Plenary, 24 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, June 24, 2004

Official Report 742KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-948)

I expect to see the Prime Minister during the recess, when we will discuss a number of issues.

Today, the Secretary of State for Health announced that no patient in England would have to wait longer than 18 weeks between seeing their general practitioner and being treated. What is the comparable pledge in Scotland?

The comparable pledge in Scotland, which will cover the period to 2008, will be announced when we announce our spending review in September.

I see that the precision of the First Minister's answers has not changed.

Is it not the case that the comparable pledge in Scotland is 52 weeks? In other words, the Executive's pledge is that an individual will wait no longer than a year between seeing their GP and having their operation. Is that not an unambitious target for the First Minister to set for the people of Scotland? Will he pledge that the people of Scotland will not have to wait any longer than people south of the border for the treatment that they have the right to expect?

The good news is that people in Scotland do not have to wait as long as people in England do. The Secretary of State for Health, Dr John Reid, is doing an excellent job for the United Kingdom Government. He is doing his level best to ensure that the level of resources that is allocated to, and the achievements of, the health service in England catch up with those of the health service in Scotland.

It is important to record the achievements of the health service in Scotland. For example, Scotland achieved the nine-month guarantee ahead of any other part of the UK and has seen the number of patients who have to wait longer than six months halved. The health service in Scotland has achieved those, and other, things. That said, although we remain able to treat patients more quickly than south of the border, we must ensure that the right target is in place for 2008. At the moment, we do not have those targets, but we will have them by September and we will announce them when we announce our budgets.

Is the First Minister not concerned that, having seen their GP, more than 150,000 people in Scotland are currently waiting more than 12 months for their hospital treatment? Is it not about time to set some big, bold and ambitious targets for our health service to ensure that it is a service that we can be proud of? No one is belittling the service's achievements. Instead, I am interested in securing a commitment from the First Minister that he will be bold and ambitious when he sets targets for the service and that he will begin to recognise the scale of the challenge that lies before him. Will he give Parliament a commitment today to match or better the targets that are being set south of the border?

The targets and achievements are already being bettered in the health service in Scotland. As I said, we will announce the targets for 2008 when we make our announcement about the next budget period.

I want to remind Mr Swinney of some of those recent achievements. For example, the number of patients who wait for more than six months has been dramatically reduced. In 1997, when the Conservatives were in power, more than 10,000 Scottish patients were waiting for more than six months for treatment. In the past year, just fewer than 6,000 patients waited for more than six months, which represents a reduction of almost 50 per cent in the number of patients who have to wait for that length of time. Back in 1997, more than 3,000 Scottish patients were waiting more than nine months for their treatment. Now, not only do we have a guarantee that no patient will wait more than nine months for their treatment following diagnosis, but we are achieving that guarantee consistently.

Those are achievements for the health service and for those who are using more flexible practices. They are ensuring that, in the community and in our hospitals, treatment is available more quickly and effectively than ever before. However, those achievements are not the end of the story. I agree absolutely with what Mr Swinney says about being bold and ambitious for the Scottish health service. We need to ensure that the Scottish health service stays ahead of the game, and we will do just that.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-951)

The Cabinet agenda for next week will, as ever, be agreed tomorrow.

We have heard much in the past few days of the efficiency savings that the First Minister proposes to make in the public sector. Will his Cabinet set an example by reducing its own size and the number of ministers overall, given that there is plenty scope to do so, since we have 20 ministers doing the work that was handled by five in 1999? It should not be hard to find volunteers. After all, Mr Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats at Westminster tell us regularly that they want to cut the size of the Cabinet and of Parliament. Presumably, Jim Wallace, Ross Finnie, Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott are doing their bit and have already tendered their resignations. Can the First Minister tell me whether they have done so?

As Mr McLetchie knows only too well, we reduced the size of the Cabinet and the size of the ministerial team in May last year, and we were right to do so. It was a good judgment to make after four years of devolution.

The real issue is what the ministerial team does. Any comparison with 1997 and the period that Mr McLetchie describes is interesting. The reason Mr McLetchie wants to talk about the size of the Cabinet is that he does not want to talk about transport, because for the first time in 20 years new roads and new railways are being built in Scotland. He does not want to talk about education because, instead of the Scottish education system being in decline, it is improving pupils' attainment year on year, and has done so every year since devolution. Unlike his leader down south, he certainly does not want to talk about the health service, because in Scotland today more people wait for less time than they did in 1997. That is an achievement for the health service, but it is also an achievement for the ministerial team.

We will take that as no, they are not resigning, and no, the First Minister is not really serious about cutting down the scale and cost of government in Scotland. The proposal is just another piece of first ministerial window dressing, about which the public in Scotland will rightly be sceptical.

Does the announcement on efficiency savings signal a genuine change in the Executive's attitude, away from the target culture of intervention and interference, which has spawned a huge increase in bureaucracy in the past five years? If we are to have a genuine cut in the size and cost of government in Scotland, can the people of Scotland expect to see any benefit in terms of lower taxes?

As Mr McLetchie knows, one of the taxes on which we have a direct influence is business rates, which we have increased by less than the rate of inflation in two of the past three years. The commitment to reducing those taxes is clear; what is important is what is done with those taxes and what is done with that money. That is precisely why we have borne down hard on administration costs and bureaucracy inside the Scottish Executive, such that administration costs are just over 50 per cent of the administration costs of equivalent Whitehall departments. That is precisely why we have introduced a system of e-procurement, which is not just delivering millions of pounds of savings for the Scottish Executive and Scottish public services, but is being hailed elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in Europe as a system that could be admired and used by other Governments.

We have done those things precisely for the reason that I gave in answer to David McLetchie's first question: so that we can spend the money on the things that the Tories would not spend it on. We have done them so that we build roads and railways; so that we bring down unemployment and build up employment; so that we improve attainment in our schools; and so that we bring down waiting in our national health service. Those are the objectives and priorities of the Executive and the partnership, and it is by bringing down administrative and bureaucratic costs that we will deliver more resources to achieve them.

The First Minister is like a deluded Alice in Wonderland. Does he seriously expect the people of Scotland to believe a bunch of self-confessed wasters who have spent five years wasting money on an unprecedented scale? Is the truth of the matter not that he will never reduce the cost of government in Scotland unless he is prepared to reduce its scale and scope?

I have to say—if I can get the microphone to work it would be easier to say—that people in Scotland will be interested to know that Mr McLetchie believes that it is a waste of their money, and government money, to spend it on building roads and railways for the first time in 20 years and on bringing down—

Oh, come on.

Mr McLetchie might not like the facts, but he has to listen to them now and again. When his party's Government was in power in the Scottish Office, more than 10,000 Scottish patients waited for more than six months after their diagnosis for treatment. Today, the figure is fewer than 6,000. When his party's Government was in power in Scotland, new roads and railways were a thing of the past; roads and railways were in decline rather than being built as they are across Scotland today. When his party's Government was in power in Scotland, our education system was becoming an international embarrassment. Today, that system is improving and attainment has been up in every single year since devolution—we are proud of that, even if Mr McLetchie would want to cut back and start again.

Because question 4 has been withdrawn, I will take a supplementary question from Irene Oldfather.

Will the implications for Scotland of the European Union constitution be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet? Does the First Minister agree that the new constitution, far from setting up a European superstate, as the Eurosceptics and the Conservatives suggest it will do, will set up a flexible Europe with a stronger voice for nation states? Does he agree that, in enshrining a clear commitment to subsidiarity, the constitution will give regional Parliaments such as the Scottish Parliament a crucial role in the EU legislative process?

The decisions that were made last week were good news for Scotland, good news for devolution and good news for Europe. They restrict the powers of the European Union, they give more powers to national Parliaments, and they certainly give a greater role to the Scottish Parliament and other devolved Parliaments and Governments throughout the European Union. They do more to avoid the creation of a European superstate than any decisions that were made during all the years of Conservative Government. I believe that we have got a good deal for Britain, a good deal for Scotland and a good deal for devolution.

When the First Minister discusses the EU constitution with the Prime Minister, if he gets the opportunity to do so, will he ask the Prime Minister why it does not give Scotland the power to access the European Court of Justice to enforce subsidiarity and why there is no commitment by the European Commission to consult the Scottish Parliament?

There are commitments to consultation, but consultation should not be the height of our ambition—we want greater involvement than that. Consultation might satisfy the Scottish National Party, but it certainly does not satisfy Labour or the Liberal Democrats in Scotland.

We want to ensure that the European constitution has at its core a commitment to subsidiarity and a commitment to the involvement of not only national Parliaments but devolved Parliaments. We also want to ensure that there is a new right, as there is in the agreement that was reached last week, for the devolved Governments and Parliaments of the European Union collectively to apply to the European Court of Justice. That is the agreement that we reached with the European Council and it is the agreement that has been implemented. I think that it will be used wisely, if it is ever necessary, by the European Committee of the Regions.

It would be rather unfortunate if this somewhat long week in Scottish politics simply passed First Minister's question time by. There are many members on the back benches of all parties who will regret that John Swinney's essential dignity will no longer grace the SNP's front bench, but—

What is your question to the First Minister?

Does the First Minister agree that no successor to John Swinney is likely to succeed as long as they cannot answer the make-or-break question for the SNP—is the SNP more interested in making this Parliament work or in breaking with Britain? That is the West Lothian question that lives on—

Order. I think that that question is not within the First Minister's area of responsibility.

---

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-965)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

If you will allow me, Presiding Officer, I would like to respond to Ms Alexander's question by saying that I hope that, in future meetings between Mr Swinney and myself, we will be a lot more cordial than we have managed to be in this chamber and that I wish him well.

On Monday, a member of the First Minister's Cabinet briefed the BBC to the effect that there was little support in the Cabinet for the third-party right of appeal. That was in apparent breach of paragraph 7.3.2 of the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament". Will the First Minister tell us the name of that member of the Cabinet, and will he discipline them for that breach?

This is the second time in the past two weeks that I have been asked a silly question like that. A situation in which a member of the Cabinet gives an interview on "Good Morning Scotland" cannot be described as a secret briefing.

On Monday morning, Ms Curran made a statement on that programme that made perfectly clear the position that we have all made perfectly clear in the past few months: the adaption and reform of the planning system in Scotland is a complex matter and we have to ensure that, in the decisions that we make about the future of that planning system, we get the right balance between the need for a speedy, thorough and fair decision-making process in relation to development in certain parts of Scotland and the right for communities to have their voices heard and not to be abused by developers or by those who make the decisions. Every member of the Cabinet—ministers and deputy ministers—who has been asked about the position since the consultation started has said exactly the same thing. Our minds remain open about the best way in which to achieve that balance. This is a difficult and challenging issue, but we are determined to get it right.

What about the minister who was not Margaret Curran who made a comment? Will the First Minister acknowledge that, at yesterday's meeting of the Communities Committee, Scottish Executive officials admitted that a large number of concerned phone calls had been made to them about the briefing to which I referred? Will the First Minister write to communities across Scotland to remind them that this consultation is real, that there is five weeks to go and that the consultation exercise is a serious one that is designed to involve the people of Scotland and not a complete sham?

I see no need to write to anyone to say that, given that that is precisely what Margaret Curran was saying on Monday morning on "Good Morning Scotland" and what I have just said to the chamber.

We are conducting a genuine consultation that grapples with a difficult issue. We want the planning system to be modernised and reformed in a way that will make it operate more effectively in the interests of communities and developers. That can be achieved, but the solution will not be easy to find. The consultation process is a genuine attempt to do that. Those who come at this issue from an ideological position of being either totally opposed to greater community involvement, which I suspect most of the Conservatives do, or totally opposed to development and the idea that we need to ensure that we have house building, water improvements and so on across Scotland, which I am sure that the majority of the Greens do, are wrong. We need to find a way to improve the system and that is what we are going to do.

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

---

Scottish Prison Service (Senior Management)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has confidence in the senior management of the Scottish Prison Service. (S2F-949)

Ministers expect a high level of performance to meet our objectives of public safety and reduced reoffending. I am confident that the Scottish Prison Service can meet its responsibilities in contribution to those objectives.

Does the First Minister think that a higher level of performance is needed? It is intolerable that the SPS management has sat for four years on a proposal to address slopping out at HMP Peterhead. Is the First Minister aware that, in 2002, Richard Simpson was told by the SPS that permission to visit a French prison could not be obtained while simultaneously I—an Opposition back bencher—obtained such permission, including permission for the then Deputy Minister for Justice to visit that French prison? Does the First Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that the head of the Scottish Prison Service could not answer entirely predictable questions from the justice committees in 2002 and is learning nothing in 2004? Is he aware that my concerns are shared across Parliament and that progress cannot be made in the prison service without effective management?

Over recent months, we have made it perfectly clear that we expect improvements in, for example, the handling of the prisoner escort services contract, which has been the subject of much debate in the chamber and elsewhere. Responsibility for those improvements lies with SPS management just as much as it does with the company concerned. That is also true for other areas.

I am determined that we will have the highest levels of performance in the management of all our agencies and departments, and the Scottish Prison Service should be no different from the others.

In relation to that prisoner escort contract, the First Minister will be aware that the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service recently confirmed to the Justice 2 Committee that the contract between Scottish ministers and Reliance was not signed off by Scottish ministers, who we now know knew nothing whatever about what was going on. The contract was signed off not even by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, but by an anonymous and unknown director of finance within the Scottish Prison Service. Presumably, if she had been around, the Scottish Prison Service tea lady might have signed the contract. Is the First Minister satisfied that that is an acceptable and responsible discharge of Scottish ministerial responsibility?

As the Minister for Justice made clear at the committee, the arrangements for decisions on contracts are being reviewed by the Executive. That is happening in response to this incident and to other concerns that have been expressed by ministers and Parliament during recent years. It is entirely appropriate that we should do that. Circumstances that might have seemed to be appropriate when the Scottish Government was run by Whitehall might not necessarily be appropriate for the post-devolution period. The Parliament and Executive operate in a much more transparent and accountable way than ever existed before. That is one of the primary reasons why the relationships and involvement of ministers in the agreement of contracts, the knowledge about contractual decisions, the negotiations that have taken place and the implementation and monitoring of contracts have to be reviewed, and that is being done.

Mr Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, describes the SPS as

"an arm's length agency of the Scottish Executive".

Who is responsible—Tony Cameron or the First Minister—for the record numbers of prisoners in our overcrowded jails, for the fiasco that is the privatised prisoner escort service and, above all, for the wretched record on slopping out that has blackened Scotland's international name and record on human rights and which means that we might have to endure another decade of this procedure in our jails? Is it not the case that the First Minister's policy failures are at the root of the Scottish Prison Service's problems?

The management of the Scottish Prison Service is responsible for management and operational matters, but ministers are responsible for policy matters and the judiciary is responsible for sentencing. On Mr Fox's first point, the judiciary is responsible for the sentencing of those who become prisoners in our jails. Ministers are responsible for the prisoner escort contract, because we are determined to get more police officers out of the courtrooms, away from such duties and back out on the beat, working in communities. In relation to slopping out, past Governments of all colours in Scotland have to take some responsibility for where we are. It is worth recording that when the Conservative Government decided to end slopping out in England in the 1990s, and allocated the resources to do that, the Conservative Scottish Office did not do so. That is one of the reasons why we are where we are today.

Is the First Minister aware that certain parliamentary committees have not had a happy experience in dealing with the Scottish Prison Service? That was particularly the case when the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee in the previous parliamentary session, under the convenership of Ms Curran, undertook an inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities. Will the First Minister ensure that the SPS is far more open and transparent in its dealings with parliamentarians?

Will the First Minister also ensure that drug treatment in prisons is stepped up? We need to learn far more about what prisons are up to, because such treatment is crucial in breaking the cycle of reoffending and in helping drug addicts into recovery.

I want to make it clear that I expect all Executive and agency officials who appear in front of parliamentary committees to be as helpful and informative as possible.

It is important that we have good and improving drug treatment facilities both in our prisons and in the community. Part of our problem is that, although drug treatment facilities in Scotland's prisons have improved, the improvements that have taken place in such facilities in the community have not happened fast enough to ensure that those who come out of prison and those who could perhaps avoid going to prison in the first place are able to receive treatment in the community and thereby avoid entering a cycle of crime and reoffending. Improving that must be our objective and we hope to make further announcements on that soon.

As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I, too, have had an interesting experience with the Scottish Prison Service. In the light of that, does the First Minister agree that the framework document covering the relationship between the Scottish Prison Service and the Executive needs to be the subject of a fundamental review, which must go beyond contractual arrangements and consider wider governance issues?

I am interested to hear that Jackie Baillie has had an interesting experience with the Scottish Prison Service—I hope that she was not detained for too long.

The framework document will be reviewed within the next 12 months. Parliament will be kept informed of progress.

---

Planning System (Third-party Right of Appeal)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will include a third-party right of appeal as part of a fundamental reform of the planning system. (S2F-962)

On 1 April, the Minister for Communities launched a consultation on "Rights of Appeal in Planning". The consultation runs until 30 July. We will not take a decision on rights of appeal until all the responses to that consultation have been carefully analysed.

I am reassured by that response, which is the response that I had hoped for. Does the First Minister agree that any appearance that a decision has been taken before the consultation has been completed and before the responses have been properly evaluated can only contribute to cynicism about politics and bring the Parliament and the Executive into disrepute, and that such a move would run counter to the principles on which the Parliament was founded and on which it works?

Does the First Minister also agree that we should focus on developing a faster, fairer and more effective planning system in which third-party rights of appeal are only one strand? Does he agree that both consultations that the Executive is carrying out are equally important?

Those are very valid points. I know that both partnership parties are sympathetic to improved rights of appeal and to improving the involvement of the community that might be possible inside our planning system. We are determined to ensure that the system is improved to ensure that development can take place and that some of the current delays and unfairness are removed. That is the challenge for us.

No decisions have been taken apart from deciding to have the consultation in the first place. We need to find a course that will allow us both to improve the planning system for those who use it and, at the same time, to improve the position of communities that feel that the planning system has, in too many cases in the past, let them down.

I have received phone calls on the issue as a result of the media coverage. I am sure that other members have received similar correspondence. If the First Minister is sincere, will he ensure that, just as I respond to my correspondents in writing, the Executive contacts all recipients of the consultation document to assure them, in writing, that the consultation is still open and that the Executive's mind is open?

I recognise that, as in any large bureaucracy—if I may use that word—it occasionally takes some time for letters to receive a reply. I will not take Mr Harvie's question as a suggestion that we should employ more people to write letters and post them out. However, I can assure him that, if people have written to the Executive on the matter, it is obvious that they should get a reply, and I hope that people are getting the clear signal from us that the consultation is an open one.

We all understand that there will be times during such a consultation when some people in the media will speculate that we are about to have a full-scale third-party right of appeal that will clog up the whole system and ensure that development is delayed for a very long time, but they will be wrong. On the other side, there will be those who will speculate that we are going to drop the whole role of communities and simply put developers in the driving seat, but they will also be wrong. We shall find a way of handling the matter and do it in the right way.

That concludes questions to the First Minister. I remind members that the annual general meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will be held in the chamber in 15 minutes' time.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—