Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 30, 2002

Official Report 728KB 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. (S1F-1928)

I take this opportunity, because I might not get another, to thank the people of Aberdeen for their hospitality this week. They have celebrated our presence well and we have enjoyed being here. They have taken the opportunity to meet MSPs and to put their case, promoting the city and the north-east of Scotland. I only wish that we had a chance to come back some time.

After this week, the Cabinet will meet to discuss matters of importance to the whole of Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and associate the SNP with his remarks about the warm and hospitable welcome that we have had in Aberdeen.

On 28 February, the First Minister said:

"Waiting times are what matter to people. That's what NHS staff tell me. That's what patients tell me."

I ask the First Minister, have waiting times gone up or down?

The longest waiting times have gone down and it is right and proper that that has happened. We said that waiting times were the number 1 priority in our health service and they will remain the number 1 priority.

The First Minister has given, as usual, a terribly selective answer. On 28 February, he said:

"Waiting times are what matter to people … To make a real difference, we will bring down waiting times."

In June 1999, when that crowd came into office, the time between being referred to hospital by a general practitioner and receiving treatment was 76 days. A year later, it was 79 days. A year after that, it was 82 days. Now, it is a staggering 96 days—three weeks longer than in 1999. Can the First Minister say why his Government is forcing people to wait three weeks longer for their treatment than they would have done previously?

As ever, those are selective statistics that have been presented negatively by Mr Swinney and the SNP. In recent years, there have been a number of changes that the chamber has recognised as being particularly important. [Laughter.] I hear laughter from the SNP members, but I think that it was a scandal that, for at least 20 years in Scotland, junior doctors were, at times, working 80 or 90 hours a week. It was time that that practice was ended and that we ensured that junior doctors worked humane hours that were safer for patients.

That and other changes have been introduced in recent years and it is a tribute to every member of the health service staff in Scotland that waiting lists are down again this month, as are the waiting times for the patients who have waited the longest. The chamber should mark those achievements, not criticise them.

Once again, the First Minister is ducking and diving on the issue of health statistics. In August 2001, the Executive told us that, for the first time, waiting times would be the

"litmus test of NHS performance".

At the time, people waited 82 days between being referred to hospital by a GP and receiving treatment; now, they wait 96 days. Despite the fact that waiting times have been the Government's primary focus and everything has been invested in trying to get them down, they have gone up. Does the First Minister accept, based on objective analysis—the statistics that I have used today are not mine, but his—that he has failed Scotland on health?

I do not accept that. In February, I said that waiting lists had been our target. It is a significant achievement in our national—

Waiting times!

Order.

I said that waiting lists—

Waiting times!

Order.

I said in February that the waiting list target would be achieved and it was. It was achieved by the hard work of doctors and nurses throughout Scotland. Mr Swinney has not taken the opportunity in his three questions to congratulate them on that achievement. He is to be condemned for that.

We have said that those who wait longest want their waiting times to be brought down most quickly. If any of the members who have been shouting visited hospitals and spoke to nurses, doctors and patients, they would know that that is the case and is indeed what has been happening in the past six months.

I take the acute trust in Mr Swinney's Tayside constituency as an example. In that trust, the median waiting time—[Interruption.] I tell those members who are not mathematicians that the median is not an average; it is a middle. [Members: "Poor Jack."] SNP members should not enjoy what I am saying too much, because they will not enjoy what they have to hear. The median waiting time for people in that trust area has increased by eight days, but the number of patients on the waiting list who wait more than six months has reduced by 18 per cent. That has happened in Tayside, which Mr Swinney represents in the Parliament. It is a significant achievement for the health service in Tayside and should be commended. That kind of reduction has been the Executive's priority.

The First Minister talks about my visits to hospitals. The last time that I visited a hospital, a nurse said to me, "The problem for us has been that this Government has had us focused on a bogus waiting list target that has undermined clinical priorities." The Executive has now realised that waiting times matter, but it has delivered an increase in waiting times. The First Minister asks who cannot count. He is the one who cannot count: waiting times are going up in Scotland.

I am stunned that Mr Swinney can be so negative on a day on which there is such good news for the health service in Scotland. The national statistics that were published this morning show that, for the first time, everyone in Scotland who was guaranteed to be seen within 12 months was seen within 12 months. The statistics show that the longest waiting times are down consistently throughout Scotland and that our waiting lists are also down—they are down considerably more than anyone predicted and against the predictions of the Opposition parties.

The Opposition parties condemned the introduction of the national waiting times unit. They even tried to prevent new hospitals from being built by opposing the use of public-private partnerships. The Government is delivering on the national health service: we ensure that the facilities are in place and that the priorities are right. As waiting times come down after the waiting lists, we will see the real improvements that patients in Scotland want.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1933)

I expect to see the Prime Minister at the jubilee concert in London on Monday night. At that event, I intend to congratulate him on his support for our bid for Euro 2008.

In addition, I suppose that the First Minister and the Prime Minister will compare notes on how to make transport ministers resign. Once they have got past that, I hope that they will discuss issues of importance, such as health, to which Mr Swinney referred. That would be appropriate, given the First Minister's announcement in his statement this morning of a forthcoming white paper on health reform and given the failure to perform on many key indicators, which has been discussed in exchanges today.

The white paper is badly needed, but what proposals will it contain to make a difference and improve median waiting times, which are the times within which in-patients and out-patients get to see a hospital doctor? Those are the statistics and the performance indicators on which the Executive is failing and we would be interested to know what will be in the white paper that will make a difference to them.

Mr McLetchie can expect to know that when the white paper is published, but I assure him that we will not wait until then to take action on waiting times. The action that has already begun will continue, expand and be improved on. As waiting times are now a clear priority for the health service in Scotland, work to reduce them throughout Scotland will continue in the months to come and will not wait for the white paper to be published in the winter.

I will suggest some matters that the white paper might consider, such as some of the ideas that his Labour colleague Mr Milburn is pursuing and adopting down south. Those ideas include foundation hospitals, to which my colleague Mary Scanlon referred, new management contracts for hospitals that are underperforming and a proper partnership with the independent sector. If Mr Milburn can see all the virtues and benefits of Conservative policies and ideas on how to run a health service, why cannot the First Minister and his head-in-the-sand Minister for Health and Community Care see them, too?

The solutions that are appropriate in Scotland are different from those that are appropriate in England. That is rightly and properly the case. Mr McLetchie mocked the national waiting times unit, which was set up in January, as insufficient, but 4,000 people have already received operations as a result of the actions of that unit, some in the public sector and some in the private sector. That action is taking place across Scotland. It is bringing down not only waiting lists, but the longest waiting times. The action is important. It is appropriate for the Scottish health service and we intend to see it through.

Is not the truth of the matter that the Executive is rather clueless on all the key issues? The First Minister said that he had all the answers on education, but now he is having a great debate to find them out; the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill has been introduced in order to deal with youth crime, but the First Minister is now setting up a Cabinet committee to review the issue; and the people who told us in 1997 that we had only 48 hours in which to save the national health service are now, five years on, proposing a white paper on health reform. Is not that the ultimate admission of failure? Is not that just another way of saying that we have had five wasted years and that it is now time to go back to the drawing board?

Three distortions in one question is difficult to achieve. Mr McLetchie knows that the health budget will increase by 50 per cent over the next five years. We therefore need to consider carefully how to get the maximum benefit from that new investment. He knows that we have already published a strategy on youth crime, which is being implemented across Scotland but which needs to be developed. He knows that the biggest-ever programme of reform and modernisation of Scotland's education services is already in place. That programme is working, meeting deadlines month after month. The national debate is about a period much beyond that.

There are important developments for the health service. As I said, we have the lowest waiting lists that there have been in Scotland for some considerable time. For the longest waits, we also have the lowest waiting times that we have had in Scotland for some considerable time. The 12-month guarantee that I mentioned is being met right across Scotland, by board after board. The health service in Scotland is making those improvements. The doctors and nurses deserve our congratulations on that and we will ensure that the improvements are developed further still.

---

Scottish Prison Service Estates Review

To ask the First Minister how many responses to the Scottish Prison Service estates review have been received by the service. (S1F-1932)

Eighty-eight responses were received by 27 May 2002.

I take this opportunity to thank the First Minister, the Minister for Justice and Richard Simpson, the Deputy Minister for Justice, for their courtesy in giving up some of their time today to see the campaigners for Her Majesty's Prison Peterhead. I extend those thanks to members from all parties. Eighty-eight is a substantial number of responses and we still have a little time to run. Do those responses indicate a range of options that we can set against those of the Scottish Prison Service? Will the First Minister be minded to consider seriously any alternatives to the current proposals?

I am serious about every consultation exercise that we engage in and I am absolutely committed to studying the outcome of the consultation on the prison estates, just as I am committed to studying the outcome of consultation on any other matter. We will indeed take on board the comments and suggestions that are made during the consultation and we will consider them carefully before coming to our conclusions.

Is the First Minister aware that a number of Labour members have met representatives of the Prison Officers Association Scotland, who have made clear their willingness to be involved in progressing the reform and investment that is needed in our prison estate? Does he agree that, if the estates review is to deliver a prison estate that is fit for the 21st century, there must be full and genuine consultation between the SPS, the prison officers and the trade unions?

I certainly support full and genuine consultation in the Prison Service. I urge the POAS, if it believes that it has alternative proposals that can bridge the funding gap that we have identified, to make those proposals to us clearly. If the POAS is willing to make the reforms that might help to bridge the funding gap and to achieve the objectives that we have set, we will certainly be interested to hear from its representatives.

The Executive took two and a half years to come up with the estates review but there were only 12 weeks for consultation. Will the minister consider extending the consultation period, within which the Justice 1 Committee is finding it difficult to work?

I believe that the fact that there was a long period between the initial suggestion of a review and the publication of the review means that people have a good idea of what they want to say during the consultation period. The consultation period of 12 weeks is normal for such an exercise. It is important for us to bring the matter to a conclusion. It is therefore important to complete the consultation period, to consider the consultation responses and to come to our decisions, as we intend to do.

Have there been any responses from communities that are keen to have the sex offenders institution sited among them? If not, does not the First Minister think that the people of Peterhead's acceptance of the institution is valuable and that we should retain the institution there?

I do not know whether any of the responses that we have received have demanded to have a sex offenders institution in a town or community anywhere in Scotland. I am not aware of any such response having been submitted but, if one has been submitted, we will obviously consider it.

On Peterhead prison, detailed and serious consideration is needed of the merits of all the aspects of the case that has been made in the prison estates review. That is not just about the location. It is about the programmes that take place in the prison and about ensuring that the buildings are in a fit condition for the 21st century. I hope that those who are submitting responses are taking all those factors into account. I hope that they are making reasonable submissions that we can read with care. We will make our final decisions having listened to all those who have become involved.

Is the First Minister aware of Aberdeenshire Council's proposals for rebuilding Peterhead prison on the same site through a private build, public operate option, which it discussed with members at a reception yesterday? The council believes that that option will be a viable alternative to refurbishing the existing prison. Will the First Minister ensure that those plans are given due consideration in the prison estates review?

I am happy to confirm that all serious submissions will be duly considered in the prison estates review.

---

Young People (Community Integration)

To ask the First Minister what policies and programmes the Scottish Executive has that will help ensure that young people are fully integrated into their communities. (S1F-1943)

We have a number of such programmes in education, health and social justice. Those include the changing children's services fund, the better neighbourhood services fund, new community schools and the walk the talk initiative, which involves young people in the development of appropriate and accessible health care. In addition, we have supported the Scottish youth parliament, Young Scot, which is Scotland's first interactive youth portal, the dialogue youth project and the consultation toolkit "Re:action".

Does the First Minister accept that the bad press that young people have had recently does little to promote their inclusion? Will he give a clear commitment to involving young people in finding solutions to the problems that they face?

It is critical that we involve young people in determining those solutions and that young people feel that they can take part in action afterwards. The engagement of young people in our society should be a priority for politicians of all parties. We certainly intend to build on and see through the initiatives that I outlined. We also intend to encourage more and more young people to get involved as the years go by, so that there is a turnover of young people and the initiatives do not die.

Is the First Minister aware that even a quick glance at social inclusion partnership expenditure for youth projects shows an underspend of more than £0.5 million over the first two years of their operation? In Moray alone, SIPs have underspent by 77 per cent of the budget. Will the First Minister guarantee—unlike the Minister for Social Justice, who merely fudged about flexibility—that the £9.6 million underspend on SIPs will be spent on deprived areas, rather than being shifted into other budgets for new announcements?

One of the key aspects of our proposals for local funding, whether for social inclusion partnerships, local authorities or other bodies, is that those bodies will be able to make decisions for the long term, rather than just spending money willy-nilly at the end of a financial year to meet a budget target. That situation seems to be welcomed by people throughout Scotland. It is easy for Ms Fabiani to make jibes about whether someone has made a guarantee about money being used in years to come. That is not the point; the point is that the money needs to be used in the most effective way—it needs to be best used on the best projects to best effect. That is exactly what we will seek to achieve.

---

Common Fisheries Policy

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive has taken to ensure that the interests of the fishing industry are properly recognised by the European Commission's proposals for reform of the common fisheries policy. (S1F-1934)

We helped to shape United Kingdom thinking on reform of the common fisheries policy and I am pleased that many Executive priorities are reflected in the Commission's formal proposals.

On the European Commission consultation that was announced on Tuesday, does the First Minister acknowledge the importance in the review of maintaining the Shetland box, the six and 12-mile limits and relative stability against the attacks of the so-called friends-of-fish countries in the European Union? Will he ensure that the 20 per cent reduction in fishing vessel capacity in Scotland that has already been achieved through decommissioning will be our fleet's contribution to cuts in capacity? Will he agree to work to attract the European fisheries research institute not just to Scotland, but to its natural home in the middle of the Atlantic and the North sea, Shetland?

I clearly cannot give any guarantee about the research institute, but I am aware of the good work that takes place at the North Atlantic Fisheries College. Last year, the college assisted in ensuring that substantial Executive investment—£27 million—went towards best use right across Scotland.

It is important that such investment is not lost under the current proposals. I am delighted to confirm that I understand that the decommissioning that has taken place in Scotland over the past 12 months will be included as part of the overall decommissioning that is required by the European Union. If that is confirmed, it will be very good news for the Scottish fishing industry. I hope that the contribution that the Scottish fishing industry has made over the past 12 months will see the industry through to better times in the longer term.

After the damage that has been caused by 20 years of the common fisheries policy, I am sure that all parties and the First Minister welcome the CFP's new emphasis on decentralisation, creating a level playing field and long-term planning for Europe's fishing fleets. Does the First Minister share the SNP's view that the proposed regional advisory councils should be more than just talking shops? Does he also agree that any remaining question marks about Scotland's historic fishing rights—such question marks still exist in the new proposals—should be removed immediately? Will he stand up for Scotland's fishing communities during the crucial months ahead by demanding that Scotland leads the UK delegation at the next EU fisheries council?

The member should not try to win cheap publicity when he knows the facts. Mr Lochhead knows well that Scotland has led the fisheries delegation on a number of occasions, that the regional bodies are very much part of the strategy and that we have been putting the case inside the EU for more regional management in the implementation of EU policies.

Mr Lochhead is also well aware that the proposals that the Executive and the Parliament—through its committees—put forward were the proposals that were adopted by the UK and that were won in the Council of the European Union. I remember Mr Lochhead saying at the time that, rather than working through the United Kingdom on such matters, we should go it alone. He fails to appreciate that, if his proposals to cut Scotland's representation for the fishing industry in the Council from 10 votes to three were implemented, Scotland's influence would be diminished. It is only through the power of the argument from Scotland and the influence of the United Kingdom that Scotland's fishermen have got such a good deal. The deal is a good one and we will protect it.

Will the First Minister give a commitment that he will not support the unfair and disproportionate cuts to the Scottish fishing fleet in the European Commission's proposals? Although those proposals will result in the Scottish fleet being reduced by 23 per cent, Spain will have to suffer cuts of only 9.4 per cent.

I do not think that Ben Wallace has given an accurate representation of the proposals. Mr Finnie will announce our full response to the proposals in June.

My memory on fishing goes back quite a long time. I remind the First Minister of the successful visits that Mr McLeish made to Europe ahead of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Like other ministers, Mr McLeish gave an assurance that, where the Scottish interest dominated, any delegation and negotiation would be led by the Scottish minister. Has the policy changed? Does the First Minister simply want to ridicule my position because I am a Scottish nationalist? Has he no concern for the fishermen? I have dedicated my life to the fishermen and care passionately about their right to survive. The First Minister should answer that question. He should say that he will seek to lead the delegation.

If Mrs Ewing has paid attention to the Parliament over these past three years, she will know that we have regularly led that delegation and that Mr Finnie himself has led it. I can tell members one thing: I would rather have Ross Finnie sitting in the European Council with 10 votes at his disposal than Richard Lochhead sitting there with three. We want to ensure that Scotland has the maximum influence in the European Union. We get that influence by the power of our argument and by the votes of the United Kingdom. That is the way in which to deliver Scotland's priorities, which is what we will continue to do.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I suspect that it is a point of argument, but I shall hear it.

Presiding Officer, should not Parliament be informed why the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, answered in response to a parliamentary question that the Scottish Executive has not led any fisheries councils in Europe?

That is not a point of order.

While welcoming the general direction of the Commission's proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy, does the First Minister agree that one size does not fit all? Is not it important that we involve fishermen, such as those from Pittenweem in my constituency, in developing the management of their fisheries? That would help to ensure the sustainable future of fisheries such as the prawn fishery off the east neuk of Fife.

Just as we advocate more regional management of the European common fisheries policy, we believe that it is right to take account of the different local areas within Scotland. I hear what Iain Smith has said about his constituency.

---

European Football Championships 2008

To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Executive will give to building a new sports stadium in the Aberdeen area so that the economy in the north-east could benefit from a successful bid to host the European football championships in 2008. (S1F-1924)

The Scottish Executive will agree firm support for whatever two stadia are selected with the Scottish Football Association and the Irish Government. Given the fact that we are in Aberdeen, we should today welcome the support of Alex Ferguson, who was Aberdeen's best-ever football ambassador, for the bid. The case for our European bid is building momentum all the time. Alex Ferguson's support will be welcomed here in Aberdeen and throughout Scotland.

The First Minister should know that the proposed site for the Aberdeen stadium has no transport infrastructure to support it. As we are in Aberdeen, will he today give Aberdeen a commitment that the new western bypass will be built in time for the football championship so that we can benefit from it?

I must be careful about what I say because, as this is a planning matter, we cannot be seen to prejudge the situation. However, my understanding is that the proposal for a new stadium in Aberdeen is linked to proposed transport improvements, which is welcome. It is important that we continue to work with the local partnership to improve the transport infrastructure around Aberdeen and in the north-east of Scotland. We intend to do that. Indeed, Lewis Macdonald yesterday announced additional support for the partnership.

I remind the First Minister that he agreed a few months ago that the bid should be an all-party one. Where is the evidence of that in the signatures on the bid document?

The leaders of the Opposition parties will confirm that, when we signed the bid in Stockholm recently, we had letters from the other parties to ensure that the fact that our bid had cross-party support at leadership level in the Parliament was transmitted to the Union of European Football Associations authorities. I stressed the cross-party support when I met those authorities around the time of the champions league final. It is right and proper that the bid document contains signatures of people from a variety of backgrounds. Politicians are important, but they will not be the sole determinant of any decision by UEFA. The decision to include celebrities, business people and sports people is right and proper.

Occasionally, members in the chamber go for cheap headlines—sometimes in the Sunday newspapers—by attacking and demeaning the bid and the investment that it will bring to Scotland. That is wrong. We have to unite in the chamber and across Scotland. That will be the only way of achieving success with the bid.

That brings us to the end of question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I believe that it was Jim Wallace, the minister responsible for external relations, who recently gave a written parliamentary answer saying that Scotland had led at only three EU councils, on education and health topics. Is it not therefore the case that, when the First Minister told the Parliament that we had led at EU fisheries councils, he was misleading Parliament?

He told a lie.

Order. That is not a point of order. The content of ministerial answers is not a matter for the chair.

Well, how do we get any redress?

Order. It is a point of argument; it is not a point of order for me in the chair.

On a point of order.

On a point of order.

Is it the same one or a different one?

We have had two replies on the same subject from two ministers. Those replies contradict each other, so one minister, by definition, must be misleading Parliament. That is not a point of argument; it is a point of order.

It is for me to judge whether it is a point of order. It is not; it is a point of argument. Ms MacDonald, is your point of order on the same topic? I hope not.

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer, if it is shown that a minister inadvertently, or otherwise, has misled Parliament, is it not in order for that minister to correct that at the same meeting?

It is always open to ministers to correct things if they wish, but that is not a point of order for the chair. Let us move on to the next debate.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Is it the same point of order?

It is. The topic is close to the hearts of people who, because we are so close to home for them in the north-east, are, I am sure, listening avidly to our proceedings today. It is important to clarify my responses to previous questions. I said—I hope very clearly—that Ross Finnie had led in the delegation at the Council of the European Union. That was a quite deliberate choice of phrase. Ross Finnie has led the delegation in the Council—led for the United Kingdom to ensure that our representations were put forward very clearly. That may be a technical difference from what was said in an answer that the Deputy First Minister recently gave, which was phrased in another way. However, it is, I believe, an absolutely accurate statement.

That is all very important, but it is still not a point of order.