Plenary, 14 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, December 14, 2000

Official Report 792KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the most recent meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-729)

The Cabinet discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and the people of Scotland.

I wonder whether the Cabinet discussed the fact that this is the last question time before Christmas. In the spirit of Christmas, will the First Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? I will make it nice and easy. If the First Minister were to add 12 and 24, what answer would he get?

Sir David, I think that we should treat question time with a bit of respect—I expect more of John Swinney.

I am deadly serious on this point. Twelve and 24 is, of course, 36. [Applause.] Did members like that? I am glad that I can count, although the First Minister cannot.

The Minister for Health and Community Care's press release this morning stated that the maximum time for which an individual should wait for investigation of a heart problem will be 12 weeks, and the maximum time for which they should wait to undergo heart bypass surgery will be 24 weeks. Twelve weeks plus 24 weeks equals 36 weeks, which in my book equals nine months.

On 18 March 1997, Malcolm Chisholm, then Labour's health spokesman and now Labour's Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, said in a Labour party press release, which I have in front of me, "It is scandalous"—[Interruption.]—I think Mr Galbraith should wait a moment. Malcolm Chisholm said:

"It is scandalous that many needing urgent heart bypass surgery have to wait nine . . . months."

Is it not the case that yesterday's Tory scandal, to which Malcolm Chisholm referred, is today's new Labour target? Is that not the real scandal of Labour's handling of the health service?

We hope with that question that the best is still to come. It is another example of the SNP failing to realise that this is an important day for the health service in Scotland—although not because of the long whinge that we get from the SNP.

Let us repeat that Susan Deacon announced today significant reductions in waiting times for those with many of the illnesses and diseases that affect the people of Scotland. I resent the fact that waiting times and lists for heart and cancer treatment is reduced to political knockabout by the Scottish National Party. By 2003, no patient will wait longer than nine months for treatment—the current maximum is 12 months—and, by October 2001, the maximum wait for children needing urgent cancer and leukaemia will be one month. Are those not the issues that affect ordinary people?

We are making significant steps forward. As we have said, we have not yet met our targets on waiting lists but, by March 2002, we intend to do so. The crucial point about today's announcement is that it concerns waiting times. I hope that people will warmly applaud the waiting times that Susan Deacon announced.

Is it not the case that, after that lengthy answer, the scandal that Malcolm Chisholm talked about before the general election—nine months' wait for urgent heart bypass surgery—is the target that the Labour Government is pursuing? That is the target that was announced today. There has been a failure on waiting lists and a failure to deliver real change on waiting times. Is it not the case that Labour is letting down the health service time after time?

I utterly reject that proposition. The fact is that 828,000 operations are being done this year—50,000 more than last year. Last year, over 43,000 more patients were treated than in 1996-97 and over 90,000 more new outpatients attended outpatient clinics.

We have successes, but we also appreciate that more has to be done on waiting lists and waiting times. The health plan that was announced today will create a truly national health service at the heart of Scotland's needs. We will pursue those issues over the coming months and years.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-725)

I last met the Secretary of State for Scotland last week. We have not yet fixed a date for our next meeting.

I thank the First Minister for his answer.

I trust that, at their next meeting, the secretary of state will ask the First Minister about the Sutherland commission. I hope that the First Minister will give the secretary of state a straighter answer than he has given the Scottish people so far. The Minister for Health and Community Care has consistently made it clear that implementing the Sutherland recommendation on free personal care is not a priority for the Executive—a regrettable, if at least honest, approach. Then the First Minister started to send out signals, saying that he wants to adopt that recommendation but that it is a matter of timing.

Does not the First Minister speak with forked tongue on this matter? There is no reason why his Executive cannot adopt the Sutherland recommendation on free personal care right now. Is not the plain and simple truth that implementing that recommendation is not a priority for him?

I repeat that implementing that recommendation is an important priority for this Administration and for the people of Scotland.

I have the benefit of being in government, which is something that Mr McLetchie will not experience. We took over eight weeks ago and are conducting a review of the programme for government and of policy. I have consistently made it clear that we are considering Sutherland and personal care. An announcement will be made in January.

The First Minister's arithmetic is really shaky today, as Labour did not take over eight weeks ago—it took over three and a half years ago.

Age Concern Scotland estimated that 100,000 pensioners will lose out if the Executive refuses to provide free personal care. The fact is that the First Minister has raised the expectations of our pensioners while the truth is that doing so was a cynical, political ploy. There is no commitment to providing free personal care—it was not mentioned in the NHS plan that was announced today nor is it even in the Executive's planned programme for government.

I give the First Minister an opportunity. Will he put his famous neck on the line today and give us a firm date for the implementation of the Sutherland recommendation on personal care—or is that just another promise that is not worth the paper on which it is not written?

With respect, that was pathetic.

We have made a serious commitment to 940,000 people in Scotland aged over 60 and 65. Some of the press comments are not accurate, as we are considering seriously—[Interruption.] Members may not like the answer, but they should wait for it. We are talking about a commitment of £100 million and about extending a care plan of £120 million that we have announced already. It is important that we consider every aspect of the situation.

I told Mr McLetchie that our programme for government and the outcome of our policy review will be announced in January, as will our deliberations on Sutherland. I cannot be more precise than that, but I hope that the nation will welcome the fact that this Executive is taking personal care seriously.

When the First Minister next meets the secretary of state, will he discuss with him the local government settlement? Will he draw to the secretary of state's attention the comment of the Labour leader in Glasgow, Charlie Gordon, who said:

"The Scottish executive is good at talking about social justice but there's not much sign of it in this finance settlement"?

Given that 60 per cent of Scotland's deprivation is in the city of Glasgow, will the First Minister tell the Minister for Finance and Local Government to think again and to give Glasgow the money it deserves and needs?

No, I will not be asking the Minister for Finance and Local Government to think again. It is important to put Glasgow's case in context and to consider three broad areas: economic development, where a significant amount is happening; social justice, where the situation is similar; and the local government settlement. I do not know where Councillor Gordon gets his figures. Since 1996-97, a number of significant transfers out of local government have affected Glasgow. The important point to make today is that Glasgow receives 25 per cent above the average for mainland councils—£1,559 for each person by 2003-04.

The best thing to do is to work in partnership. However, on the economy, on social justice and on the local government settlement, this Executive is delivering for Glasgow. I hope that that is widely recognised.

I want to continue Mr McLetchie's line of questioning. When the First Minister next meets the Secretary of State for Scotland, will they discuss the implications for services and for pensioners if cuts amounting to £24 million are imposed on every constituency, as is advocated by Mr McLetchie?

I was too polite to refer to that earlier. It is important for Scotland to face some realities. The Conservatives are committed to £16 billion of cuts if they ever get into government, leading to the £24 million per constituency that Mr Muldoon mentioned. My simple question is this: how many doctors, how many nurses, how many teachers and how many policemen does that translate to? We are looking to invest in services and to expand them, which is the exact opposite of what the Tories are about.

---

Higher Education

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to widen access to higher education in the Highlands and Islands. (S1F-738)

Earlier this week, I was delighted to be able to announce the designation of the University of the Highlands and Islands as a higher education institution. This development will significantly improve access for those who have been geographically remote from higher education institutions. That will be achieved through provision in local colleges, use of state-of-the-art information and computer technology, and resources to facilitate distance study.

I agree that one of the most important aspects of the University of the Highlands and Islands project is that it will bring learning to remote areas. Will the First Minister ensure that the project is funded in a manner that allows small learning centres to flourish, thereby allowing people to access education in their own communities?

That is crucial. The purpose of UHI is to ensure that, in a sparsely populated area, we bring together all the local communities and allow them access to higher education. That is important for the UK; it is also a model for the rest of Europe.

I would add that Wendy Alexander is working closely with BT and others to ensure that we have the broadband infrastructure to ensure that UHI is the most technologically advanced university in the UK. That augurs well for individuals and for local economies.

Does the First Minister agree that, although UHI will bring considerable economic benefit to the Highlands, it is important that that benefit be spread right around the Highlands and Islands area?

That is part of the commitment. The Government has already spent £13 million on the project, and the Millennium Commission has contributed £33 million. That is a significant investment. The key has to be quality—quality of access and quality of provision. We have to ensure that a sparsely populated area such as the Highlands and Islands becomes an integrated, educational access opportunity. That will be the reality.

People have said that the project will need more resource. If more resource is required, it will be invested. At the end of the day, we want not only access, but quality.

I would like to press the First Minister on how the additional resource might be introduced into the provision of broadband technology, without which the development of the University of the Highlands and Islands is likely to be severely curtailed. We know that BT is very unwilling to invest north of Crieff. Is the First Minister willing to give a commitment that, if BT will not invest, there will be public investment?

It is not a matter of BT not investing. It is considering the commercial criteria. However, let me give Margo MacDonald a commitment today—Wendy Alexander is looking into that. In the early part of this century and the latter part of last century, roads were the key to access and we invested in them. In future, broadband technology will be crucial. We want to work in partnership with the providers to ensure that the infrastructure is in place. Margo is right again.

---

Drink Driving

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive intends to take to ensure that the number of drink-driving incidents over the festive period is as limited as possible. (S1F-727)

Through the Scottish road safety campaign, the Scottish Executive is supporting the festive safety campaign mounted by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

Thank you. I am sure that the First Minister will accept that the procedure currently used to determine the levels of alcohol in the breath and blood of offending drivers is simple, effective and legally accepted. Will the Scottish Executive legislate to introduce similar procedures for the detection of drivers who may have consumed other substances?

That is a matter that concerns police forces at present. We are looking at the problem nationally, in the UK and Scotland, because substance abuse is not just alcohol abuse and we are keen that that is recognised. A lot of drivers who are stopped have taken drugs that affect their driving.

With your permission, Sir David, I will add to John Munro's point to send a powerful message to Scotland about the coming festive season. The current figures for drink driving show that, in Scotland, one person is killed every week. Each death means a bereavement for a family and often for a whole community. I hope we will cut that figure. There has been some progress, but far too many people are still irresponsible. Those who drink and jump in a car are likely to be caught. That matters less than someone getting in a car and killing themselves and, perhaps, someone else.

Recent figures from Fife on drink driving among the 17 to 25-year-old age group show that there has been a 31 per cent increase in drunk drivers as a proportion of all drivers of that age. To young drivers I say—enjoy yourselves at Christmas and new year, but when you take drink do not use a car.

---

Scottish Prison Service

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive expects to be able to make a statement on the recommendations of the estates review undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. (S1F-728)

We expect to be able to do so in the new year.

Does the First Minister accept that there is a mood of demoralisation among Scottish prison officers as a result of attacks on their terms and conditions, privatisation and the leaks emanating from the Scottish prison board about prison closures? How does the First Minister think the officers of Peterhead prison feel when, after 10 years of hard work that has put their prison among the top three in the world in terms of the enormously difficult work undertaken, they read in the papers constant leaks from the Scottish prison board that suggest that the future of the prison is in jeopardy? Will the First Minister say that no decisions have been made on the estates review and that no decisions will be made until there is a full public debate on the future of the Scottish Prison Service?

I agree with both of the propositions made by Alex Salmond. He is the local MP and MSP for Peterhead and a significant number of people are employed in the prison. There is a very successful sex offenders unit in the prison.

I am also concerned about the state of the prison estate throughout Scotland. For those reasons, there will be consultation soon on the issues being considered by the Scottish prison board and the Minister for Justice. There will also be an opportunity for the Parliament's committees to look at the issues.

On a sensitive issue of this kind, we need to move forward together. The opportunity to do so will certainly exist. Jim Wallace and I would be pleased to discuss the current position with Alex Salmond because it is an important matter about one of the best services we have in Scotland. I understand the concerns about the possible closure or move of the facility.

Is the First Minister aware that Dungavel remains suitable either for prisoners or illegal immigrants?

The prison estates review will look at all the properties. In the new year, I fear that this is likely to be a difficult issue for the Parliament.

It is important that, given that prison officers are concerned about their future, the public is concerned about security and the Parliament is concerned about the public-private split in our prisons, we ensure that the review is dealt with seriously. We look forward to the involvement of all 129 MSPs to ensure that we have a sensible and serious debate.

Unfortunately, the low morale in Scotland extends beyond Peterhead. I quote from a letter from the Prison Officers Association:

"Openness, fairness, integrity etc are all words supposedly to state how staff will be treated by management, but it's all hogwash and jargon to tell anyone who asks how we are treated. Staff now no longer believe anything."

In the light of those comments and the recent near escape of Tony Cameron from a vote of no confidence by governors, does the First Minister recognise that the chief executive is not the cure for low morale in Scotland's prisons, but the cause?

I do not want to indulge in attacks on any individual or on the Scottish Prison Service. This is a sensitive and serious subject. That is why it is important that the Parliament gets involved in consultation. The Government is not going to take decisions on such matters without consulting public and private interests. That is the view taken by the Minister for Justice and it is one that I endorse. I hope that that point will be taken on board. Prison officers carry out a vital service. Public service provision is very good. Morale is not as bad as has been suggested, but we must make a big improvement.