Plenary, 29 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 29, 2000

Official Report 676KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he last met the Prime Minister and what issues were discussed. (S1F-456)

I last met the Prime Minister on 16 June in Glasgow at the joint ministerial committee on health. Surprisingly enough, we discussed health.

I suggest that the acting First Minister has another summit with his health minister and with his finance minister. Last week, the acting First Minister told us that Jack McConnell would never fiddle budgets—I remember the gasp of surprise in the chamber when he said that. On 30 March, Jack McConnell told us that there would be a 7.3 per cent increase in health spending in Scotland this year. Last week, the health minister told us that the increase would actually be 4.3 per cent. Yesterday we found out that £34 million may be reallocated out of the health service altogether. Will the acting First Minister give us an assurance, not that that £34 million may be spent on the health service this year, but that he will overrule the finance minister and say that it will be spent on the health service this year?

I am told that Mr Salmond once had a reputation for being something of an economist. If that reputation is to remain intact, he ought to know that one does not spin figures. If he is going to make comparisons, he should compare like with like. The 7.3 per cent increase that was mentioned is a 7.3 per cent planned increase in this year's health service spending over last year's planned health service spending. That is an increase of almost half a billion pounds, of which I am quite proud.

If Mr Salmond were anything of an economist, he would also know that it makes sense in prudent financial planning to have a contingency reserve. We have £35 million going to reserves for contingencies and it is almost inevitable that the health service will have some call on that money. As we have seen over the past 12 months, pressures on the health service come mid-year—such as during last winter, or when it was suddenly possible to have a meningitis C vaccination. That makes it prudent to have a contingency reserve. It is time that Mr Salmond got involved in some joined-up arithmetic and accepted that health spending this year is half a billion pounds more than it was last year. That is something of which I am proud.

That is less than Jack McConnell told us about in March. If the acting First Minister were anything of an acting First Minister, he would recall that his explanation of planned spending is exactly the same discredited explanation that the Tories gave us through 18 discredited years.

The acting First Minister is, as I am, a constituency member. Is there not a discrepancy between the facts as given to us by the health minister and the reality that is faced by my constituents? Is he aware that a patient from Cruden Bay has been waiting for a triple bypass since September 1999; that a patient from Peterhead has been waiting for a heart transplant for more than a year; and that a disabled man with special needs from Maud has been waiting for a hernia operation for a year? Is that not the reality that constituents are facing around Scotland? Given that reality, and given the fact that 82,000 people and therefore their families are on the waiting lists of Scotland, will he answer the question and tell us whether that £34 million will be allocated to and spent in the health service this coming year?

I ask Mr Salmond to do some joined-up arithmetic and acknowledge that almost half a billion pounds of additional money will be spent in the health service in this current year. [Members: "Answer."] Of course that is to address the kinds of issues that he has raised on behalf of his constituents and to ensure that we make an impact on waiting times. This year, that money will fund the recruitment of 1,000 more nurses, almost 300 more doctors and a hospital building programme of eight new hospitals. We will double the number of one-stop clinics to ensure that we get much speedier response times. Those are the things that Mr Salmond asks for and those are the things that we are doing, to make an impact on the health service and to meet the needs of patients. Does he or does he not welcome half a billion pounds more money?

The acting First Minister is now a total prisoner of Labour spin. Yes, 100 new doctors were announced yesterday, but the NHS in Scotland has lost 1,400 doctors in the past four years. Yes, 200 new nurses were announced yesterday, but there are 1,600 fewer nurses in the NHS in Scotland than there were four years ago. Is not the acting First Minister aware—has nobody told him—that capital spending on equipment in the health service is half what it was four years ago? Does not he understand that the number of people on waiting lists has risen by 17 per cent to more than 82,000 during the past year? Given that 82,000 families might be listening to the acting First Minister, will he now answer—at the third attempt—this question: will that £34 million be spent in the health service or will it not?

A lot more than £34 million more money is being spent on the health service this year. More than 10 times £34 million extra is being spent on the health service this year. Mr Salmond is the one who is spinning, because he knows full well that, with the advent of more community care and the movement of resources from the health service into that, nurses have been moving from hospitals into nursing homes and residential homes. He is the one who is spinning. We have no need to spin, because the facts speak for themselves.

So that the people at home are aware of the proper comparisons, let me make it clear that, whereas this year we are injecting—on planned expenditure—9.6 per cent more in cash and 7.3 per cent more in real terms, under the SNP's proposals last year in "Economics for Independence", those figures would have been 7.3 per cent in cash and 5.5 per cent in real terms. Over the current spending review plans the SNP wanted £83 million more; we are putting in more than double that. That is why the SNP cannot be trusted on health spending and why it has shown today that it cannot be trusted on prudent financial management either.

Before I call question 2, I must say that there is too much noise in the chamber. I ask the Deputy First Minister to move his microphone towards him, because that will help.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the acting First Minister what issues were discussed at the most recent meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-465)

The Cabinet discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.

We know from our earlier discussions today that one of the subjects that must have been discussed at recent Cabinet meetings was the £435 million underspend in various Government departments. We have heard a lot today about the health budget and how our tree-hugging Minster for Finance, lumberjack Jack McConnell, is robbing the health service for the benefit of the Forestry Commission. On another priority area for the Scottish public, can the Deputy First Minister explain, as Minister for Justice, why he did not spend £48 million of his budget last year, especially against a backcloth of two years of rising crime and in circumstances in which the Scottish Police Federation has said that our forces are 1,000 officers below strength?

Question time is turning into a tutorial on basic economic financial management. What David McLetchie fails to recognise is that in setting budgets—I will deal specifically with the justice budget—it is impossible, when dealing with items such as legal aid, compensation payments and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, to make an exact estimate of what will be spent, particularly under those demand-driven expenditure headings. Therefore, spending is not always up to the limit. Of course, that expenditure is being carried forward. In previous years, that justice department underspend would have had to go back to the Treasury. At least in this case it is continuing to be spent, and David McLetchie will be the first to acknowledge that I announced just last month an additional £8.9 million more for Scotland's police forces, which will help them to recruit up to 300 additional officers.

I happily acknowledge that announcement last week, which of course will finally take us back to the levels that were inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. Indeed, the announcement is long overdue, given the rising crime rates that people in Scotland have to cope with.

The acting First Minister keeps talking about planned spending. The fact is that he ain't spending it. Will he acknowledge that £435 million underspend is equivalent to approximately 2p on the basic rate of income tax? If he cannot wisely spend taxpayers' money as planned, instead of hoarding it up for short-term advantage, why does he not tell Jack McConnell, the Minister for Finance, to use the Parliament's tax-varying powers and give us our money back? If he cannot use it, he should give us it back.

Tories want tax rises—well, that one will be marked down.

If Mr McLetchie reflects on his question, he will accept that, of a total budget of some £17.7 billion, the £430 million to which he has referred is a relatively small percentage. It is almost impossible to get this exact. I well recall my days in the Faculty of Advocates when—depending on the then justice department's budget—whether the floor of the main hall in the Court of Session was sanded in the third week of March depended on whether people were rushing out to spend money in the last two or three weeks in March. No proper consideration was given to how that money would bring the best return. The Finance Committee report, which was endorsed by the Parliament yesterday without a vote—I assume that it was endorsed by every member of Mr McLetchie's party who is on that committee—said that what we are doing now to tackle end-year flexibility makes far more prudent financial sense.

Will the Deputy First Minister assure us that the meetings of the Scottish Cabinet are conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation and constructive discussion, in stark contrast to that which pervaded last weekend's conference of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party? Will he agree that that conference demonstrated the depth of division between that party's warring factions, as represented in the chamber—

Order. I am sorry, Dr Murray, but the minister is not responsible for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party conference. [Interruption.] Order. Did you detect a question there, Mr Wallace?

There was a first part to the question—whether our meetings are cordial and co-operative. I confirm that they are. I am grateful to you, Sir David, for pointing out that I am not responsible for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party—that comes as a mighty relief. However, as we approach the anniversary of the Parliament, it is interesting that it is the Opposition parties that are divided and the partnership parties of the coalition that are united.

---

Local Government

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will issue its formal response to the recommendations of the renewing local democracy working group. (S1F-464)

The Scottish Executive is extremely grateful for the work of the renewing local democracy working group, which was led by Mr Richard Kerley. The Executive will now consider its findings. That consideration will be taken forward initially by a ministerial working group, which will report to the Cabinet. The Cabinet's conclusions will be announced in due course.

Will the acting First Minister ensure that a bill reforming Scottish local government is introduced and passed as soon as is practicable, even if some of its provisions take some time to be put into effect?

If Mr Gorrie is referring to provisions relating to boundary commissions, that would be the normal practice; indeed, I wonder whether the Boundary Commission for Scotland would be able to take any steps without legislative authority for them. We indicated in the partnership agreement that we wanted to make progress on that matter. Wendy Alexander set up the Kerley committee almost immediately after the McIntosh committee reported. Richard Kerley's report is another milestone on the way and the fact that the Executive has responded quickly in setting up the working group shows that we are determined to continue making progress.

Will the acting First Minister explain why first-past-the-post voting was not included for consideration by the Kerley committee? The implication is that a decision has already been taken to introduce a type of proportional representation in local government elections.

If Mr Harding cares to cast his mind back almost exactly a year to the publication of the McIntosh committee report, he will remember that the committee overwhelmingly recommended electoral reform. The Kerley committee was set up to take forward that recommendation on electoral reform, which by definition did not include first past the post.

It is a shame that Keith Harding did not read the McIntosh report before he asked that question. Given that the working group on renewing local democracy recommends adopting the single transferable vote for local government elections, and given that that is Scottish Liberal Democrat policy, will the acting First Minister press his Executive colleagues to ensure implementation of STV in time for the next local government elections in 2002? Alternatively, as with tuition fees, will it be left to the SNP to remind him of which party he is a member?

I confirm that, as Mr Gibson said, STV is Scottish Liberal Democrat policy. We made a submission to the Kerley committee on that. The Kerley report will be examined by the working group of ministers. If we had waited on the SNP to deliver the abolition of tuition fees, we would still be waiting. The Executive has abolished tuition fees. No Scottish student going to university in September will pay tuition fees.

---

Scottish Parliament (Anniversary)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will mark the anniversary of the opening of the Scottish Parliament. (S1F-470)

There are no special plans to mark the anniversary. The Scottish Executive, working together, will be carrying out its business as usual—delivering on our commitments to the people of Scotland.

Will the Deputy First Minister agree that the real achievements of the coalition parties in the Parliament, Labour and Liberal Democrats working together—the help for increased access to higher education, the establishment of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, the largest-ever increases in spending on schools and hospitals—are what should mark the anniversary of the establishment of Scotland's Parliament?

I thank Mrs Eadie for mentioning but a few of the many achievements of the Executive and, it is fair to say, of the Parliament over the year. We have passed a substantial number of bills, including the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, which will bring meaningful help to around 100,000 families in Scotland. We have abolished the feudal system, which is something that even the old Scottish Parliament did not get round to. The Parliament has done many things in which it can take pride. I am particularly pleased that we have done them in a spirit of co-operation in the Executive, as I think that the people of Scotland are heartily sick of parties fighting one another and welcome the parties that will sit down and co-operate.

---

Budget

To ask the acting First Minister whether the Scottish budget will fall as a share of the UK budget in the next four years. (S1F-469)

The total Scottish Executive budget for the next three years will be known after the chancellor has announced the conclusion of the 2000 spending review. Per head of population, Scotland will benefit pound for pound the same as the rest of the UK.

I think that it would be of interest to acknowledge that, like Alex Salmond's question, that question was not answered. I point out that the answer that the acting First Minister gave to Alex Salmond's question contradicted what the Minister for Finance said yesterday. Is the acting First Minister aware that, according to page 92 of the Treasury red book, health spending in the UK will rise next year by 7.4 per cent, whereas, according to Susan Deacon, health spending in Scotland will rise this year by 4.3 per cent? That to me is a fall, relative to the UK figure. Does he agree with me on that and will he confirm it?

Andrew Wilson is suffering the same confusion as Alex Salmond. The 4.3 per cent—

It is in the written answer.

I have a copy of that written answer here.

Is it right?

The 4.3 per cent real-terms increase to which Mr Wilson refers is the planned expenditure for this year over the expected outturn expenditure for last year; 7.3 per cent is the planned increase this year as against last year's planned health service spending. Mr Wilson is not being wise if he is trying to fudge that. He ought to accept that, pound for pound, health spending in Scotland will increase by the same amount as it will south of the border and that we in Scotland already start with higher spending on health per head of population than is the case south of the border.

Does the acting First Minister agree that not only does Scotland receive, as he put it, a pound-for-pound share of total UK spending through the Barnett formula, which the SNP would jeopardise, but that this year Scotland has received much more money through the budget than we would have received through the nationalists' rejected penny for Scotland tax?

As I indicated last week, the Barnett formula, on which we—including the SNP—agreed and campaigned in the referendum, brings stability to the funding of the Scottish Parliament. I also confirmed last week that the expenditure that has come through as consequentials is more than would have been produced by the penny on income tax, which Mr McLetchie now seems to be advocating.

Will the acting First Minister confirm the Executive's continuing support for the Barnett formula and that the important issue is the maintenance of the current per capita spending in Scotland, regardless of spending in the rest of the United Kingdom?

As I have indicated, the Barnett formula allows us to plan each year, because it automatically allocates the amount of money that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive receive. It would be a recipe for disaster, especially in these early days of the Parliament, if we had to have an annual haggle with Westminster. We want the Parliament to work; we want a stable Scottish Parliament within a stable United Kingdom. That formula, which we all supported in the referendum—with the exception of Mr Davidson's party—is one that provides that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Rule 15.3 of the standing orders allows the Parliament to regulate who enters the chamber. A subordinate regulation limits the number of advisers who may enter the chamber. I know that it is clear from this afternoon's performance that the acting First Minister needs all the help that he can get, but the Executive has today breached that rule and exceeded the number of advisers. Will you please look into that?

I can assure Michael Russell that I gave permission for an increased number of advisers. If there is a request for an increased number from Opposition parties, I will also give permission for that.

Now that we know that such a facility exists, I am sure that we will not require it, but the Executive will need more and more advisers.

I do not think that that is really a point of order.