Plenary, 04 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, November 4, 1999

Official Report 944KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met with the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they discussed. (S1O-517) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): Yesterday, and, as always, matters of concern.

Yesterday, by coincidence, not just the First Minister but all four Labour MPs who are ministers in the coalition went down to London to vote through cuts in incapacity benefit. Were those four ministers voting under ministerial or collective responsibility, or were they, in London, free to exercise their individual consciences as back benchers?

There were a large number of members of this Parliament down in London voting yesterday. I am sure that none of them was ashamed of that. I suspect that they all approached their task with the same measure of seriousness and in exactly the same way.

The difference is that some of us went down to London to vote for the disabled—the First Minister went down to vote against the rights of disabled people. I heard it said that it was not a cut in incapacity benefit, so does the First Minister consider it to be right that someone on £85 a week will face the withdrawal of incapacity benefit at a rate of 50p in the pound? That is a higher marginal rate of tax than that faced by the richest person in the country.

I must be clear that we are stepping over the boundary of what is a reserved matter. The first question was in order but the second is asking about the merits of a subject that is reserved for another place. If Mr Salmond would like to ask a different question, he should carry on.

Does the First Minister regard it as an effective use of the ministerial time of those four members to go down to London to vote for the cuts in incapacity benefit that I have described, instead of attending to their duties in Scotland?

I think that I recognised one or two members of the Scottish National party in the corridors of Westminster yesterday. Who voted the right way is a matter of judgment. I remind Mr Salmond and his colleagues that I supported Alistair Darling, when I was a member of the United Kingdom Cabinet, on the need to have an effective and adequate social security system,

which ensured that resources went to those who had most need. I voted, consistently, in that way last night. Consistency is sometimes a virtue in politics. I give Mr Salmond that as an original thought.

The First Minister is now in danger of being out of order.

The First Minister has a wider responsibility to this Parliament, where a majority of members certainly oppose the cuts in incapacity benefit. The First Minister was feted as a head of state last Friday in Dublin. Last night he was lobby fodder in London. Should the First Minister of Scotland go down to London and act like Tony Blair's poodle in cutting incapacity benefit?

I think that, not for the first time, Alex Salmond is wrong on both points. I was not in Dublin as a head of state; I was there for some extremely constructive and productive talks with the Taoiseach and the President of the Irish Republic. I was glad to be there, and Alex Salmond ought to welcome the fact that I was there.

On the second matter, there is an enormous number of improvements in that bill. I believe that, on the whole, it is a good bill, but I do not want to go into the reasons for it because I see that the basilisk eye of the Presiding Officer is upon me. I must counsel Alex Salmond against the arrogant assumption that people who do not vote the same way as he does are definitely, and by definition, wrong.

---

Law and Order

To ask the Scottish Executive—I beg your pardon. [Laughter.] Today there are so many questions that the Executive deserves to answer. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will outline its law and order policy priorities. (S1O512)

Our priorities for law and order are set out in our programme for government. We are committed to combating crime and drugs in our communities and to supporting the victims of crime.

If the Scottish Executive is committed to being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime—to use a particularly discredited soundbite—can the Deputy First Minister explain why it is robbing Peter, in the form of the Scottish Prison Service, to pay Paul, in the form of the drugs enforcement agency? Does that not show that, far from the joined-up government—a favourite Liberal Democrat soundbite, as I recall—that we were promised, the right hand of this Executive does not know what the left hand is doing?

I can tell Mr McLetchie that we are, in fact, reallocating £13 million that the Prison Service had not spent in previous years. We are doing so because we are predicting fewer prisoners than were previously estimated. As Mr McLetchie rightly points out, we are redirecting some of that money to other aspects of the justice budget, including the setting up of a drugs enforcement agency, which I hope that he will welcome.

I should point out to the member that this year some £215 million is being spent on the Prison Service, compared with an average of £158 million in the five years of the previous Conservative Government.

The Deputy First Minister is predicting fewer prisoners in our prisons because this Executive is soft when it comes to sentencing policy. Against a backcloth of increases in every category of crime that was recorded during the last year for which figures are available, this Executive is cutting funding for prisons, is cutting funding in real terms for victims and victim support, and has cut the number of police officers on the beat. Is that a record of which Mr Wallace is proud, and does it not compare ill with falling crime rates over the last seven years of Conservative government, to which the 2,000 extra police officers whom we put on the beat made a major contribution?

I am tempted to say, "Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong." If Mr McLetchie concentrated more on the facts and the issues, rather than on soundbites, he might get a better understanding of the circumstances.

Those are the facts.

The fact is that more money, an increase of 3.8 per cent, will be spent next year on the police in grant-aided expenditure. I have also announced £4.7 million in additional funding for the police to cover their millennium expenses. My colleague Angus MacKay has already announced the drugs enforcement agency, which will lead to 200 extra policemen—100 at national level and 100 at local level. When Mr McLetchie describes some of the alternatives to custody as soft options, he shows that he has been reading too many of Mr Phil Gallie's comments, instead of addressing himself to the fact that non-custodial sentences are usually very tough options. They are also far more effective at promoting rehabilitation, which reduces crime numbers in years to come.

Will the Deputy First Minister give serious consideration to remarks made earlier today by the governor of Cornton Vale prison, who questioned whether imprisonment was the best

way in which to deal with people with addiction problems who commit minor offences? Does he agree that it would be far more sensible and humane—never mind cost-effective—to place those people in treatment centres? Will the Executive consider that alternative seriously?

Mr Raffan may know that a pilot study in drug treatment and testing orders, which are an alternative to custody, has been set up in Glasgow. Our cross-cutting approach to tackling drugs includes not only a drugs enforcement agency, but an emphasis on rehabilitation, education and health. It is important to see the issue in the round, rather than simply to pick out comments for headlines. These are far more complex issues than cheap addresses to the headlines indicate.

In the light of recent announcements on the reallocation of the underspend in the Prison Service and on possible new approaches to youth crime, will the Deputy First Minister say what effects, if any, there will be on Scotland's young offenders institutes?

Clearly, young offenders institutes continue to play an important part in the overall Prison Service. It is also fair to mention that the Cabinet held a strategy session on youth crime earlier this week, in which a range of issues was presented to us. Clearly, while custodial sentences will be necessary in some cases, there is a lot of evidence that non-custodial sentences that involve the community are often far more effective in tackling youth crime and reducing the amount of reoffending.

Will the setting up of the new drugs enforcement agency result in more of those who are involved in the drugs trade being imprisoned? If so, will there be enough prison places for them, given the £13 million cut in Prison Service funding?

The establishment of the new drugs enforcement agency does not mean that there will be more imprisonment. We are trying to cut off the supply of drugs at a high level, which would mean that fewer drugs will get into the community. As I said to Mr Raffan, that is an important part of the strategy. It is also part of a strategy that tries to eliminate drug abuse through health and education.

---

Joint Working

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is promoting joint working by local government, the national health service and Scottish Homes. (S1O-534) The Deputy Minister for Communities (Jackie Baillie): Working together is a key element in achieving better government. In the Executive, the new ministerial committees handling cross-cutting issues are having a significant impact on key priorities.

At a local level, community planning is an example of councils working in partnership with other agencies to develop a common vision and improve the lives of the people they serve. The Scottish Executive will be working closely with local government to develop guidance and support for councils across the country.

I am sure that the minister is aware that there is a great deal of important joint working across the agencies at a local level to deliver a coherent service to the most vulnerable groups in a community through, for example, community care, primary health care and mental health care.

Is the minister aware, however, that professionals and voluntary groups report that attempts to work in partnership can be hampered by the separation of budget cycles, accountability lines and priorities at a Scottish level? Through the minister, I ask the Scottish Executive to give high priority to the organisational change that is required at a Scottish level to ensure support for crucial joint working at a local level.

"Modernising Community Care"

sets out ways in which local authorities, health boards, national health service trusts and Scottish Homes can work together more effectively on projects such as joint commissioning and pooling of resources. If organisational or administrative barriers such as those that Johann Lamont has described are present at a local level, health ministers will be interested in the details of the situation. I understand that the health ministers are meeting with local authorities tomorrow to discuss how to take forward that shared agenda.

Will the minister provide money to help with the important things that Johann Lamont highlighted? Money should be provided to voluntary organisations and local authorities for the promotion of youth work, sport and other activities that improve health and the quality of life in the community and which will, in the long term, reduce health expenditure.

The compact that the Parliament endorsed yesterday sets out a new way of working between the Executive and the voluntary sector and between other agencies and the voluntary sector. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is producing guidance on the matter, and I hope that the related discussions will take place at a local level.

I welcome the minister's announcement last week of the £2 million that

Scottish Homes is to spend on women's refuges. As the minister responsible for that area of policy, will she ensure that Scottish Homes, health boards and local authorities work together on the strategy on violence against women and make that strategy a priority?

I give the member that assurance and take his suggestion further. We also want to engage with the many voluntary organisations that work with women.

Will the minister help to clear up the mystery of what has happened to the community planning initiative? Prior to the election in May, many authorities were asked to take forward community planning as pathfinder authorities, recognising the democratic authority of those local authorities.

That initiative is still on-going. The five pathfinder councils shared their experience of community planning with other local authorities in March 1999, and we are in the process of asking other councils to submit their proposals to the Executive.

Does the minister agree that an excellent example of joint working relationships would be to have one budget for the national health service and social work, to ensure that the 1,700 patients who are medically fit for discharge receive the appropriate level of residential care or care in the community?

As I said in my original answer to Johann Lamont, "Modernising Community Care" is about looking at pooled budgets and joint commissioning. The health ministers will be taking that agenda forward.

That concludes question time. I apologise to those members who are still waiting to ask questions.

The next item of business is a ministerial statement—

On a point of order. In the light of the statement that is about to be given by the Minister for Transport and the Environment, would you rule that each of the departments in the Scottish Executive should be prepared to issue such statements to all the political parties represented in the Parliament?

Since early yesterday, I have tried to get a copy of the statement. I was told that I would get it two hours before the debate; I never got it. I went to the chamber desk at the back of the hall before coming in, to be told that they were not available and that they had been given out only to the transport spokespersons of each of the parties.

I will not answer that immediately, but I will look into it.

On a point of order. When the Minister for Communities wound up yesterday afternoon's debate, she made the major announcement of the debate essentially in the last two minutes of her speech. That was contrary to procedure and to the way in which debates should be conducted. Would you rule that that is unacceptable and should not happen again?

Is it the same point?

No, it is a related matter. Further to the point of order that was raised by my colleague Mr MacAskill and me yesterday about ministerial statements appearing in the press before they are announced to the Parliament, in the interests of openness and accountability, will you rule that ministers should first make their statements to Parliament and then to the press?

Is that the end of the points of order? I received notice of those issues yesterday and, as I have mentioned, in writing from the Conservative party. I have given the matter careful thought and would like to make a considered statement on it.

It is not possible for every Executive decision to be announced in Parliament; otherwise, we would do nothing but listen to ministerial statements. It has to be a matter for judgment by the Executive which statements are of sufficient policy significance to be made in Parliament. In the case of the two matters raised yesterday as points of order, and in the letters to me from different members, I have to say that both the policy on road tolls and the creation of the Scottish community investment fund are, in my view, substantial policy questions which should have been announced to Parliament first.

I would further add that Executive policy announcements should not in any case be made during closing speeches and debate in the chamber, which are intended to be replies to the actual debates.

We are all on a learning curve and I do not wish to sound unduly censorious. Indeed, I have no powers at the moment, under standing orders, to prevent recurrences of what has happened. It is more a question of courtesy, good practice and the observing of the founding principles of the Parliament: openness and accountability. I hope that we will pursue that in future.