Plenary, 02 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, December 2, 1999

Official Report 914KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1O745)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday; my answer does not need to be cryptic on this occasion because the matters that we discussed were widely reported.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. Did he take the opportunity yesterday to discuss with the Secretary of State for Scotland the findings of the University of Bristol study? It showed that of the 15 constituencies in the UK that have the poorest health records and the highest poverty levels, six are in Glasgow. One is, indeed, represented by the First Minister. Will he take the opportunity presented by this question to explain to the people of Scotland his extraordinary decision—in line with the figures that have been announced by the Minister for Finance—to impose a real-terms cut in health spending in Scotland in the first year of this Labour Government? When he has explained why he did that, will he apologise?

John Swinney knows well that, over the period of the comprehensive spending review, there have been real and substantial increases in health service spending. The cumulative total of that spending is about £1.8 billion. The process to which I think Mr Swinney referred is part of the economic platform that has allowed us to produce economic growth.

In 1996, Glasgow had an unemployment claimant count of more than 34,000—it is now 23,000. What is depressing is that the statistics from Bristol are a mark of the challenge and of the problem that we inherited. All the figures are pre1995. I want to strike a hopeful note—there is a serious problem, but not one about which we should feel despair. Over the past decade, deaths from coronary heart disease have fallen by 32.3 per cent. Cancer deaths are down by 10.3 per cent and stroke deaths are down by 29.7 per cent. In all those areas, Glasgow has done better than the rest of Scotland—as we would hope it would, as it starts from a higher base. Mr Swinney will also know that the £850 million that was given this year to Greater Glasgow Health Board represents a substantial £100 per capita more than the Scottish average.

I will give one more example, and I apologise for taking a minute to do so, Sir David. Mr Swinney knows that there is a spirited debate at the moment—particularly in the Health and Community Care Committee—about the Arbuthnott report. That report is a way of ensuring that we examine deprivation factors, the causes of deprivation and the costs of doing something about it. I hope that we will have strong support from all parts of the chamber for such a constructive attempt to deal with the inherited problems that have been pointed to in that report from Bristol.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. His response strikes a chord with the leader column in The Herald from this morning. It says that the truth can hurt and that

"the strategies of avoidance shoot up like spring flowers."

Instead of warm words and cups of coffee with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, might not the First Minister have taken that opportunity to secure more resources for Scotland's public services, bearing in mind the admission by the Minister for Finance on the day of the budget announcements in Parliament? Over the lifetime of this Labour Government, less will be spent on public services than in a comparable period under the discredited Conservatives. Is not it the case that the Executive is more interested in hot air than it is in the health of our public services?

I normally welcome the quite frequent occasions on which John Swinney is in charge when his leader, Mr Salmond, is not with us. If he is going to play endlessly the base rate comparison game, he is merely obstructing and confusing the debate. I gave him some useful statistics, and I mentioned the weighting that we are building into health expenditure. I mentioned the increase in total health expenditure and I am very anxious—and happy—to have a constructive discussion with him, but I do not think that he is in the mood for that today, judging by that question.

I am also in the mood for a constructive discussion. I am concerned about the effects of the Arbuthnott report, too. Does the First Minister agree that, given the University of Bristol findings and the growth in population and obvious requirement for a greater health spend in Lothian, it is foolish to cut back expenditure in Lothian to make sure that areas of Glasgow that badly need health service spending get it?

The Arbuthnott report made a number of important points not just about deprivation in urban areas but about under- provision of spending in some rural areas where there are additional costs in delivering medical

services. I also say to Margo MacDonald, and I think she knows this, that no one is suggesting a cut in the Lothian health budget. We are talking about a significant redistribution in the light of detailed analysis of deprivation and health needs, which will be managed out of the increase in overall expenditure that we are providing.

I ask this question on the basis that one never asks a question to which one does not already know the answer. To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what subjects were discussed. (S1O-764)

I had no idea that that was the principle on which David McLetchie worked. [Laughter.] I refer to the answer that I gave a few minutes ago to John Swinney.

Could the First Minister tell us whether his discussion with the Secretary of State for Scotland included the comments of the Government's transport adviser, Professor David Begg, who backed my call for extra money raised from fuel taxes to be ring-fenced for transport improvements in Scotland, as it will be in England? In the light of Professor Begg's comments, would the First Minister like to reconsider the answer that he gave to me on that subject last week and give the same guarantee to motorists in Scotland that will apply to motorists in the rest of the United Kingdom?

I made it clear that while we give a very high priority to infrastructure and transport needs in Scotland—and as David McLetchie is a late convert to devolution and therefore, I hope, an enthusiastic one, I hope that he will understand this—I did not want to suggest that ring-fencing in another part of the country be automatically transferred to the Scottish Parliament. We have a right to look at our own spending priorities in our own time, and that is what we will do. I hope—I always live in hope— that he will feel able to support us when we reach our decisions.

I thank the First Minister for his answer, which will be met with disappointment by Scotland's motorists. In relation to disappointed motorists, will he express to the secretary of state and to the chancellor the strong opposition in Scotland to imposing VAT on bridge tolls and ensure that the Government resists that measure? In the event of a failure of the Government to counter that European Union measure, will the First Minister confirm the comments of an anonymous Scottish Executive spokeswoman at the weekend, that tolls on the Skye bridge will not rise to reflect the VAT element, and will he give the same commitment on the Forth, Tay and Erskine bridges?

That is a quite extraordinary question. As David McLetchie knows, that is a proposal from the European Union and a legal ruling is being sought that VAT, as a matter of European Union law, must be imposed on tolls. The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive are not happy with that proposal. However, if he is inviting me to say that if there is a lawful direction on it, we will defy the law, I will not give that guarantee.

We are spending over £700,000 a year to keep down Skye bridge charges for regular users—I think that the charge is £1.40 at the moment. That freeze was one of the agreements of our partnership with the Liberal Democrats and will increase our contribution quite considerably over the coming years. We have done what we promised and I hope that we will get some—I will not say that; I was going to ask for gratitude, but that might be asking too much.

As a result of his discussions with the secretary of state, does the First Minister think that he and the chancellor fully understand that the Administration in Edinburgh is a coalition between two political parties and is made up of not just one political party?

That fact is well understood in this chamber and by all those who are part of the partnership—to which I referred in my previous answer. I can assure the member that, with certain exciting events that might be coming up in the next month or two, it is well understood much more widely. I value the partnership. It has worked well, and I look forward to its continuing.

I wish to return to the theme of transport. In the light of John Prescott's apparent decision earlier this week at the so-called roads summit to accelerate the road-building programme in England by increasing the allocation of money to transport, will the First Minister commit the Executive, in the event that it receives further resources as a consequence of that decision, to use those resources to accelerate the Executive's strategic road-building programme?

I cannot anticipate future spending decisions but, as the member knows, Sarah Boyack made a statement recently in which she outlined a number of important developments, of which the M77 was perhaps the most substantial. Those initiatives, including some in Highland areas, were widely welcomed.

I have made no bones about the fact that talking about priorities means prioritisation. We have found an extra £35 million for the roads budget, as

against what had previously been anticipated. As the opportunity arises, we will continue to find resources. However, I cannot anticipate decisions.

---

Careers Service

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it has taken to ensure the future operation of the careers service when the current contract for delivery runs out in April 2000. (S1O-773) The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Henry McLeish): Careers service companies whose contracts terminate on 31 March 2000 have been offered a one-year extension to their current contracts.

How can the Scottish Executive encourage careers service companies to develop their work in partnership with schools and other agencies, to identify young people who will find it most difficult to make the transition from school to work or further education?

I can reassure Mary Mulligan that the points that she has made will form part of the new careers service review that we have set up. Young people with special needs are a priority, as are young people with a variety of learning difficulties, during the important transition period from school to work or further education.

The careers service in Scotland is excellent, but there is always room for improvement. In the modern Scotland in which we live, there are new challenges caused by changes in the labour market, technology and new forms of communication. We want to ensure that we have the most effective partnership, not only between the careers service companies, but between everyone involved in dealing with young people, so that careers advice is of the very best.

At present, there are age limitations on that work, but I want there to be a full, proper, comprehensive and effective adult guidance service as well. Part of the remit of the careers service review will be to consider the issues related to that and to ensure that Scotland gives a positive lead within the United Kingdom.

I remind ministers that the official report has trouble if they turn their backs to the microphone, pleasant though it is to look at Mrs Mulligan. I call Sandra White. [Interruption.] Ms White, you indicated that you wanted to speak.

Yes, Presiding Officer. Obviously, your microphone was not working, as I could not hear you.

I am sorry. [Laughter.] That is fair enough.

I want to follow up on Mr McLeish's previous answer. I have lodged various written questions about the careers service, particularly in Glasgow, and I welcome the minister's comments about 2001. However, can he give this chamber a guarantee that the future of the careers service will be considered? Perhaps he will take note of the Welsh model, which will come into force in April 2001. The National Assembly for Wales has recommended that the careers service in Wales be funded directly by the National Assembly. Can the minister guarantee that he will consider the possibility of the careers service in Scotland being funded by this Parliament, not just now but after 2001?

I am considering a more important policy from Wales, on adult guidance.

The careers service review will not examine ownership as that is not an issue in Scotland—it will remain a public service matter. I want a thorough review of all responsibilities and the ways in which we spend money on specific groups. At the end of the day, we want a better and more effective service, of which we can be proud. I hope that the committee that is chaired by John Swinney will participate in that review. We will have a partnership in this Parliament to ensure that every possible support is given to the review and its implementation in every part of the country.