08/06/2016 Scotland 2016

The new bridge across the Forth won't be ready until next summer.

Back in January, Nicola Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament

the Queensferry crossing would be complete by the end of this year.

But it seems bad weather has blown that timetable apart.

And how long has the Government known this inconvenient fact?

Scotland's health service is target-driven.

The aim of course - to improve patient care.

But do those targets hinder and not help treatment in our hospitals?

And does membership of the European Union stop this

country from playing a full role in the world?

So, now we know, it's going to open six months later than promised.

The Queensferry Crossing was supposed to be carrying traffic

The latest estimate for cutting the ribbon is now May 2017.

The Cabinet Secretary for the economy, Keith Brown,

told MSPs today the six-month delay is caused by just over three

weeks of bad weather last month and in April.

First, this report from Huw Williams.

It is an engineering marvel. It will promote Scotland's economic growth.

And it is beautiful. Up until today it was going to be delivered on time

and on budget, open by December this year. The First Minister said so in

Parliament. We will continue strong investment in infrastructure. By the

end of this year the new Queensbury Crossing will be completed. The SNP

manifesto said so at the time of the Scottish elections. Mind you, that

was because the project team were saying so as well. We have had a

period similar to last year in September and October meaning that

we can get going on the dead lifting very effectively and I think we will

be able to complete on time, the end of 2016. But not any more. The

impact of the weather in April and May was severe. The bridge will not

be open before December. -- by December. Due to the combined effect

of the time lost in these two months it can no longer delivered the

target of the end of 2016. The contractual date for completion of

the bridge is June 20 17. December 2016 was a target date that would

have been six months early. Confirmation came after a

conservative MSP asked about the project. What guarantee can he give

for the completion in mid-May? Is this weather dependent, can we have

more confidence about this than the last guarantee? How on earth does 25

days lost to weather in April and May equate to a 180 delay in opening

the bridge? Does he take us for fools? From the contractor 's

disappointment and determination. A large number of people working on

the bridge are local to the area. It is very close to our hearts, we

appreciate how important it is and every effort has gone into achieving

our target of the end of the year and every effort will go into

ensuring we get the bridge opens soon as we can. It turns out the

timescale all depends on what date you count, the ambition to open the

bridge early or what is written in the contract? The original date was

June 2017. They were able to bring forward the proposed opening date to

December. Because of time lost to the weather they have had to push

that back to May 2017. It may be of course that delays now we'll all be

forgiven and forgotten once this bridge is open. -- will all.

Well, just before we came on air, Keith Brown came

I began by asking him how 25 days of bad weather have caused a four

There are number of reasons, first of all those 25 days themselves can

have knock-on effects. If you can't do a deck left on a particular day

that can add two more days of delay because there are things you have to

do to see through a deck lift. The deck lifting process was be -- was

meant to be from September until September. If you move that to the

autumn to winter months that causes further delays. The tarmac king and

waterproofing during the winter months takes longer. If the

timetable was so fluid and weather dependent, why did Nicola Sturgeon

tell the Scottish Parliament on the 5th of January, by the end of this

year the new Queensbury Crossing will be completed? You say it was

fluid, I would say it was a built-in contingency, 25% of the time, a full

year, which was largely used up last year in the prolonged wet weather.

The contingency came into this year and to have the period of bad

weather in April and May, it might not be obvious to the public but

when you are the top of 200 foot bridge... Nicola Sturgeon didn't

spell out any contingency, it was, this will be completed. That was

exactly the message we had from the contractor, they believed it was

possible up until May to finish by the end of the year. In April and

May we had the 12 and the 13 days lost which had the knock-on effect.

This will be finished by its contracted date and will not cost

the Scottish taxpayer a penny more because of the additional time

taking to complete it. It certainly won't be finished by the date Nicola

Sturgeon said it would be finished on. When did you know first that

this timescale would not be met, was it before the election? No. We were

advised at the end of May by transport Scotland, they had a worry

it might not be possible to finish by the end of the year. The

contractor finished a report that came back to ministers on the 1st of

June, when we got the official confirmation that this would take

longer than the end of the year. It is very important that in all of the

things we have done to get this done as quickly as possible we have

regard to safety and that has been factored into the contract. This is

a huge contract, more than ?1 billion, you have a huge team of

civil servants, transport Scotland talking to the contractors to keep

track of progress, the key questions that you work, was it on-time and on

budget? Word then no discussions in to give any indications there would

be a problem? -- were there no. Not only were the conversations right

through this process with transport Scotland and the contractors, this

had been reported to Parliament and the media. It was fairly clear last

year that they would be a substantial trial because of the

weather. This year, we have had far more days lost in April and May, and

with the less contingency left to do this it is not possible to complete

by the end of the year. It is ?1 billion project, it it is well below

budget, and that remains the case even with this later than expected

delivery. Are you in barrister at how this looks? The delay occurs, it

is announced after the Scottish election. You put it in the SNP

manifesto on page three, the Queensbury Crossing is on time and

on budget. Not the game, shot and the leg, RUSI barrister? -- I am not

embarrassed, I am disappointed. If we remember why that target was

first put in place, back in 2005-6, people were expecting because of the

deteriorating impact of the cables on the Forth Road Bridge... In

September 2017... We have had the de Hu eyes Asian of the cables despite

that we maintained we wanted to get this finished by the end of this

year. -- we have had the dehumidisation.

Is an obsession with targets giving the health service a headache?

Hospital staff across the country are required to meet

dozens of targets, on everything from A waiting times

But there are growing calls for a rethink,

for a more mature approach to NHS targets.

Among those calling for change is the Royal

Their director, Theresa Fyffe, is with me now.

What is wrong with the targets culture and the targets we have in

the health service? In our discussions with stakeholders

everybody told us the new landscape of targets on outcomes, frameworks,

priorities are actually cluttering up the work and die looting the

effort they want to bring. When targets came in they were a reaction

to people being concerned about for example waiting times for treatment.

But they are very blunt tools and they are processed targets, many of

them, and many of them are in the acute services that we have moved to

a different way of working within Health and Social Care Act. Targets

are designed to make sure the health service works. -- within health and

social care. Outcomes will not give you a tangible measure of how you

are getting there. You will need indicators and measures that help

you determine whether the success of what you are trying to achieve,

whether the investment has been right. Too many of those targets are

processed targets so for example waiting time targets or about access

to health care they don't underpin your right to health, they only said

you will get access to health care, so it doesn't tell you anything

about the quality of your care... Maybe not but we know that before

they were introduced people were waiting months and months, some much

longer than others. Our report is not recommending to go back to those

bad old days, it is about the need for measurement and accountability,

we need a way to measure where we are going, a third of the Scottish

budget is spent on health so it is right to know that we said it is

time for a new way of doing measurement. Some of those measures

could be more to look that programme will towards local communities,

empowering people to do this. -- could be more towards local

communities. We know it will not be easy and we know the Scottish

Government announced they want to do that and we hope that our principles

will shape that work. We have considerable expertise out there, we

have expertise among the professionals and we have a user

experience we should tap into. I believe it is not within our gift to

deliver a new set of measures for our health and well-being services.

Targets were perhaps the right thing to do at the time but now is the

time to stop and look and think, de clutter the landscape and get much

more about where people need to be as well as where we need

accountability and other measures. How do we shift to an NHS that fixes

problems in the first case? And that is the reason we need to

move from the targets which are processed, access target because

they are based on acute care and they don't reflect the shift we are

trying to go towards- or community care, enabling people to not get ill

in the first race. That is exactly where we need to go and those

measures need to reflect those measures and not the measures that

take us back to, had I have had access to the treatment, that would

have improved my health and well-being. Thank you rematch. --

thank you very much. Well, another day, another

EU referendum debate. Today the focus was on workers

rights and the international case for leaving what one

Brexiteer has called - Here's the Labour MSP

Elaine Smith and the former SNP Elaine Smith, you talk of the

internationalist taste for leaving. Spell it out for us? The EU is a

capitalist trade club so by leaving the club it doesn't mean we are no

longer part of Europe and I think if you look to what the Labour movement

has achieved over many years then that is a fight for workers' rights

across borders to actually by staying within that capitalist club,

that actually can stress -- constrict the fight for workers'

rights. Has she got a point, that Europe

holds back the struggle for workers' rights?

I have no idea what Elaine Smith is talking about when she talks about a

capitalist club. The EU is something very different. It is a union of

people first and foremost and a lot of the people are working across

borders and we need social protection and I think the EU has

provided that in the last 40 years. It is a benefit for us all. Elaine

Smith, spell it out. What do you mean?

It is a trade club and a lock of what the EU imposes on as through

directives mean that we face privatisation of services. One

example is the Scottish Government telling us recently they had to put

Cammack out to tender. Thankfully it won the tender but we may face that

again. Privatisation. A lock of the rights that have come for workers

are actually because of struggles by trade unions. Some of the rights

that have come through the EU for workers, they have come through a

reaction to thing is imposed by the EU. Take compulsive competitive

tendering, put out by the EU and therefore did he rights came into

play but only because we refused T PC. There was a left-wing argument

for leaving the EU club but it took me some time to weigh up the

argument and decide I was willing to put the left-wing Case for leaving

the EU. Address the European Union

tendering, the mechanism which the Scottish Government felt it had to

fulfil when it looked at tendering for the contract on the West Coast

that Cammack fulfils. Why is that something that fulfils workers'

rights? Does it drive down the cost of the service that is being

provided? You just have to see what happened.

Cammack managed to get the tender. There are many ways to go about it.

Other countries haven't got the same system we have in Britain and there

is a loss of scaremongering. One of them was trying to think Cammack

would not get the contract and it did get it. It got it. There is a

loss of worry at the start and scaremongering to start with but we

have seen it with Cammack. It worked perfectly well and it worked for the

workers. The union, the European Union is first and foremost a union

of people and many of the people are workers. Whatever we are we are all

EU citizens and whatever we are from this country or from other

countries, I would expect the Labour movement to look after them all,

whether we are living here or in other countries in the EU. I would

ask them to respect their rights. On that point, how does allowing

unlimited free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania improve

the rights of workers here in this country and improve their wages?

You know, it is an international movement. The right of European

Union workers are as right? -- are as important as the rights of

Scottish workers and we need to make sure we stand for them all and I

think the EU is the best place to do that. Why on earth would we try to

sacrifice some of our workers across the continent just because we think

that British workers should have an open end? I don't agree should. A

British worker that wants to work across the EU can do that under

present legislation and we are all EU citizens. The EU workers from all

EU countries that want to work you can do that.

Elaine Smith, just on that point, you know, workers' rights are and EU

wide issue. All European countries are addressing the same point and

Britain can fight for workers within the European Union set up.

Why leave on that basis? We would still be European if we leave. Just

because we are not part of the EU trade body construct doesn't mean we

are not Europeans. The public is, of course, I am all for immigration and

I'm for people moving around and helping refugees and not stopping

them at European borders. The problem is, for example, the posted

workers direct it so if people came here from another country, they are

paid at the rates in that country so unfortunately that means those

workers will be doing the same jobs as workers here but they would be

paid less wages. That is a big attraction for capitalist systems. I

think that an acceptable. To be clear, Elaine Smith, do you

see this as a way of reducing immigration into this country?

I am getting a wee bit fed up of this being put down to immigration.

It has been the far right, Bollington boys debating against

each other. I don't think that is the case. I think we can actually

look to other countries and the Commonwealth to see why leaving the

EU might increase workers coming to the country, the free movement of

people doesn't have to stop just because we leave the EU. I am all

for that. I am not for workers being exploited and I do not think for a

minute the EU can be reformed. I understand there are people on the

left to take that view and I appreciate why they do that. A lots

of people on the left are holding their noses and voting to remain

when they don't think it is the perfect institution and far from it.

There we must leave it. Thank you both very much indeed.

And joining me now to discuss some of today's other news stories

and the former Daily Express journalist Paul Gilbride.

Thanks very much for joining us. Let's talk about BHS. It has

collapsed with the loss of thousands of jobs. The former owner of the

company, Malik Chappelle, has been accused today of having his fingers

in the till -- Dominic Chappell. During a hearing into the collapse

of the company. Here is what Darren Topp had to say.

I said to him, that is theft. If I take out all of the expletives, he

basically said, do not kick off about this. I have had enough of you

telling me what to do over the last few months. It is my business, I can

do what I want and if you kick off about it I am going to come down

there and kill you. He threatened to kill me again and I know it sounds

silly but, you know, apparently he says he was in the helicopter squad

of the SAS and I know he has got a gun so there was a bit of me

thought, and I said to him, threaten me again and I will call the police.

What do you make of that, Andy? I think it is beyond surreal that we

have this incredible situation where people at the top of corporate

Britain are threatening to kill each other. The whole thing has been

frankly disgraceful and what we need to remember, although it is like a

bizarre London gangster movie unfolding in front of us, there are

real people affected by this. 11,000 people will lose their jobs as a

result of what has happened to BHS and some of the bounds of retail

engaging in this behaviour... We say we are shocked very often but I

think people will be genuinely shocked.

It was on television. What do you make of people fighting like ferrets

in a sack? It is like something from a Guy

Ritchie movie. I don't think Dominic Chappell and Darren Topp... I don't

think it is typical of corporate Britain. Dominic Chappell has a

dubious past and he comes across as a bit of a asset stripper if nothing

else. At the end of the day it is like the Sopranos dicky over Marks

and Spencers and it is farcical but 11,000 people have lost their jobs.

-- taking over Marks and Spencers. This produces gripping television

and you don't see that in Scotland, do you?

The Commons committees work in a forensic way, which perhaps they

don't do at Holyrood and perhaps Holyrood can take a lesson from

that. Commons committees can really drill down properly into things.

This was more than forensic examination. This was theatre. But

we can't sit and smile at this in Scotland, the country which brought

you the scandal of RBS and the entrepreneur formerly known as Sir

Fred Goodwin so we are not looking at high principles here.

Into the Scottish parliament. A conservative motion for a pause into

the introduction of the named person policy. Defeated in Parliament. The

Scottish Government position was refreshing the guidance to

professionals. Let's hear a couple of the arguments.

It is quite frankly a bureaucratic nightmare and it serves to

illustrate one of the fundamental flaws about the work ability of the

policy. The Conservatives are not after

reflection, they want repeal. That is what they screamed at us during

the election and Parliament, do not be fooled today by the temporary

change in tone. Sweeney looking like he is about to

be beamed up. Are the Conservatives backtracking am not calling for it

to be scrapped. Calling for a pause. They felt they would use in a

straight fight? I don't think it is like they are backtracking. There

are perhaps ideological reasons why the Tories oppose this named person

provision. I think today was about a bit of realpolitik, trying to water

down... Not watered down. Trying to gain the support of Labour and the

Lib Dems because Labour the past suggested they should have time for

reflection. Yes, I think it was more about gaining parliamentary support

from the opposition parties. Van watering it down. I think the Tories

are fundamentally opposed to this idea.

Andy, the SNP were offering concessions, acknowledging

difficulties with it. If is becoming a headache for them?

I think it is, yes. My own view is there is very little wrong with the

policy. It has been piloted and is considered to be a success so if you

talk to people who deal with families and children they think

this is a good idea and it will work well. The problem has been with the

presentation, which has been appalling. Even the name, named

person, these Orwellian and sinister. A friend said to me

yesterday, why didn't they call it something more acceptable like care.

A lot of this is in the perception and in fact the policy I think is

sound but they have a lot of explaining to do.

Very briefly, how difficult is it going to be for the Tories to make

an impact at Holyrood? On this issue? Anything? I don't

think it will be particularly difficult. I think their tails are

up in the air. They are the second largest party and they feel

confident. Thank you very much indeed.

Shelley will be back again tomorrow night, usual time.

..consumes tens of millions of meals,

burns around ?150 billion worth of jet fuel...

..and handles over three billion pieces of luggage a year.

discover there's more than the air beneath the wings