Plenary, 14 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, February 14, 2002

Official Report 777KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues he intends to raise at his next meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S1F-1678)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly. We always discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Will the First Minister explain to Parliament why Scottish Executive policy on acute bed numbers in our hospitals has been described as one of "aggressive reduction"?

If our policy has been described in that way, the description is clearly untrue. Anyone with any regard for the health service would have only to take a look around Scotland at the new facilities that are available in so many centres to appreciate not only that beds are available, but that the beds that are available are in high-quality facilities. It is time that, instead of coming to the Parliament week after week to denigrate the staff and the facilities in our health service, Mr Swinney showed a little bit more concern for the patients and a little bit less concern for politics.

I never come to the Parliament to denigrate the staff. I come to the Parliament to ensure that the staff can get on with their job of delivering patient care in Scotland.

The First Minister said that my assertion was clearly untrue. The assertion was not mine—it was made by a prominent Scottish academic and is borne out in fact. There were 18,365 acute beds in Scotland's hospitals when the Executive was formed. At present, the figure is 17,750. That represents a cut of 615 acute beds.

Consultants are expressing concern about the amount of bed space that is available to meet the demands that are put on the health service. Is not it time that the First Minister reversed his policy of aggressively cutting acute bed numbers in Scotland?

There is no aggressive cutting of acute bed numbers or of bed numbers overall. Mr Swinney comes to the Parliament week after week and refuses to accept that there are trends in our health care service that improve treatment, improve the use of equipment, improve and localise the service for patients and ensure that people are treated more quickly and more often than ever before. He refuses to accept that week after week. If Mr Swinney had any background in the health service—if he would visit hospitals and wards and meet the patients and staff—he would see that the facilities and the quality of care are being improved. Much is still to be done, but the situation is an awful lot better than it used to be.

I visit plenty of hospitals in Scotland to find out what staff feel about the health service in Scotland. The staff talk about the fact that there are 615 fewer acute beds, while waiting times are getting longer and waiting lists are rising. Is not it time that the First Minister did what the Deputy First Minister suggested earlier and adopted good practices from elsewhere? Perhaps the First Minister might follow the words of Alan Milburn, who said that the NHS needs more, not fewer, beds. Is not it time that the First Minister ended his obsession with private finance and all that goes with it? He should put patients before profits.

Yet again, we are getting to the truth of the matter, which is that Mr Swinney opposes the significant new facilities that are available in the health service in Scotland. At the previous election, I do not remember the nationalist candidate in my constituency wandering around the streets of Wishaw saying, "Don't build that new hospital." However, that is what Mr Swinney and his party want to happen and is exactly what would have happened if they had won the election. The same applies in Edinburgh, in East Kilbride and elsewhere.

I presume that, when Mr Swinney visits those hospitals around Scotland, he does not see improvements such as those highlighted in the news this week. For example, the high dependency and the intensive care units are now closer to the wards and the operating theatres. Not only are beds and equipment being improved, but more patients are being treated more quickly and more locally. That saves lives.

It is time that Mr Swinney admitted those facts. He should stop running down our national health service.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the right honourable First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1663)

My secret society is probably more open than David McLetchie's.

The Cabinet will next meet on 27 February. The agenda will include matters that require decisions that week.

The First Minister has not given as fulsome a response as usual.

What is the Cabinet's view on yesterday's proceedings in the Parliament? I know that the Scottish Executive is officially neutral on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill and that different members of the Executive differ in their views on the bill. Bearing it in mind that the Executive and Government agencies must implement and police the bill—and in light of the proposed legal challenges that were today announced by the Scottish Countryside Alliance—I want to ask whether the Cabinet will reconsider the bill's implications. Is the First Minister content that the bill as passed yesterday complies with the European convention on human rights and, accordingly, is within the legislative competence of the Parliament?

Yes. There is no reason to question the bill's legislative competence. The question whether the bill should be referred to other authorities, which is what Mr McLetchie called for earlier today, does not therefore arise.

Clearly, I would not be in the Scottish Labour party if I agreed with the history and traditions of the Scottish Conservative party, but our parties have historically shared a tradition of a duty to the law, which means the carrying out of legal obligations. I hope that Mr McLetchie's party will not stand in the way of the Parliament's legal decisions and of the laws that must now be implemented. I hope that, instead of standing with those who threaten to break that law, he will stand with the Parliament and with those who wish the law to be carried out.

I have never for one moment suggested that the law of this land should be broken. That is unlike many in the Labour party, who have a chequered record in that respect.

In the law of the land, section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 allows the Lord Advocate, the Attorney General and the Advocate General—who generally has little to do—to refer any measure that is passed by the Parliament for determination to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which the First Minister has just been appointed. Rather than having a whole series of individual legal challenges, would not it make sense to refer the bill to that body, so that the issue could be determined once and for all, and so that people would know exactly where the bill stands?

No. I do not think that that would be sensible. I hope that Mr McLetchie will be true to his word and will encourage those involved in that minority organisation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance—support for which I notice has decreased rather than increased in the past few months—to stand by the Parliament rather than with those who advocate defying the law.

That is serious, but it is also a serious matter that the so-called divide between rural and urban Scotland has been portrayed in this Parliament in the way that it has. I heard members of Mr McLetchie's party on radio and television last night describing a Parliament that I could not recognise. I do not believe that the Parliament has let down rural Scotland in the past three years. I believe that it has paid attention both to rural and to urban Scotland. Our duty in the Parliament is to serve both and to bridge the divides, if there are any, between the two. Given the fact that the Conservatives were at 9 per cent in an opinion poll in The Herald on Monday, it is probably not surprising that they want to discuss hunting all the time in the Parliament; it is the only thing in Scotland that is less popular than they are.

---

Criminal Justice (Rape Convictions)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to improve the conviction rate in rape cases. (S1F-1670)

I would like to make it clear that I regard rape and other sexual crimes as extremely serious offences that must be dealt with sensitively, competently and firmly. In any individual case, however, whether the accused should be convicted is properly a matter for the jury involved.

I accept that perhaps "prosecution" might have been a better word to use in my question than "conviction"—we will not get convictions unless we get prosecutions. I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the Executive is progressing a number of good initiatives that will help to build trust in the system, but they will succeed only if the people who deliver them have adequate training to deal sensitively and seriously with that most horrible and traumatising form of assault. Will the First Minister use all the means at his disposal to direct and encourage adequate training for police officers, court officers, medical personnel and others?

Yes, I will. One of the things that the Parliament should be proud of is its record in tackling such issues. I hope that the changes that will be made next month when the Parliament passes the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Bill will make a difference to figures that have been a matter of concern for many years.

I reassure the Parliament that we are committed to training in the sensitive, proper and competent handling of reported cases and that taking those cases through to conviction is particularly important. I understand that one of the top priorities for training in the prosecution service this year will be the training of fiscals and others in the handling of child witnesses and children who have been abused. That training programme is continuing, and I would like it to remain a priority for the Executive and for the other bodies involved.

Does the First Minister agree that the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Bill is only the start of improving the justice system for sexual assault victims? Will he examine why the police clearance rate for sexual assault has remained constant for the past 10 years, while the number of sexual assault cases proceeding to court has fallen? Does not that suggest that there is a problem with the procedures used in those cases and that changes are needed to tackle crimes where the victim knows the suspect?

As I am sure Mr Paterson is only too well aware, given his interest in the topic, this is a complex area in which there are no simple solutions. I believe that the bill, which will come before Parliament for its final stage next month, is a step in the right direction, but it is only one of a number of steps. Other steps should include improved training, improved guidance and other support for victims, which will be provided by the new victim liaison support offices that are now being established throughout the Procurator Fiscal Service. We will want to consider further changes in future. We should continue to do that and to learn from experience elsewhere, but we should ensure that the changes that we introduce are appropriate to our Scottish legal system and are not simply copied from elsewhere for the sake of it. Such complex issues require detailed and well-considered solutions.

As the First Minister has acknowledged, the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Bill is important because it will address the experience of women rape victims in the legal system, which currently deters the reporting of the crime, rather than the crime itself. Does the First Minister agree that key elements in addressing the low conviction rate will include listening to organisations that work with women survivors of sexual crime, such as Rape Crisis, and supporting those organisations with the appropriate resources?

Those organisations have an important role to play and in many cases they are involved in the training that has taken place or is about to take place. Some of those organisations survived for a long time on scarce resources and performed a heroic task when the systems were perhaps less sensitive than they are today. We will improve the systems in partnership with those who have made a voluntary effort over many years and will continue to do so in the future.

Does the First Minister accept that it is essential that procurators fiscal and their offices are properly resourced, particularly in view of the huge volume of cases with which they have to deal? Will he reflect on the fact that that was a matter highlighted in the Chhokar case? Is he aware of the fears that have been expressed in Tayside that procurators fiscal might be lost as the result of a cost-cutting exercise? Will he look into those matters with urgency, as a stronger commitment is required?

Yes. I do not want, on the hoof, to commit my colleagues to spending additional money. That is not something that I will do too often as First Minister. However, we must adequately resource those working in our prosecution and court services. We must work hard on the systems and give them strong leadership and direction to move them into the modern age. That is why one of the first things that I did on becoming First Minister was to appoint a Solicitor General—it was not a party-political appointment—who had worked in the service and who, I believe, can take it forward. I am delighted that that step is already producing some improvements.

---

Surveillance Operations

To ask the First Minister what information is currently available on the level of surveillance operations in Scotland. (S1F-1681)

The annual reports of the interception of communications commissioners and of the chief surveillance commissioner contain information on the use of interception of communications and covert surveillance in Scotland. The latest reports were laid before Parliament on 31 October 2001 and 17 January 2002.

The First Minister will know that I take a keen interest in civil liberties and I have some concern about recent reports regarding the level of surveillance in Scotland. Does he agree that, as Monday's Daily Record editorial commented, surveillance to combat serious organised crime, including drug-related crime, can be justified only as long as it is undertaken legally and properly?

I noticed the publicity on that topic earlier this week. It is difficult for Mr Wallace and me to give details of individual cases or even broad-brush indications of the sorts of cases that we have to authorise. However, I want to reassure Parliament that every authorisation of an interception is done with great care and after due consideration of all the facts in front of us. Issues of serious crime have been involved in every case that I have had to authorise since I became First Minister. I have no regrets whatever about any of those authorisations.

Those who glibly criticise the process—I notice that earlier this week some members did just that—are simply wrong. If we in Scotland were to be as soft on crime and the tackling of crime using surveillance procedures as Miss Cunningham and others were indicating that we should be, that would be a grave mistake. Surveillance is an important part of our ability to tackle organised, serious crime and I have no hesitation in continuing to support it.

Notwithstanding what the First Minister has just said, I am sure that he is aware that warrants are being issued in Scotland at twice the rate that they are issued south of the border. Given that we have a not-very-liberal minister south of the border and a so-called Liberal minister north of the border, how is the different rate explained? Does the First Minister not believe that Scots deserve a better explanation of such disproportionate surveillance in this country than that which he has given, which amounts to a shrug of his shoulders?

Miss Cunningham's constituents will be shocked to hear her views on the matter. The commissioner has said:

"I have been very impressed by the quality and the dedication and the enthusiasm of behalf of the Government. I have been impressed with the care that they take with their warrantry work, which is very time consuming, to ensure that warrants are issued only in appropriate cases and in particular ensuring that the conduct authorised is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by the interception."

Miss Cunningham said in the Daily Record on Monday:

"it would seem that the Lib-Lab coalition are much more keen on bugging than the Conservatives ever were."

We might be keener on surveillance than Miss Cunningham, but we are certainly more keen on dealing with drug traffickers, serious criminals, crimes of violence and the other matters that the warrants cover. If Miss Cunningham wants to be soft on crime, I hope that she is alone in that in the Parliament.