Plenary,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 4, 2005

Official Report 325KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1615)

My next meeting with Mr Blair will be arranged as soon as possible after tomorrow's general election.

I will give the First Minister an issue that he can discuss. Is he aware that, as of March last year, only 46 patients in the whole of England had to wait more than six months for a first out-patient appointment with a heart specialist, whereas in Scotland 518 patients waited more than six months? By December, there were even fewer English patients waiting more than six months—just 18 across the whole of England. The First Minister has not published the Scottish figure for December. Would he care to tell us today what it is?

Obviously, if the figure is not published, I do not have it.

How convenient is that? Does the First Minister realise that it is now nine weeks since he was asked to provide the most up-to-date information about waiting times for out-patient appointments with heart, cancer and other specialists? He still has not done so. Why is it taking so long, given that all the equivalent information about waiting times in England has been freely available for weeks? What is he so desperate to hide?

There is nothing to hide. An endless series of statistics is published not just by ministers, but by the national health service information and statistics division and by many others. The information to which I think Ms Sturgeon is referring—although, as ever, she is not very clear about these things—is, presumably, the information that we discussed in the chamber two weeks ago. As I said then, the information will be published as soon as it is available to be published.

A lot of hard work is done in our hospitals throughout Scotland to bring down waiting times for people who have heart conditions. Ms Sturgeon minimises that work and the achievements of people right across the sector—not just those who specialise in those operations, but the many others who make a contribution. The more she does that, the more unattractive she makes the Scottish health service as a place for people to work. She should question her motives in relation to that.

Is it not funny that, when the same question was asked last year, it was answered within four weeks? This year, we are still waiting after nine weeks. Is it not the case that the First Minister simply does not want the Scottish public to know any more of the dreadful detail of the appalling health record of Labour and the Liberals in Scotland? Is it not a fact that the information is being deliberately and shamefully covered up by the First Minister until after the election? Is that not a sure sign that he knows what patients know—that he is failing the Scottish public and Scottish patients?

I am quite happy to quote statistics on the achievements of people in the health service in relation to heart procedures. The number of angiography patients who waited more than eight weeks was 98 in 1997; there was none in 2004. The number of coronary revascularisation patients who waited more than 18 weeks was 61 in 1997; there was none in 2004. The delivery date of the target for a maximum wait of 24 weeks for those requiring coronary artery bypass graft surgery was 31 December 2002; the target has been met on every census date since then. The delivery date of the target for a maximum wait of 18 weeks for bypass graft surgery was 30 June 2004. That target was met. Seventeen patients waited more than 18 weeks for angioplasty, but that target was met at the end of 2004.

That is the record of achievement of those who work in our health service, but it is regularly run down in the chamber by Ms Sturgeon and her colleagues. She does not mention that the so-called manifesto on which her party is going to the electorate tomorrow does not give one guaranteed waiting time or any guarantee for waiting lists. However, it does refer to the fact that she would cancel operations in Banff and Buchan, in Tayside and in Glasgow because they are being carried out by the wrong people who are employed by the wrong employers—she is not putting patients first. That is the choice between the nationalists and the Executive parties, which set targets—yes, they are challenging targets—and then set out to achieve them. We are prepared to put patients first and to ensure that patients' interests come before those of the providers, unlike the SNP, which wants to put the providers first.

I will tell the First Minister about waiting times for angiographs. In March 1999, the waiting time was 29 days; in March 2004, it was 39 days. In March 1999, the waiting time for angioplasty was 34 days; in March 2005, it was 55 days. Is it not the case that the First Minister is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes? Is it not the case that patients throughout Scotland know that he is letting them down? That is why tomorrow they should choose to make Scotland matter and to serve on this failing Labour and Liberal Administration a notice to quit in 2007.

Many people will look at the nationalist party's results tomorrow and make their judgment, particularly on the way in which these issues are raised in First Minister's question time. In the past month, the work of officials in the Parliament has been distorted by Ms Sturgeon at First Minister's question time. That is a deplorable action and she has not yet apologised to those staff for the way in which she misrepresented what they said to her.

Not only has Ms Sturgeon quoted statistics that have not yet been published, but she has misquoted statistics that are already published in a consistent attempt to run down the hard work of those in our national health service. She does not properly challenge ministers in relation to the policies that she proposes. She does not have the courage to come to the chamber, put up her policies for debate and say that she would rather people had to wait longer so that operations did not have to be carried out in the independent sector. She does not come forward and argue that case; she picks a statistic week after week, distorts it here in the chamber and runs down the hard work of people in the national health service. That is simply not good enough and it is why her approach is being rejected the length and breadth of Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1616)

At our next meeting, the Scottish Cabinet will discuss the next steps that we will take to build a better Scotland.

The First Minister will recall that, two weeks ago at First Minister's question time, he told me that he was committed to ending the automatic early release of prisoners from our jails. Accordingly, I invite him to announce formally that the Scottish Executive has made a policy decision to end automatic early release for short-term and long-term prisoners. In doing so, will he formally amend the terms of reference that were given to Lord MacLean's Sentencing Commission so that it is quite clear to Lord MacLean and the commission that its remit is not to consider the principle of early release, but simply to deal with practical implementation?

Policy on that matter is quite clear; it has been stated in the chamber on several occasions. It is far clearer than the policies that are occasionally proposed by Mr McLetchie, who, just this week, described a policy that is not even reflected in the Conservative manifesto that goes to the electorate tomorrow. The Conservative manifesto refers to people having to justify early release, but yesterday Mr McLetchie said that there would be no such thing in the Scottish system. Politicians cannot have one policy one day and a different policy the next day—unless they are a member of the Scottish National Party. They must be consistent.

Our consistent position is that automatic early release must end, but that that should be done properly. It should be properly worked through by the judicially led Sentencing Commission; it should not be done on the hoof by politicians. Our approach will make the system effective in ensuring not just that offenders serve proper sentences, but that they do not reoffend when they are released.

The policy was made on the hoof seven years ago by politicians in the Labour Government, supported by the First Minister, who introduced the system to Scotland. The First Minister has conspicuously failed to answer the question. I asked him whether the Executive was committed to ending that policy for short-term and long-term prisoners. He failed to answer.

The First Minister and his Executive are serial offenders on the issue. There is a total lack of clarity. He says that he wants to end automatic release when he has had six years to do something about it. How many more victims will there needlessly be in Scotland before he does something about a policy that lets people out of jail halfway through their sentences to go on to commit further violent crimes?

Although Mr McLetchie does not want to talk in rational terms about these matters, he knows that some offenders serve their full sentences and that some offenders who are released on licence commit further crimes or offences. It is right and proper that we look comprehensively at the whole system and that we tackle reoffending, which is the real curse at the heart of the Scottish justice system. That has been the case for far too long—for decades—and it is an historic task of the Executive and the Parliament to tackle reoffending and to ensure that significantly fewer people reoffend in Scotland in years to come.

There are three ways of doing that: first, by making the prison sentences that offenders receive more effective; secondly, by ensuring that prisoners are effectively treated for their behaviour and are convinced of a different way of life by the time that they return to the community; and, thirdly, by making sure that those who serve their sentence in the community are seen to do so by the local community and are put in a position where they learn their lesson and are less likely to reoffend.

It is vital that we make progress in each of those three areas. We are achieving that and we will achieve it in relation to sentencing, as I have said in the chamber time and again. No amount of provocative language from Mr McLetchie in the chamber or in public during the election campaign will change that position. We will end automatic early release, but we will do so properly; we will do it with decent changes to the system that can be sustained in the longer term and we will do it in the interests of victims or potential victims of crime in Scotland.

It is axiomatic that reoffending would be reduced if people were not let out of jail halfway through their sentences to go on to commit further crimes. There is a list as long as my arm of people who have been found guilty of serious crimes after being allowed out of jail early by the Executive. On this subject, all we have had is talk and more talk from the First Minister, just as we have had talk about dealing with waiting times, when they have gone up, talk about dealing with discipline in schools, when the number of attacks on teachers has rocketed, and talk about being tough on crime, when people are let out of jail to commit further and violent crimes.

Does the First Minister accept that, although the election tomorrow is to elect the next Government of the United Kingdom, it is also a judgment on the performance of the Scottish Executive? Does he also accept that, given the failures in relation to health, education and law and order, the Executive is guilty as charged?

We can be certain of one thing: the election will certainly be a judgment on Michael Howard and the Conservative party. It will also partly be a judgment on the kind of language that the Conservative party has used and the way in which it has conducted itself in the election campaign. Over the past month, the Conservative Opposition has had an opportunity to have a real debate about the future of our country. It has chosen instead to use appalling language about immigration and to try to create scares about this country being swamped by immigrants. As for crime and justice, instead of having a proper debate based on facts, evidence and real solutions in relation not just to tougher sentences, but to tougher action to ensure that people do not reoffend, the Conservatives have chosen to use ridiculous language such as Mr McLetchie used again this week about get-out-of-jail-free cards and encouraging people to reoffend and to commit crimes in the community.

We have also heard ridiculous language used about our schools. Our schools have been transformed since the days when Mr McLetchie's party was in power. Our primary schools in Scotland are among the very best in the world and our secondary schools are getting close to being so, too. As I said in the chamber two weeks ago, even Alex Salmond admits that Scottish education is at least third best in the world at the moment. The Conservatives have an appalling record on education in Scotland. They try to scare people out of the teaching profession and out of classrooms by saying that people are being beaten up in classrooms in Scotland every quarter of an hour. That is simply not true. Mr McLetchie demeans his party when he makes those points and I hope that his party will pay the price for it tomorrow.

---

Life Expectancy

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive will take to address inequalities highlighted by the report published in the April edition of the British Medical Journal which concludes that the gap between life expectancy in rich and poorer areas has not been wider since Victorian times. (S2F-1625)

In addition to reducing the number of people in poverty, we have introduced legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places. That legislation will be the biggest contribution that we can make to improving health in Scotland, as it will reduce the toll of preventable, premature deaths that result from smoking and that affect the poorer parts of our country most.

Does the First Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable that life expectancy for a man in Kensington and Chelsea should be 10 years more than that of his counterpart in Glasgow, which is the widest gap for 100 years? The authors of the British Medical Journal report believe that, if current trends continue, growing inequalities will be transmitted to and magnified among future generations. Does the First Minister agree with the conclusions that the report draws about what needs to be done to turn the current situation around?

In looking at this question, I did a little research and it was interesting to note how difficult it is to compare the situation in Victorian times with the situation today. We have, of course, the figures on life expectancy that were quoted in the report not just for the United Kingdom or Scotland as a whole, but for individual constituencies. Even in the constituency of Shettleston, which has the lowest life expectancy in the UK—63 years—people have a significantly better life expectancy than their counterparts did in Victorian times, when life expectancy was 40 years.

Given that Mr Fox was asking the question, I thought that it might be interesting to check what the life expectancy was when Robin Hood was alive. At that time, life expectancy was 24 years. The figures show that we cannot compare life expectancy and inequality centuries apart, but we can compare the reality in Scotland today with what was happening just eight years ago when the current Government came to power.

The reality in the UK and in Scotland is that there are now significantly fewer people living in poverty. Just here in Scotland, 110,000 children have been lifted from relative—not absolute, but comparative—poverty since 1997, which is a 25 per cent reduction. Some 170,000 pensioners have been lifted from absolute poverty, which is a massive 68 per cent reduction. Right the way through the statistics, we see massive reductions since 1997 in the numbers of people living in poverty in Scotland, in the UK and particularly in the poorer parts of Scotland. That is precisely why people should vote tomorrow not for some Trotskyist sect that promotes wacky ideas about the past, but for a party that is genuinely committed to tackling poverty, is doing so and will make further progress if we go forward and not back in the votes tomorrow night.

All that bluster appears to prove that the First Minister does not have a clue about the conclusions that were drawn in the British Medical Journal report. I remind him that the report concluded that, if the situation is to improve, radical action is needed and

"far more potent and redistributive intervention by government".

Either the First Minister agrees with the conclusions of those experts, who are on the front line of the national health service, or, as I suspect, Labour has simply reconciled itself to living with greater inequalities and has effectively abandoned the NHS's founding principles—to have a comprehensive, free health care system—in favour of privatised hospitals and further inequalities.

I am always happy to debate the statistics, including the fact that the proportion of children in relative poverty has decreased from one in three to one in four; that the proportion of all Scots in relative poverty has decreased from one in four to one in five; and that the proportion of pensioners in relative poverty has decreased from one in three to one in five. However, I suspect that Colin Fox does not want to debate such statistics, because they clearly prove that our policies are making an impact.

So let us debate policies, by which I mean not just the policies that I am sure all parties across the chamber agree on, but the policies on which we have a choice. I am happy to mention not only the provision of free fruit to primary school children; the 500 community food initiatives that are operating across Scotland; the tackling and treatment of cancer and heart disease; and the smoking legislation that I referred to earlier. I am also happy to mention the Scottish Socialist Party's policy of providing free school meals and prescriptions to those who can afford to pay for them, instead of targeting that money on the children and other people in our society who need that assistance the most. That is why we are absolutely right to invest the money that Colin Fox would waste on those who can afford to pay in better, nutritious school meals and why we lead the rest of the UK in ensuring that children in Scotland have a better start in life. It is a shame that the so-called socialists in the chamber cannot back that policy.

I have an advantage over many members in that I have listened to the arguments about how to improve Glasgow's health. As a result, I believe that we should focus not on Glasgow's problems, but on the solutions that we can put forward. For example, Harry Burns and Phil Hanlon, who are the leading experts in the field, say that we need high levels of employment, affordable, safe and high-quality housing—

This is a speech, Mr McNulty. A question, please.

We also need improved education. Does the First Minister agree that, in order to change the statistics, we need not only increased investment in health, but the sustained development programme that Labour offers?

I have absolutely no doubt that the best route out of poverty for those who can work is that they should be able to work. I am very proud to be the First Minister of a country that has the second highest employment level in the European Union and the highest employment level in the UK. We will maintain our pressure in driving towards full employment and ensuring that those who are out of work even now have the life chances, health, skills, education, training, encouragement and support to give them opportunities and to close the final gap between the current high level of employment and full employment. That has been the dream of our party for 100 years and it is closer to being a reality now than it has ever been before.

Does the First Minister agree that it is absolutely shameful that Glasgow has the worst levels of deprivation and the worst life expectancy in the UK? After suffering decades of Labour domination in the council, at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament, thousands of Glaswegians are still living in poverty. Will he give a commitment today to set up a task force and invite all interested parties to examine the very real issues of poverty in the city?

The last thing that the good people of Glasgow need is another committee to look at the matter. They want action and that is what they are getting. They are getting regeneration down the Clyde and in the east end; they are getting new hospitals; and they are getting a massive housing stock transfer, which is leading to the biggest public sector housing modernisation programme in the whole of Europe. Sandra White opposed that. She has the temerity to come to the chamber and say that she represents the people of Glasgow when she was against them getting new houses and getting their houses repaired and renovated. She would rather have no investment than investment that meant that people had more control over their own affairs.

We are all about ensuring that, instead of being run by some centralised Scottish National Party bureaucracy, people in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland have a chance to take more control over their own lives. We want to ensure that people in Glasgow lead their own regeneration, that they have their own employment and that they can be proud of their city again.

---

Housing (First-time Buyers)

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive is taking to assist young people and first-time buyers into the housing market. (S2F-1620)

We have increased our investment in the low-cost home ownership programme by 80 per cent as part of our £1.2 billion commitment to affordable homes over the next three years. That will support another 5,000 low-cost homes across Scotland. We have also launched the homestake scheme, based on shared equity, which is designed to help first-time buyers in particular.

Does the First Minister consider that the low and stable interest rates that have persisted over recent years, thanks to Gordon Brown, have made a significant contribution to helping young people and first-time buyers to gain a foothold in the housing market and to enabling builders to provide those houses? What factors does he consider would pose the greatest threat to our policies?

Answer briefly, please.

No.

I am happy not to be brief if members would like. I could talk about the subject for a while, but I will not. The biggest single danger to interest rates would, of course, be the election of the former Conservative minister who was in the Conservative Cabinet at a time when there were more repossessions, higher interest rates and more people driven out of the housing market than ever before in the United Kingdom. The election of Michael Howard as Prime Minister on Thursday night would be the biggest ever disaster for potential home owners in Scotland, but I am very hopeful that it will not happen.

---

Spending Review

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's priorities will be in the 2006 spending review. (S2F-1627)

During this session of Parliament, we will continue to give priority to delivering our partnership agreement for government by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

And very sensible that is too, Presiding Officer.

Does the First Minister agree that, if additional resources came to the Scottish Executive as a result of any future spending review, flexible child care, more opportunities for our young people, improving care packages for the elderly, faster diagnosis to get people treated more quickly and more police in our communities would be among the priorities that the Scottish Executive would wish to address? Does he also agree that those measures would come about more quickly if a Liberal Democrat Government were elected tomorrow, bringing £1.8 billion additional investment to Scotland over the lifetime of the next Westminster Parliament?

I admire Iain Smith's optimism. I wish him and Ming Campbell well in North East Fife. There is a fundamental choice available tomorrow—[Interruption.]

Order.

Some members are getting a wee bit desperate about tomorrow's election and what the outcome might be.

The reality is, as I am sure Iain Smith is aware, that there is a clear choice available tomorrow. That choice has become clearer as the month has gone on and I hope that people will make the right decision tomorrow.

---

Children (Detention in Prison)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's policy is in relation to the detention of children under 16 in prison. (S2F-1617)

Our Government's policy is to avoid, where possible, the detainment of under-16s in prison.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the revelation last week that children under 16 are regularly held in Kilmarnock prison. Can he tell us how many children are being held, or have been held in the past year, in Scottish prisons? When will the Executive live up to the promise made by Jim Wallace when he was Minister for Justice that there would be an end to that practice long before now?

I know that Alex Neil cares about prison conditions, but it is a matter of some regret that his statements do not exude the same passionate concern for the victims of offenders, regardless of the age of those offenders.

Shame.

In defence of what I have just said, I quote—[Interruption.] If I were an SNP member, I would wait to hear what I am going to say next.

I agree with the person who said:

"We need to see a major expansion of places and the worst offenders, those who are often the ringleaders, taken off our streets."

The same person said that the Executive's approach was based

"entirely on introducing more and more draconian and punitive measures against a hardcore minority of young offenders. Now nobody would disagree with that".

Both those remarks were made by Nicola Sturgeon, who is, of course, the leader of the parliamentary group of the SNP, and I agree with her. Our clear policy is—[Interruption.] SNP members should listen to my answer. Our clear policy is to avoid the use of prisons for under-16s. However, if a court says that a person who is under 16 must be locked up in a secure unit or temporarily in Polmont young offenders institution and there is no place for that person or they need to stay somewhere overnight, it would not be right and proper to put that person back on the streets—[Interruption.]

Order.

The SNP's concern for the victims of crime is shallow if its members do not understand that. We must and do have a policy of not keeping under-16s in prison unnecessarily, even for a few hours. If a young person is kept in prison for a night or for a few hours, that happens only because the young person needs somewhere to go and is about to be transferred. The reports that Mr Neil quoted clearly refer to that, so he should not exaggerate the position and claim that young people are being held arbitrarily in Scottish prisons. That is not the case. When it happens, it does so only in the interests of victims and people on our streets, who need us to guarantee their safety and security.

Does the First Minister accept that the sad reality of the situation is that the Executive's failure to have sufficient capacity of secure places in Scotland for people under 16, which has been caused partly by its decisions to close facilities and partly by its tardiness in providing new ones, has created a quite unacceptable situation? Does he know of the frustrations that confront many children's panels when they want to place a drug-dependent or alcohol-dependent youngster in a place of security for their own safety but no facility can be found at short notice? Is that not shameful, after six years?

Not at all. We are investing not only in more secure places, but in better secure unit places for young people, so that the young people are not only locked up and off the streets, but have a second chance and an opportunity to sort out their lives and to go back to the community as productive, successful, ambitious individuals, rather than as disillusioned individuals who commit crimes and are likely to do so for the rest of their lives.

No young person in Scotland is held in a prison unnecessarily. A young person would be held in prison only because they were being transferred and needed to be locked away until the transfer was organised. The claim that the situation is otherwise is simply not true. The Conservatives claim that there is something wrong with the current level of investment in Scotland's secure units, although they presided over a situation in which not only were there not enough secure units in Scotland or laws in place to ensure that young people could go to secure units when they had to, but there were no adequate education and training opportunities inside secure units to give people another chance when they were back on the outside. I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on how to turn round youth offenders, when the Conservatives' record was so appalling for so long. It is time to give those young people a second chance, while ensuring that the victims of crime are properly protected by locking up youth offenders in secure places.