Plenary, 25 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 25, 2001

Official Report 755KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Scottish Executive Priorities

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's main priorities currently are. (S1F-799)

The main priorities for the Scottish Executive will be laid out in the new programme for government, which will be announced in the near future.

The First Minister will be aware that a royal commission was set up in December 1997 to review the long-term care of the elderly. There was then a review of the royal commission, a rejection of the royal commission and a review of that rejection. Last week, the First Minister said:

"John Swinney asks me to stop having review after review . . . There is only one review—the one that has been undertaken by Susan Deacon".—[Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol 10, c 427.]

The Minister for Health and Community Care has announced the outcome of that review—that there will be another review. For the avoidance of doubt, will the First Minister—on his first appearance in Parliament since that announcement—explain to Parliament and to the people of Scotland whether, in principle, he supports the universal payment of the personal care costs of all elderly people in Scotland?

The Executive outlined its case yesterday. In each constituency, there will be people who suffer from dementia or cancer, or who have been stroke victims, who expect me—as the head of an Administration and as a member of this Parliament—to do the very best for them.

The great tragedy about yesterday was that people ignored the fact that we were setting up a radical process to ensure that the commitments that we had made would be honoured. That process includes a new definition of need, an implementation group—not a review—a commitment on resources, a bill in this Parliament and a timetable to take the matter forward. Motions and amendments to take forward the issue of free personal care for all are before the chamber today. It is important that we wait until 5 o'clock to see what decision is made—that makes sense for me at the dispatch box and it would make sense for the chamber.

Is not the tragedy of yesterday that the First Minister raised expectations in Scotland and then let people down? Is he intent on defying public opinion and the opinions of Alzheimer Scotland, Age Concern Scotland, Help the Aged and the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care—at least, when he was a member of the Health and Community Care Committee? Is he intent on defying the views of the Conservative group, the Liberal Democrat group, the SNP group, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Greens and Mr Canavan? When is the Labour minority in this Parliament going to accept the majority opinion of Scotland and Scotland's Parliament?

It is worth repeating the point that three months ago the debate on free personal care was off the agenda—[Interruption.] It was off the agenda in that a community care package had been identified and brought before the Parliament. I have made long-term care for our older people one of the highest priorities on the agenda of the media and this Parliament; I make no apologies for doing so. What is crucial is that I remain committed to and will deliver on the pledges that I have made.

We have talked about raising expectations. Again, I make no apologies on that, because we will deliver on the high expectations that Scots have for our country. I have no doubt that yesterday's statement and this evening's vote will vindicate the decision to put the issue at centre stage and to allow the Parliament to judge how far and how quickly we can go.

The First Minister may say that the issue was off the agenda in October, but that is not terribly consistent with what the Minister for Health and Community Care told Parliament this morning. The issue is back on the agenda because the First Minister put it there and, by doing so, raised expectations that it is commonly believed have not been met.

If, at 5 pm, Parliament votes in favour of the motion in my name, we will have entered interesting constitutional territory. The only other time we have been in such territory was on the issue of tuition fees. On 7 October 1999, the late First Minister was asked:

"If the Parliament votes that tuition fees should go, is that it? Do they go?"

The late First Minister replied:

"Of course. I can't defy Parliament."

If my motion is carried at 5 pm, will this First Minister defy Parliament? If it was wrong to defy Parliament in connection with tuition fees, is it wrong to do the same tonight?

I want to be very specific on this point. As I—along with representatives from John Swinney's party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—was an architect of the Parliament's procedures, I must say that the voice of the Parliament cannot and will not be ignored. Let me go further than that and say that we will listen to what the Parliament has to say and we will respond clearly and decisively.

Does the First Minister accept that the answer that he has just given is not satisfactory? Everyone is worried that, if he loses tonight's vote, he will announce another review. Instead of doing that, will he tell us that, if he loses tonight's vote democratically, he will unequivocally announce the implementation of universal free personal care? That is what we want.

I cannot be any clearer when I say that I, as First Minister, will not ignore the will of the Parliament. We have another hour and 30 minutes before we get the result of that vote; it is important that we wait until then.

Yesterday's package should be considered. Although there is a debate about how far and how quickly we are moving on this issue, we are now proposing to make in 14 months the biggest ever step forward in long-term care. However, I believe that members from all parts of the chamber genuinely feel that sufferers in Scotland want to be taken seriously. That is why I say again to Tommy Sheridan that the will of the Parliament will not be ignored when the result of the vote is announced.

Speaking as an older member, I ask the First Minister whether, if tonight's vote goes against the Labour Executive and the Labour group in the chamber, he will accept that vote and try to implement the recommendations or whether he will be immediately on the phone to Westminster to find out what Gordon Brown or Tony Blair has to say. Furthermore, has a deal been cobbled together with certain Liberal Democrats over tonight's vote?

John Young might say that he is getting older, but the only thing that distinguishes the two of us is that I have slightly more hair on the top of my head than he has. [Interruption.] That was not an agist attack on the member.

I will repeat the comments that I made to Tommy Sheridan and John Swinney: the Parliament's will will not be ignored. When the Parliament speaks this evening, my Administration and I—not London or anyone else—will decide what happens in the interests of older people in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament will ask the question; we will be in a position to deliver on the verdict. I cannot be any clearer.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

I congratulate Mrs Helen Liddell on her appointment as Secretary of State for Scotland, although I suspect that, after the general election, she will have set a record as the shortest-serving holder of that office.

To ask the First Minister—before he misses the opportunity to do so—when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-794)

Like David McLetchie, I extend warm greetings to Helen Liddell in her new post. We believe in the union and we are happy to have a Secretary of State for Scotland working for our interests at Westminster—unlike SNP members, who use the Scottish Parliament to undermine Westminster but send their ex-leader back home to do the business. We welcome Helen Liddell's appointment and look forward to working closely with her in everything that she is doing on behalf of Scotland. I shall therefore ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland and I meet in the very near future.

The new Secretary of State for Scotland got her job only because Peter Mandelson had to resign from his over a deception too far. That should be a salutary lesson for the First Minister, because he has been guilty of serial deception on the Sutherland report since the day and hour that he became First Minister.

Back on 5 November, The Sunday Times headline was: "McLeish in U-turn on elderly care". On 11 December, the Daily Record headline was: "McLeish U-turn on free care for old folk". On new year's day, the headline was: "Free care for old folk"—again in the Daily Record. If all those reports were wrong, how many times did the First Minister's office contact the journalists concerned to ask that those inaccuracies be corrected? Why did he allow so many people to be so badly misled for so long?

I remain committed to the points that have been raised by David McLetchie. Expectations should be high. The inference is being made that the expectations that have been raised will not be met by this Administration or by the Scottish Parliament, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I make a plea over the heads of the Conservatives to everyone in Scotland who is looking to me, to this Administration and to the Scottish Parliament to deliver real help for care needs, no matter where they are in Scotland. I repeat publicly and unequivocally that we will honour the commitments that we have made. The inference is that we should not have expectations, but we should have them. Moreover, expectations that are raised should be satisfied—we will do that.

After all this time of commissions, reviews, responses and re-examinations, all that we are getting is another development group—and another seven months will go by. We are still no further forward on the key issue of principle; there is only more delay.

The First Minister likes to tell us that he leads a Government. Well, Governments govern and Governments make decisions. After all this time, all the reviews and all the examinations, why will he not make a clear decision in principle now and allow his development group to carry out its work within a clear policy framework? Why will he not decide now and tell us now?

We answered the question earlier about the right of the Parliament to make that important decision this evening.

Yesterday, in the debate on long-term care, David McLetchie asked about the 7,000 to 8,000 Scots who have to meet the full costs of their personal care. He asked Susan Deacon, the Minister for Health and Community Care, how much that would cost those 7,000 people. The simple point—which even Sutherland appreciated—is this: Sutherland's work was unfinished business. We are setting up the development group; we are committing resources; we are committing legislation; and, of course, we are committing ourselves to a timetable. That is vital. Even a cynic such as David McLetchie, who sits and preaches on help for the elderly after 20 years of Tory Government, should understand that. We can stomach a great deal, but he should be slightly patient. I reiterate the commitment that we will move forward.

---

Business (Transport Links)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to assist business by improving transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK. (S1F-804)

Efficient and reliable transport links with the rest of the UK are vital for Scotland's economic success. The M74 is a modern, safe road and, as announced on Monday, we are to complete the final five miles through Glasgow. We are working with the UK Government on improvements to the east and west coast rail links and on the review of airports.

I welcome the First Minister's answer. As someone who lobbied long and hard on the issue of the M74, I am absolutely delighted with this week's announcement. However, does the First Minister agree that this morning's debate about trunk road maintenance contracts demonstrated a high level of concern across the chamber? Will he assure me that he and his ministers will continue to explore the issues raised, including whether to delay the signing of the contracts until the issues are resolved?

I respect and acknowledge the concerns that were expressed in the debate in the Parliament this morning about the trunk roads contracting programme. Obviously, the procurement process is governed by contractual and legal obligations. However, when we find that concerns are being expressed by members from all parts of the chamber on an issue, it is incumbent on me to reflect on that issue. I assure Janis Hughes that we will continue to explore the issues that have been raised about the contracts.

Because of our concerns, we have agreed and published the tenders but we have not let the contracts. As a consequence of that, an audit is being done in relation to the quantities issue. At the end of the day, we want quality and value for money. The financial differences between the options are quite explicit. However, the Parliament has spoken this morning and I will be delighted to discuss the issue further with Sarah Boyack and other members of the Parliament to ensure that members' concerns are listened to and that everything humanly possible is done to address them.

The feeling of the Parliament this morning was that the tendering process should be delayed and that the Transport and the Environment Committee should conduct an inquiry. Will the First Minister give the Parliament an absolute guarantee that the tendering process will be halted and that the Transport and the Environment Committee will be able to discuss what has gone wrong and report on that to the Parliament?

I am trying to be as helpful as I can. Bruce Crawford appreciates as well as anyone else that we are in a procurement process. I cannot say things about the process to the Parliament that I cannot deliver. I can, however, say this: we have not let the contracts. We are considering everything that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and political groups are saying. Today, as an act of good faith, I want to reflect on this morning's debate. It is not in the interests of the Parliament or the Executive for there to be the kind of rancour, mistrust and concerns that were expressed this morning. I cannot be specific, but I am sure that Bruce Crawford hears what I am saying and understands that I want to discuss the matters further.

---

Expenditure Commitments

To ask the First Minister whether any existing expenditure commitments will be cut to pay for new commitments on health and education spending and, if so, what these are. (S1F-795)

More than £60 billion is available to the Executive over the next three years. That is capable of funding our priorities of better health services and better education. We will review our budgets, as every part of the Government does, to ensure that they are better targeted and that we make the best use of every pound in every programme. The Minister for Finance and Local Government will shortly announce details of the group on best value and budget review. Its work will identify the extra resources needed to fund our additional and new commitments.

May I suggest to the First Minister that he announces today that finance is not a constraint on the full implementation of the Sutherland report? He could save £5 million by not going through with the appointment of Helen Liddell as Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that the First Minister welcomed her appointment last night with all the enthusiasm of European villagers awaiting the arrival of Attila the Hun.

Is the First Minister aware that the Sutherland report could be fully implemented by using only half the money that was allocated to the annual reserve commitments—the money that is to be put aside and not spent—made by Angus MacKay in his budget?

When the implementation group is set up, many of Mr Wilson's comments can be passed on to its members. I am sure that the Minister for Finance and Local Government will also be grateful for the assistance that Mr Wilson seeks to give.

Given that Mr Wilson also made some fairly flippant remarks, I should point out that we are still waiting for the Scottish National Party to start talking about policies at all. We were promised that, when the new leader took over, the party would have a review process. It then had a massive get-together at Hampden Park—from which nothing emerged. We know that it will draw up a manifesto, but that will be the first manifesto in history to be drawn up with no policies. The SNP lectures us on where we might find money, but we would like to help it to find some policies on which it might fight an election.