Plenary, 17 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, January 17, 2002

Official Report 701KB pdf

---

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 they discussed. (S1F-1546)

I last met the Prime Minister formally on 26 November 2001, when we discussed the importance of delivering first-class public services to the people of Scotland.

This week, the Church of Scotland warned that it might have to close some of its residential homes, which provide accommodation for some of the poorest people in our society, because of Government underfunding. Last June, I raised that issue with the First Minister's predecessor, who said that it would be resolved in weeks. It has been not weeks, but months. The situation has not been resolved; it is not improving, but worsening. When the Minister for Health and Community Care meets local authorities, they should not fight over who is to blame. Instead, will the First Minister guarantee that the issue will be resolved tomorrow?

We had this problem last week—the suggestion that there are solutions that can suddenly be invented for tomorrow. It is right and proper that serious negotiations take place between the Executive, the local authorities and the care home providers, to deliver that solution. It would be wrong of the Executive simply to hand over money to private care home owners or voluntary sector care home owners on the basis of the sums that they demand.

That is responsible government. Thinking of an idea, spending the money and getting on with it is not responsible government. That may be what the member advocates, but it is not what we will do.

Last week, the First Minister pledged to end bedblocking by committing some extra money. If he wants to end bedblocking, he must ensure that the number of residential care places is sustained. The number has fallen year after year. If the present crisis is not resolved, the figure will fall even further.

The First Minister cannot wash his hands of the matter. He cannot say that the decision is not up to him, because he funds local authorities and the care sector involved. Will the First Minister guarantee that to honour his pledge on bedblocking, he will ensure that the number of residential home places in Scotland does not fall?

We should start from a position of some honesty. No pledge was made to end bedblocking in Scotland's hospitals; the pledge was to reduce bedblocking and to deliver an action plan next month that will work towards that reduction.

We should not irresponsibly raise expectations on that matter. The problem is complex and requires action not only by the Executive, but by local authorities, health boards and care home owners. In otherwise very disappointing statistics this week, it is heartening to see that a difference is being made in three local authority areas.

From local experience in North Lanarkshire, I know that, in one of those areas, the action by the health board, the local authorities and others in the area is making a difference. The problem is complex and requires a complex solution. It does not require the nationalist approach of, "Here is an idea—spend the money." It requires action that is based on proper budgeting and a proper solution. That is what Malcolm Chisholm is working towards and that is what we will deliver.

The First Minister was able to highlight only three out of 32 local authorities where progress is being made. The overwhelming majority are unable to make progress because they do not have the money to resolve the problem.

The First Minister talked about immediate solutions. However, the problem has being going on for seven months and we do not appear to have made any progress. Residential home places are falling, the number of beds that are blocked is rising and the First Minister has no solutions. Will he give me one commitment today? Will he find the money that the independent review's evaluation of the problem set out as required to meet the funding gap in residential home places? Will the First Minister act to deliver a solution?

No, I will not. It would be entirely irresponsible for any Executive to stand in Parliament and say, before the negotiations are complete, "We will give you the money. We will give you every penny that you are asking for." That is what Mr Swinney is asking me to do.

We have heard such demands from the SNP every day this week—for rail and, this morning in the newspapers, for £100 million for a football tournament—without any regard to the economic analysis. Today, we have heard a demand for money for care homes before the end of the negotiations. Those demands are irresponsible in the extreme and they must stop. In the Scottish Parliament, we must take responsibility for our decisions, manage our budgets and deliver better public services for Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1553)

Next week, the Cabinet will discuss matters arising from this week's meeting and forthcoming parliamentary business. There will be an extended discussion on the forthcoming spending review.

I would be interested to know what will be discussed under any other business, but no doubt we will find that out next week.

I hope that the First Minister will find time to look at our health service. I draw the First Minister's attention to something that Mr Alan Milburn said this week:

"The NHS is the last great nationalised industry. It is the last bastion of a particular form of mid-20th century organisation and I think it's time to change it."

I will contrast that statement with something that the First Minister will recall my raising in question time on 13 December, when I said:

"we need a national health service in this country, not a nationalised one."—[Official Report, 13 December 2001; c 4865.]

Will the First Minister tell the Parliament whether he can spot the difference between the two statements? Will he consider introducing in Scotland the sort of sensible, Conservative policies that Mr Milburn proposes for England?

I suppose that the 13th was unlucky for some.

The purpose of having the Scottish Parliament is to make our own decisions for the Scottish health service, education and a whole range of other areas. Just as the United Kingdom Parliament, where it has specific responsibility for English public services, should not follow blindly the example of the Scottish Parliament, nor should we do that in the other direction. We should make our own decisions on the basis of the Scottish experience and the Scottish structure of public services. If we do that, and concentrate on that, we will deliver a better job and better public services for Scotland.

Whatever happened to that great new Labour phrase, "What matters is what works"? Does not it strike the First Minister as somewhat odd that the thrust of policy south of the border appears to be to decentralise the management and control of hospitals, but in Scotland we are putting our health service in an ever-more centralised politician-controlled straitjacket? Has the thought ever occurred to the First Minister that, given the experience of the past two years, with longer waiting times, longer waiting lists and even more blocked beds—Mr Swinney outlined some of the problems that have resulted from that—the whole trend of his policy might be going in entirely the wrong direction? Is not it time to reverse that policy?

We are all very keen in the chamber on boasting about the hard work that is done by Scotland's doctors and nurses and praising them for that hard work. In all the hospitals, health centres and clinics that I visit—for example, this morning, at Falkirk royal infirmary in Mr Canavan's constituency, where some extremely innovative and groundbreaking work is taking place in dermatology—at no time has anyone said to me, "Please privatise a bit of our health service." Mr McLetchie may think that privatisation is the solution for the Scottish health service, but it is not Alan Milburn's solution for the health service in England and Wales and it will not be the solution for this partnership in this Parliament.

Will the First Minister assure me that, at its next meeting, his Cabinet will discuss the threat to more than 600 jobs in Dundee and Bellshill following the announcement by Levi Strauss (UK) that it intends to close factories in those locations? Will he assure me that, in the short term, the Executive will give its unqualified support to the unions in their fight to save those jobs but that, in the longer term, the Executive, in partnership with the UK and European Governments, will begin to develop a manufacturing strategy that challenges the right of global companies such as Levis to scrap unionised and well-paid jobs in one part of the world in order to replace them with non-unionised and lower-paid jobs in another part of the world?

I share the concerns expressed by Kate MacLean and John McAllion about the position faced by workers in Dundee. Michael McMahon and I share concerns about the workers in Bellshill, some of whom come from my constituency. They are in an extremely unfortunate situation as they face that threat to their jobs.

I received assurances from the company this week that it will assist the process of trying to secure new jobs for those workers should those closures go ahead. I can assure Mr McAllion that my Cabinet discusses almost every week the on-going economic situation in Scotland. It monitors that situation closely and takes action whenever it is appropriate.

---

Prosecution of Children Under 12

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive plans to implement the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation that the prosecution of children under the age of 12 in criminal courts be banned. (S1F-1567)

The Scottish Executive will consider the recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission in the context of our overall approach to youth crime.

I thank the First Minister for his response. Does he agree that Scotland stands out as having one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the whole of Europe, that in a civilised society we should deal with our children in a civilised way and that this proposed change to take our very youngest children, aged between eight and 11, out of the adult courts is long overdue?

I hear the traditional rumblings on the Tory benches.

This is a serious issue and there is no doubt that if we do not consider it carefully, we will be forced to do so in due course by the European legislative environment in which we now operate. We should consider carefully the recommendations that have emerged this week, but do so in the context of our overall approach to youth crime and the position of young people in Scotland today. The issue is important, but we should not get it out of context. Eleven young people were affected from 1994 to 1999, none of whom committed murders or offences at that sort of level.

However, in communities throughout Scotland, there is concern about youth disorder and youth crime. There is concern among young people themselves that their peers are falling into that sort of lifestyle. I believe that all of us—young people, teachers, parents and the many others who might be involved—need to ensure that we have a strategy that turns around those young lives and makes Scotland a better place for them.

Will the First Minister note that neither of the justice committees were asked to comment before the Scottish Law Commission came up with its proposals? Does he agree that, unlike many other European countries, Scotland has an excellent framework of criminal justice, which has at its heart, through the children's hearing system, the welfare of children?

Will the First Minister exercise some caution before accepting the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation and ensure that there is wide consultation before we remove the discretion of the Lord Advocate, given the small number of prosecutions in Scottish courts?

I believe that we should always exercise caution in such instances. The same is true of our pilot project to examine the position of some 16 and 17-year-olds, who might be referred to children's hearings in future. We should exercise caution in those areas, but we should also investigate the possibilities. In this country, as in many other countries, we have a problem with young people who, because they are disillusioned with the society in which they live, because of the circumstances in which they are growing up or perhaps because of their role models, find themselves beginning lives that will eventually end up in adult prisons. We need to stop that happening. We need a strategy that tackles that comprehensively, throughout the criminal justice system and throughout our youth service. I hope that there will be widespread consultation on the proposal before it reaches any further stage of decision making.

I associate myself with the remarks of Pauline McNeill, convener of the other justice committee, about consulting with conveners. Given that raising the age of criminal responsibility is somewhat controversial, or even contentious, will the First Minister tell us when the issue will come before this Parliament's justice committees? I hope that he will confirm that he thinks the matter should come to the justice committees and not the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

I would not want to take away from the important role of the Parliament in deciding which committee should consider which matter. The justice committees have an important role in considering matters of legal reform. However, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee also has an important role in considering our system of justice for children and young people. I hope that the justice committees will consider the specific proposals, but that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will show a keen interest in the strategy for youth crime that we intend to launch shortly.

---

Free Personal Care

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in implementing the Scottish Executive's plans for free personal care for elderly people. (S1F-1559)

As Malcolm Chisholm announced on Tuesday, free personal care and free nursing care will both be fully implemented from 1 July 2002.

Was it not rather disingenuous to claim that the three months' delay was for technical rather than financial reasons? Is it just coincidence that three months' funding is approximately equivalent to the £23 million that Alistair Darling is refusing to hand over for attendance allowance? If Alistair Darling gets his way, that will mean that Westminster will have more money to spend because of a progressive policy of this Parliament. Will the First Minister continue to pursue the matter through the disputes procedure that is outlined in the concordat? Can we have an absolute assurance that, despite the opposition of the British Cabinet and some members of the Scottish Cabinet, the will of this Parliament will be implemented and that the Scottish Executive will have no further delay in implementing the recommendations of the Sutherland report for free personal care for elderly people?

This is a serious subject, Presiding Officer, and I hope that you will allow me to answer the three points in Dennis Canavan's question, which he put seriously and, I hope, genuinely and which deserve an answer.

On the financial relationship with Westminster, members will know that I was Minister for Finance when we agreed the statement of funding policy. That statement, which is crystal clear, says:

"where decisions taken by any of the devolved administrations or bodies under their jurisdiction have financial implications for departments or agencies of the United Kingdom Government or, alternatively, decisions of United Kingdom departments or agencies lead to additional costs for any of the devolved administrations, where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost".

In other words, if the UK Government makes a decision that has financial implications for us, it should help us to meet that cost. If we make a decision that has financial implications for the UK Government, we should help it to meet that cost. If we make a decision that has financial implications for ourselves—just as we in this Parliament made the decision on free personal and nursing care—we should meet that cost and ensure that the policy is implemented.

On the implementation of the policy, it is arrogant and irresponsible to abuse the legitimate, professional advice of people who work in the system—the front-line staff whom members talk about much in the Parliament. We were given legitimate, professional advice and we have followed it to the letter. We have not squeezed a few extra days or squeezed money out of the budget, but have delivered exactly what was asked for, with an implementation date of 1 July. On 1 July 2002—exactly three years after the Parliament opened—I, for one, will be as proud as punch to deliver free personal and nursing care for Scotland's old-age pensioners. They could only have dreamed of that on 1 July 1999.

We began a little late so I will allow another question. As question 5 has been withdrawn, question 6 may be asked.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I seek your guidance. I think that the First Minister said that the cost of any decision that is taken by the Westminster Government that leads to expenditure by the Scottish Government will be borne by the Parliament that took the decision. In the case of the new Scottish Parliament building—

That is not a point of order—it is a point of argument.

---

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (Appointment Criteria)

To ask the First Minister what criteria are used in appointing Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland. (S1F-1568)

I am glad that we have reached this question. I want to put in the Official Report our appreciation for Clive Fairweather's good work in his role as Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. The chief inspector of prisons is an important public post that requires independent judgment, knowledge, communication skills and leadership qualities.

I am glad to hear the First Minister's endorsement. I am sure that he agrees that the current holder of the post, Mr Clive Fairweather, fulfils the most important criteria—he is honest and outspoken about the dreadful conditions in Scottish prisons. Perhaps he is so honest that he is being chased out of his job. The First Minister knows that vulnerable lives depend on the integrity of the chief inspector of prisons. Will he assure Parliament that a strong watchdog is needed for prisons and that the chief inspector will not be replaced by an establishment poodle?

Yes. I share some of Dorothy-Grace Elder's concerns about Scotland's prison system. The biggest problem with the system is that more than 50 per cent of those who go through it return at some stage, usually within two years. That is a serious matter. Yesterday, I noticed that one or two members of the Opposition parties were keen to criticise our approach. Before we make final decisions on prison buildings, we will seriously consider the issue of offending and re-offending.

On Monday, I was in Barlinnie prison and Kilmarnock prison. It was clear that what happens inside the prisons is as important as the location and ownership of the buildings.

On the interviewing of a new chief inspector of prisons, this morning, I secured a guarantee that an independent assessor will be on the interview panel for that position. It is important that the position will be independent of the Executive and I hope that we can proceed on that basis.

I have allowed injury time, but we must move on.