Plenary, 19 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, June 19, 2003

Official Report 752KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-94)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, on Monday in London, when we discussed a range of important issues. I expect to meet the new Secretary of State for Scotland regularly. I am sure that he would join me in congratulating Mr Swinney on his recent announcement, although I should add that I notice that Mr Swinney is not planning to hold a referendum before giving up his independence.

The referendum was one person, one vote and it took place some time ago.

For more than two months, since the introduction of the child tax credit scheme, thousands of Scotland's most vulnerable families have been without the protection of the law in terms of their rights to claim key benefits. Last week, Parliament restored that legal protection for access to free school meals. Why was Parliament not asked to restore that legal protection in relation to free dental treatment and free prescriptions?

I believe that, two and a half months ago, Parliament ensured that that right was also available in relation to eye checks, under similar provisions designed to ensure that we could deal properly with the new tax credits.

There are some outstanding issues in relation to this matter. It would have been wrong to deal with them as part of the school meals legislation, because it is important that when changes are made to deal with prescription charges and other issues, the right legislation is put in place to stand the test of time.

I am a bit puzzled by the First Minister's answer. The child tax credit scheme was first proposed in 1999, there was a consultation process that ended in 2001, the details were given in the budget in 2002 and the Westminster Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales appear to have taken all the necessary steps to guarantee that that legal protection is in place.

In the debate last week, Euan Robson said that the current administrative arrangements relating to school meals

"cannot be sustained beyond a short period"

and that

"the bill is necessary to give the arrangements legal force."—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; c 614.]

Surely, with regard to free dental treatment, free prescriptions and perhaps other important benefits for vulnerable people in Scotland, that legal protection has to be in place.

Why is it possible for the United Kingdom Government and the National Assembly for Wales to get their acts together but not for the Scottish Executive to manage to do so?

If Mr Swinney had checked his facts, he would have discovered that appropriate guidance was circulated in March and has been on the Scottish Executive's website since late March or early April. The process has been operating effectively. It is wrong of Mr Swinney, simply because he wants to write a press release, to scare people across Scotland by claiming that their benefits are in some way under threat. However, the SNP's press release says quite clearly that the delay has been caused by a need to ensure that the legislation that is required on this subject is not out of step with earlier legislation and notes in particular outstanding difficulties in relation to the arrangements regarding asylum seekers.

Mr Swinney should state all the facts to the chamber today. No one in Scotland should be losing out in relation to their benefits as a result of the arrangements that are required because of the change to the child tax credit scheme.

Legislation is required to put in place a permanent solution and that legislation will be forthcoming at the right time, which will be when it is ready.

That takes us no further forward. According to the information that I have received from the House of Commons library, this issue arose in late 2000 and has been rumbling on ever since. That does not suggest that this Government can close issues down terribly quickly.

I am concerned about the lack of legal force not because I have made anything up but because Euan Robson told Parliament last week that the arrangements have to have legal force behind them as all it takes is one challenge to jeopardise the benefits that these individuals are properly entitled to.

Is it not about time that the First Minister stopped talking about good government and started delivering it? The Scottish Parliament goes into recess a week on Friday and there will be weeks in which we cannot take the necessary action. The Executive needs to get its act together and deliver good government in the interests of the vulnerable people of Scotland.

Mr Swinney is grasping at straws and struggling as a result. If he would check his facts carefully before writing his press releases, he would know that there is no need for primary legislation on the issue. That is why there is a difference between the legislation on school meals and the other matters. It is also why we were able to act quickly. Because the position with eye checks was so straightforward, we were able to legislate using secondary legislation earlier this year. In fact, the members of the Scottish nationalist party who were involved in that decision should have been aware that that was the case. Now, of course, we will ensure that the right legislation is in place as quickly as possible. Currently, no one in Scotland should be losing out at all. It is very wrong to scare people in Scotland and suggest that they are.

Not once have I raised eye checks. That issue has been raised entirely by the First Minister. There is a problem with free prescriptions and dental checks. When will the Government bring forward the secondary legislation to deliver those? It is not as hard as primary legislation. Surely the First Minister could get the easy bit right first.

As Mr Swinney notes in his own press release, we will bring forward the secondary legislation on that matter as soon as it is ready. That legislation will be the right legislation and there will therefore be no problems with it.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-102)

I speak regularly with the Prime Minister on matters of importance to the people of Scotland. I spoke to the Prime Minister last week and intend to do so regularly over the course of the summer.

I wonder whether, in their next discussion, the First Minister and the Prime Minister might discuss the health service and reflect on the fact that we now have a Scottish member of Parliament—Mr John Reid—in charge of the health service in England. Will the First Minister explain why the benefits of foundation hospitals are to be extended to the people of Manchester by Mr Reid, but denied to the people of Motherwell, thanks to the Scottish Executive's ideological blinkers?

The only person in these exchanges who is regularly ideologically blinkered about the health service is Mr McLetchie and it certainly not me. The health service in Scotland needs to have Scottish solutions to the problems that it faces. We need to ensure that the right reforms are in place in the health service in Scotland to secure the maximum return for the record level of investment that is now being made in the health service in Scotland to enable it to recover from the many years in which Mr McLetchie's party was causing it so much damage.

We will ensure that those reforms are the right ones for Scotland. The Westminster Government is perfectly entitled to pursue the reforms that it believes are right for the health service in England. The two systems are different and the reforms will be different, but the end result is the same: the patient comes first and the patient gets a better service.

I fail to see the virtue of a so-called Scottish solution if it results in longer waiting lists, which are up by 20 per cent since 1999, and longer waiting times, which have grown by 21 days since 1997. It is a perverse form of patriotism indeed that prefers a Scottish solution that makes things worse for people in Scotland.

Let us assume for a moment that people in Scotland are not enamoured with the Scottish solutions that are on offer from the Scottish Executive for our health service and happen to think that they might get speedier treatment for their conditions in one of Mr Reid's foundation hospitals on the national health service in England. Is the Scottish Executive prepared to give patients in Scotland the right to exercise that choice? In other words, will people in Scotland have passports to access NHS services at NHS hospitals anywhere in the United Kingdom at NHS expense?

I made it clear several months ago that patients in Scotland for whom our guarantee on waiting times is not met locally will have the right to access their health care elsewhere in Scotland or the rest of the UK or anywhere else, for that matter, and have it paid for by the local health board, because that guarantee will be met. That is the clear objective that we have set.

It would be better if, instead of talking about a health service that exists elsewhere, Mr McLetchie would address the health service in Scotland. Only in the past week, Malcolm Chisholm announced further reforms to the Scottish health service. I have said before that such reform is overdue and Malcolm Chisholm has announced a clear plan for Scotland. The reforms will include alternatives to traditional consultations using telemedicine or general practitioner specialists.

We are introducing new ways of managing the queue, so that people do not get the wrong appointment at the wrong time, but are given appointments at times that suit them and which they can meet. We are introducing new ways of managing capacity to ensure that the service meets the patient rather than the other way round. That is the best way to bring down out-patient waiting times in Scotland. Our reforms will deliver that.

The First Minister will be aware of the scourge of pyramid selling in this country via chain letters that make promises of great riches, which ultimately lead to losers. Several constituents of mine are caught in that trap. I am sure that the First Minister will welcome press reports this week that the Westminster Government intends to introduce legislation to kill the scourge, possibly by means of an amendment to gambling legislation. When the First Minister next meets the Prime Minister, will he discuss the matter and seek ways to solve the problem in Scotland, either by means of a Sewel motion or by primary legislation?

Scottish ministers are in regular discussion with colleagues down south. At the moment, they are in specific discussions about issues that relate to gambling and casinos and the legislation on those issues. If that is an area on which the Westminster Government might legislate, I assure Mr Stone that we will raise the matter as part of those discussions to ensure that no one in Scotland loses out if change is taking place elsewhere.

---

Sustainable Future

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has, and what action it has taken in this session of the Parliament, to build a sustainable future in Scotland. (S2F-101)

As we stated in the partnership agreement, we want this parliamentary session to be marked by increasing delivery and action to create a more sustainable Scotland. We will toughen up action on environmental crime and take action to improve the quality of life by tackling graffiti, fly-tipping and abandoned cars.

In the short term, we are moving fast to put together a green jobs strategy, with areas such as renewable energy at its core. We are also creating strategic environmental assessments and will introduce a bill in the autumn on nature conservation.

In the last session of the Parliament, the First Minister set up the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland. Three weeks ago, when I asked him when the sub-committee would next meet, I was informed that Cabinet sub-committees would be decided shortly. Is it not a matter of regret that the First Minister is unable to announce to the chamber today that the sub-committee on sustainable Scotland has been reinstituted and that it will meet shortly?

I am happy to confirm to the chamber today that the Cabinet has agreed to continue with the sub-committee on sustainable Scotland and that the sub-committee will continue to have external members. I hope that, when the Cabinet meets next week, it might even agree that I am allowed to chair the sub-committee again—although I will need to discuss that with my colleagues. I assure Mr Harper that the sub-committee will meet as soon as possible.

---

Cabinet Reshuffle (Constitutional Changes)

To ask the First Minister what impact any constitutional changes arising from the recent reshuffle of the Cabinet of Her Majesty's Government will have on the Scottish Executive. (S2F-100)

I believe that the UK Cabinet reshuffle was a significant vote of confidence in the way that devolution is working. [Interruption.] The Scottish National Party might not like the answer, but devolution is working in Scotland and got a significant vote of confidence last week.

There will be a greater emphasis on bilateral relationships between respective Scottish and UK ministers. The Scottish Executive now takes the lead in the promotion of Scotland abroad.

In the light of the sensible and pragmatic realignment of portfolios at Westminster, I ask the First Minister to assure me that he will establish bilateral meetings with the new energy minister, Stephen Timms, as a matter of priority. Does he agree that it is essential to continue to make progress on the development of renewable energy generation? Will he further assure me that my constituents in the Western Isles remain at the forefront of the Executive's plans for the expansion of renewable energy projects, including wind farm and wave energy developments?

I believe that we should have renewable energy in Scotland. The Western Isles have a massive potential for our economy and for a more sustainable use of energy in the years to come. I congratulate Stephen Timms on his appointment—indeed, I would have liked to have been the first to do so, but unfortunately I cannot do so because the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who is our energy minister, met Stephen Timms on Tuesday. That shows that the new process is already working.

When the First Minister meets the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, will he raise with him the possible transfer of reserved powers under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998? Although I recognise that the First Minister is not a nationalist with either a big or a small n, there is a broad consensus in the chamber that the transfer of powers over the internal rules governing the operation of the Scottish Parliament, for example, should be transferred to the Parliament. Moreover, earlier this year, the Transport and the Environment Committee under a Labour convener recommended that powers over railways should be transferred. Will the First Minister therefore raise the issue of the transfers of some real power to this Parliament?

The Parliament's procedures are entirely a matter for the Parliament. As a result, I would expect the Parliament instead of me to discuss them.

Does the First Minister not agree that the handling of the Cabinet's constitutional changes has resulted in considerable confusion? Is he quite certain with whom he should be communicating when he contacts the Westminster Government? Moreover, does he not agree that, quite contrary to what he said in his response to the SNP, what has happened over the past week has added pressures to the maintenance of the union instead of making the UK a more cohesive body?

Nothing makes me more certain that any constitutional change—no matter whether it happens in the UK Cabinet or whether it created this Parliament—is likely to be right than if it is opposed by both the nationalists and the Conservatives.

---

West Coast Main Line Railway

To ask the First Minister how Glasgow will benefit from the west coast main line railway upgrade. (S2F-99)

First, I am sure that members across the chamber and perhaps from all parties will join me in congratulating the new Secretary of State for Scotland and thanking him for announcing a £9 billion investment in the west coast main line shortly before I met him in London on Monday. In addition to the other benefits that the new line will bring, faster trains will operate between Glasgow and London to deliver a four hour 30 minute service by 2004 and a four and a quarter hour service by 2007.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and add my congratulations to his own on this matter.

However, the west coast main line carries 40 per cent of UK freight. As a result, does the First Minister regard the Royal Mail's decision to withdraw mail services from the railways as a retrograde step and against public policy in Scotland and England? In light of the recent major announcement, will he arrange to meet, or arrange for one of his ministers to meet, the Royal Mail to seek a reversal of its decision?

I am probably even more disappointed than other members about the Royal Mail's decision, as it will have an impact on the depot in my constituency. However, given the recent performance of trains on the west coast main line, we should not be particularly surprised by the company's decision. The key issue is to get the line upgraded to ensure that it can carry more freight and passengers more quickly. That will not only improve railway journeys and increase the level of freight that is carried between Glasgow and London, but significantly improve the efficiency of the transport infrastructure across the whole of the UK. I am delighted that the upgrade is taking place. Indeed, I hope that that very fact will avoid a situation where other companies take similar decisions and indeed might allow the Royal Mail to reconsider its own decision at some point in the future.

---

Police Numbers

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's plans are for increasing police numbers. (S2F-89)

Police numbers in Scotland are already at record levels, reaching 15,487 in March 2003, which is a rise of just over 700 officers since devolution. A combination of investment in training new officers, court and other reforms, and operational improvements will deliver an increase in the numbers of police officers on operational duty in every Scottish force. Our objective would be to secure such an increase in every year of this parliamentary session.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the fatal accident inquiry into the death of Alison Duguid and of the comment by Inspector Merchant of Grampian police that a shortage of police officers might have contributed to her death? Does the First Minister accept that Grampian police is underfunded relative to the Scottish average? Can the First Minister tell me when the long-awaited review of police funding in Scotland will be completed and implemented?

There are issues regarding police funding throughout Scotland and, as Mr Adam will know, there has been a review. We will work towards implementing that review's outcomes in a steady way that does not disrupt the operational responsibilities and arrangements of police forces throughout Scotland. It would be wrong of me to comment on individual cases and on possible impacts from local operational arrangements on an individual case. However, the chief constable of Grampian police is part of the discussion each year that allocates available resources and he will want to make his point at that discussion.

It is vital that we keep our eye on the bigger picture in Scotland. That is why the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, announced today wide-ranging, radical reforms to the court system in Scotland that will not only improve the likelihood of bringing forward cases on time and ensuring that those who are guilty of criminal activity are properly prosecuted, but ensure that police officers do not waste time waiting week after week and time after time for courts to complete the proper processes and hear cases. The reforms will allow officers to get back on to the beat.

I noticed that the SNP has come out today—Mr Adam might not yet be aware of this—against one of our proposed key changes, which is the change to the 110-day rule. We will have a very interesting debate during the next few weeks on that matter because court reforms are needed in Scotland and should be implemented as quickly as possible.

That concludes questions to the First Minister. I ask those members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that he did so inadvertently, but Mr Neil attributed an incorrect outcome to the Transport and the Environment Committee report to which he referred. In fact, an SNP proposal that would have caused further instability in the railway industry was rejected following a vote at a meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

It does not necessarily require a point of order to set the record straight, but you have made your point. Mr Neil is no longer in the chamber, so I think that we should leave it there. Will those members who intend to leave the chamber, please do so now.