—that letter was not written by me or by any politician, but by the health staff who were involved—states:

"She was in the assessment unit because this is the way that modern 21st century healthcare is delivered.

They state that the assessment unit is now being

"copied as a model by other hospitals throughout the UK"

and beyond, that the allegations are

"entirely unfounded and disgraceful"

and that

"It is outrageous that these allegations have been made in such a public way, which are completely misleading and unresearched."

They state:

"We certainly expect an apology to all healthcare staff at The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh who provided Mrs Kyle and the other patients in the combined assessment unit with the very best care possible."

Will Nicola Sturgeon apologise today not to us, but to those staff?

I say to the First Minister that Marion Kyle's experience—[Interruption.]

Order.

Marion Kyle's experience for 11 hours on her mobile bed felt pretty genuine to her. If I were the First Minister, I would think twice before suggesting that he knows more than she does about the pain that she was in. I suggest to him that Marion Kyle is not alone and that there are patients out there who feel as aggrieved about their experience of the health service as she does. The First Minister has a cheek to try to lecture anyone else about the health service in a week in which it has been revealed that there are health boards in massive debt and in which doctors—the people who work in the NHS—are warning of disaster ahead because the First Minister is not recruiting enough staff. I know that he is rattled, but I suggest that he takes a few deep breaths, calms down and gets on with his job of delivering a health service that patients and staff can be proud of.

I will not quote the consultants this time; I will quote Nicola Sturgeon. In her most important and significant speech on health since she was elected to the chamber back in 1999, she said:

"It is a fact of life that, from time to time, things will go wrong in the health service. When they do, what is important is not to apportion blame but to make sure that complaints are dealt with quickly."

The difference between such a set of circumstances and what has been described to us by the consultants who are involved in this case is that, in their view, things did not go wrong. Even in a situation in which things have not gone wrong, is the choice being made not to recognise the hard work of the staff, but instead to try to politicise the issue?

The issue is straightforward. Regardless of what the consultants might now say, I accept that if Marion Kyle thought that her treatment in Edinburgh royal infirmary required lessons to be learned, the system should be able to deal with that, and there are ways and proper procedures for dealing with such matters. The truth is that the circumstances of her case were exaggerated in this chamber for political ends. That is not my view and it is not the view of the other members who heard Nicola Sturgeon that day; it is the view of the medical staff at Edinburgh royal infirmary.

Medical staff at Edinburgh royal infirmary will be watching First Minister's questions today. What they want to know is whether Nicola Sturgeon is big enough to admit that she got it wrong on that one occasion. Is she big enough to put those staff ahead of party politics? Is she big enough to apologise and say that the medical staff at Edinburgh royal infirmary did an excellent job in the circumstances of modern health care and that they deserve to be praised rather than condemned?

I will tell the First Minister who else is watching today—Marion Kyle. It is her view that, in the First Minister's so-called patient-focused health service, something went badly wrong in her case. What she—the patient—asks the First Minister to do is to admit and take responsibility for that failing, and to say sorry to her.

I reiterate my one very simple point: it is not this chamber, or me as First Minister, that demands an apology from Nicola Sturgeon; it is the staff at the hospital, who have described the allegations that were made about them as unfounded, misleading and disgraceful. They deserve an apology, they should have got one and I hope that, in the years to come, Nicola Sturgeon will learn to give one more readily than she has today.

Having spent almost seven hours as a patient in Edinburgh royal infirmary yesterday, I echo Ms Sturgeon's comments and ask the First Minister to listen to the voices of patients. My experience was very different from that of the patient quoted by Ms Sturgeon, but I caution the First Minister against condemning or congratulating an entire system on the experience of one patient, even if, as was the case, I experienced the care of the same nursing staff and the same consultant physicians and surgeons as Mrs Kyle. I ask him to ensure that, in future, the staff of the Edinburgh royal understand the difference between politics and the genuine and excellent work that they do.

As I said in earlier answers, which I hope Margo MacDonald heard in full, I take seriously not just the cases that come to me in my local constituency, but the cases that come to me from throughout Scotland. I take those cases seriously, I am prepared to see them investigated, I am prepared to act where lessons need to be learned and I insist that health boards and local health management do that, too.

We should all in this chamber be committed to improving the quality of our national health service locally and nationally. It is unfortunate that, sometimes, party politics gets in the way of serious discussion of the issues. I hope that today we have seen the potential for a turning point, to avoid that happening again.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1145)

Among the many issues that we will discuss next Wednesday will be our plans for reducing reoffending in Scotland and our plans to refresh our successful strategy for a smart, successful Scotland.

One thing that the Cabinet might also like to discuss is the concerns that the First Minister has expressed publicly about the proposed merger and abolition of Scotland's six historic regiments. Given the concern that he has expressed publicly about the matter, will the First Minister tell us today what representations he has made to his colleagues at Westminster to prevent those Labour cuts from going ahead? Has he now written to the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Geoff Hoon, as his spokesman indicated yesterday and, if so, will he publish that letter?

It is not normal practice for us to publish all ministerial correspondence between Edinburgh and Whitehall, but I will check the arrangements that we have to see whether that would be possible. However, I believe that the majority of the text from the letter has already been put on the public record. Not only have I written to Mr Hoon, but the Deputy First Minister wrote to him in the summer when the review was first announced. We believe strongly that whatever arrangements are put in place for the management and organisation of the British Army to ensure that we have a modern force for a modern world, the identities of the six Scottish regiments should be preserved, because they are important for Scotland and for local communities throughout Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. We certainly look forward to reading his correspondence, if he can make it available to us. However, is not all this discussion of identities simply playing with words? The key question that has to be answered is straightforward: does the First Minister—or indeed the Deputy First Minister—support the retention of the six separate Scottish regiments? In other words, is he in favour of having six real regiments or is he in favour of simply having a collection of cap badges within a single regiment? Which is it?

I would not want to speak for the Deputy First Minister about military organisation, because our parties might take different approaches to the matter nationally. Indeed, we might have different personal opinions on it in Scotland. Of course, these are reserved matters that are determined elsewhere. That said, we in Scotland must state clearly and with a unified voice that we wish to be involved in any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about its review, in the widest sense, and about its implications for employment and Scotland's communities; and that not just the regiments' identity but the identity of Scotland that they contribute to is important for this devolved Government and the Scottish Parliament. We will defend those identities strongly. We ask the Ministry of Defence and others who make these decisions to take that point of view on board.

Yes, the First Minister will defend the regiments' identities, but the simple question is: will he defend their existence? Could we please have a straightforward answer?

I think that I gave Mr McLetchie a straightforward answer at the very beginning of my first response. Although it is right and proper for the management of the UK armed forces to consider the structure of the modern Army in order to meet the challenges that it faces, an important point of principle for us in Scotland is to preserve, defend and fight for the identities of the six existing Scottish regiments. I believe that those identities can be accommodated in whatever structure is agreed to be most appropriate and to allow our armed forces to be most effective in the modern world, no matter whether that means retaining the six regiments or amalgamations, which might be involved in finding more effective ways of dealing with the challenges of the modern world.

I will take one urgent constituency question from Paul Martin.

Does the First Minister support the call for an inquiry into the circumstances of the tragic murder of Mark Cummings by child sex offender Stuart Leggate? Does he also recognise that there is a need for a wide-ranging review of how we deal with convicted child sex offenders and does he think that such a review should examine whether people such as Stuart Leggate should have been housed alongside young families such as Mark Cummings's family?

All of us who have been or who are parents and everyone else in this chamber share Paul Martin's concerns about this case and about any case in recent years that might be described as similar. One of the reasons why the Parliament has taken its devolved responsibilities with respect to sex offenders seriously and has made a number of significant changes to improve the legal framework and the management of offenders in and out of custody is to ensure that Scotland's communities are safer. However, Scottish ministers—and I am sure members of all parties—certainly share a continuing community concern. As a result, we must ensure that the current arrangements are continually reviewed to improve them further if possible. I will certainly ask the Minister for Justice to discuss with Paul Martin how he might take forward some of his ideas in relation to this matter.

---

Iraq (Demonstration)

To ask the First Minister whether he will accept the invitation from Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle, killed in Basra on 28 June 2004, to attend the demonstration on 30 October in support of British soldiers being brought home from Iraq. (S2F-1159)

Clearly, I want first to take the opportunity to express once again my condolences to the Gentle family on Gordon's death, but I will not be attending the rally on Saturday.

I would like the Parliament to welcome Rose Gentle to today's proceedings.

On several occasions last year, the First Minister argued in Parliament in favour of sending troops such as young Gordon to Iraq. Tragically, he and 67 other soldiers, and 19,000 Iraqi citizens, are dead. What in the First Minister's diary is so important that it prevents him from coming to Pollok on Saturday to justify his position?

I echo Tommy Sheridan's remarks in relation to Rose Gentle. I do not think that any of us in the chamber can imagine the level of grief that she has experienced. My own son is of a very similar age to Gordon Gentle, and I would think that all of us feel deep sympathy for the family at this time.

That said, as elected politicians, we have a duty and a responsibility to take these matters, in the widest policy sense, very seriously indeed. The work of the Black Watch and other British soldiers in Iraq should be supported by everybody in this Parliament and by all parties; I hope that some day that will be possible. It is important that we recognise that the work that the soldiers are carrying out is in extremely difficult circumstances, up against terrorists and those who were associated with the appalling regime that existed in Iraq. The people of Iraq want to have democratic elections in January next year and if soldiers from Scotland and the rest of Britain can help to ensure that democratic elections take place in January, they deserve the full support of those of us in this democratically elected Parliament.

I asked the First Minister what he was doing on Saturday that was so important that it would prevent him from coming to Pollok. The letter inviting me to attend Saturday's march and rally asked me to come and either support the call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq now—a call that I support—or explain why I do not support the call. Does the First Minister not agree that it is the duty of politicians to have the courage to stand up for their views, instead of being like Mr Blair and having the courage only to fight until the last drop of somebody else's blood? Is it not about time that politicians came to working-class communities such as Pollok and explained why the sons and daughters of the working class should be sacrificed for illegal wars and illegal invasions?

I have already said that I cannot attend the rally on Saturday. I deeply respect the work of those soldiers from Scotland and elsewhere who currently face difficult circumstances in Iraq but are defending what I believe are the interests of the people of Iraq in ensuring that there are democratic and free elections in January. I passionately do not believe that it would be in the interests of the people of Iraq or of the democratic elections in January for British troops to pull out of Iraq at this time. I have defended that position on many occasions, as Mr Sheridan knows.

I only wish that, in our debates on these issues, Mr Sheridan would show as much passion in condemning the terrorists and those who blow up not only British soldiers but their own Iraqi policemen and soldiers as he shows in condemning the elected Government of Britain.

---

Knife Crime (Strathclyde)

To ask the First Minister what action is being considered to address concerns surrounding the increase in knife crime in Scotland and, particularly, in the Strathclyde region. (S2F-1137)

We are deeply concerned about the incidence of knife crime and its contribution to violent crime more generally. We are examining how the current laws on the sale and carrying of knives can be strengthened further and are considering what form of tougher licensing system to restrict the sale of non-domestic knives could be feasible and effective. We are also looking at how police powers to deal with these issues might be strengthened and we will legislate as soon as we are in a position to do so.

The First Minister will be aware of the serious concerns about the tragedy two weekends ago of four murders in my constituency. One of the key problems is that people are able to carry knives or to make knives of their own. I have here a copy of a document showing how people can put knives together using broom handles and scissors. We need a deterrent. I would like the Sentencing Commission for Scotland, which is in the east end of Glasgow today, to consider how it can strengthen sentences. Does the First Minister agree that we must consider how to strengthen sentences to address the difficult problem of people being prepared to use such lethal weapons?

I share Frank McAveety's concerns. It is important for us to act as quickly as we can to improve the deterrents that are available in the system. To do that, it would be wrong to hand the matter over to the Sentencing Commission because, given its work programme, it would almost certainly take longer to act on the sentences and the other provisions on knife crime than the Parliament would expect. That would certainly take longer than our devolved Government would expect, so Scottish ministers will take action as quickly as we can, without taking advice from the Sentencing Commission. The Minister for Justice is considering the provisions that might be available to us in progressing the issue.

Is the minister aware that, in the past year, 7,500 people in Glasgow and the west of Scotland have been victims of knife crime? Will he give to members and the people of Glasgow and the west of Scotland a commitment that he will meet Strathclyde police, instigate an urgent investigation into the causes of knife crime and tell Strathclyde police to put more police officers on the beat?

We are putting considerably more police officers on the beat throughout Scotland. In Strathclyde, the change in prisoner escort arrangements, for example, has already put well over 100 members of the police force back on other operational duties. That measure was opposed by the Scottish National Party on some sort of ideological ground.

There need to be improvements not only in the legislation that tackles knife crime, but in the operational effectiveness of our police forces across Scotland. There also needs to be a change in the culture, which is one of the reasons why I am delighted that today we are bringing into force the important provisions in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. As well as helping to change the culture in communities throughout Scotland, they will allow the police to act properly. Those important measures will help us to change the culture, to bring respect back into communities and to deal with matters that are significantly more serious, such as knife crime.

---

Casinos

To ask the First Minister what role the Scottish Executive will play in decisions about how many more casinos there should be in Scotland. (S2F-1153)

Whatever the United Kingdom regulatory framework might be, the position of this devolved Government is clear. Any new casinos in Scotland will be agreed to only if they are licensed by Scottish licensing boards and regulated by conditions that are set by Scottish ministers.

But the Prime Minister has expressed the clear view that he wants around 40 more Las Vegas-style casinos to be established as a form of economic regeneration. Does the First Minister share that view? Does he have a vision of the Scotland of the future as a sort of Nevada of the north with one regiment but umpteen casinos? Does he share the concerns that have been expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, which are highlighted in today's Scottish Daily Mail, that supply will create demand and that casinos will become part of everyday life?

I have great sympathy with the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and I believe that the position that it has taken—which is that we have a strong regulatory system in Scotland that should be maintained regardless of whatever new arrangements are put in place by the UK Government—is valid. If the UK Government decides to go in the direction that has been proposed, we will insist not just on the retention of the current strong system in Scotland, but on its improvement.

My view on the way in which we promote Scotland is clear and is different from Mr Ewing's. I do not want this country to be an insular, negative little country that hides from the rest of the world, does not accept its international responsibilities and cuts itself off from the rest of Britain, including the British Army, which Mr Ewing, through his amazing ability to deal with issues in two different directions at once, on the one hand seems to support, but on the other hand wants to break up. My view of Scotland is as a country that advertises itself, promotes itself and regenerates itself on the basis of our clean, healthy environment, our fantastic landscape, our wonderful cities, the character of our people and the quality of our education system, rather than on the basis of any nasty culture that might be encouraged by those people who are in favour of more gambling.

---

NHS Argyll and Clyde

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with the adequacy of funding provided to NHS Argyll and Clyde. (S2F-1160)

By 2007-08, health spending in Scotland will have doubled since devolution. That funding is equitably distributed, by formula, across all health boards.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware that the Auditor General for Scotland has issued a section 22 certificate in respect of the 2003-04 accounts for Argyll and Clyde NHS Board under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, because of a projected deficit of £100 million in the board's accounts by 2007-08. The Auditor General has withheld qualification of the accounts because of an assurance from the Scottish Executive that the health board will have access to cash to meet its liabilities during that period as and when they fall due. For the avoidance of doubt, will the First Minister clarify that, in that period, Argyll and Clyde NHS Board will not be required to cut any services through lack of finance and that such sums as the Executive makes available to retrieve the deficit will constitute a write-off of debt, not a loan that obliges the health board to deal with repayment in future years?

I will make three things clear. First, in any decisions that are made on the matter, the interests of patients will be primary. Secondly, no public organisation gets a blank cheque from the Executive to spend on whatever it likes; public organisations must manage their finances, and Argyll and Clyde NHS Board is no different from any other in that respect. Thirdly, the worst possible thing that could happen for the patients of Argyll and Clyde in the next 12 months is not a report from the Auditor General for Scotland, but the election of a Conservative Government that would cut the health budget of Scotland and put patients in an even more precarious position. I give an absolute guarantee that the levels of spending that we have set out will be adhered to, that the interests of patients will come first and that we will insist that the management of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board, just like that of any other public organisation in Scotland, must look after its finances.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—