Plenary, 09 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, December 9, 2004

Official Report 757KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I welcome the news that Michael Ferguson, the patient who absconded from Carstairs earlier this week, has been reapprehended, and express my hope that that incident will result in a review of the decision-making process.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1269)

I confirm that a restricted patient—which is the proper way to describe these matters—who failed to return from a period of unescorted leave on Monday 6 December has been apprehended by the police and has been returned to the state hospital. I intend to report to all members of the Scottish Parliament about the circumstances surrounding the case, and any action that might now be required, either during question time today or in due course.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

I am sure that every member will look forward to the reporting of the full facts of that incident.

A few weeks ago, the First Minister said in the chamber that council tax rises would be no more than 2.5 per cent. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform blew that commitment out of the water when he said that next year, council tax will increase by more than the Executive would like. I ask the First Minister to come clean and to confirm what he now expects the increase in council tax to be next year.

That is completely untrue. The council tax targets that ministers have set for next year, the year after and the year after that, have been absolutely clear. The budgets have been set on the basis of those increases. Yet again, right across Scotland, those increases will be less than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. If councils are operating their budgets efficiently, there is no reason for them to have increases above those levels.

The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform said yesterday that council tax will increase next year by more than the Executive would like. The First Minister might refuse to say exactly what that increase will be, but everyone else in Scotland knows that it is likely to be double what he promised just a few weeks ago. Does he begin to appreciate the burden that the council tax places on those who can least afford it, such as hard-working families and those on fixed incomes, for example pensioners? Since 1997, the average bills have increased by 50 per cent but, yet again, the First Minister is setting his face against doing anything to help, just as he did last week, minutes before the Chancellor of the Exchequer got to his feet and announced more money for English councils in order to keep council tax rises in England substantially lower than last year. Will the First Minister explain to Scottish council tax payers why he is refusing to lift a finger to give similar respite to them?

Yet again I point out that the assertion in the first question, which was repeated in the second question, is completely untrue. The figures, as set out consistently by both finance ministers in the past three or four months, have been clear. Local authorities understand those figures, and they now understand clearly the targets that they have to achieve to stay within the figures, because they have to operate the financing of their services efficiently. We will assist them in doing that, but it is ultimately their responsibility to set their council tax increases at a level that is affordable locally. That level will continue to be less in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because we are financing local services properly. It is simply untrue to suggest that the council tax has risen by more than 50 per cent since the change of Government in May 1997. The initial increase that Ms Sturgeon adds magically into the figure was set under the Tory Government, which was responsible for council tax rises in 1997. As I said last week, in each of the five years of devolution, the council tax has gone up by less than the increases in the last six or seven years of the Conservative Government prior to 1997. Ministers here remain committed to efficient government and to proper financing of public services.

As I said last week—Ms Sturgeon has failed to address this—it is simply disingenuous of every front-bench member of the Scottish National Party to argue, week after week, for increased spending on every aspect of local services and then to advocate tax cuts and restrictions on local expenditure. That is sheer hypocrisy, and it needs to stop if we are to have serious debate in the chamber.

The Scottish Executive's position is riddled with contradictions. The reality is that, as the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform confirmed yesterday, council tax payers in Scotland face an increase of 5 per cent in their bills next year. What angers Scottish council tax payers most is the fact that, between the efficiency savings that he is taking away from councils and Scotland's share of the money that was announced by Gordon Brown last week, an extra £100 million will go into the Scottish Executive's coffers next year. I know that it is nearly Christmas, but there is no need for the First Minister to play Scrooge. Why will the First Minister not give the money that is available—with no cuts in services—back to councils, so that they can keep council tax rises down and give some relief to council tax payers, who have already been hit far too hard?

It is interesting to hear SNP members cheering. Alex Neil, who is sitting behind the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, was cheering that remark. He clearly does not want us to use any of the additional money that was allocated to the Scottish budget last week for child care—which is vital for securing greater employment in Scotland—or to ensure that the training and skills that are available to people in England are available to people in Scotland. He obviously thinks that we should not use the money in that way but use it to cut council taxes locally. That directly contradicts the calls that we hear regularly from him, from Ms Sturgeon and from other SNP members.

SNP members should be consistent. If they want to advocate increased spending on areas that are in our budget or in the local budgets, they should do that. They should not come here, week after week, advocating additional spending and then, when the opportunity comes for a cheap and easy headline, advocate tax cuts that would not match up to the spending that we desire and which they claim to want too.

Before question 2, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the VIP gallery Neil Kinnock, the chair of the British Council's board of trustees. [Applause.]

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1275)

At next week's meeting of the Scottish Cabinet, we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland. I hope that that progress will include joint working with the British Council. I suspect that Neil Kinnock, along with some of the rest of us, might, in the past, not have expected to be one day sitting in a Scottish Parliament. However, I am sure that he is delighted to be here today, and he is very welcome.

I hope that the First Minister and the Cabinet will take the opportunity to review the circumstances and procedures for the authorisation of unescorted leave for patients in the state hospital at Carstairs. Can the First Minister confirm that, so far this year, according to newspaper reports, 13 releases for unescorted leave have been authorised without prior ministerial approval? What examination is being undertaken of the procedures?

I confirm that it is my understanding that there have been 13 such cases. Under the current procedures, as I think that Mr McLetchie is aware, permissions for the transfer of restricted patients for conditional and absolute discharge are approved personally by me. Unescorted leave of absence for those who are restricted for life and those who are sex offenders is also approved by me. However, other periods of unescorted leave of absence are currently approved by expert officials on our behalf.

Given the incidents of this week, those procedures should be reviewed. In particular, I believe that the level of information that is available to those who sign off those decisions should be reviewed. I know that I, personally, sometimes question the level of information that I receive when I have to approve discharges or transfers, or those unescorted leave-of-absence periods that I am required to approve. I certainly want to ensure that those who made the decision that led to this week's incident received appropriate information. If they did not, I want to ensure that there is appropriate information in front of all those who are making future decisions.

Can the First Minister confirm that, in future, all such authorisations must obtain prior ministerial approval, rather than prior approval from officials in his office? Can he confirm that that is the way in which such matters will be conducted in future, with due regard to the statutory provisions in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Scotland Act 2003 and to the responsibility of ministers for dealing with those serious issues. I understand from what the First Minister has said that there is to be an inquiry into the procedures and that a review will be undertaken. Will he undertake, subject to the requirements of patient confidentiality, to make the findings of that review public, so that it can be a subject for debate and discussion in Parliament?

I shall be happy to make the review public and to ensure that the decisions that are made following that review will be subject either to questioning or to debate in the Parliament, subject to the decisions of the Parliamentary Bureau. I do not discount the possibility that the arrangements may be changed to secure prior ministerial approval for unescorted periods of leave of absence, but I also want to have a system that operates effectively. The new provisions that will come into force next year under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Scotland Act 2003 will move the responsibility for discharge from me to the new mental health tribunal, and there may be an opportunity at that time to review the procedures more generally.

I am content to confirm that, when we have that proper review, we shall look at the existing features of the legislation and consider whether they need to be strengthened or improved. I am particularly keen to ensure that the right level of information is available when those decisions are taken. For example, I would find it surprising if the person who made the decision to grant unescorted leave of absence would have done so if they had been aware of the police's description of the patient concerned as potentially dangerous if cornered or intoxicated. That is one of the matters that I have asked specifically to be reviewed.

These are delicate and difficult issues and I fully appreciate and understand that public safety is paramount. I welcome the First Minister's comments about appropriate information being available to expert panels, but can he give some reassurance that we will not have a knee-jerk reaction and move back on the progress that has been made in the support of those with mental illness? Will he ensure that those who are inappropriately placed in the Carstairs hospital for a longer period of time than they should be will not be adversely affected by the reaction to this situation?

This is a difficult subject and public safety must be paramount at all times, particularly when patients in the state hospital and elsewhere have been involved in violent incidents in the past. That is something that I emphasise constantly to officials and to those who have those responsibilities. At the same time, we have a responsibility as a society to ensure that those who have a mental illness are treated properly, given a proper care plan and assisted with progress back into society, but clearly only if we can be certain that they have managed to find a way of controlling their illness or improving their mental health. That is a serious challenge, even in today's enlightened society, and it is a challenge with which I believe we are making a lot of progress.

That process will be helped considerably if we have across Scotland the sort of facilities that might ensure that there is some provision between the state hospital in Carstairs and leave of absence in the community. The transition periods that people need to go through in those circumstances are particularly important, and I hope that we can create the kind of facilities that will give people a stage-by-stage approach to resuming a normal life.

---

Scottish Executive (Priorities)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's current top priorities are. (S2F-1289)

Our top priority remains, of course, the promotion of higher levels of economic growth in Scotland. That is important for securing not only prosperity for the citizens of Scotland but adequate funding for our public services.

The top priority for the people of Scotland is the state of our national health service, which they remain concerned about. They are particularly disappointed that the service cannot keep its promise to provide comprehensive free health care to everyone. Given that 75,000 patients in Scotland last year were denied medicines that their general practitioners prescribed for them because they could not afford the £6.40 prescription charge, does the First Minister accept that charging people for NHS services that are paid for from general taxes undermines the NHS and its core values? Does the Executive accept that the vast majority of Scots regard prescription charges as a barrier to universal free health care? Will he agree to scrap prescription charges, which would be in line with a decision by the National Assembly for Wales?

No. The Government must make choices and I believe that the £45 million that it would cost to abolish prescription charges is better used to improve health care in Scotland to ensure that we have faster and more local treatment and that people across Scotland have the best access to staff, equipment and facilities. I remind the Parliament that 50 per cent of those who have prescriptions do not pay for them and that 90 per cent of all prescriptions are free to those who have them. Therefore, a significant percentage of people are already exempt from prescription charges and there is a significant number of prescriptions for which there is no payment.

We keep the levels under review and that is why we are reviewing prescription charges. Anomalies, of course, have built up in the system over the years. For young people and people with certain kinds of diseases, it is right and proper that we review the current system. However, it would cost £45 million to abolish prescription charges and that money is better spent elsewhere.

There were more red herrings in that answer than would be found in a fishmonger's window. Did the First Minister listen to his Minister for Health and Community Care, when he told me last month that 27,000 people on benefits such as disability living allowance do not qualify for free prescriptions? On top of that, tens of thousands of low-paid workers, who often have chronic conditions, must pay £6.40, or £12.80, £19.20 or more for multiple treatments. If the First Minister has checked the figures, he will know that prescription charges recover less than half of 1 per cent of the NHS's annual income in Scotland. Why will he not follow the example of his colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales and scrap this hated tax on the sick? Why does he continue to deny Scottish citizens health justice and free medicines, which are available to the people of Wales?

It is telling that the Scottish Socialist Party thinks that the information that 50 per cent of people who get prescriptions get them free and 90 per cent of all prescriptions are free is a red herring and not important. It is important for every one of those citizens who get a free prescription and who do not have to pay. It is precisely because of anomalies such as those that Colin Fox identifies that we are having a review. However, the impact of his proposed policy and bill would be to reduce the health budget by £45 million, which would mean fewer and slower treatments, fewer facilities, less equipment and fewer doctors and nurses to treat the very people whom Colin Fox identifies. Making decisions in government is about priorities and delivering fair systems that deliver for the people of Scotland. The current balance on decisions on prescription charges is right and I believe that we are going forward in the right way.

---

National Parks

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive's strategy in respect of national parks is achieving its aims. (S2F-1287)

We established Scotland's first national parks—Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park in 2002 and Cairngorms national park in 2003—to ensure that those nationally important areas would be properly protected, maintained and enhanced for all to enjoy. Both national park authorities have made good progress and they will publish their draft park plans, setting out their aims and vision for their park areas, in the course of next year.

The First Minister will be aware of the concerns that have been highlighted in The Herald about the noise and pollution that jet-skis cause on Loch Lomond. My colleague Sylvia Jackson and I have raised the matter with the national park authority and in the Parliament before. There is a genuine fear that when Lake Windermere bans jet-skis in March 2005, the problem will simply be transferred to Loch Lomond, which has even been advertised as an alternative location. The national park authority will not even start its consultation on possible byelaws until some six months later. Will the First Minister ensure that appropriate byelaws that seek to protect the natural beauty of Loch Lomond for the enjoyment of generations to come are introduced quickly?

I condemn any attempt to encourage people who use jet-skis and similar equipment on Lake Windermere to come to Loch Lomond or to depict the situation at Loch Lomond as being anything other than properly regulated.

Although the responsibility for those byelaws and for initiating the consultation on them lies with the park authority, I urge it to hold its consultation and bring forward its decisions as quickly as possible. If there is anything that the appropriate Government department in Scotland can do, we will certainly assist the park authority in achieving that aim.

As the constituency member for the east side of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs part of the national park, I support the views of my colleague Jackie Baillie and share her concerns. However, does the First Minister agree that the east Loch Lomond visitor management group, which is a community-based group that works on dealing with antisocial behaviour and which includes representatives of all the stakeholders—the national park authority, Stirling Council, Central Scotland police and Forest Enterprise—is to be commended for its attempt to put in place a strategy for the 2005 season?

Working with stakeholders at local level is a vital part of the work of the park authority. It is vital for the future success not only of the park authority, but—more important—of the park itself that the local authorities and the many other agencies and private companies that operate around the shores of the loch are worked with.

We are talking about areas of national distinction in Scotland, but they are also areas of international importance. That is why the work of the national park authorities with their stakeholders must continue to progress.

On the widespread vandalism on the shores of Loch Lomond, does the First Minister agree that the national park authority and wider Scotland could learn from New York, where when graffiti and litter were tackled, there were significant improvements in other indicators of the quality of life?

Absolutely. I recall all the SNP candidates in last year's election who wandered all over Scotland saying that our plans to tackle antisocial behaviour were trivial and ridiculous and did not deserve support. How wrong could they be? It is precisely because of those problems with graffiti and vandalism in different parts of Scotland, including the national parks, that we advocated tackling antisocial behaviour. That is why we introduced a bill in the Parliament and it is probably why Nicola Sturgeon, when she was the justice spokesperson, backed down from opposing the bill at the last minute and got the SNP to abstain. When the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 makes a difference in Scotland, people will remember who introduced it and who opposed it.

It is argued that the current boundaries of the Cairngorms national park inhibit the making of an application for world heritage status for the Cairngorms. Does the Executive intend in the foreseeable future to reconsider the decision not to use the boundary that Scottish Natural Heritage proposed, which was arrived at after extensive consultation, to define the Cairngorms national park?

I think that it is too soon after the Parliament agreed to adopt the current arrangements for the national park in the Cairngorms to review the boundaries. However, a five-year review was built into the establishment of the Cairngorms park authority and I hope that that issue will be considered when the review takes place.

---

Fresh Talent Initiative

To ask the First Minister what contribution the fresh talent initiative is making to Scotland. (S2F-1272)

Fresh talent is a long-term initiative that aims to retain more Scots in Scotland and to attract skilled people from the rest of the United Kingdom and from around the world to come and live and work in Scotland in order to address our population decline. However, I assure Stewart Stevenson that if anyone from London wishes to come and take the job of anybody in Scotland, the fresh talent initiative will not encourage them to do so.

I am sure that my nephews and nieces who work in England will be extremely grateful to hear that.

Is the First Minister confident that his scheme, which requires fresh talent coming from abroad to stay in Scotland, will deliver that result? When will it start delivering and with what net effect on the Scottish economy?

The fresh talent initiative, which we launched earlier this year, is already delivering. It has delivered a profile for Scotland and for this issue at home and abroad—indeed, it is attracting interest across the world. Our relocation advisory service, which went operational in October but which we have not yet formally marketed, has already—by virtue of being available and accessible through the fresh talent website—received more than 600 inquiries from many countries all over the world.

In fact, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, who is just back from supporting Scotland's team at the Commonwealth youth games, managed to pick up a fresh talent leaflet in Bendigo, Victoria, during her travels in Australia. The promotion of Scotland is happening throughout the world. People are interested in coming to Scotland because we have some of the best universities and companies in the world. We also have a growing economy with the second-highest employment rate in the European Union. We have fantastic countryside in our national parks and elsewhere and fantastically vibrant cities. That is why Scotland is doing so well and why people want to come and live here.

Does the First Minister believe that the initiative offers the unique opportunity to harness the language skills of native speakers so that Scotland can become a more competitive and dynamic economy? Will he take the opportunity during his meeting this afternoon with the chairman of the British Council, Neil Kinnock, to look at how the Executive could work in partnership with the British Council to progress the agenda to maximise language use and language learning in Scotland?

I hope that we can do that in partnership with the British Council, companies and education authorities. There are many good examples in Scotland, not least of which is the IBM call centre in Greenock, where languages are used for the good of our economy and to create jobs for individuals from Scotland and abroad.

We will continue to work in partnership with the British Council not only to attract great international conferences like the one that is taking place in Scotland this week, with delegates from 53 countries, but in our work abroad to promote Scotland and to help people elsewhere in the world who need to develop their education systems and skills.

---

Reoffending

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to reduce reoffending. (S2F-1278)

We set out our proposals earlier this week in the "Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities: Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan", work on which will be taken forward, as appropriate, by ministers in the coming months.

I am particularly pleased that the focus of the proposals is on action to cut reoffending and not on a new, single organisation that would have sucked local expertise to the centre. Will the First Minister affirm that community sentences will not be a so-called soft option but will deliver results in the reduction of reoffending rates? Specifically, will he say when drug treatment and testing orders will be rolled out across the whole of Scotland?

Drug treatment and testing orders will be rolled out across Scotland as resources allow and also as we learn from the initial schemes. The provisions for tackling reoffending that were outlined earlier this week are important for Scotland. We know that we have one of the highest reoffending rates in the whole of Europe and that the rate is particularly bad for those who have been in prison.

We know that we need to have not only a better prison regime but tougher community sentences. That will ensure that while someone is serving their sentence, they can rebuild not only their life but their character and their commitment to their local community. That is precisely our intention. At the heart of our proposals is a combination of tougher community sentences and better prison sentences and prison regimes. It is about time that we in Scotland saw some action.

I refer the First Minister to the consultation on reducing reoffending in Scotland, which was commissioned by the Government. The analysis of responses was published in October. Many agencies dealing with reoffenders and groups representing victims made the case that there is a strong link between reoffending and poverty. Does he share that view? If so, what specific measures is the Government taking to tackle the poverty that fuels so many repeat crimes?

There is a link, but it is not an excusable link. There is a link between crime and poverty, but there are many people in Scotland today who are in poverty but who do not commit crimes. Many people, despite their poverty, are good members of their communities and worthy citizens, who bring up their families well and ensure that their kids follow in their footsteps. We should not badge people in that way.

On tackling poverty, it is important that we continue our many initiatives to improve jobs and job availability, skills, educational opportunities, health and employment opportunities, particularly, for example, for those who are on disability living allowance, so that we can get them back into the system, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, announced last Thursday that we should do. We have many other measures, including those to tackle child poverty and pensioner poverty. Those people might not be in the job market, but their poverty is just as important for us, and we will ensure that they, too, have those opportunities.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—