Plenary, 15 Feb 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, February 15, 2001

Official Report 720KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the last meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-846)

The Cabinet discussed issues of importance to the people of Scotland at its last meeting.

The First Minister will agree that it is essential that our debate should be based on good reliable statistics in which we can all have confidence. I raise with him some statistics from the Scottish Executive health department on outpatient referrals to Glasgow royal infirmary. In the quarter ending June 1999, 14,097 patients were referred to Glasgow royal infirmary by general practitioners. In the next quarter, the number was 15,007.

A year later, the statistics show that a grand total of eight people were referred to Glasgow royal infirmary in the quarter ending June 2000 and that three were referred in the following quarter. If we are to have confidence in the statistics that are published by the health department, particularly as we approach sensitive times for the judgment of the Executive's performance on health, can the First Minister shed any light on those statistics?

I will be very pleased to look into the detailed points that John Swinney has raised. However, it is important to say that there will be a very substantial investment in health. A health plan has been published. Overall in Scotland, health will remain our most important priority. I am pleased to accept the invitation to find out the details and write to John Swinney.

I am glad to hear that the First Minister will look into that matter. It may just be the result of an administrative mistake and we will happily hear the answer. Of course, his record on health also involves a reduction in the number of nurses, a reduction in the number of beds in the national health service, an increase in the number of people waiting for treatment and an increase in health funding that is slower in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The First Minister will accept that such unbelievable statistics do not help to build confidence in the information that is published on the national health service. Is the First Minister aware of the current practice in Aberdeen whereby individuals who have waited more than a year for treatment in the Grampian Universities NHS Trust are being offered the choice between receiving private health treatment in Clydebank or coming off the waiting list in Aberdeen? Is that not an example of new Labour fiddling the figures because it is about to break its election pledge on cutting waiting lists?

It is very difficult to know where to start with such a rambling, rambling, rambling question. It is important to restate that I am quite happy that the Minister for Health and Community Care should examine the issues that John Swinney has raised. However, let us not forget that we are investing more than ever before in health—more than £1,000 a year for every person in the country. Over the next three years, that amount will rise significantly. The Executive does not have the solution to every health problem. The difference between us and the nationalists is simply that we want to tackle the real issues and not get involved in political number crunching that ends in a question that it is impossible to answer.

When it comes to rambling, rambling, I suspect that the First Minister will have more to teach me than I will have to teach him.

The First Minister has said that this is becoming a political issue. Of course it is a sensitive political issue. The First Minister gave me a commitment in the chamber that he would secure a reduction in waiting lists by 2002. I have a document here that was published by the Labour party: "A Lifetime of Opportunity". I hear the deputy leader of the Labour party say that it makes good reading. It makes fabulous reading. It says that the Labour Government is pledged to bringing waiting lists down by at least 10,000 by the next general election. All of us can read the newspapers and work out that a general election is not far away. Will the First Minister reaffirm today Labour's commitment that, contrary to the answers that he has given me before, by the time we go to the polls, waiting lists in Scotland will be down by 10,000 on what the Labour Government inherited in 1997?

The reply may be a bit hackneyed, but where is the beef in John Swinney's questions? Quite simply, the question is a rehash. We got to the point at the end—that there is possibly an election in the offing.

Let us compare what we are doing on health with the £25 million that another party committed itself to spending each year as part of its forward programme. We are talking about investing billions of pounds in our health service—that is important.

We are attempting to reduce waiting lists, but let us not forget that the SNP has said that waiting times are of more than marginal importance in the debate. We will be happy to take on the SNP any time on health. The difference is that we believe in real investment. I am not sure what the SNP believes in.

It is clear that the First Minister will fail to deliver on the waiting list pledge for this year. Does he therefore accept that, should the new waiting times figures be worse than or the same as those he inherited in 1997, his policy on health will have failed in respect of waiting times?

I am conscious that a Conservative member is asking the question. Our inheritance in respect of the NHS is such that the Conservatives are not in a position to lecture anyone about health care or investment in health care.

It is important that we have a commitment to reduce waiting lists. We also have a commitment to invest a massive amount of new money in our health service. When considering the issues that have been raised by the Conservative party, the Scottish people will want to know what we are doing. That information is in the health plan, which I commend to everyone as good reading.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Before the Secretary of State for Scotland is consigned to history—one of those words beginning with "h" and ending with "y" of which the First Minister is so fond—I would like

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-845)

I am quite happy to accept that this morning's exchange was interesting. I would not accuse David McLetchie of hypocrisy, but that label fits other members.

I speak regularly with the secretary of state. We have no immediate plans to meet.

I hope that when the First Minister meets Mrs Liddell, he will raise with her the issue of local taxation.

Last week, the Minister for Finance and Local Government described the local government settlement as "excellent" and as

"the best settlement for many years".

He said that it was

"warmly welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities"—[Official Report, 7 February 2001; Vol 10, c 967.]

The same COSLA is now in meltdown.

If everything in the garden is so rosy—as Mr MacKay claimed last week—why are councils throughout the country today announcing council tax increases that are well above the rate of inflation?

At the centre, we are trying to make a substantial investment and to increase what local government is able to spend. The people of Scotland welcome that investment.

The Conservatives might not like this, but we also have something that is called local democracy. In every council, we are seeking a balance between prudent use of the council's finances, wise use of our investment and the provision of quality services. During the past 20 years, no Conservative Government was visited by those three.

It is interesting to hear the First Minister talk about local democracy, given that most of the funding is so ring-fenced that the councils are hamstrung and unable to set their own budgets.

The First Minister cannot deny that, under Labour, the taxpayer is paying more across the board, whether nationally or locally. Despite that fact, waiting lists in our hospitals are longer, as we have heard, serious crime rates are rising and standards in our schools are slipping. Is not the truth of the matter that, under Labour, we have a pay-more, get-less Government, a pay-more, get-less Scottish Executive and pay-more, get-less councils?

It is useful to have a question that covers so many areas.

Local government is enjoying a first-class settlement. There is record investment in the health service. Standards in schools are not falling and steps are being taken to ensure that education remains an important investment priority. That must be contrasted with the Conservatives' public expenditure commitments and the Tory plans for pensioners that were announced this week, which are in a mess. The plans for pensioners gave us the amazing spectacle of a pensioner picking cold weather climate payments one year but considering whether to add that payment to their pension next year. That is a measure of how out of touch the Conservatives are.

If the Conservatives get into government—which, thankfully, will never be a reality—£23 million will be cut from every constituency in Scotland. How many doctors does that represent? How many nurses? How many policemen? If we want to debate public expenditure with the Conservatives, those are the real issues.

When the First Minister next meets the Secretary of State for Scotland, will he raise the plight of my constituents who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases? As a result of Chester Street Insurance Holdings going into provisional liquidation, those people may be denied compensation to which they are entitled. Will the First Minister make it clear that it would be unacceptable for any of those victims—who have been treated disgracefully over the years—to be denied justice yet again?

I sympathise with my colleague and agree that there is a need for action. The secretary of state is actively involved in the issue. I sincerely hope that the progress that Duncan McNeil wants will be delivered.

When the First Minister next meets his close and good friend Mrs Liddell, will he ask her to stop playing fast and loose with Scotland's money? Is he aware that her budget has increased by 36 per cent this year? That is seven times as fast as the Scottish budget and five times as fast as the national health service budget. Are Mrs Liddell and the Scotland Office five times more important than the NHS in Scotland, or is she just a waste of the people's money?

That question may reappear as a useful soundbite in some local newspaper but, once again, Andrew Wilson has shown his crass ignorance of what is happening in the Scottish economy. Last week, he said that the Scottish economy was crawling along. At quite a rate, I would suggest. Again we see the blinkers of the SNP. The Scottish economy is doing well: there is massive investment in our public services; unemployment is at its lowest for 24 years; and employment is at its highest for 40 years. Why does the SNP not recognise success and celebrate with us the real success of the Scottish economy?

---

Safer Communities

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to make communities safer. (S1F-855)

Safer communities remain a key priority for this Administration. There are many examples of the measures that we are taking to make our communities safer. As recently as Monday, Iain Gray announced details of our funding package of £1.6 million for closed-circuit television across Scotland. In the week prior to that, he announced our funding package of £1.4 million for community safety projects.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating community organisations, councillors and, of course, the local member of Parliament—Michael Martin MP—on their support for the process of developing closed-circuit television proposals, which will have an effect on fighting crime in parts of my constituency such as Springburn, Barmulloch, Royston and Blackhill? Does the First Minister agree that a top-to-bottom review of policing could be considered, to deal with issues such as poor police response times and the allocation of community police officers?

I am happy to celebrate the Martin partnership in that part of Glasgow, which is working alongside the community and the police to ensure that we have safer communities. I have had the benefit of meeting Paul Martin to discuss police responses. That issue is always under review, especially locally, and I am sure that it will be pursued.

CCTV is vital. There is nothing worse than seeing a CCTV recording of a bunch of yobs kicking someone to death in a town centre. CCTV now allows us to dip into that kind of activity, provide the evidence, provide police access and ensure that the yobs who commit those kinds of crimes are brought to court and sentenced.

Will the First Minister comment on the CCTV initiative in Airdrie—an initiative of the previous Government—which has led to a reduction in crime and an increase in the clear-up of crimes and has deterred crime in general? Does the First Minister accept that it is time to expand such schemes throughout Scotland?

I am happy to agree with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. CCTV is a tremendous help to the police and it makes people feel safer. As I said, it is allowing us to dip into serious crime and it is a huge boost for the criminal justice system.

---

Nutrition (Elderly People)

To ask the First Minister what response the Scottish Executive plans to make to the findings of the report "The National Nutritional Audit of Elderly Individuals in Care" on the nutrition of pensioners in professional care. (S1F-857)

The results of the audit were of such concern that, when the draft report was received in May last year, we immediately put in place a range of measures to support staff who care for vulnerable patients at risk of being poorly nourished.

"Our National Health" builds on that work and contains commitments that will ensure that high quality, nutritious food is available to those in hospital or in care.

I thank the First Minister for his reply, but will he explain why, after four years of new Labour government, 21 per cent of pensioners in hospitals and care homes are starving and, in many cases, suffering from appalling neglect? Will he detail how Executive policies, such as the proposal in the Regulation of Care Bill to reduce the number of inspections of care homes from two per year to one per year will improve the situation?

The Parliament will agree that this is a serious and important issue. I hope that it will also agree that the Executive is doing something about it. Everyone recognises the problems—but we are doing something about them. First, we are making food and nutrition a core national standard for the NHS in Scotland. Secondly, we are pushing through the Regulation of Care Bill to ensure that high standards of care are delivered in all care homes and are independently checked. Thirdly, the chief medical officer is leading an expert group that is looking into the wider allegations of agism in the NHS and how to root it out wherever it is found. We are tackling the problem on many fronts. I assure Mr Gibson that it is a serious issue that is being tackled seriously.

The First Minister will be aware that the report calls for regular training of all staff involved with the nutritional care of residents in care. Is he aware of good practice in Lanarkshire, where staff have been regularly trained in that for the past four years? Does he agree that training of that kind is essential to ensure that all staff involved in the nutritional care needs of elderly residents in care are skilled and knowledgeable and able to prepare balanced, nutritional diets?

I am pleased to identify myself with the comments made by Karen Whitefield. There is good practice in Lanarkshire and in other areas of Scotland, but the best practice in those areas must become normal practice throughout Scotland. That requires training and skills. I am pleased to say that the health plan tackles that issue.

Is the First Minister ashamed to be part of a Government that for four years has presided over one in five of our elderly people in hospitals and nursing homes suffering from malnutrition? Does he agree with the comments of Jess Barrow of Age Concern, that the NHS is driven to cut costs? Will he take the opportunity to apologise to the thousands of elderly people and their families who the Government has failed to protect properly?

I would be ashamed to be a member of a party that could provide only £25 million extra for the NHS in Scotland. That is a fact that we can read about. On the serious point that has been raised, I have made a commitment that we are involved and that we recognise the problems. Surely Scotland should be about identifying problems and then the solutions. That is the purpose of the Executive and it will always be so.

---

Scottish Qualifications Authority

To ask the First Minister whether this year's higher exam results will be issued by the Scottish Qualifications Authority on 9 August 2001. (S1F-860)

The Scottish Qualifications Authority is considering responses to a consultation paper on this subject which was issued to key national bodies on 17 January. A further announcement will be made in due course.

Will the First Minister reassure parents, teachers and pupils who are concerned about the SQA that it is on track to deliver the exam diet for this year? Will he clarify whether the consultation is on delaying the date of publication or on the most appropriate date for publishing the exam results?

The consultation relates to the latter point George Lyon raises in his question. The consultation is about ensuring that stakeholders are intimately involved. I am pleased to say to the Parliament today that, in our desire to get it right, we are very content indeed with the substantial progress that has been made. We have made the point before; there will be no repeat of last year's fiasco. I think that the SQA is well on the way to ensuring that last year's fiasco does not happen.

If it becomes apparent that the SQA will not meet the set date, will the First Minister commit to intervene, using the powers that section 9(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 gives him?

I am optimistic—and wish that other colleagues would be a bit more optimistic and have greater confidence in the work that is being done by the professionals. I acknowledge, and have made the point more clearly than anyone, that last year was a fiasco. This year, we need to concentrate on ensuring that our education department, our education minister and the SQA have the necessary resources to deploy to ensure that last year's fiasco does not happen again.

In the process of consultation as to the appropriate date for the issuing of results, will the First Minister remind the SQA of the importance of giving adequate time for marking? The earlier the date is, the less time there is for marking. This year, there is less time for marking than there was last year. It must never happen again.

I agree with Mike Russell. We are working to ensure that every part of the process is being looked at. That means that—as we move through the year—we are in a position to deliver what I have promised. That is also what the SQA wants to be involved in. It is crystal clear that progress to date this year has been much more impressive than it was at the same time last year. All I can say is that we are on track to deliver. I hope that that comment gets the full support of the Parliament and support in the country.