Plenary, 29 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, June 29, 2006

Official Report 612KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I am sure that all members will want to condemn the disgraceful anti-Scottish abuse that has been directed at Andy Murray by a minority of mindless individuals and to take the opportunity to wish him all the best in his match at Wimbledon later today.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2393)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

In the past couple of weeks, a steady stream of commentators and politicians have queued up to tell us that Scotland is subsidised—that we get more out of the United Kingdom Treasury than we put into it. Will the First Minister join me today in telling them that they are wrong and that we in Scotland more than pay our way?

Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party may deny this, but we know that every proper independent survey of Scotland's finances and of its relationship with the rest of the UK shows that, quite correctly, Scotland benefits from its membership of the United Kingdom, because of its needs and the way in which they are assessed. For our budget in Scotland, those needs are determined and paid for using a formula that has stood the test of time and which we should defend. I find it incredible that in recent days John Swinney, at least, and perhaps other SNP members, have defended the formula when the SNP's whole purpose as a party and organisation is to end it and to reduce Scotland's financing from the rest of the United Kingdom.

I did not ask the First Minister whether he supports the Barnett formula. I also did not ask whether he thinks that public spending levels in Scotland are justified, although it is a bit rich to hear the First Minister talk about needs when he has just salted away in a war chest £800 million that should have been spent on schools and hospitals. I asked the First Minister whether he agrees with those who think that we are subsidised—that we get more out of the Treasury than we put into it and that, in the words of that right-wing Tory Michael Portillo, we exist "on English handouts"—or whether, like me, he thinks that when we count the £1 billion of Scottish oil revenues that flows from the North sea to the Treasury every month, we are not only paying our way but contributing a very healthy surplus. What side of that fence is the First Minister on?

Perhaps this is the first time that Nicola Sturgeon has heard the slogan, so the "It's Scotland's oil" campaign may be more exciting for her than it is for the rest of us. The rest of us heard it in the 1970s, when it failed for the SNP. It will fail again at the start of the 21st century. We cannot base an economic policy for Scotland for the 21st century on a slogan from the 1970s and a calculation from the 1980s. The reality is that money is properly disbursed across the United Kingdom and that Scotland receives more from the United Kingdom than it currently pays in taxes. However, the economic strategy for Scotland in the 21st century must be to grow Scotland's economy and the amount of tax that is raised in Scotland by growing the number of jobs and successful businesses and turning Scotland into the enterprising economy that it once was and can be again.

Now we know that the First Minister thinks that Scotland is subsidised. Let me tell him why that matters. Does he not understand that those who claim that we are subsidised have a clear agenda—to cut the budget that the Parliament has to spend on schools and hospitals? How can anyone trust the First Minister to fight Scotland's corner when he accepts the premise of that argument and has bought into the subsidy lie?

I remind the First Minister that even George Robertson, who is not known for his nationalism, said when he was shadow secretary of state for Scotland that he did not accept for a moment that Scotland was subsidised. Why cannot the First Minister also stand up for Scotland and challenge firmly all those who want to do us down?

Those of us who genuinely believe in and stand up for Scotland do not use the word "subsidy" for the precise reason that it has all sorts of meanings that we do not want to associate with Scotland.

It is absolutely right that Scotland's needs are identified in the United Kingdom financial settlement and that Scotland's geography, our population range, the age of our population and our social needs are recognised by the United Kingdom, and therefore that we receive more per head of population than many other areas do. That is absolutely right and I will defend it inside the United Kingdom. I will not use the Scottish National Party solution, which would mean that we were not even involved in the discussion. Not only would the money not come to Scotland, it would not even be there in the first place because the SNP would have taken Scotland out of the United Kingdom and brought about the end of that route to ensuring good public services throughout Scotland, and in rural Scotland in particular.

The First Minister misses the fact that we more than pay for what we get. I know that the First Minister is a bit of a beginner when it comes to standing up for Scotland, so I offer him some advice: there is a lot more to standing up for Scotland than not supporting England in the world cup; challenging anyone who says that Scotland is subsidised would be a far better place to start.

I suggest to the First Minister that the best way for the subsidy argument to be settled once and for all would be for Scotland to take responsibility for its own finances to prove that if independent, we would be not only the best, but one of the wealthiest small countries in the world. If the First Minister were really interested in standing up for Scotland, he would argue that too.

Even if the case for independence deserved any scrutiny whatsoever, we know that, under the SNP, Scotland would have all kinds of promises of increased spending at the same time as promises of reduced taxation, and therefore a budget that would never balance, a country that would be full of economic insecurity and jobs that would be lost. Scotland would be in a worse position than it is today.

The priorities of this Parliament and devolved Government remain as they should be—to improve Scotland's schools, to deliver improved health, more jobs and a stronger economy, and to ensure that we tackle crime.

Although the SNP would build new embassies in places such as the Seychelles, we build schools in Scotland. Although the SNP would build border patrols, we ensure that we put more police on the beat. Those are the choices in Scotland, and next year, the people of Scotland will make the right choice—this devolved Government, its record and its plans for the future.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2394)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of immediate importance to the people of Scotland at that time.

Does the First Minister agree with Professor Kerr, who said to the Parliament's Health Committee on 20 September:

"we have said as often and as rationally as possible that we would prefer to treat patients as close to home as possible."—[Official Report, Health Committee, 20 September 2005; c 2169.]

Of course.

That was an unexpected and encouraging answer. Bearing in mind the sentiment that was expressed by Professor Kerr and the importance that the public place on local access to health care, in particular to accident and emergency services, does the First Minister think that Professor Kerr's view is reflected in Lanarkshire NHS Board's decision to close the A and E department at Monklands hospital?

I cannot comment in detail on the recommendations from Lanarkshire NHS Board, first, because ministers must follow a due process before announcing any decision to allow the proposals to go ahead or otherwise and, secondly, because the Minister for Health and Community Care and I have very direct constituency interests in the proposals. Therefore, rightly, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will have sole responsibility for making a decision on the proposals. I hope that members will agree that that is right.

It is essential that we do two things throughout Scotland in relation to the critical treatment in our hospitals. First, we must ensure that people can receive the highest quality specialist care and treatment in locations in each geographical area in Scotland. That is the strategy as outlined by Professor Kerr and the one that has been adopted by the health ministers, the devolved Government and local health boards. Secondly, it is equally important that, in each area of Scotland, we upgrade the other services to ensure that more people can be treated in their local area and that more people can be treated on the spot. One of the most significant changes in our health service in recent years has been in the ability of paramedics and ambulance staff to deal with people on the spot, before they are taken to an accident and emergency unit. Through that process, we will save more lives and treat people more quickly. The investment in front-line services must be seen alongside the need to centralise and specialise the more acute treatment in a way that retains the top-quality surgeons and consultants to work with those who need their skills.

Quite simply, the very direct interests to which the First Minister refers are that the accident and emergency facilities in Mr Kerr's constituency and those in the First Minister's constituency are safe. Those are indeed very direct interests.

I remind the First Minister that, regardless of what he said about health boards, ultimately, the buck stops with him and his Labour-Lib Dem Executive, which is responsible for the overall health service. Something just does not add up. Since 1999, annual Health Department spending has increased by a massive £4 billion, which is a huge cash injection. The spending for this year alone is £9 billion. Will the First Minister therefore explain why, over that same period, we have seen a troubling pattern of numerous hospitals being closed down, downgraded or placed under threat? To name but a few, the hospitals affected have included Stobhill hospital, the Vale of Leven hospital, Perth royal infirmary, St John's hospital, Ayr hospital and the cottage hospitals in Jedburgh and Coldstream. More and more health care is being centralised. The Scottish public have paid the tax and the First Minister claims to have increased spending hugely, so why are many vital local services under threat?

It is important to look forward rather than back, but it is also important to remember that the Conservatives have absolutely no right to talk about the state of the health service in Scotland, given the damage that they did to it during their 18 years in power. Until they apologise for that damage and their appalling performance in government, they will not be listened to in the Parliament. The reality is that we are now seeing improvements in the delivery of services. The reorganisation of health services has led to the delivery of more care and treatment closer to people in their communities and to the delivery of treatment on the spot by paramedics, rather than after paramedics have driven people to hospital in ambulances. That immediate treatment in the community and on the spot, when people are ill or require treatment, is a vital part of our new national health service.

Alongside that, we have the results, such as the lowest waiting times ever. We set targets that both main Opposition parties said would never be met. They had no confidence in the health service staff and they could not even congratulate them when the targets were achieved. The targets ensured that waiting times for out-patients and in-patients first went down to six months and have now reduced even further. There have also been reductions in the waiting lists, not only in the list of those who are waiting for treatment as designated by medical staff, but also in the number of people whom medical staff have asked to wait. Those dramatic improvements in our health service are a result not only of investment, but of reorganisation and reform. We must ensure that Professor Kerr's principles, which all members in the Parliament welcomed, are implemented properly in every part of Scotland.

Does the First Minister agree that NHS Lanarkshire displayed an arrogant and shameful aloofness in failing to respond to any of the concerns that were raised by me or my colleagues, or any of the 45,000 people who signed our petition demanding that we retain accident and emergency services at Monklands hospital? Does he further agree that the failure seriously to consider and respond to the case for Monklands, which cares for some of the sickest and poorest people in Lanarkshire, proves that the so-called consultation exercise was actually a deceitful sham and that that disastrous decision will be detrimental to my constituents? Finally, and most important, will he respond to my request for an independent review of the decision?

I have made it clear that it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on that for two reasons: first, because of the constituency interest; secondly, because of the fact that ministers have to go through a proper process before making a decision on that recommendation from Lanarkshire NHS Board. It is important to note that Lanarkshire NHS Board held its meeting in public on Tuesday and that it debated the issue for four hours; the process is therefore far more transparent and open than it was in the past.

I can confirm that Lewis Macdonald will consider all the representations that are made to him before he makes a decision. This morning, he held a meeting with Cathie Craigie, Elaine Smith and Karen Whitefield. I have no doubt that they made strong representations to him—as they have done throughout the process—and will continue to do so. He will consider those representations before coming to a decision.

---

Salmonella (Egg Imports)

I shall take a less hard-boiled approach.

To ask the First Minister, in light of recent and on-going concerns over salmonella linked to Spanish egg imports, what action the Scottish Executive will take to ensure that outbreaks traced back to these imports do not undermine the Scottish egg industry. (S2F-2405)

The possibility of salmonella contamination from United Kingdom-produced eggs is very low. Were the Food Standards Agency to receive any evidence that infected eggs were being imported to the UK, we would expect it to consider appropriate action.

I thank the First Minister for his assurance, but I fear that it does not go far enough. The British lion quality mark or a similar standard is a guarantee against salmonella. Can the First Minister offer further assurance that no school, hospital or prison in Scotland is using Spanish imported eggs, which would put at risk the most vulnerable in society?

I cannot speak for every egg bought or boiled in Scotland. Our information is that the Spanish eggs to which Mr Monteith refers are not, to the knowledge of the Food Standards Agency, currently being imported into Scotland or the rest of the UK. If there was a suggestion that those eggs or other such eggs were coming into the UK, clearly the FSA would be the right authority to investigate it. I wish to assure people, particularly those who use the facilities that were mentioned by Mr Monteith, that the vast majority of eggs purchased in Scotland are Scottish. I would strongly encourage public bodies in Scotland, and families in Scotland, to buy Scottish eggs, in particular Scottish free-range eggs. I am certain that those eggs are the best in the business and that people will enjoy eating them.

You could have another question.

I am unscrambled.

The most recent survey showed that there have been 6,000 cases of salmonella—indeed, there have been 16 deaths from salmonella—as a result of infected eggs in Britain, but that the countries that produce such eggs include Spain, which is one of the countries from which we import. Will the First Minister assure us that, even in the Parliament, eggs from Spain are not being used?

I do not know how long Brian Monteith was standing in the sun yesterday, but he is looking a bit fried today. As I said, my information is that there is no knowledge of Spanish imports to the UK, or to Scotland in particular. If there is any concern in the FSA about that matter, I am certain that it will look into it. People can have every confidence that the FSA does its job very well and that it will look into the matter properly.

---

Energy Prices

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive plans to challenge energy companies whose price rises risk jeopardising the Executive's action to address fuel poverty. (S2F-2398)

The Minister for Communities has today written to energy companies seeking an urgent meeting to discuss what more can be done to protect the most vulnerable, especially the elderly, from the impact of energy price rises.

I have concerns regarding how support can be extended to those who are in receipt of a small occupational pension that puts them beyond the current benefits system. Will the First Minister undertake to ensure that the discussions with energy companies take account of that significant group? Will he further undertake to consider expanding the central heating and insulation programmes to ensure that we remain on target to eradicate fuel poverty?

Devolved government in Scotland has had many considerable achievements, one of which has been the tackling of fuel poverty. The 63,000 central heating systems that have been installed, the 230,000 insulated homes and the nine out of 10 people who got those services and have lifted themselves out of fuel poverty in recent years are testament to the value of devolution and the actions that we have taken.

This year, we are in the process of expanding and extending those programmes. In particular, we are extending the service to replace broken central heating systems to those who have pension credit. That is a positive move. As we review annually the groups in most need, we will look to include other groups in the years to come. In the short term, the Minister for Communities will raise the matters that Margaret Jamieson has mentioned in his meetings with the energy companies.

What steps will the First Minister take to ensure that all vulnerable senior citizens who are customers of Scottish Power are encouraged to register with Scottish Power, which will then guarantee that their power will not be cut off in the event of non-payment of their bill?

The Parliament has taken measures to deal with the debt that can sometimes give rise to that situation. The new measures and the advice that goes alongside them are helping people in communities the length and breadth of Scotland. I am sure that additional issues will affect the way in which particular companies handle situations in which customers have difficulty in paying their bills. The Minister for Communities will be happy not only to raise the issue with the energy companies, but to discuss the matter with John Swinburne in advance of that.

---

Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

To ask the First Minister what concerns the Scottish Executive has regarding increases in referrals to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration on non-offence grounds and what the reasons are for these increases. (S2F-2401)

We have concerns about vulnerable children. The increase in referrals to the SCRA is potentially evidence of increasing confidence in the system and increased priority being given to the needs of vulnerable children by the agencies that make those referrals. The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People recently established a joint group to consider whether referrals are being used properly and how agencies can work more effectively together.

Why has the additional funding that was sought by the SCRA recently to help it to deal with the significant increase in the number of referrals not been granted? Does not the First Minister agree that, given that increase, now is not the time to postpone review of the children's hearings system? Is it not the case that the review has been postponed because only two of the Government's 4,400 civil servants have been working on the review of the children's hearings system, which is now seeing upwards of 54,000 referrals a year?

No, that is completely untrue. The children's hearings system is a significant priority for this devolved Government, and we have been improving it, over recent years, through increased investment, improved procedures and support for the children's panel members—in particular, the recruitment and training of new children's panel members. That work, which has been a significant priority, is delivering results for the SCRA and, more important, for the children and families who are affected by the work of the hearings system.

The children's hearings bill has been replaced in the legislative programme for one reason and one reason alone—the fact that the important recommendations of Bichard on the protection of children and vulnerable adults need to be implemented by the Parliament and we had to find a slot in the legislative timetable to do that. If the SNP is calling for us to drop the Bichard bill and replace it with a children's hearings bill, people in Scotland will be shocked by that announcement.

We in Scotland need to make the legislative changes that will protect vulnerable children and adults, but we also have to have an efficient, properly financed and effective children's hearings system as part of the wider child protection system, which needs reformed. Reforms are taking place to ensure that people consult one another properly and put the children first in our schools, doctors' surgeries and local child protection services. Those reforms are having an impact. Where they do not have an impact, we will take action against those who are responsible.

Does the First Minister agree that one of the concerns is that although the number of referrals to the reporters is rising substantially, most of those who are referred do not need compulsory measures of care and should therefore perhaps not have been referred to the system in the first place? Does he further agree that what is needed is better partnership working between the police, social services and the reporter service to ensure that the services that children in need require are delivered without those children having to be referred to the reporter service in the first place?

That is of course an important point, which was put constructively. The need to analyse the new referrals to the children's hearings administration is part of the responsible work of Government. Yes, we welcome the fact that more agencies are willing to report more cases to the children's hearings system, because they have more confidence in it than they perhaps had a few years ago. At the same time, it is likely that many of the referrals could be dealt with more effectively and more quickly in other ways. That is precisely why the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People has established the joint group to ensure that where children need attention and where their lives need repair, the agencies involved deal with that quickly, rather than pass the buck to anybody else.

Does the First Minister agree—he seems to, given his earlier reply—that early intervention is vital when dealing with vulnerable youngsters, regardless of whether they are referred on offence or non-offence grounds? Does he accept that the Executive's failure to increase the range of disposals that are available to children's hearings, such as drug treatment and testing orders, and the lack of secure places mean that those young people are dealt with according to the resources that are available as opposed to according to their needs?

Of course it is important to have early intervention, particularly in cases that require care and the attention of different services. In order to secure that, it is important to ensure that those services work properly with one another. Far too many of the tragic cases that we have seen in Scotland and elsewhere have happened as a direct result of different agencies at local level—sometimes even at national level—not talking to one another to share information that could have saved a child's life or helped ensure that their life was repaired in advance of their adolescent years, when things can go seriously off the rails. That is an important principle.

Secondly, for those who require to be placed in secure accommodation because of the behaviour in which they have been involved, it is important that we have better and more secure accommodation. That is precisely why we have been investing in new secure accommodation. Some opened recently in Airdrie and there will be more over this next period. That secure accommodation is more effective in turning around those young lives than some of the secure accommodation that we have seen in the past.

The police and the councils need more disposals, too. I noticed that Margaret Mitchell said on Tuesday that we were wrong to introduce antisocial behaviour orders and other measures in our actions in this Parliament. It is precisely those measures that will help with the early intervention to stop young people committing the offences in the first place. I wish that those who occasionally show an interest in this topic would be consistent from one day to the next and support the measures that are required in all areas of care and protection and tackling youth offences.

---

Hate Crime

To ask the First Minister whether the forthcoming sentencing bill will be used to address the issue of hate crime. (S2F-2406)

As we set out in last week's legislative statement, measures on hate crime will not be included in the sentencing bill. However, this Government is committed to tackling prejudice in all its forms. We will look at that again once we receive the Sentencing Commission for Scotland report on this issue in August.

Last week's statement generated much confusion about the Executive's intentions on hate crime, given that clear commitments had been made that the proposed sentencing bill would contain new measures. Can the First Minister clear up the confusion now? If aggravated sentences are not the means by which the Executive wants to address the issue of hate crime, does the First Minister intend to abolish aggravated sentences for racist and sectarian crimes? If not—that is, if aggravated sentences are seen to be the correct mechanism in that regard—why has the sentencing bill suddenly become the wrong legislative vehicle?

The working group—whose work was supported by all sides in the chamber—never suggested that the only way in which to deal with hate crimes was to treat them as aggravated offences. As the Minister for Justice confirmed to members of that working group today, the other measures that were contained in the group's report will help to ensure that agencies respond properly to hate crime and that individuals are punished for hate crime in a way that is appropriate. At the same time, there is an issue about the need to ensure that we have a consistent approach to aggravated sentencing and other related matters. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to legislate on one issue in the sentencing bill and it would be far more appropriate for us to await the report of the Sentencing Commission, which will appear in August, and to respond thereafter.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—