Plenary, 14 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, June 14, 2001

Official Report 633KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1F-1136)

Before the First Minister answers, I remind him that there are children in the gallery and that his microphone is switched on.

I ask Sir David to confirm that my microphone is working.

I confirm that the First Minster's microphone is switched on.

I am mightily relieved to hear that.

I am somewhat surprised at the question. After last Friday, I thought that everyone in Scotland knew what I had discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, in answer to the question, I met the Secretary of State for Scotland last Friday.

I remind the First Minister of his new year message, issued to the readers of the Sunday Post, no less. In it he said that the hallmark of his leadership would be to say what he meant and to mean what he said.

Is that an explanation as to why, last Friday, the First Minister was caught knifing his Labour colleagues?

Mr Swinney had a few days to think about that question and I would have thought that we might have got a better one than that. However, why be disappointed? Consistency is a virtue, as far as the SNP is concerned.

When I addressed the readers of the Sunday Post, that illustrious organ of the press, I was talking about what divides Labour and the SNP in last week's election result.

When we speak about the Scottish people, we will be justified in what we do and we will be praised for what we deliver on every policy front. We saw the result of the election last week. It must be the first time in recorded history that the nationalists went into an election saying that it was going to be a two-horse race and ended up third.

I am sorry to have to tell the First Minister and his hapless Liberal Democrat colleagues that the SNP was second in the Scottish Parliament election.

The First Minister said that a lot divides us, but let me try to unite us. Last year, the First Minister and I won a parliamentary award for building consensus in the Scottish Parliament. Let me try to build another note of consensus today. Does the First Minister agree—he said it last Friday—that Brian Wilson is indeed a liability?

I think that that was an attempt to be patronising. I can live with the ebb and flow of political fortune. Politics is a tough business, but we knew that when we got into it. Members are shouting, "yes" and "no".

If we are talking about hapless people, I will tell members where the hapless people are—they are sitting on the SNP side of the chamber. Let us record the fact that the SNP share of the vote was the worst election result in many years: indeed it was the worst since 1987. The SNP will go down in history as the party that let the Conservatives back into Scotland. In 1974, the SNP sent a football team to Westminster. In 2001, the SNP can barely muster a five-a-side team.

We all know why the First Minister is irritated. He spent the election talking up the Tories and being Hague's big helper in Scotland and now he has also produced one of his many thousands of gaffes—it is death by a thousand gaffes. We know now that Brian Wilson is a liability and that John Reid is a patronising one of those words that begins with B and ends with D. [Members: "Bald."] The First Minister tries to tell us that partnership runs through the Labour manifesto like lettering through a stick of rock. It is not a stick of rock it is a baseball bat. It is not partnership, it is open warfare. [Interruption.]

Order.

I will let the laughter subside before I re-enter. To describe that contribution as pathetic would be an abuse of the English language.

Let us end on a serious point. The Scottish National Party does not want to hear it. Let me remind the SNP that the most important event of last week did not happen on Friday morning; it happened on Thursday. That was when the Scottish people started to see through a party that is in no-man's-land. The SNP will not actually support independence—although the issues that were raised in the leadership bid were reminiscent of where the party has been—but neither will it support the chamber by saying that devolution is the way forward. We will take no lectures from a failed SNP and look forward with considerable relish to 2003.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I am glad to see that there is such delight among Labour members for the follicularly challenged. This is one bald Conservative leader who intends to succeed.

Can we get on to the question?

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-1137)

The Cabinet will next meet on 19 June, when it will discuss issues of importance to the people of our country.

I hope that, when the Cabinet meets, it will give some early attention to the financial problems that affect our nursing and residential homes as a result of the inadequate level of payments that councils are making for the care of the elderly. The First Minister will be aware that it was reported this morning that nursing homes in Aberdeen will refuse to take any more local authority placements because they simply cannot afford to provide the care that is needed for the sum that is being paid to them.

Will the First Minister tell us what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to resolve that serious problem?

I welcome the question because David McLetchie is right to identify a serious issue that affects every part of Scotland.

Our ministers are working hard to ensure that we facilitate discussions between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, other local authorities and the nursing home owners. A meeting was held on 11 June. There is to be a further meeting in early July at which the rate of payment in particular can be addressed. I remain hopeful that we can ensure that we have no further difficulties. That is especially important as we are dealing with the older section of the community, which involves sensitive issues, and families who worry greatly about their older people.

I reassure David McLetchie that progress is being made. I urge all those involved to reach a speedy conclusion in the interests of the long-term care of elderly people.

Is the First Minister aware that there is considerable disparity between the cost of maintaining a resident in a local-authority-run residential home and the amount that local authorities pay to the independent sector, whether private or voluntary, for such provision? Is he also aware that many home owners feel that the system is biased against them and that there needs to be a much more level financial playing field than exists at present? Does the First Minister accept that, unless we sort that bias out, more homes will close and more patients—more elderly people—will languish in hospital beds? That is not in their interests and not in the interests of the national health service.

I am pleased to acknowledge the difficulties that David McLetchie outlined. The issue is not new. It has been simmering for a considerable time. However, we now want to give a short-term benefit to the nursing homes, but that will not be the medium to long-term solution. It is in the interests of the nursing home owners to make sure that we have a permanent solution for the older people who are involved.

I point out that there are discrepancies—the Tories would call them differences—in Scotland between one area and another. Of course, there are differences between what local authorities pay for their residential homes and those in the private sector. However—forgive me for taking a minute on the matter; David McLetchie has raised important points—the Parliament and the Executive are committed to a new deal for older people in Scotland.

We will move to free personal care soon, but we do not want to address one part of what we are doing and ignore another. We want to have a cohesive policy that looks generously at care for our older people and ensures that we do everything possible to tackle the immediate issue. I hope that the matter will be resolved in early July.

Will the First Minister join me—and urge the whole chamber to join me—in asking the Grampian nursing home owners to call off their action, in view of the fact that the people who are suffering as a result of it are old people? The Government now understands the problem and is acting on the matter. The action should be called off today.

I will respond by going slightly further than I did at the Association of Directors of Social Work conference last Friday. I understand the frustration with the nursing home owners and the frustration in social work. I understand organisations, such as Age Concern, which represent those who are frustrated.

I endorse Richard Simpson's point by appealing to the home owners. I have given a commitment today in the hope that the matter will be resolved. Malcolm Chisholm and Susan Deacon are working hard to ensure we facilitate discussions. On that basis, with a bit of trust, and in the interests of longer-term care for older people, I say to the nursing home owners, "Please stop any further action. Stick with us round the table. Let us see what happens in early July. That would be not only in the interests of the Parliament and the Executive, but—more important—in the interests of the people of Scotland."

---

Public Protection

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to give greater protection to the public from people who have committed serious violent and sexual crimes. (S1F-1150)

There have been two major developments this week.

On 11 June, we published our proposals for the sentencing, management and treatment of serious violent and sexual offenders. We intend to legislate on the proposals as soon as possible. On 12 June, the expert panel on sex offending, chaired by the Honourable Lady Cosgrove, published its report, "Reducing the Risk: Improving the response to sex offending". The report will go out for public consultation, which will inform decisions on implementing the recommendations of the report.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. I welcome the announcement earlier this week of the lifelong restriction orders. I realise that they will be used only in exceptional cases, but their existence will reassure us that the protection of the most vulnerable in society, especially children, is paramount.

I ask the First Minister for reassurance that, if orders such as those are put in place, they will not be a substitute for the excellent treatment programmes for sex offenders, such as the ones in Inverness prison and other Scottish prisons. Will the First Minister consider how rehabilitation work could continue for the duration of those lifelong orders?

I give Maureen Macmillan complete reassurance on every point that she has raised. She has identified one of the key developments from the studies that we have been doing, which ensures that we have the possibility of lifelong restriction orders. That is not to punish individuals unnecessarily but to make absolutely sure that people who are a threat to public safety and the community are incarcerated in that way.

A key part of our penal system will be rehabilitation. We must always work on the premise, whether the problem is mental illness or other difficulties, that people will have a chance to go back into the community. That will always be at the forefront of our minds. At the end of the day, people in Scotland can be reassured that we are also taking action on those mentally ill offenders who might be a constant threat to the public. We do not want their activities to be reproduced in the future as they have been in the past.

In view of the recent conviction—for the murder of an elderly man in Kirkcudbright—of a young person recently released from the Crichton royal hospital in Dumfries, will the First Minister undertake to review the arrangements for the aftercare of such patients, to give some assurance of the security of constituents throughout the country?

I am happy to take Alasdair Morgan's point, to respond to him specifically on that case and to draw out some of the wider implications.

The lifelong restriction order will be part of a thorough process in which criteria will be used to try to ensure that rights are protected. However, in cases where there is a possibility of further action, as we have heard described today, we can try to nullify that or remove it by ensuring that those restrictions are applied. I am very happy to look into the specifics of the case, and I will widen it out and give the member a full response.

---

Central Heating Initiative

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made to date regarding the Scottish Executive's central heating initiative. (S1F-1151)

We are making excellent progress. Local authorities are already installing central heating under the programme, allocations will shortly be made to housing associations, and the recommendations of the central heating working group are being implemented in the scheme for elderly people in the private sector. We will meet our programme for government commitment that every council and housing association tenant and every elderly person has central heating by April 2006, and we are already examining how the programme can be extended.

I am somewhat perplexed by the First Minister's answer. Is he aware that 15 local authorities have said that not a single pensioner in their area will qualify for that initiative, because of restrictive eligibility criteria? Does he agree with Highland Council that the initiative is a "cruel deception"? Does he accept the view of Age Concern Scotland that

"there is clearly something wrong with the Scottish Executive Scheme when only one in 60 pensioners qualify"—

8,000, rather than the 100,000 promised? Does the £350 million promised for the initiative actually exist, and what will he do to save Scotland's poorest pensioners from shivering through yet another Scottish winter?

We have clearly committed ourselves to ensuring that every elderly person and everyone who rents from a local authority or housing association will have central heating by April 2006. One would expect any member of any party to say that that is pioneering work in the long-term interests of people who will benefit in Scotland. It is the essential forms of central heating that we must put first into the homes of those who have maximum priority, but we will, of course, consider proposals to extend the scheme thereafter.

I do not want to put a discordant note into a discussion on such a serious subject, but members must not continue to distort and talk down imaginative schemes that are in the long-term interest of the people of Scotland. We are in touch with the people of Scotland, but the SNP merely seeks cheap political headlines at their expense.

---

Ministerial Responsibilities

To ask the First Minister what plans he has for changes in ministerial responsibilities. (S1F-1140)

Allocation of ministerial responsibilities is entirely a matter for me.

Will the First Minister tell us exactly what the Minister for Finance and Local Government's new responsibilities for central services are and whether there is any truth in reports that he is also to be given responsibility for European and external affairs?

On the latter point, there are no plans to change that portfolio. We are talking about members, rightly, reading our national newspapers. That is important in a democracy. It is also right that my Cabinet and junior ministers are delivering for Scotland on the widest range of radical policies that this country has seen in the post-war period. That is the true test of what we are delivering for Scotland. I therefore take Dennis Canavan's question about how I allocate ministerial responsibilities with a minor pinch of salt. It is vital that we continue the programme that we have embarked upon. That is why every minister in the Cabinet and all the junior ministers are working hard to ensure that.

Will the First Minister give us an undertaking that he will appoint a minister for tourism? If not, why not?

When I was Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, that comment was often made. The answer to Ms MacDonald's question is no. As she knows, I hate saying no to her.

I know. I know.

Before this answer gets very much more complicated, I would like to add that we have two ministers who deal with tourism and a whole Cabinet that takes the matter very seriously indeed. We are ensuring that, after the foot-and-mouth outbreak and a whole series of other problems, we win through for that important industry.

---

Primary Health Care

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive is making towards achieving its objectives for primary health care. (S1F-1149)

We are making considerable progress in the development of primary care through initiatives such as the recently announced extra expenditure of £18.5 million on personal medical services and the development of NHS24.

We have also decided to invest a substantial part of the additional resources that we received as budget consequentials on primary care. The money will be spent to improve access to services, to manage chronic conditions more proactively at home and to redress inequalities in health.

By resourcing primary care to do more, we will free up time in hospitals. The details will be given when formal decisions on the budget consequentials are announced in due course.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. I am delighted to hear that the important primary care sector will benefit from this large investment. However, while I welcome the ambitious plan to provide patients with access to an appropriate member of the primary care team within 48 hours, could the First Minister outline what practical measures the Scottish Executive will put in place to ensure that that time scale can be met?

I take Janis Hughes's point. We are not going to commit ourselves to ambitious programmes without putting in place delivery mechanisms and processes to ensure that they are achieved. In the circumstances, I will take the question, which the Minister for Health and Community Care has been listening to, and give Janis Hughes a full response on the details behind the question that she posed.

Is the First Minister aware that those with profound sleep problems are having their treatment withdrawn? Would he investigate the matter urgently, because the patients concerned very much need the treatment that is currently being given?

I am being prompted and tempted from every quarter to refer to a member in the chamber, but of course I will not do that. I believe that he fell asleep, but I do not want to go into that in too much detail.

I know that most constituency MSPs, including me, have received requests about the subject. The health department is considering the issue. Although it may look like a superficial issue, it badly affects a number of people. The work that is being done should be applauded and, again, I will get some details on the matter to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

The First Minister will have seen that a policy reversal was announced down south yesterday, to abandon waiting list targets as a key indicator of success in the health service. Having failed to achieve the targets in Scotland, will the First Minister give us an assurance that he will not abandon waiting list targets?

I will make two points in response to Alex Neil's question. First, I think that the Parliament agrees that waiting times are more important than waiting lists. Secondly, we committed ourselves to achieving the waiting list targets by April 2002. We will continue to press on that, to ensure that we deliver.