Plenary, 08 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 8, 2000

Official Report 638KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the most recent meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-388)

The Cabinet discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.

Did the Cabinet discuss the implications of the non-attendance of Westminster ministers at committees of this Parliament? Is it not the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has snubbed both the European Committee and the Finance Committee, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has snubbed the European Committee? Has the acting First Minister any knowledge of why those gentlemen are so nervous? Are they expecting a walk-out or a slow handclap? Will he tell them that all that will happen is that they will be asked pertinent questions by important parliamentary committees on subjects that are important to the Scottish people?

On behalf of the whole Parliament, will the acting First Minister deprecate the non-attendance at the committees, and will he encourage future attendance from Westminster ministers?

Mr Salmond should reflect on the fact that the Scotland Act 1998—which he supported—makes express provision that ministers of the Westminster Parliament will not be required to attend. He should also reflect on the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly attend the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. If Mr Salmond and some of his parliamentary colleagues at Westminster attended the Westminster Parliament, they might be able to ask the questions that they are now asking of me.

The last time I attended the Westminster Parliament, I went through the lobbies with the acting First Minister to vote against fuel duty and the chancellor's budget.

I am surprised by the acting First Minister's answer. Members of the Finance Committee from all the political parties deplored the chancellor's answer that he would not come to the committee and would not even send his officials. Does the acting First Minister recall that, during the parliamentary debates on the Scotland Bill 1998, he said:

"It must be expressly set down in the bill that the Scots Parliament has the power to compel witnesses and to compel the production of documents." —[Official Report, House of Commons, 29 January 1998; Vol 305, c 506.]

Does the acting First Minister still believe that? Is he still allowed to believe that? Does he stand by his words of two years ago, and does he still think that this Parliament should have that power?

As Mr Salmond well knows, my responsibilities relate to the Scottish Executive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland are well able to speak for themselves, and they would do. Next Monday, Mr Salmond's party has the opportunity in the Scottish Grand Committee to nominate the subject matter for debate. It has not chosen the kind of issues concerning which they wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland to appear before committees of this Parliament. If Mr Salmond's party had been really interested in those issues, it would have taken the opportunity to pursue them and it would not have been trying to score political points.

Is the acting First Minister seriously saying that members of the Finance Committee and the European Committee of this Parliament—from every party—who have expressed disappointment that their inquiries were being obstructed were not correct?

Will he answer the key question—does he stand by his remarks of two years ago in the House of Commons, that if Westminster committees can summon ministers of the Scots Parliament, why cannot committees of the Scots Parliament summon Westminster ministers? Does he stand by those remarks or is that something else that has been junked in the coalition?

As Mr Salmond knows, that amendment was lost; nevertheless, we both still supported the bill that now governs the relationship between Westminster and this Parliament. If the issue is of such burning importance to Mr Salmond, his party has more than adequate opportunity to raise it at Westminster. The fact that he chooses not to do so shows that he is more interested in making gestures than in getting to the heart of such an important issue.

---

Cabinet

I would like to—[Interruption.]

Order. We want to hear the question.

Presiding Officer, it is becoming more like the women's institute every day. [Laughter.]

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to reshuffle his Cabinet. (S1F-382)

No.

Thank you. Perhaps the Deputy First Minister might like to offer himself as a prime candidate for reshuffle when the First Minister returns, because his record so far on law and order is one of abject failure. Apparently, he is about to compound that by raising the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12 and by treating 16 and 17-year-old offenders as children and not adults, a move that has been described by the Scottish Police Federation as laughable. Instead of adopting such cloud nine ideas, why does he not come back to earth and give the police the support they deserve to deal with neds on the ground?

The chamber may have been thinking that Mr McLetchie would use his question about reshuffles as a preliminary to announcing his own reshuffle. We see Tory front benchers in fighting form—they are fighting each other. When Mr Murray Tosh says that there is a split between the militants and the mainstream, our real concern is that Phil Gallie is in the mainstream.

I deeply regret the fact that Mr McLetchie trivialises the very serious issue of youth crime. He knows that one of the first things the Executive did was to set up a youth crime review. A study has been completed, and the outcome and our response to it will be published tomorrow. Sam Galbraith will make a statement on it at a conference. The issue of the age of criminal responsibility has been raised in this Parliament on a number of occasions. There is ECHR case law on it. We think it should be studied and we are inviting the Scottish Law Commission to do that. There is no proposal on it, as Mr McLetchie suggested.

Mr McLetchie is also well aware that a considerable amount of crime is committed by young people aged from 18 to 24. They are responsible for inflicting a lot of misery on a lot of communities and our intention is to tackle that effectively. It is perfectly clear that the range of options for tackling that problem until now—including those options that were brought in during the 18 years when his party was in power—have not been successful. That is why a responsible Government should look at the issue and try to devise an effective response.

We take crime very seriously—that is why the incidence of crime fell consistently under our Administration during the 1990s and has risen during the minister's, over the past couple of years. As we have pointed out repeatedly, Mr Wallace's justice budget has been slashed while he has stood by, police numbers have been cut and prisons are being closed. We now have the final piece in the jigsaw—the master plan; fiddle the crime figures by raising the age of criminal responsibility and pretend that the 4,000 crimes that are committed in a year by eight to 11-year-olds do not happen. Is that the Liberal Democrat idea of justice? Is that why, on all the law and order issues, the police agree with us and the criminals agree with Mr Wallace?

I am genuinely disappointed that Mr McLetchie trivialises such a serious subject, which we as an Executive are treating seriously.

Never mind the claptrap—answer the question. [Interruption.]

Order.

We recognise the importance and seriousness of youth crime. As I indicated, there have been calls for a review of the age of criminal responsibility and that is what we are asking the Scottish Law Commission to examine. We also want to tackle youth crime effectively.

On the police, Mr McLetchie will be well aware that it is some three weeks since I announced an £8.9 million increase in this year's police budget, which had already been increased by more than the rate of inflation for this year. The extra money will allow the employment of more than 300 police officers, in addition to those who will be employed by the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. It is clear that the Executive takes law and order seriously, but we are not into solving the problems of law and order by sloganeering—we want to solve them by taking effective measures.

---

Higher Education

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to promote an inclusive system of higher education in Scotland. (S1F-394)

The Executive is determined to remove barriers to wider access and participation for those groups that are currently under-represented in higher education. We have, therefore, proposed a new £50 million student support package for 2001 that will include access payments of up to £2,000 for students from low-income families. We have also announced a £10 million mature student bursary fund. The overall package offers real improvements to the support that is available to under-represented groups.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that reply. Does he agree that an inclusive higher education system means that many more students from manual-labouring family backgrounds must be encouraged to go to Scotland's universities? Does he also agree that every Scottish university—including the University of St Andrews—must play its part in the process?

I certainly agree with that. That is why the Executive has taken some of the measures to which I have referred. Only yesterday, my colleague Nicol Stephen, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, attended a conference that was sponsored by the Scottish network for access and participation and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. They made the very point that Allan Wilson makes. The question is not only about access. We must also ensure that there is an improved retention rate when the people about whom Allan Wilson speaks go to university. We must try to provide the support and infrastructure that will ensure that the objectives of retention and access, to which he referred, are achieved.

Will the Deputy First Minster tell Parliament how an inclusive system of higher education will be created when students will, under the Executive, have to start paying back-end tuition fees when they start to earn £10,000 per annum, which is lower than the average wage in Scotland? Will he also explain when his support for the £10,000 threshold began? I am startled to read that the Liberal Democrat higher education spokesman, Dr Evan Harris, has said that the Liberal Democrats have never supported a threshold as low as £10,000.

I will take this opportunity to put Mr Swinney right on one or two matters. For a start, there are no back-end tuition fees. [Members: "Yes there are!"] The SNP does not like it, but we have abolished those fees.

There is a £10,000 threshold, but we examined closely the possibility of introducing a £25,000 threshold, as recommended by Andrew Cubie and his committee in their report. That would have required the setting up of an entirely new bureaucracy and might have led to the need for students to make two sets of payments. I do not believe that Mr Swinney would support money being used to fund a bureaucracy when it could be used to support higher education.

Most students in Scotland will pay less in repayment of loans than would have been the case under the Cubie proposals. They will also pay less than they would in the situation that existed before we abolished tuition fees and introduced graduate contributions and support, through access awards, for students from the poorest families.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the major problem with access to university for young people who come from low-income families is that they cannot afford to go? If he does agree, will he accept that there is little prospect of our university education system ever being genuinely inclusive until the core problems of student poverty and student debt are tackled through the reinstatement of a realistic maintenance grant on which students can live?

It is clear that efforts must be made to tackle student poverty. That is why the Executive is taking the biggest step forward that has been taken in this country for years towards doing that. Mr McAllion will acknowledge that the £2,000 access award that is targeted at the families who have the lowest incomes is a big step forward. As I have said, student loans for the majority of Scottish students will be less under our proposals than they would have been had we not been here to implement them.

---

Waiting Lists

To ask the First Minister why hospital waiting lists increased by 17.2 per cent between 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000. (S1F-375)

The exceptional pressures that were placed on the national health service last winter were the main contributory factor to the increase in hospital waiting lists between 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000.

The NHS in Scotland remains committed to reducing the in-patient and day-case waiting list to 75,000 by 2002. We have invested an additional £60 million in the NHS this year to help reduce waiting times and waiting lists. That will directly support the considerable work that is already under way to modernise services and improve the way in which the NHS works for patients.

I thank the acting First Minister for his answer, if indeed it was an answer—frankly, I think it was more of a song and dance act. If he does not know what caused the increase, how on earth will he address it? At least we have heard an acknowledgement that there was a winter crisis, something that the Minister for Health and Community Care has never seen fit to acknowledge.

Does the acting First Minister agree that it is worthy of note that in the three months from December to March, waiting lists in Scotland rose by an average of 6 per cent? Does he also agree that the enormous variation in the rises across health board areas is of even more concern? Can he—

You have asked two questions already.

Can the acting First Minister explain why, for example, in a period of only three months, waiting lists increased by 20.7 per cent in Fife Health Board and by 15.9 per cent in Ayrshire and Arran Health Board, compared with a rise of 4.1 per cent in Grampian Health Board?

Order. Questions have to be brief

Does the acting First Minister—

Order. That is enough—the member must sit down.

I cannot give precise details on each of the area health boards that Kay Ullrich mentioned. It is self-evident to everyone that there were exceptional pressures on the health service in the winter because of the flu. Perhaps that is so self-evident that Mrs Ullrich cannot see it. I am interested in her deep concern about waiting lists because on 9 June 1999—almost exactly one year ago—Mrs Kay Ullrich MSP warned against too narrow a focus on crude waiting list statistics at the expense of other vital areas of the health service. She said that the real issue to address was the waiting times for patients in Scotland.

It is important that we address waiting times; that is why the Executive has taken initiatives to reduce them. In December, Susan Deacon announced that we would work with the NHS in Scotland to establish maximum waiting times in the three national clinical priorities of heart disease, cancer and mental health. That should be considered along with the £60 million that will be used specifically to tackle waiting lists; the fact that all 15 health boards have signed up to a recovery plan to ensure that a waiting list target of 75,000 is met; and initiatives such as instant appointment booking, which will be introduced in 2002, and one-stop clinics.

Sir David, I will not take up any more of your time—[Interruption.]

Quite right.

The list of things that the Executive is doing to tackle waiting lists and waiting times, in which Ms Ullrich was once interested, is very long.

---

Laidlaw & Fairgrieve Ltd

To ask the First Minister whether he will make a statement about the closure of Laidlaw & Fairgrieve Ltd in the Scottish Borders and Dalkeith. (S1F-391)

We deeply regret the loss of those jobs. A team of local support agencies has been established to help all those who are affected to find new jobs. The package of support will include the provision of benefits advice, counselling, job search and retraining. That is in line with the partnership action for continuing employment strategic framework, which was introduced by the Executive in March.

Following the Department of Trade and Industry's announcement this week of additional money to support the textiles industry, can the minister clarify that there will be extra money in Scotland, in addition to the support that will be sought through Mr McLeish's very welcome textiles forum? How will that support be used and within what parameters will it be available?

Does the minister recognise that such a closure reinforces arguments for the real, positive investment in the Scottish Borders infrastructure that the Parliament endorsed and recognised last week?

I assure Mr Jenkins that the initiative that the DTI announced earlier this week will extend to Scotland. We are in discussions with the DTI about the shape of that extension.

As Mr Jenkins may be aware, my colleague, Henry McLeish, will announce further measures to support the Scottish textile industry at the first meeting of the Scottish textiles forum, which is due to take place on Monday of next week.

I agree with Mr Jenkins that the proposals on the infrastructure in the Borders, and the Scottish Borders railway feasibility study in particular, are moving forward. I understand that Scottish Borders Council has engaged consultants to work up a bid for the public transport fund.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree with the position adopted by the GMB, which is that working together with the UK Government is the best way in which to support the Scottish textile industry, and that textiles should be given a high priority by both Parliaments?

It is clear from initiatives such as this week's announcement by the DTI, with which we are in discussion, that the textile industry is being given a high priority. There is further evidence from the fact that Henry McLeish is launching, and chairing the first meeting of, the textile forum next week. That forum will create an opportunity to engage the industry, unions and support agencies as well as ministers, and is indicative of the support that we want to give the textile industry and the importance that we attach to it.