First Minister's Question Time
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he last met the Prime Minister and what issues were discussed. (S1F-535)
I met the Prime Minister last at the joint ministerial committee meeting in Edinburgh on 1 September. We discussed matters of mutual interest. I want to be helpful, so I will tell Mr Salmond that we discussed in particular the success of devolution in Scotland.
That would not have taken long.
Does the First Minister agree that, having dealt in his statement today with how the emergency situation is proceeding, we should now examine the underlying causes of the unrest? I saw the Prime Minister in a live broadcast from Downing Street at 1 o'clock. In response to the news that Exxon has today increased the posted price of petrol by 2p and the price of a litre of diesel by 4p, he said that he "cannot understand" why fuel companies increase prices.
Does the First Minister accept that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland cannot understand why the Prime Minister does not act to bring fuel prices down?
I certainly accept that tax reductions tend to be popular and that people want to take them up. However, the consequences on public expenditure and social investment and the balancing that may have to be done in other parts of the fiscal system are not necessarily so popular. I am sure that Mr Salmond will admit that, as I pointed out, other matters—such as vehicle excise duty and the toll systems on many continental roads—must be taken into consideration. If Mr Salmond took the trouble to do that, he would find that the sum is much more complicated than he suggests.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates the chancellor's windfall from rising oil prices at £600 million from the increase in VAT and up to £2,000 million from direct oil taxation. Does not the First Minister accept that that is a substantial windfall, which could be used to bring prices down and help fuel-dependent industries?
The Prime Minister also stated:
"Of course we will listen".
Will the First Minister act now to call a summit of those who are affected by the crisis, the fuel-dependent industries and the political parties to take a joint Scottish message to Tony Blair that something must be done to bring fuel prices down?
I am always interested in discussion and debate, but I am not sure that the kind of summit that Mr Salmond suggests would be likely to reach a unanimous view. In the very near future, we will announce a sharp increase in public spending. Despite that, there will be people, some of whom are probably in the gallery here today—certainly people from rural areas—who will ask why we do not spend more on A, B, C, D, E or F. They will ask because they feel that there is a genuine need for that expenditure and that it should be a priority. There are always such choices in politics. Similarly—I make no objection to this, because leaders, while they are leaders, are entitled to lead—I was interested to see that Mr Salmond had simply overridden the clear statement of SNP policy by his deputy leader at the recent Scottish Grand Committee. [Members: "No."] Members are saying, "No," but I have it here. Mr Swinney said—he made it very clear—that a freeze on duty was the clear commitment of the SNP.
Mr Salmond overrode that and said that he would be in favour of taking 2p off the price of a litre of petrol. I do not think that that kind of adjustment is anything more than opportunism. I do Mr Salmond the credit of thinking that he is a serious politician, but I do not believe that he would, outside the needs of being in opposition, advocate making fiscal policy on the basis that we have heard him advocate during the past two or three days.
The First Minister should not be surprised that I want to cut the price of petrol. I voted for it in July in the House of Commons, as did Mr Swinney and the First Minister's deputy, Mr Wallace. I also want the price of petrol in Scotland brought down to the European average over a period of time—that seems only fair for an oil-producing country in Europe.
I also want help for the fuel-dependent industries and an extension of the essential users rebate. I do not understand why we cannot have a national price for fuel throughout Scotland, given that the Government has the power to set one. The First Minister has the right to deal with the immediate crisis that has taken place over the past few days. However, the Government also has a responsibility to listen. Unless the Government shows that it is capable of listening to the voice of protest, the same thing will happen to Blair over the fuel tax as happened to Thatcher over the poll tax.
As a contribution to good manners and tolerance, I will start to refer to Salmond, rather than Mr Salmond, in future.
I believe in good and measured government. I am not desperately impressed by the opportunism of the SNP's ever-extending list of concessions on fuel tax, which seems to be born of the events of the past couple of weeks, rather than any deep commitment. I refer again to Mr Swinney's words:
"We have said that we shall freeze fuel duty. That is our clear policy commitment."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 10 July 2000; c 32.]
Suddenly that commitment is torn up. I also took the trouble to look at the 1997 and 1999 SNP manifestos. In defence of the 1999 manifesto, one could say that fuel duty is a reserved matter, but I did not find any reference to this burning issue in either document. That suggests to me that there is a rather tinny ring to the synthetic anger that we have seen from the SNP in the past day or two.
As Mr Salmond will know, we took a substantial sum out of the costs that are faced by hauliers by changing vehicle excise duty. As he also knows, we will invest a good deal of money in transport during the coming period. Mr Salmond should acknowledge that and our abandonment of the fuel escalator, which was important and helpful.
We will reconsider those matters as, I am sure, will the Government at Westminster. However, we will not be hounded by the spleen of Alex Salmond into making wrong decisions for bad reasons.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he next intends to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise with him. (S1F-523)
I speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland frequently on the telephone; indeed, I spoke to him but a couple of hours ago. However, I might not see him until the Labour Party conference, where I am always glad to have civilised conversation.
Given that the First Minister and the secretary of state had such an enjoyable meeting last year, I am sure that they cannot wait to get to grips with each other again.
I suggest that the First Minister should discuss with Mr Reid the continuing consequences for Scotland of the fuel crisis. As he acknowledged fairly, it will be some time before public services are back to normal. The Conservatives are concerned that one of the consequences to the national health service might be that people have to wait longer for operations in our hospitals.
However, before the fuel protests are blamed for everything that has happened, and history is rewritten by the Executive's spin doctors, will the First Minister confirm—for the record—that waiting lists in the Scottish health service have been rising for the past year and a half and are currently above the level that Labour inherited from the outgoing Conservative Government in May 1997?
I concede that waiting lists have increased—we have made that clear. Mr McLetchie might be quoting from an Executive press statement, which would be an improvement on many of his previous sources. If he is, he might want to examine the rest of the statement, which indicates that there has been considerable progress in bringing down waiting times. I remember that on many occasions in the past, Mr McLetchie and his colleagues have suggested—with some justification—that waiting times were the true test of the health service.
We are taking energetic steps to improve the situation, but that requires a great deal of money and investment—fortunately, we are in a position to provide that. It is important that we deal with the present crisis and minimise the damage to the figures that we are discussing—some damage is likely to result from problems in the aftermath of the fuel demonstrations. I regret that fact and that it will inconvenience patients. That, however, is something that those who were involved in the action would have had to take into account when they made their decisions.
I thank the First Minister for his frankness. I also agree that waiting times are the important component. I suggest that—as Labour chose the target and the benchmark in the previous general election campaign in 1997—the Government should be judged by that target. It was the First Minister's choice and he should stand and fall by it.
On fuel taxes—with which everyone is preoccupied—following the vote this morning on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, there exists a situation in which the Executive, with the support of the SNP, is determined to impose city entry tolls and workplace parking taxes on motorists and businesses throughout Scotland. [Members: "No."] I am afraid that SNP members did not vote for Mr Tosh's amendment today. The SNP will be judged by its record, just as the Executive will.
That action will be taken despite evidence from business organisations, the Scottish Trades Union Congress—which was overwhelmingly opposed to workplace parking taxes—and Labour councils, such as those in Glasgow and Aberdeen, which have said that they will not use the new powers to finance new roads in their areas. Why have the First Minister and the Scottish Executive not learned the lesson of the fuel tax protest, which is that they cannot keep piling taxes on to motorists and businesses without something snapping? Will the First Minister listen to that voice of protest and abandon the new taxes before they do more damage?
On waiting times, I remind Mr McLetchie that 43 per cent of patients are treated immediately and never join a waiting list. Of those who have to wait, 46 per cent are seen within a month and 83 per cent are seen within three months—that is encouraging. We would like to improve the situation, but those figures are a corrective against some of the excitable comments that we hear on the issue.
On taxing motorists, I made the point that we must consider the range of impositions and concessions that apply to motorists. Mr McLetchie will be well aware that, if we consider the official figures, the cost of running a car has risen at a much slower rate than the cost of public transport. Those who—perhaps through economic difficulty—cannot afford a car have had to pay a great deal more for their transport in terms of the increase over the past few years than have those who can afford a car. We must balance those things, but the Transport (Scotland) Bill gives us options. Options should not be taken to mean that everything will be imposed everywhere. It is right that those options should exist. It is right that they should be a matter for local government and central Government to consult on and decide on. It is right to consider what is in the best interests of keeping traffic moving and in the long-term interests of those who drive and ride in cars.
Pensioner Poverty
To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in reducing poverty among pensioners in Scotland since July 1999. (S1F-519)
Will the First Minister join me in welcoming the Scottish confederation of the elderly to the gallery?
I am delighted to see that Mr Neil has been allowed to progress to the second rank. I welcome his question.
A comprehensive programme of action is in place for tackling poverty among pensioners in Scotland. That programme includes the minimum income guarantee, with which Mr Neil will be familiar. We calculate that 200,000 Scots can benefit from it; I say can, because we will have to run a take-up campaign to ensure that all who are entitled to it benefit from it. Nine hundred thousand Scots got the £150 winter fuel payment this year. [Interruption.] I record that that is a fact. If people do not want that £150, they can refuse to take it. The warm deal will benefit 25,000 homes in Scotland each year and 100,000 homes are to be improved under the healthy homes initiative by 2003. There will be a big increase in community care and there will be free television licences for the over-75s.
I want to do more—we all recognise that more must be done. We hope to have something positive to say in the very near future on some of the key areas of investment.
Does not the First Minister find it shameful that now that we have two Labour Governments—one in Edinburgh and one in London—our pensioners are the third poorest in Europe? Will he guarantee today that, after 20 months of waiting, the Scottish Executive will implement the Sutherland report in full? Will he also guarantee to make representations to and use his influence with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to ensure that we never have a repeat of the obscenity of a 75p increase for pensioners, and that pensioners receive a decent increase this year, as they deserve?
Mr Neil might acknowledge that, because that was an inflation-linked increase, it was a mark of the fact that inflation is very low in this country.
Secondly, Mr Neil's figures on Europe are as spurious as many others that he uses.
No they are not.
That might be the case if one considers only the basic state pension, but as Mr Neil knows, in the United Kingdom we have a very substantial occupational pension sector, which makes a big difference to the statistics.
By 2001, as a result of the budget measures that have just been announced, an average UK pensioner will be some £400 a year better off. A 75-year-old pensioner on the minimum income guarantee will receive £950 more a year and a couple on the minimum income guarantee will receive £1,350 more. Alex Neil is being very selective. Perhaps he is, as all Opposition members do—I do not complain, as I was on the Opposition benches for long enough—tailoring those statistics to his own political convenience.
The First Minister mentioned the minimum income guarantee. The findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, which were exposed in The Herald on Monday, show that the number of people living in poverty in this country is higher now than it was two years ago. Will the First Minister therefore acknowledge that means-testing is insulting to our pensioners and that it is an unnecessary and totally inefficient way of tackling pensioner poverty? Will he agree to fight tenaciously on behalf of our pensioners in Scotland for a substantial rise in the basic state pension, in order to tackle poverty in this country?
I welcome the presence of pensioners' delegations in the gallery of Parliament today. I have something of a fellow feeling with them because I will qualify for a state pension in two years.
I will tell members a secret—I do not know whether it is an admission or a confession: I am reasonably comfortably off. If anyone tells me that the best way of helping the poor pensioner is to increase my pension, I will answer that it is not. That is an extremely inefficient and expensive way of helping people. I repeat—through the minimum income guarantee a couple will receive £1,350 more by 2001. It seems right that we should do something to help those who are struggling at the bottom end of the retired income bracket. If we are to do that, we have to do it on an affordable basis. The minimum income guarantee is a substantial step forward.
I, too, welcome the pensioners to the gallery and I welcome the warm deal. Will the First Minister develop and build on the warm deal in the forthcoming spending review so that more pensioners can save more money on their heating bills and be free from the illnesses and hospitalisation that so often result from cold and damp homes?
I have enormous sympathy for the point that Malcolm Chisholm makes. It is important that we deal with the self-evident difficulties with the housing stock. It is true that we want to ensure that houses in which pensioners live are properly heated and insulated. We will have something positive to say about that very shortly.
National Health Service (Funding)
To ask the First Minister whether monitoring measures will be introduced in order to ensure that local health boards direct the funding that is received under the Arbuthnott formula, particularly where there is additional funding, to those areas that have been identified as being of greatest need. (S1F-528)
Health needs are strongly influenced by deprivation. That is the key factor that is taken into account by the Arbuthnott calculations. The Arbuthnott formula allocates national health service funding to health boards and their local health care partners on what we believe is a more equitable basis. The existing rigorous monitoring arrangements and the annual accountability review will ensure that the extra funding that is received under the Arbuthnott formula is directed to the areas of greatest need.
Does the First Minister agree that further discussion with partners on social inclusion partnership boards in areas of great deprivation should be considered to ensure that such areas benefit and that health improves as quickly as we all want it to?
That is an important consideration. Furthermore, it is vital that we have proper discussion and co-ordination and that we make the best use of this opportunity. If I remember rightly, Patricia Ferguson has direct experience of hospital management and, perhaps, of accounting control in hospitals. We must give a very high priority to those matters.
I am proud of the Arbuthnott report and the decision to implement it—it is never easy to take on these problems. The outcome of the Arbuthnott report is a significant increase in funding for inner-city areas that suffer great deprivation. Such funding takes proper account of and therefore benefits areas where the delivery of medical services is expensive because, for example, they are rural areas.
The situation is manageable because we have increased funding substantially, which means that even those who are losers—in inverted commas—are not put in a position where their budget is shrinking.
What percentage of the total national health service budget in Scotland will be redistributed through the Arbuthnott formula?
I must take refuge in saying that I will write to Kay Ullrich on that. The amount is on the margin; however, that is important in such areas.
Is the figure about 2 per cent?
That sounds right to me. However, I will have to check, as I do not have the figures to hand.
The issue is important. For example, Glasgow has been one of the winners and the extra finance that will result will be very welcome, particularly given the difficult period that we face with the health service in Glasgow and the pressing need to alter the profile of hospital provision.