Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1501)
I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.
Unlike the Prime Minister when he was in Scotland last week, I want to talk about the Scottish health service. Of all the patients who were seen as out-patients for the first time in the last quarter, how many had to wait more than a year for their appointments?
I do not have that figure with me today, but I am sure that Ms Sturgeon is about to inform me of it.
I advise the First Minister that the information that I am about to bring to his attention has not yet been published, but it was given to me just yesterday by his central statistics unit. Is he aware that in June 1999 the number of out-patients who had waited more than a year to see a consultant was just 885, but that by the end of the most recent quarter, in December, the number of patients who had to wait more than a year was 7,679?
Before the First Minister answers, I ask Miss Leckie to withdraw the poster that she is showing to members. [Interruption.]
The position on out-patients is clear and I have continually stated it in this chamber during recent years. The position on out-patient waiting times in Scotland was very poor indeed, which is why it required attention. The focus on the longest in-patient waits was right in relation to in-patients, but one of the reasons why waiting times for out-patients were coming down in England but not in Scotland was the decision to concentrate on in-patients in Scotland at a very early stage. We believed that it was also important to concentrate on out-patient waiting times, to ensure that they, too, came down, which is precisely why we established the centre for change and innovation and made its immediate priority to tackle out-patient waits. Because of that attention, the figures that were published in February indicated a dramatic reduction in out-patient waiting times in Scotland, for the first time in several years. That is to be welcomed, not condemned, and the figure will come down even further throughout Scotland.
I do not know what question the First Minister answered, but it was not the one that I asked. I asked him why the number of out-patients who had to wait more than a year for a first appointment had risen from 885 in 1999 to 7,679 in the last quarter. Will he address the central point? There are now eight times as many out-patients waiting more than a year to see a consultant than there were when the Government took office. The number has almost trebled since Mr McConnell became First Minister and it is still going up. How can the First Minister square those facts with his claim in the chamber two weeks ago that he is reducing the longest out-patient waiting times? The question is simple, so may we have an answer?
If Ms Sturgeon had listened, she would have heard her question being answered. The very reason why there was a concentrated effort to reduce out-patient waiting times, particularly in the past year, was that those waiting times had gone up. Precisely because the number of people who were waiting too long for an out-patient appointment had gone up, the initial priority of the centre for change and innovation was to reduce out-patient waiting times. Because of that effort throughout the health service in Scotland, those waiting times are coming down. I agree that it is many years too late for those waiting times to be coming down, but they are coming down and they will continue to come down, because the focus is now rightly on out-patient as well as in-patient waiting times. The earlier decision to concentrate solely on in-patient waiting times led to an unacceptable increase in delays for out-patients, which had to be tackled.
The waiting times are not coming down.
Yes they are.
At the end of the last quarter, 7,679 patients had waited more than a year for a first appointment. The figure was up on the previous quarter and the one before it, as well as the quarter before that one, and it was up from 885 in 1999. Is it not the case that the figures show the real experience of out-patients in Scotland and that the First Minister should be embarrassed by them? The Prime Minister is clearly embarrassed by the figures, which is why he talks about the English health service when he comes to Scotland. Does the First Minister realise that every time he tries to deny the black-and-white facts he insults every patient who is waiting too long for an appointment? When will he stop spinning and start standing up for patients in Scotland?
The reality is as was published by the health service's statistics division just two weeks ago. Out-patient waiting times in Scotland are now finally coming down, because of the hard work of people in the health service in Scotland. As I have said before, I believe that that is far too late, but waiting times are now coming down and they will go down even further. It is to the credit of members of staff in the health service throughout Scotland that they are now achieving those reductions in waiting times.
But the figures are not coming down; they are going up.
If Ms Sturgeon disbelieves the figures that were published only two weeks ago by the health service in Scotland—
These are your figures.
Order.
If Ms Sturgeon disbelieves those figures, she is questioning something very serious indeed; she is questioning the statisticians who published the figures and who are independent of the Executive. Their figures are subject to scrutiny in the Parliament every quarter, in the proper way.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1502)
We will discuss a range of issues at Cabinet next week, all of which I am sure will be very important to the people of Scotland.
I am sure that they will be. Perhaps I could suggest one issue: the early release of prisoners from our jails. When I raised the matter with the First Minister at question time on 22 April last year, he told me that the early release of people from prison on licence was a matter for the Sentencing Commission. Earlier this week, through its Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, the Executive announced that it would introduce a home detention curfew scheme, which could mean that some prisoners will serve only a quarter of the sentence that is handed out to them in court. Will he please tell me why the Executive is issuing more get-out-of-jail-free cards before it has even received the report from its Sentencing Commission?
That is perhaps not a surprising question, although, given his training, Mr McLetchie should understand the system. As I pointed out to him last year, we were absolutely determined to review the system and we will do so sensibly and effectively through the Sentencing Commission, in the interests of the victims of criminals. I believe that the early release of prisoners without condition is unacceptable to the people of Scotland and needs to be reviewed sensibly and in a judicial context. That is entirely different from a tough regime of home detention curfews, which ensures that there are conditions on those prisoners who leave prison earlier than their full sentence. The curfews put conditions on those people when they are out in the community, making sure that they are properly rehabilitated so that they do not offend again.
The First Minister's idea with the Sentencing Commission was to kick a scandalous situation into the long grass. I remind him that the commission was established in November 2003 and that we are still waiting for a report. Is it not the case that, the longer we wait for a report from the Sentencing Commission and for action to be taken, the greater the number of violent criminals who will be released to commit further crimes? The policies of the Scottish Executive demonstrate that it is far more concerned with emptying our prisons than it is with protecting the public.
That is absolute rubbish. The proposals announced this week under the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill are indeed designed to ensure that we keep people out of prison. We will do that by stopping them reoffending and by ensuring that we have fewer people going in and out of prison again and again because of the ineffectiveness of the system. We will do it by ensuring that we have a tougher regime in prison for those who should be there, locked up for the security of the public, and for those who need to be rehabilitated so that, when they end their short sentence, they do not go back out into the community and commit crimes but go back out into the community with a job, looking after a family and taking some responsibility for their actions and behaviour. That is the purpose of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, which, alongside our new measures to end the early release of sex offenders, will protect more effectively the public and those victims who suffer from the actions of reoffending criminals.
The problem with the First Minister's answer is that, from the evidence from England—where the scheme was first introduced—the reoffending rates of people who were on the home detention curfew scheme are no better than the reoffending rates of those who were not on it. When the scheme was introduced in England, we were told by the Home Secretary that it would apply only to low-risk prisoners. However, since its introduction, 2,107 prisoners who have been released have reoffended—they have been responsible for 3,748 crimes, including 10 sexual offences, 44 robberies and 525 crimes of violence. Is that the First Minister's idea of a successful policy? Will he put the protection of the public first rather than let criminals out of jail early?
Of course we put the protection of the public first. That is why we propose to change the management scheme for offenders in this country and why we want to ensure that we have a system that, from top to bottom, is more coherent, seamless and in the interests of victims. We want a system that ensures that, whether a person is given a custodial or a non-custodial sentence, as well as serving their time, they will be forced to be rehabilitated in the process. In due course, that will ensure that fewer people will reoffend in Scotland after having committed a crime and served time. It is in the interests not only of victims of initial crimes, but of everybody in Scotland to ensure that we have a better system and less crime in the future, with fewer people reoffending and more people returning back into the community from their first offence and sentence to proper jobs, looking after their families and being decent members of society.
Did the First Minister see last night's BBC documentary on Kilmarnock prison? The programme vindicated all the points that I have made in the past six years about the anarchic shambles that is Kilmarnock prison. Does he agree that a particular concern is that there have been seven suicides in the prison, at least two of which could have been prevented if the prison had been properly managed? Stewart Yates, a former assistant director of the prison, said:
To describe the situation in Kilmarnock as an "anarchic shambles" is, in effect, to call the prisons inspectorate liars. I say to Mr Neil that that is an unfortunate exaggeration of the situation. The prisons inspectorate is responsible for inspecting our prisons and ensuring that where action is required, it is taken. The Scottish Prison Service will rightly look into the matter as a result of the programme that was shown last night. We expect it to take the action that is required to ensure that anything that needs to be corrected in Kilmarnock prison will be corrected as soon as possible.
As the local member for Kilmarnock, I would welcome Mr Neil coming along to Kilmarnock prison with me. I have visited the prison and met the workforce many times.
Those are fair points. It is also important to take on board the points that were made last night by a very independent former chief inspector of prisons in Scotland in the small bit of the programme that I saw. He said that public and private sector prisons in Scotland must deal with these matters. In tackling these matters and setting standards, we must not only ensure that existing standards are met; it is also vital to improve on those standards. That is precisely why we introduced the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill in the Parliament this week. We want to ensure that our prisons and our community sentences system stop reoffending and ensure that criminals learn from their actions and that the public come first.
Public Sector Workers (Pensions)
To ask the First Minister whether he will attend a rally on 23 March 2005 organised by public sector workers in defence of their pension rights and in opposition to plans to raise their retirement age by five years. (S2F-1511)
No, but I encourage all who have views to express about those matters to respond to the on-going consultations.
Surely the fact that the Labour Party conference last weekend voted to condemn the United Kingdom Government's great pensions robbery is ample reason for the First Minister to attend the rally. On which side of Labour's great pensions divide does the First Minister stand—the side of the Scottish Labour Party conference or the side of the national Labour Government? Does he believe that public sector workers throughout Scotland are right to be up in arms about the great pensions swindle that they are suffering, or does he believe that they are mistaken about the Government's plans to rob them of their pension rights and force them to work five years longer? What does he intend to do to defend their pension rights?
Those claims are not true for the staff who are currently in public sector pension schemes and they are not true for those who will retire between now and 2013. It is important that people respond to the current consultations. The Government at the UK level, where the responsibility for much of the issue lies, and here in Scotland will not respond to those consultations until they are over and we have heard everybody's views. We will then have the chance to make decisions about the way forward.
Is it not true that each public sector worker stands to lose at least £20,000 if the proposed changes go ahead? I am sure that public sector workers throughout the country will be, frankly, disgusted by the First Minister's evasions. Will he do them and the Parliament the courtesy of providing straight answers to three straight questions? Does he support the raising of the retirement age by five years—yes or no? Does he support the early retirement age being pushed back by five years—yes or no? Does he support the abolition of the final salary pension scheme—yes or no?
I do not think that anybody who had any interest in taxpayers' money or in the proper, efficient use of public resources would deny the fact that there should be a review of public sector pensions to ensure that we are able not only to adapt our public sector pension schemes to the changing nature of the workforce and our society, in which people are living longer and wanting to work longer, but to look after public finances properly. The consultation is on-going and it is important that people respond to it. The consultation responses will be listened to and we will respond to them in due course.
Air-guns
To ask the First Minister what action will be taken to curb reckless and irresponsible use of air-guns. (S2F-1512)
The tragic shooting in Glasgow last week demonstrated just how dangerous air weapons are in the wrong hands. I am sure that the Parliament will join me in expressing our sympathy with the family of young Andrew Morton. We are contributing to the current Home Office review of firearms law, which is considering carefully whether further controls on air weapons are necessary. We will report back to the Parliament as soon as we can.
Like everyone else in Scotland, I was saddened and distressed by the events in Craigend last week. The area is represented by my colleague Margaret Curran and I had the privilege to serve it as a Glasgow city councillor for eight years. Does the First Minister recognise the fact that the decent majority of people in areas such as Craigend require our constant support in tackling persistent problems of antisocial behaviour—none more antisocial and dangerous than the misuse of air rifles? Will he ensure that the Executive makes it an urgent priority to deal with the purchase, regulation and use of such weapons in Scotland to reduce the possibility of such a tragedy occurring again?
I agree with Mr McAveety. As I said last weekend, it would be wrong for politicians to have an immediate, knee-jerk reaction to the tragic circumstances facing that family and that community. Nevertheless, it is important that we do not rule out even the most severe action that we could take. We need to make it more difficult for people to acquire air-guns and to ensure that there are fewer air-guns in circulation. We are actively engaged with the Home Office in determining measures that will help to secure those objectives. The Executive is determined to close loopholes and to consider all options for tighter control and we will press the Home Office to make any changes that we think are required.
I welcome the First Minister's comments. However, I should point out that replica weapons are as much of a problem as air-guns in our society. As we approach the ninth anniversary of the Dunblane massacre, is it not about time that we had a consolidated act that addressed such matters? Why, when Scottish ministers are competent and capable of taking a different approach from that taken south of the border to the problem of knives and swords, are we incapable of addressing the problem of the prevalence of replica weapons and air-guns, which are causing misery and tragedy in our society?
Mr MacAskill might feel incapable, but I certainly do not. We intend to take action on the issue not only in conjunction with the Home Office but in a measured way. I believe that the Home Office confirmed this morning that it has already proposed to take action on replica weapons and that it is already considering new legislation on firearms. However, I think that it probably needs to go further than that.
Prevention of Terrorism Bill
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive expects Scottish police forces to employ the proposed house arrest, tagging and curfew measures outlined in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. (S2F-1517)
The Prevention of Terrorism Bill is reserved legislation, but Scottish police forces have a duty to enforce the law, no matter whether it is made at Westminster or at Holyrood.
The First Minister is aware that Liberal Democrats and many others, including eminent Labour people such as Helena Kennedy and Derry Irvine, are very uneasy about the direction of the Labour Government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation. Is he aware that that unease is particularly shared by many people in Scotland's law-abiding Muslim community, who fear that they could be targeted by the legislation? Does he agree that the bill's somewhat questionable advantages would not be worth the cost of impairing the good relations with Scotland's Muslim community that the Executive has worked so hard to achieve? What practical reassurances can he give that community on the matter?
I should point out that we are straying into reserved matters.
As the bill will go through many debates and, potentially, more changes in the day-to-day business of the House of Commons, it would be a good leap of the imagination to talk about what might result at the end of the day. However, I must say that I do not agree with Robert Brown. There is a case for looking at the legislation. We have a duty in Scotland to ensure not only that our police forces enforce the law, wherever it is made, but that we work very closely with Muslim and other minority communities in Scotland so that they are properly a part of our society. They must feel strongly that they have a part to play in enforcing the law, not that they are unreasonably subject to it. We will therefore continue to work closely with the Muslim community and others to ensure that everyone feels very welcome in Scotland.
Private Health Cover
To ask the First Minister how many people have opted out of the national health service to take private health cover in the last year. (S2F-1508)
Fortunately, because the Tories have not won the general election yet—
Yet.
I was there first. We need to remind people that that is still a possibility, because they need to know what might happen.
I thank the First Minister for not answering my question. I advise him that figures from a private health analyst show that 1,000 Scots leave the NHS and pay for private health care every week and that thousands more are forced to seek private treatment in dentistry and chiropody. Does he acknowledge that, whereas the Tories would offer people the choice of paying for private treatment, the Liberals and Labour are forcing people into private care?
Thankfully, so far—although one never knows what the Scottish National Party will do—the Tory party is the only party that supports forcing people to opt out of the national health service to secure operations in the private sector. Yet again, Mr McLetchie has made it absolutely clear that the Tory party's main policy—in fact, its only policy—for the health service that has been publicised for the forthcoming general election is that people who can already afford to pay will get a subsidy directly from the health service to help them to pay for private health care. That money will be taken away from the care of those who cannot afford to pay. Everyone in Scotland needs to know that the direct implication of electing the Tories in the general election would be that those who can afford to pay would get a subsidy and those who cannot afford to pay would get less.
Despite all the bluster, is the First Minister not concerned that the increase in the number of people taking up private medical insurance in Scotland, which is faster than the increase south of the border, reflects people's frustration and concern about waiting too long for treatment? My colleague Nicola Sturgeon pointed out that frustration earlier, but the First Minister did not respond to the point. Given the Executive's pledge to decrease out-patient waiting times to no more than six months by the end of 2005, will the First Minister explain why 35,058 people were waiting for more than six months at the end of last year? How will he meet his pledge and reassure people, so that they do not have to turn to private medical insurance because of the NHS's failure to get to grips with waiting times?
I am glad that Ms Robison has the figures, which show that out-patient waiting times came down in Scotland in the last quarter. I hope that she will give them to Ms Sturgeon, who was clearly ill informed in her earlier question. I will not take lessons from the SNP on health service spending in a week when it proposed to take £1 billion directly out of the Scottish budget—more than £700 million in corporation tax and more than £200 million in business rates. Given that the health service in Scotland takes up a third of our budget, that means that more than £300 million would be taken out of the service if the SNP ever managed to achieve independence. The SNP should be more honest about where the cuts would come, rather than proposing them on a Tuesday and not wanting to talk about them on a Thursday.
Does the First Minister agree with me—
Yes.
Order.
Does the First Minister agree that the election of a Tory Government would put at risk the £130 million capital investment in the right for Fife project and the new St Andrews community hospital? Does he agree that, under the Tories, we would not have the investment in improving out-patient and local community care services that we have had under the Executive?
Services would be put at risk by the incredible scale of cuts that the Tories propose and by the cuts that the SNP proposes. The fact that the number of people in Scotland who wait more than six months, nine months and 12 months is lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and that Scotland is the only place in the UK where no one waits more than nine months for in-patient treatment would also be put at risk. Scotland has a lower median wait than anywhere else in the UK. It has the fastest treatment times for heart disease in the UK. By voting for the SNP or the Tories, people would be putting at risk all those achievements and improvements and all that investment. I urge them not to do it.
Meeting suspended until 14:00.
On resuming—
Previous
Early Years Education and Child CareNext
Question Time