Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 17, 2001

Official Report 629KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S1F-1082)

I last met the Secretary of State on 16 May. We have plans to meet this evening.

Last week, I raised with the First Minister the issue of broken pledges. With the Deputy Prime Minister in town, I thought that there might be broken noses today. Yesterday was typical of new Labour—there was a flirt with the left and the hard right went in shortly afterwards.

On a more serious note, I want to ask the First Minister about the contents of his previous election manifesto. He said that he would end postcode prescribing and that everyone would get access to effective treatment, regardless of where they lived. Will the First Minister explain why he has failed to deliver that promise?

Everyone would agree that John Swinney might be slightly more effective if he were to stick to less serious matters.

In the past few weeks, we have heard a litany of apparently broken pledges and failures in the NHS, including waiting lists. Once again, John Swinney fails to appreciate the realities of what is happening in the NHS. Today, he has picked on the question of postcode lotteries.

The plans for the NHS will address the outstanding issues that we face. More work still has to be done, but we are embarking on the biggest hospital programme that Scotland has ever seen. There will be eight new hospitals and significant investment. Over the next five years, there will be 1,500 extra midwives and nurses and 600 extra consultants. We have invested in general practitioners in socially deprived and rural areas. We have a formidable record so far.

We are campaigning for another five years to work with Westminster to ensure that we deliver for Scotland on the health front.

The First Minister might have misinterpreted what I said. I was not raising the issue of the postcode lottery; my question was about postcode prescribing.

Perhaps I have reality on my side. I seem to remember the Prime Minister being confronted with the reality of health care outside a Birmingham hospital yesterday, when a lady took him to task about the Government's record on health. Is not it the case that postcode prescribing is not getting better—or even staying the same—but getting worse, time after time after time? The inequality of postcode treatment in Scotland is getting worse. Why is it justifiable for people to wait one month for a heart bypass operation in the Grampian area and four months in neighbouring Tayside? Why is that gap getting larger?

Again, we hear sweeping assertions on health issues. John Swinney knows that we inherited a position from the Conservatives that meant that we had to restabilise the NHS, then start on a massive investment programme. I have said repeatedly in the chamber that there is, of course, a great deal of work still to be done. That is why we will increase a record spend from £4.9 billion to £6.7 billion by 2003-04.

That is the reality of the partnership in Edinburgh and the partnership in Westminster. We will deliver for Scotland.

The First Minister says that I make sweeping assertions. What about some facts? I have given him facts on heart bypasses; let me give him facts on hip replacements. There are two months of a wait in the Western Isles but eight months in the Forth Valley, and the gap is getting larger.

Those are the facts. The Labour party has broken its promises—whether that is on waiting lists or waiting times does not matter—and now it is breaking its promises on postcode treatment. Why does the Prime Minister not stop breaking his promises and start standing for Scotland?

There seems to be a confusion of identities. Interestingly, at Prestonpans today, the Scottish Television commentator who was waiting for John Prescott said that he was waiting for the Deputy First Minister. I looked at him with horror and said, "Where on earth is Jim Wallace?" I advise Jim Wallace to be careful over the next two or three weeks about whom he speaks to and how he responds to them.

Let us have some facts. That is what John Swinney asked for. Let us also acknowledge that 100,000 more operations are taking place than in 1997—more heart bypasses, more knee replacements, more hip replacements, more cataract operations, more angina-related heart operations. There is a significant increase in what we are doing for people.

I said last week that we need no lectures from the Tories about health care. Let us remember that the SNP is the party that wanted to spend a paltry £35 million to improve health care in Scotland. We have heard a wish list from a party that does not work out the costs and does not work out whether those costs are before or after separation.

We have purpose. We are positive. The SNP is a distraction in the election and the Scottish people will show it that on 7 June.

Earlier this afternoon, we heard from the Deputy Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Sorry, I meant the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care—this Prime Minister thing is in my head.

We heard from the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care that the Executive was awaiting the publication of a report on ME by a working party that had been set up by the chief medical officer for England and Wales. When the First Minister next meets the Secretary of State for Scotland, will he remind her that the Executive cannot be bound by the recommendations of an England-based working group on which the Executive had only observer status and which took no evidence from Scotland? Will the First Minister assure me that the Executive will, instead, pay attention to motion S1M-1763, which has been signed by 79 members and calls for a strategic needs review assessment of ME for Scotland that will take evidence from Scotland?

The important point about devolution is that we have devolved interests. We work in partnership with Westminster, but the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive will detail the future of health care in Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will next meet and what issues will be discussed. (S1F-1085)

The Cabinet will next meet on 22 May when it will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I hope that the Cabinet will discuss the fact that crime in Scotland, particularly violent crime, has risen after four years of a Labour Government and that confidence in our criminal justice system across the board is now at a very low ebb.

When the Conservatives were in Government, we legislated to end automatic remission for prisoners and to have some honesty in sentencing, so that the sentence that was delivered in court was the sentence that was served. Labour overturned that legislation within a year and the minister responsible for that was Henry McLeish. As a result, more prisoners are being released early, thanks to Labour. Does the First Minister accept his responsibility for that and does he regret his action?

I am reminded of the simply ludicrous Conservative broadcast on law and order. If we stick to the facts we will make some progress.

Scotland does not have the early-release scheme with tagging that applies in England. Furthermore, the eligibility of prisoners for parole halfway through their sentence was implemented by the previous Tory Government.

Given that people are being frightened by broadcasts about attacks, we should make it absolutely clear that the legislation in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. There is nothing worse than exacerbating, through irresponsible broadcasts, the fear of crime on our streets.

Having listened to that answer, I have to ask whether it is any wonder that the Scottish Police Federation passes motions at its conference criticising the Executive for

"misleading and inaccurate information issued by elected representatives and officials".

May I give the First Minister some facts? We are not talking about the early-release scheme in England; we are talking about the Henry McLeish early-release scheme, whereby with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that was piloted through Westminster, he overturned the provisions in our Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 that ended automatic remission. According to the Scottish Prison Service, in research that was published in January this year, nearly half the prisoners who are released reoffend and are back in prison within two years and one quarter are back within six months.

Does the First Minister accept that, throughout Scotland, week after week, serious crimes are being committed by people who should still be in jail for their original crime—and would be in jail but for the First Minister's policy?

Let me give another fact that Mr McLetchie might have wanted to give. If we look at the prison population in Scotland, fortuitously, we see that it has risen since 1997—it was 6,162 in 1997 and is 6,210 now. The idea that we are emptying the prisons does not seem to bear examination in relation to the actual prison population. Let us look at the crime figures. We have just recorded a 3 per cent reduction in crime. We have just recorded record numbers of police in Scotland—up on the 1997 figure. I do not hear the Conservatives praising that or talking about that. The Conservatives had 18 years to sort out law and order. We are tough on crime; they talk tough on crime.

In the said 18 years, we increased police numbers by 2,000. Mr McLeish's party allowed the numbers to fall by 400 and is desperately trying to scrabble back to our level. That is the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter is also that the Scottish Police Federation has delivered a devastating vote of no confidence in the Executive's management of our criminal justice system. Mr McLeish should take responsibility for that.

The Conservatives are always citing other organisations, but what are their policies on the areas that we are talking about? What do they intend to do with the record numbers of police that we now have in Scotland? What do they suggest to reduce crime even further, when we have already seen a 3 per cent reduction? What do they intend to do to ensure investment in the prison service so that we can indeed put people away if required?

Once again, we have a situation in which the facts from the SNP and the Conservatives are all scaremongering. We have a solid record of achievement on behalf of the Scottish people—whether it be on schools and teachers; on doctors, nurses and hospitals; or, indeed, on attacking crime and building up our police forces.

When the Cabinet next meets, will the First Minister thank Ross Finnie for his announcement today in a written answer to me that the scheme for water charges relief for charitable bodies will be extended for a further year? Does the First Minister agree that that is welcome news for the voluntary sector and charitable organisations, which do such valuable work throughout Scotland? Will he give an assurance that the Executive will continue to explore ways of making that solution more permanent?

I am happy to give that reassurance and to agree with Iain Smith's comments. It is important that we recognise the difficulties that face voluntary organisations in Scotland. That is why I was pleased that both Ross Finnie and Jackie Baillie were out and about this morning, ensuring that, for next year, we will delay the implementation of the changes. Of course, dialogue will continue on delivering for the people that matter in Scotland in a way that they can measure.

---

Social Justice Objectives

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive has made in meeting its social justice objectives. (S1F-1089)

The Scottish Executive is committed to tackling poverty and promoting social justice and equality of opportunity. Progress so far is described in the social justice annual report. Key initiatives to deliver social justice include: £524 million for child care, early education and sure start Scotland over the next three years, helping to give our children the best possible start in life; £350 million to make sure every Scottish pensioner has central heating by 2006; and £165 million to support social inclusion partnerships delivering local solutions in our most disadvantaged communities.

With the lowest unemployment in my 22 years as a member of Parliament, and with massive investments in health and education, we have come a very long way since the Conservative party was sentenced by the electorate. However, does the First Minister accept that there is a lot more to be done, both here and at Westminster? In particular, does he share my concern about the social exclusion of 5,000 people who are on the waiting list for council houses in my constituency? What will the Scottish Executive do to increase the supply of affordable rented housing in areas such as East Lothian?

John Home Robertson makes a good point. We regard affordable social housing as an important priority and that will remain the case. SNP members may make noises from sedentary positions, but the fact is that we are in partnership in Scotland and delivering on housing. I can reassure John Home Robertson that that will continue.

John Home Robertson spoke about unemployment and employment, which is a social justice issue. If we are talking about a partnership achievement, let us recognise that we have the highest employment in Scotland for 41 years and the lowest unemployment for 26 years. If we want something to tackle social justice, it is the dignity of work. We are delivering here in partnership, and in partnership with London. That will continue after 7 June. I am sure that the Scottish people will support that.

The First Minister mentioned central heating as a key tool to deliver social justice. According to councils in the Lothians, barely 60 pensioners in the whole of the Lothians would benefit from the central heating scheme. How can the First Minister justify that, and how can he justify the fact that—according to his own statistics in the social justice annual report—one in four pensioners lived in poverty when Labour came to power and are still living in poverty, and one in three children lived in poverty when Labour came to power and are still living in poverty?

If the local councils want to write in with their concerns, that is fine.

I point out to Fiona Hyslop that we have a £350 million programme to ensure that every Scottish pensioner has central heating by 2006. Is not that a formidable commitment? Of course, no commitment is big enough to satisfy SNP members, who will never be in a position to deliver any commitment on this issue.

Fiona Hyslop mentioned pensioners. On that front, with the increases in pensions, the TV licence for over-75s, and the £200 annual heating allowance, we have committed ourselves to pensioners and we are delivering. One thing is clear: Scotland's 950,000 pensioners can look forward to our partnership delivering along with the partnership at Westminster. They would never see the SNP delivering.

In relation to social justice, Inland Revenue statistics for Scotland show that there are now more than 800,000 workers who are paid less than £10,000 a year. Is the First Minister embarrassed by that statistic? What does he feel is the minimum income that should be given to the workers of Scotland who keep our public services going, when so many of them are underpaid and, unfortunately, undervalued?

Two key ways of ensuring social justice are first, for people to have a job and secondly, for them to have a decent income. On the first point, since 1997 we have created an extra 94,000 jobs in Scotland. That means that 94,000 more people are in work. That is good. On the second point, we introduced the minimum wage. People can criticise, but we campaigned for the minimum wage for many years. It was never a reality under the Tories, but we introduced the minimum wage and it will be going up. We want to attain full employment and we have started on the minimum wage. I tell Tommy Sheridan that that is the answer to the people who say that we need to tackle those issues. We are tackling them, and we will continue to do so.

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

---

Governance

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive ensures that it works effectively with Her Majesty's Government. (S1F-1087)

Scottish Executive ministers and officials work closely and constructively with their counterparts in the United Kingdom Government. Those contacts take place on a regular basis, both formally and informally.

I am sure that members will welcome Iain Gray's recent announcements on how the Executive is tackling the drug menace in Scotland. However, as the First Minister knows, drugs and drug dealers know no boundaries. How will the First Minister ensure that we work effectively with our Westminster colleagues to tackle the evil of drugs in our communities?

The whole Parliament would agree with Duncan McNeil's assessment of the threat that drugs pose in every community, every village and every town in Scotland. On the partnership front that will be the essence of success in the years ahead, the Scottish Executive is working closely with the UK anti-drugs co-ordination unit. A ministerial network on drugs has also been established, of which the Deputy Minister for Justice is a member.

We are also making progress with the UK framework on the confiscation of assets. We will never rest until we make deep inroads into dealing with the drug menace in Scotland and particularly those people who deal in death every day on our streets. They are the priority for the confiscation of assets. Those aims can be achieved only through a working relationship between Westminster and Edinburgh and that is what we will pursue.

Ten weeks ago, an additional £200 million was allocated to Scotland by Her Majesty's Government in the budget. Ten weeks later, why has no announcement been made on the allocation of that money? Is it because the Cabinet refuses to allow the First Minister to spend one more penny on free personal care, or because Cabinet ministers are at war with one another?

I do not know which ludicrous assertion to tackle first—neither of them bears any relation to the truth. We will make announcements soon on those matters.

In an attempt to be neutral and objective during the general election campaign, I ask whether it would not have been difficult—without annoying you, Sir David—to have announced daily how we would spend that £200 million. Is not it in the interest of an objective debate during a general election that we do not do so? I say to Alex Neil that we have taken the moral high ground. I am sure that he will be satisfied with that.