Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1581)
I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.
Does the First Minister recall that a few weeks ago I revealed damning information about national health service waiting times? That information was obtained from ISD Scotland, which is the First Minister's statistics department. ISD has always released information quickly and without question—that is, until now. Will the First Minister explain why the rules have suddenly changed? Why does any politician or journalist who wants information about the NHS now have to go through a lengthy five-step process with no guarantee that any information will be released at the end? What is the First Minister trying to hide?
I am not aware of any change in the rules whatsoever.
The First Minister can plead innocence, but is it not a coincidence that he is embarrassed in the chamber by information from ISD then, within weeks, rules that have lasted for 31 years are changed to make it nigh on impossible to get information from ISD? That change is a blatant attempt to cover up his failure on health, and it is not the only one. Is the First Minister aware of the rule that parliamentary questions should normally be answered within two weeks? If so, will he explain why four questions about the number of patients who are waiting for treatment have not been answered seven weeks after they were lodged by one of my colleagues? Again, what is the First Minister trying to hide?
We are, of course, all aware of the targets that are set for the answering of parliamentary questions. In the vast majority of cases, those targets are met. In some cases it takes longer to provide the information, but in all cases questions are eventually properly answered.
Is the First Minister aware that the answers to the questions to which I referred have been on the Minister for Health and Community Care's desk for two weeks? On Monday, his office told the Scottish Parliament information centre—and this is a quote—
That allegation is absolutely untrue. It contains no basis in truth whatsoever. The questions will be answered properly with accurate information that is independently provided to the Executive. The questions will be answered by the health minister as soon as that information is ready.
If the allegation is untrue, I expect the First Minister to instruct his health minister to release the information immediately. Is it not the case that the First Minister will go to any lengths to cover up his failure on health? He will use English statistics, he will pretend that Scottish patients do not have to wait twice as long, and now he is suppressing information and keeping it secret from the public. Is it not the case that when the facts do not suit—whether on war or on waiting times—Labour's instinct is to distort or suppress them? Is it not time that the First Minister stopped hiding the truth and came clean about his woeful record on the national health service?
Nothing could be further from the truth. I remind Ms Sturgeon of the facts about the health service here in Scotland. The number of people waiting more than six months, nine months and 12 months is lower in Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Scotland is the only place in the United Kingdom where no one waits more than nine months for in-patient treatment after that treatment has been agreed. The median wait in Scotland is shorter than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Out-patient waiting, which was not even measured by the Tories, was reduced by 15 per cent in the last quarter of last year. Those and other statistics are the statistics that Ms Sturgeon does not want to debate in the chamber. No amount of Scottish National Party spin on the matter can detract from those statistics and the achievements of doctors, nurses and other professionals in the Scottish health service. We will continue to defend and improve the achievements of the health service in Scotland. The SNP can spin all it likes, but that will not change the facts of the matter.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1582)
The Cabinet will meet again next week and it will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I suggest that an important issue that the Cabinet should consider is the one highlighted in the remarks of Sergeant Malcolm Gibbs of Tayside police, who told the Scottish Police Federation conference earlier this week:
As I have said before, it is wrong of Mr McLetchie to describe our policy in that way and to exaggerate it with the use of inflammatory language. However, as I have stated clearly on a number of occasions—in advance of the most recent Scottish Parliament elections, in our partnership agreement and in our evidence to the Sentencing Commission—my view is that automatic release halfway through a sentence is also wrong. If we are to change that policy, we should change it in the way that is most effective in terms of punishing offenders and in terms of their rehabilitation. The automatic release policy will change, but it will do so following recommendations from a judicially led committee. That is the right way to bring about a change that is sustainable in the long term rather than one that is about party-political point scoring.
I remind the First Minister that there was no commission when the Labour Government introduced automatic early release seven years ago. Nearly two years have passed since he said that automatic early release would be a first priority for his Sentencing Commission, but we know perfectly well that that was not the case. Meanwhile, the list of crimes that could have been prevented grows longer. The First Minister will be aware of this week's report into the case of James Campbell, who attempted a disgusting rape on a two-year-old child after his release only halfway through a three-year sentence. Will the First Minister take the opportunity to apologise to the family concerned, and to all others in that situation, for the failures of a Scottish Executive policy that, I repeat, is more concerned with emptying our prisons than with protecting the public?
It is absolutely untrue to suggest that there is a policy to empty prisons or that the current policy on automatic early release will be maintained. We will change the policy on automatic early release, but we will do so in a sustainable way that can build support and be effective across Scotland. Not only do we need more effective sentences, with tougher sentences for those who are most dangerous and most violent, but we need effective rehabilitation to cut reoffending. Scotland's rehabilitation rates have been too low for far too long. That is why the system needs to change.
However, the fundamental failure was not in monitoring but in the fact that the man got out of jail early because of the First Minister's policy. If the man had still been in jail, he would not have needed any monitoring. That is only common sense. How can the First Minister say, on the one hand, that he will change the policy on automatic early release and, on the other hand, that he will await the report of the Sentencing Commission? That is a completely inconsistent position. If he is determined to change the policy regardless of what the Sentencing Commission says, he can introduce his proposals now. Why will he not do so? Surely the First Minister does not need a Sentencing Commission in order to correct what is self-evidently a blatant and disgraceful injustice.
Not at all. It makes perfect sense for the policy to be changed following proper advice from the judicially led Sentencing Commission, which has on it the experts who will be responsible not only for sentencing but for the implementation of rehabilitation programmes and the monitoring of people in the community once they are out.
There will be one constituency supplementary.
As the First Minister is aware, the report of the Social Work Inspection Agency's investigation into the events surrounding the horrific crime perpetrated by James Campbell in Coatbridge last July was published this week. The report highlighted a number of issues, some of which have been mentioned in response to the previous question. Among the issues that were highlighted was the fact that when he was in prison James Campbell did not receive any treatment to address his sexual offending. Although I welcome the swift action taken by the Minister for Justice to initiate a national audit of sex offender cases, can the First Minister tell me what action will be taken to ensure that all sex offenders receive assessment and treatment that is appropriate to their needs and to the risk that they pose? Also, at what stage is the Scottish Executive with regard to developing a national strategy on the housing of sex offenders?
Both matters are currently being worked on, but both are reliant on clear procedures being in place and on there being an expectation that following those procedures will be the norm, rather than the exception. We are bringing in those changes—which were not previously brought in—to ensure that sex offenders are less likely to offend again.
National Health Service (Entrepreneurial Spirit)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is on United Kingdom Secretary of State for Health Dr John Reid's emphasis on the health service's need for greater entrepreneurial spirit. (S2F-1596)
Dr Reid has always been known for entrepreneurial spirit. We are committed to creating a patient-centred national health service in Scotland, which is available to all according to clinical need and is free at the point of use. I certainly support a greater entrepreneurial spirit when that means vigorously searching for and pursuing new ways of doing things that improve services for patients and ensure that they get the best and quickest treatment possible from the NHS in Scotland.
John Reid's rebuke of doctors and dentists for their lack of entrepreneurial spirit surely exposes to the core new Labour's values on health. How many students has the First Minister met who went to dental college or medical school because they wanted to be entrepreneurs? Is it not the case that most people want general practitioners and dentists to become salaried employees of the national health service? Is it not also the case that the national health service has for 50 years been fending off entrepreneurial spirits, in the shape of pharmaceutical companies that rip off the NHS every year and financiers who build new hospitals, such as the new royal infirmary in Edinburgh, for £300 million and charge double that amount? In the past Labour used to fend off entrepreneurs—
That is enough. You will get another cut in a minute.
One of the pleasures that I have had this week was that of addressing the annual congress in Dundee of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I was able to welcome the STUC's involvement in "Determined to Succeed", our enterprise in education programme. The core principles of "Determined to Succeed"—creativity and encouraging entrepreneurial spirit among Scottish children—should run through our public services, not only our private sector. We need public services in Scotland that employ people's imaginations and their creativity, which is not the same as exploiting those services for private profit. One reason why Colin Fox and the Scottish Socialist Party will never be in Government in this country is that they do not understand the difference between creativity, flair and imagination on the one hand and an end to exploitation on the other.
The First Minister has avoided the issue. He knows that the state of the NHS is people's biggest bugbear in the general election campaign. Is that because finding an NHS dentist in Scotland is harder than finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Will people take Labour's demand for more entrepreneurial spirit to mean that it is abandoning the bedrock on which the NHS was built: that if a person is ill, they will be treated? Finally, is it true that there can be a universally free health care system that is based on need, or a system that is driven by entrepreneurial spirit, but there cannot be both?
That is not true. There can be an NHS in Scotland that is driven by need and free at the point of need, as well as a service that has a spirit of creativity and imagination and that looks for new ways to deliver services in the 21st century. The Scottish Socialist Party does not understand that, which shows how out of date and old fashioned its form of socialism is and why that party will again be rejected by the people of Scotland in the election on 5 May. Its members ask questions about dental services at First Minister's question time, but they could not be bothered even to turn up to take part in this morning's debate. People will waste their votes if they vote for that crowd; they should not vote for members of that party again.
NHS Argyll and Clyde
To ask the First Minister whether all options need to be considered to ensure that safe, sustainable services are delivered for the patients of NHS Argyll and Clyde. (S2F-1585)
We expect all national health service boards to sustain a sound financial footing in order to deliver high-quality services from the Executive's record levels of funding. We are all aware of the significant financial difficulties that NHS Argyll and Clyde has experienced and the Minister for Health and Community Care has been consistently clear that no options will be ruled out in order to preserve high-quality, safe and sustainable health care services for local people in that area.
I welcome the First Minister's response. Is it in the best interests of patients to allow a health board to soldier on if, over a period of years and under a succession of management regimes, it has pushed forward a string of ill-thought-out reorganisation plans, its accounts are in a mess and it has lost the trust of those whom it serves? Does the First Minister agree that although structures are not the solution, they can be part of the problem? Will he give an assurance that he and his ministers will not shirk from taking the toughest action when it is required?
It is clear that there are continuing problems in NHS Argyll and Clyde, but there have also been successes over the years. I am keen to build on those successes as well as to tackle the difficulties. As I have already said in the chamber, one issue that must be considered is the structure of the health boards in the west of Scotland. The Minister for Health and Community Care is considering that matter and will make a statement to the Parliament in due course.
Obviously, the First Minister will be aware of last weekend's stories about leaks from the Executive on the possibility of scrapping Argyll and Clyde NHS Board. Will scrapping that board lead to services being returned to hospitals in the Inverclyde and—in particular—the Vale of Leven areas for the benefit of patients, or will it make no difference whatsoever? Will the Executive write off the massive multimillion pound debt, estimated to be up to £100 million, for the benefit of patients in the west of Scotland? What will be the effect of scrapping Argyll and Clyde NHS Board on patients in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area? The acute services review in Glasgow has led to changes at the Victoria infirmary and at Stobhill and there will be accident and emergency department closures in the future. Will those changes be put on hold, because the premise on which the acute services review was based will be changed if Argyll and Clyde NHS Board is scrapped and the boundaries are changed?
Here we go again. There have been hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in new hospital services in Glasgow and all that Stewart Maxwell can do is complain and wish that such investment was not happening. The Parliament was not set up to do that—it was set up to improve the health service in Scotland, not simply to complain about it and about additional investment.
Does the First Minister accept that the patients in Argyll and Clyde do not have the remotest idea what he is talking about? The patients in that health board area are overdue a specific ministerial assurance from the Parliament as to precisely what the Scottish Executive intends to do in relation to that health board.
If the Minister for Health and Community Care did not consider carefully the report of the Audit Committee of this Parliament and consult properly all the health boards that might be involved in any change, Miss Goldie would be one of the first to criticise him. It is right and proper that a considered decision is made in this case, and that it is made in the interests not of structures or of ideology, but of patients. It is also right and proper that the decision is announced to Parliament as soon as it is made.
I would not expect the First Minister to comment on speculation about the break-up of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board, although many of my constituents would welcome that action from the Minister for Health and Community Care. Will the First Minister affirm that we will always put the needs of patients very much at the top of the agenda? Equally, will he affirm the importance of the Vale of Leven and Gartnavel hospitals to delivering services for my constituents in the future?
I am happy to acknowledge the considerable efforts made by Jackie Baillie to ensure that the needs of her constituents are taken on board in any review of the current position. However, they make at least as much use of facilities in the Glasgow NHS Board area as in the Argyll and Clyde NHS Board area, as Jackie Baillie has consistently said in the chamber. That is an important factor in this discussion.
G8 Summit (Impact on Edinburgh)
To ask the First Minister what impact the G8 summit will have on access to public facilities in Edinburgh and what the effects of any restrictions may be. (S2F-1584)
The plans for dealing with a large number of people in Edinburgh, as elsewhere, will be a matter for the chief constable in consultation with the local authorities and other relevant agencies. They will be based on the most up-to-date assessment of risks at that time. As ever, the chief constable will have our full support.
I thank the First Minister for his reply. Would he share my concern if people such as us in public life, and their facilities, were in light of an assessed threat to have protection that was denied to people elsewhere in Edinburgh, including commercial premises and ordinary individuals? Does he agree that we should make every effort to ensure that the Parliament building and other public buildings remain open for business as usual during the G8 summit?
The Presiding Officer would be the first to pick me up if I tried to interfere with his role or that of the parliamentary authorities in deciding the opening hours of the Parliament and the arrangements that apply in that regard.
I wish to make the First Minister aware of the genuine concerns of local businesses, community representatives and shopkeepers in the area around the Parliament and throughout the city centre about the potential disruption to their lives and the potential damage to property that they read about in the newspapers on a regular basis. We have already had lessons in disruption to people's lives in this area, including, for example, to pensioners who were not able to access local services, and to bus services when Canongate is closed. Will the First Minister meet me to discuss what we can do to reassure local people that their needs and concerns will be taken into account in the important planning that he has talked about being done by all the authorities? We need to ensure not only that the agencies talk to each other, but that local people also know what is happening.
I want to reassure the people of Edinburgh that the agencies are not only now talking to each other but have been for some considerable time. A considerable amount of planning, not all of which can be made public, is going into ensuring that security in Edinburgh is as strong as it can be around the dates of the summit.
Will the First Minister ensure that the police have the necessary back-up support, so that if offensive weapons are accumulated beforehand, as has happened at other summits, preventive action can and will be taken?
The police are planning for all eventualities and are working with others to ensure that they have the resources, facilities and back-up support that may be required to deal with whatever may transpire.
The First Minister has indicated his support for the police and local authorities. Does he agree that the City of Edinburgh Council should be supported financially to allow it to provide public facilities for those who, at the invitation of Gordon Brown, among others, are coming to Edinburgh to exercise their right to peaceful protest, and that the provision of proper public facilities is the best way of avoiding any confrontation in Edinburgh or across Scotland during the G8 summit?
Discussions are taking place on this issue at the moment. We have made it clear that, as well as providing additional finance for the police authorities in Scotland that will be most affected, we will ensure that additional finance is available for local authorities in Scotland that may be affected. The details of that finance must be negotiated—there is no blank cheque to any authority or other organisation. However, we will ensure that resources are provided and that Scotland is prepared.
Barnett Formula
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is aware of any plans to review the operation of the Barnett formula. (S2F-1592)
We are not aware of any such plans.
I wonder whether the First Minister is thinking what Liberal Democrat members are thinking—that the only thing that a Tory Government at Westminster would deliver for Scotland would be massive cuts to front-line public services. Does the First Minister have any information on why the Scottish National Party has failed to publish detailed costings of its spending plans? Could it be that it is trying to cover up a financial black hole in the plans? Does he welcome the fact that a Liberal Democrat Government at Westminster will deliver not cuts or financial black holes, but an additional £1.8 billion for the Executive to invest in public services?
I am sure that George Lyon and the Liberal Democrats as a whole will be happy to outline their plans to the good voters of Edinburgh, Aberdeen and elsewhere, and that they will also spell out the tax increases that will pay for them. However, at least those plans are accurately thought out, unlike the nonsense that we have heard over recent weeks from the two main Opposition parties in the Parliament. On 20 January, we had a clear promise from the Conservatives that they would publish their plans for savings in the Scottish budget in advance of the Scottish election, but just a few weeks later we had a clear promise that they would not. The Scottish Conservatives have hidden, secret plans for cuts in the Scottish budget that we have yet to see.
We will give the First Minister a chance to do some arithmetic of his own. To what extent will the forecast by the United Kingdom Government Actuary's Department that the Scottish population will decline to 3.6 million by 2073 and our having the lowest life expectancy of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries force changes to the Executive's revenue-generating strategies and other Government policies?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Let me get the First Minister's answer out of the way, then I will come to you.
I should live so long.
I was waiting for Mr Mather to get to the point. There has been a bit of talk in the chamber today about people publishing information that they have. Mr Mather published a document on Tuesday, but he did not publish the introductory comment that he was given by those in the Government Actuary's Department who provided him with that document. That comment said:
Ms MacDonald, you are still with us.
If I wanted to go to a pantomime, I would book in at the King's.
That is hardly the point. I judged it to be relevant—just.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I am sure that you are aware of this, I tell the chamber that the Barnett formula is based on population.
Indeed, that is why I judged the question to be relevant.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time