Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 28 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, February 28, 2002


Contents


First Minister's Question Time


Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-1690)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell):

Our Cabinet discusses issues of importance to the people of Scotland. Next week, we shall discuss crime and transport. We shall certainly not discuss Mr Swinney's new priority of taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom. He may want to break up the national health service and separate off our railways, but I assure him that our priorities are not borders and politicians, but jobs, education, health, transport and crime.

Mr Swinney:

The strategy has been a success already. On day one, we have got the First Minister talking independence. Let us start talking independence, then, because we will have a few more rounds of this debate in the next 14 months.

I want to ask the First Minister about the funding of the health service from general taxation. Ten days ago, the First Minister said:

"There is no need for us to raise taxes".

On Friday, the First Minister said that tax rises

"will be very good news"

for the health service in Scotland. Which one is it?

The First Minister:

On Friday, I said that the extra expenditure that might be available as a result of the decisions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister would be very good news for the people of Scotland.

I am delighted to take on the challenge that Mr Swinney would like to set. This morning, he outlined his No 1 priority, which is to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. One of the most immediate impacts of that would be to reduce Scotland's health budget by £1 billion. Scotland has a better health service not only because that service is part of the national health service, but as a result of the economic decisions of the UK Government.

Mr Swinney:

The only problem with the First Minister's explanation of his comments on Friday is that it is not true. On Friday, the First Minister said:

"If Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are prepared to increase taxes … then that will be very good news for doctors, nurses and most importantly for patients."

Now that the First Minister has identified that there is a need for more taxation to pay for the health service, will he leave the decision for London ministers, or will he take the decision for himself?

The First Minister:

I would be very happy to see increased money being available for the Scottish health service. I note that the Scottish nationalist party's current policy—although, like many others, it might change in the course of this week—is to increase taxation for ordinary families in Scotland but to reduce business taxation. That is what one or two of his members seem to be plugging around the boardrooms of Scotland. Mr Swinney might wish to reduce company taxation and increase personal taxation, but that is not the policy of the Labour party or of the partnership.

Mr Swinney might also want to address the fundamental issue. As a percentage of gross domestic product, spending on health in Scotland is significantly higher than in most of the other smaller European Union countries to which he regularly refers in the chamber. Will he admit today that an independent Scotland would spend less on health and have a poorer health service than a Scotland that is part of the UK?

Mr Swinney:

The one statistic on health service funding that the First Minister failed to mention is that Scotland's share of UK health spending is falling year on year and it is falling under a Labour Government.

The First Minister still has not answered. He still has not explained whether he is prepared to allow other people to take the decisions. However, it seems pretty clear that he will wait for the chancellor to take his decisions. While we wait for the chancellor, Scottish patients are waiting for treatment. Is it not time that we had a Parliament that did not wait for others to take decisions, but that took its own decisions? Is it not time that we had a normal, independent Parliament?

The First Minister:

Mr Swinney may want us to make that choice, but the reality is this: public expenditure on health in Scotland, as a percentage of GDP, is significantly higher than it is in the vast majority of the small nations in the European Union; the number of acute in-patient beds in Scotland per 1,000 population is among the highest of the small nations in the European Union; the number of general practitioners in Scotland per 1,000 population is, in fact, the highest of the small nations in the European Union; and the number of hospital beds in Scotland is almost double the number in England per head of population. Those are the benefits that Scotland has as part of the United Kingdom. Mr Swinney wants to break up the national health service; we do not. We want to build the national health service and put patients, nurses and doctors first. That is exactly what we will do.


Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise with him. (S1F-1688)

The Prime Minister and I had a very successful meeting last week with Cyclacell in Dundee—an outstanding example of Scottish innovation and business pulling together. I am sure that our next meeting will be just as worth while.

David McLetchie:

I am sure that the First Minister and the Prime Minister will not be discussing waiting lists, because I notice today that the First Minister has abandoned talking about that issue and has abandoned the very standard on which Labour said in the previous two elections that it would be judged. A clearer admission of failure would be hard to find.

If Labour members will not talk about waiting lists, will they talk about the problem of bedblocking, which is one of the main reasons for people having to wait longer for treatment? In Parliament last month, during the debate on Executive priorities, the First Minister promised us that the Scottish Executive would publish "an action plan" to tackle bedblocking by "early next month". Those were his words. Here we are on 28 February and nothing has been announced. When can we expect some action on the action plan?

The First Minister:

Mr McLetchie can expect some action within the next few days. I am sure that he will welcome it when it happens.

I am very happy to talk about waiting lists. There has been hard work by the new waiting list unit, which, if I am right, Mr McLetchie condemned, saying that it was inadequate. Last week, the unit announced that 100 patients would be taken from Tayside and operated on in Fife. The unit has consistently announced that people in Scotland would be treated in beds in health board areas other than their own and in the private sector, bringing down waiting lists and bringing down waiting times. The unit was described as inadequate and as a waste of time, but it is in fact making a difference to patients right across Scotland. I am happy to talk about that any time.

I am also happy to make it absolutely clear that the size of the waiting list in Scotland should not be our primary performance target in the health service—our primary performance target should be waiting times. Every nurse, every patient, every administrator and every doctor to whom I spoke in Edinburgh royal infirmary this morning confirmed that waiting times should be the primary indicator. That is exactly what we will now concentrate on.

David McLetchie:

It has taken the First Minister a long time to waken up to that. He should perhaps apologise to people in this country for the deceits practised by the Labour party in the elections of 1997 and 1999, when it said that waiting lists were the standard by which it would be judged.

I am pleased that we are finally to see the action plan, albeit belatedly. As everyone knows, over the past three years under the Executive, the problem of delayed discharges has been getting seriously worse and not better.

I wonder whether the First Minister heard the observations of his colleague down south last week. Mr Milburn said:

"The old Berlin Wall between health and social care really must go."

We believe that the unification of the health-related social work budget and the health budget is long overdue. There has been a Berlin wall in that area and we have been advocating unification for some time as the best means of ending bedblocking and delayed discharge in Scotland. Will the First Minister consider the adoption of that eminently sensible policy?

The First Minister:

Mr McLetchie is well aware that we are working towards that sort of joint management of budgets. Although he might want to take responsibilities away from local authorities—I notice that Ms Sturgeon expressed a similar view last week, when she advocated ring fencing of budgets, in direct contradiction of the SNP local government spokesperson—that is not our view. We want joint management and performance targets. That is the system that will make a difference to our health and social work services and will ensure that they work better together. It will ensure not just that bedblocking is dealt with, but that the whole process of caring for our elderly is treated seriously and delivered effectively.


Public-private Partnerships

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to change the rules and procedures governing public-private partnerships. (S1F-1697)

The way in which we conduct partnerships with the private sector is constantly developing and ministers continue to make improvements to them.

Alex Neil:

That is an interesting answer. Does the First Minister agree that one of the rules for public sector projects is that they should be financed at the lowest possible rate of interest, at the lowest possible cost to the public purse over the lifetime of the project and in an effective way, which delivers the service, with the asset remaining in public hands? Does he agree that the time has come to change the rules and end the immorality whereby this generation is loading the next generation with a huge burden? Does he realise that, when Scotland becomes independent, we will get rid of profiteering on the back of public sector workers?

The First Minister:

Alex Neil's leadership speech has come a day late, given John Swinney's announcement this morning. The time has come and gone—John is back on the independence trail.

No public project in Scotland should go ahead under any financing method that does not provide best value and value for money for the taxpayer. That is the bottom line for any decisions that we take. That is why in some circumstances we choose to use public-private partnerships, but in the vast majority of circumstances we use public capital procurement.

It is absolutely disingenuous of Alex Neil to say that services would in some way be better in Scotland if Scotland were ripped out of the United Kingdom. As Alex Neil knows, there would be less finance around and therefore our health service and other vital public services would automatically decline. In the general election back in 1999, he and his colleagues campaigned against the very projects that are making a real difference to the constituents that he is meant to represent. The constituents of Central Scotland have benefited from new schools in Falkirk, the Strathclyde police training centre and from Hairmyres and Wishaw hospitals—those projects would not have happened if he had had his way. Next year, the electorate will remember him for that.

Mr John McAllion (Dundee East) (Lab):

Speaking as someone who never got the chance to make a leadership bid, never mind a leadership speech, may I ask whether the First Minister is aware that the new waste energy plant in my constituency was built under a public-private partnership and is largely financed by a combination of public investment and council contracts for waste disposal? Does he think it right in those circumstances that officials of the company that run the plant can refuse to provide me—the elected member for the constituency in which the plant is sited—with key information about the plant on the ground that the information is commercially confidential? Surely it is time to end the commercially confidential cop-out and to tell the private sector that, if it wants to become involved in public services, it has to play by public rules and standards of accountability, rather than by private ones.

The First Minister:

One of the great benefits of public-private partnerships is the extent of the control that they allow the public sector to have over the private sector. Since 1999, we have ensured that all public-private partnership projects that have been established—in education, health and other areas—have been delivered by the private sector on time, within budget and to high standards of design and maintenance. That control exists because the public sector and politicians in this chamber and in local authorities throughout Scotland take their responsibilities seriously and deliver such standards. The specific example that the member gave from Dundee involves the local authority, which I imagine would have had some control over the contractual position. However, I would be happy to look into the specific instance to find out whether there is anything that I can do.

Question 4 has been withdrawn.


Smacking

5. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):

To ask the First Minister, following the publication of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council's survey on the Executive's proposals on smacking children, whether it will now reconsider its proposals in "Making Scotland Safer: Improving the Criminal Justice System". (S1F-1685)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell):

We welcome the survey's overwhelming support for the proposal to ban the use of implements against children. We have noted the narrow minority against the proposal to ban smacking children under the age of three. Jim Wallace has made it clear that we welcome a mature debate on the age at which the line should be drawn. I have no doubt that the Parliament will debate the matter when the proposed criminal justice bill is introduced.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:

Does the First Minister appreciate that Scotland's parents have given a signal that the proposed legislation is unworkable, unnecessary, unwarranted and unenforceable? As the majority of Scotland's parents and the British Prime Minister take that view, is not it time that he did too?

The First Minister:

A description of proposed legislation as unworkable and unenforceable by someone who voted for the poll tax is a bit rich. It is important that we set standards in our society for anything that relates to acts that might be portrayed as, or may in fact be, violent and dangerous. I fundamentally believe that we should have a strict rule against striking children with implements and I would be surprised if any member, even on the Conservative benches, disagreed with that. I also believe that a line should be drawn in respect of smacking young children. We have set out our proposals clearly on the issue and the Parliament will have a chance to debate those proposals. I am sure that members will listen not just to the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, but to Save the Children and other organisations.

Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab):

Does the First Minister agree that the way in which a question is phrased is often crucial to the answers that are given? Does he agree that, since the publication of the report to which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred, two further questionnaires have been published that show that parents, carers and—this is particularly important—young people feel that limitations should be placed on parental physical chastisement?

The First Minister:

This is a serious issue. There should be limitations that are carefully considered by the Parliament. The current proposals reflect the consultation that took place last year and the mature way in which many organisations and individuals responded to it. I am sure that, when the Parliament debates the issue, there will also be a mature response.


Curling

To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Executive is giving to curling and other winter sports. (S1F-1701)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell):

I am sure that members would want me not only to welcome the Presiding Officer back to the chamber this afternoon, but to congratulate Alain Baxter as well as the curling team on their successes in the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. [Applause.] There were plans to recognise the contribution of all members of the team in respect of their appearance at the winter Olympics later in the spring. That will now be a special occasion for us in Edinburgh in recognising the achievement of the winners in particular.

Support for curling and other winter sports is provided through sportscotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport. Curling is one of the institute's nine core sports and all Scottish medallists from the winter Olympics were supported through our lottery sports fund programmes. Following that success, I want to encourage more participation in winter sports and to maximise the potential for increased tourism to Scotland.

Karen Gillon:

I thank the First Minister for his answer and associate myself with his comments. Does he accept that the grass roots of a sport such as curling are particularly important and that it is essential that we ensure that support is available to curling and other sports at a grass-roots level, as well as at an excellence level? The provision of such support and the necessary expertise enables Rhona Martin and her team, for example, to achieve in the way that they do.

The First Minister:

I agree. It was interesting to learn in Perth last weekend of Perth and Kinross Council's programme to ensure that all primary-age children in the area have an opportunity to take part in a 12-week curling programme, so that they experience the sport at a young age. When I met representatives of the Royal Caledonian Curling Club on Tuesday, I was told that one of their main concerns for their sport, which is one of Scotland's great traditional sports, is that fewer young people are taking part. Our programmes—through sportscotland, the Scottish Institute of Sport, the talented athlete programme and the lottery sports fund—support not just curling, but the other nine priority sports in Scotland. They will continue to focus on improving the participation of young people by getting them involved in sport, which will at the same time boost those great Scottish sports.

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):

Does the First Minister accept that Glenmore Lodge in my constituency, which is Scotland's national outdoor centre, should receive more support if we are to encourage the winter sports success that we have seen with Alain Baxter and others? If so, will he reverse the cuts in funding that that excellent institution has received in recent years?

The First Minister:

It would be unfortunate to sully such a week of celebration in Scotland with that kind of cheap political point. It is important for us to recognise—[Interruption.] Members on the nationalist benches might not want to hear this, but now and again in Scotland we sometimes get things right. Those Scottish sportsmen and women got support through the lottery sports fund and Government programmes. They got sports psychologists, physiotherapists, training programmes, fitness programmes and competition programmes and they were supported when they travelled overseas. That boost to them, which was supported by the previous Conservative Government, the Labour Government and this Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, has resulted in success for Scotland in the Olympics. That is something that all parties in the chamber should celebrate. To make cheap political points out of the situation does not do those athletes a service and it runs down the chamber.

I take back what I said earlier. The last question is from Margo MacDonald.

Ms Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (SNP):

I have a vested interest to declare: our eldest grandson has just got into the Scottish ice hockey squad at the age of 13, so we are not all girns on this side of the chamber.

I ask the First Minister to request a cost-benefit analysis of the investment in winter sports as opposed to summer sports. Not that I want to deprive summer sports of investment, but we have seen that winter sports probably have much more to offer than we previously thought in terms of input into the economy. Tourism is the first and foremost benefit. Will the First Minister make sure that VisitScotland gets off the mark, recruits those Scottish Olympians and gets them on top of an open-topped bus on tartan day?

The First Minister:

I have to say—he hesitates for a moment—that, looking at Margo MacDonald, I did not think that she had a grandson. I agree with her on this occasion. This is not just about curling and it is not just about winter sports. I will provide another example. The world badminton championships, which took place in Glasgow two or three years ago, contributed £2 million to the local economy. Although the publicity around Euro 2008 and the importance of football to Scotland should be recognised, there is also a case for us to recognise that a number of other sports are played in communities throughout Scotland, by families and individuals, and that those sports are important, too. They are important in their own right, but they are important for Scotland's potential on the world stage and for Scotland's economy. We should do all that we can to boost all those sports, as well as talk about football in the chamber, which we seem to do rather a lot.

Before I leave the chair, I thank the First Minister and the chamber for welcoming me back, but I would like the chamber to record its thanks to George Reid and Murray Tosh, who have borne a heavy burden during the past three weeks.