Plenary, 31 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, January 31, 2002

Official Report 638KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S1F-1610)

Among other priorities, the Cabinet will discuss a report from Wendy Alexander on the excellent work that she is doing with her transport responsibilities as part of the modernisation and preparation of Scotland for a competitive economy in the 21st century.

I am glad to hear the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning getting such attention from the First Minister. At least they are speaking this week.

Is it the normal practice of the Scottish Executive to shred documents on the handing out of public money within two years of that public money being spent?

I would not expect so, although I could not be absolutely certain without checking the detailed rules that we employ.

I am sure that the First Minister is right to give that cautious answer. I want to raise with him the question of Fife Council's spending of public money, the overwhelming majority of which comes from this Parliament. There are some facts that the Parliament should hear. In April 1998, a grant of £20,000 was given to the Third Age charity, which was followed 12 months later by another grant of £20,000, even though the Third Age charity ceased to exist in February 1998. We now hear that documents relating to those grants have been shredded.

I am reliably informed that local authorities do not destroy documents until five years after the public money has been spent. Does the First Minister agree that the seriousness of the issues that have been raised in the media on this subject merit an investigation by Audit Scotland? Would the First Minister support such an investigation?

If the leader of the Scottish National Party did his homework properly, he would know that, because a complaint has already been made to the Accounts Commission, an investigation will already be under way.

It would be good to hear whether the First Minister thinks that the issue merits serious investigation. The situation involves a Labour council giving money to an organisation that is run by Labour activists and that rents office space from a Labour MP. The connection is Labour, Labour, Labour and it stinks. In a week in which the First Minister has appointed six Labour party members to a panel of 12 to scrutinise public appointments, is it not time that we started to clean up Scottish politics, starting with Fife Council?

As I have already said, the chief executive and the audit committee of Fife Council are awaiting a further report on these matters. I understand that the Accounts Commission has received a complaint about the matter and will properly and thoroughly investigate it. The commission is responsible for the external auditing of the work of local authorities in Scotland. It would be entirely wrong of me to prejudge any investigation that it held or to tell it how to undertake the investigation properly.

On the other matter that the leader of the Scottish National Party raised, I hope that he will recall that, as I have promised since becoming First Minister, we intend to ensure that the public appointments process is significantly more open and transparent. When we have ensured that the Scottish Parliament can properly scrutinise the appointments that are made by ministers and that each and every assessor who is appointed to scrutinise public appointments in Scotland and to sit on the interview panels is appointed by an independent commissioner who will be appointed with the authority of the Scottish Parliament, that will be a significant achievement. If Mr Swinney had any decency in him, he would recognise and welcome that.

---

Cabinet (Reshuffle)

To ask the First Minister whether he has any plans to reshuffle the Cabinet. (S1F-1607)

No.

Sorry, Wendy. I did my best.

A matter that the First Minister should consider is health. Last week, he told me at question time that the number of nurses in Scotland fell under the Conservatives. This week, official figures show that, during our time in office, the number of nurses increased by almost 6,000 to 51,472 in 1997. Since then, under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and irrespective of whether the starting point is 1997 or 1999, the number of nurses has fallen. Will the First Minister accept that what he said last week was untrue and that his Minister for Health and Community Care's claim of a short-term increase in a limited category of nurses was deliberately misleading? When will we have some honesty from the Government on health?

I will not allow the member to distort the figures. It is clear not only that the number of qualified nurses in Scotland and the activity that they undertake have increased since 1997, but that more and more activity is taking place in the community. That activity is not always conducted by qualified nurses, but it is making a difference to health care in our local communities.

That does not even take into account the substantial investment over the past 18 months. The figures that were announced this week relate to September 2000. I do not think that anyone in the chamber does not believe that those figures will be shown to have significantly improved further since then. On top of that, we expect 10,000 more nurses to qualify in the next five years. Those are significant improvements that are making a difference. It is time that some people in the chamber recognised that.

It is time that some people learned something about basic statistics. I have the figures. In 1980, there were 45,551 nurses in Scotland. In 1997, there were 51,472. In 2000, there were 51,228. The number of nurses increased under the Conservatives and decreased under Labour. The only thing in health that is increasing under Labour is the number of incompetent ministers who are charged with responsibility for it.

The First Minister has been guilty of spin and deceit that is undermining public confidence in our health service. In the past week, the chair of the British Medical Association in Scotland, a senior lecturer in health economics at the University of Glasgow and the highly respected and independent King's Fund have all made important contributions to the debate. They have made many of the same criticisms as we have made week in, week out in the Parliament about political interference and centralisation in our health service, yet the only response from the First Minister and his health minister is to spread misinformation and misleading and inaccurate figures as a smokescreen for failure. Will the First Minister accept my invitation to engage seriously in a mature and sensible debate about the future of our health service, which we have called for for months and which he and others have consistently rejected?

I would be delighted to participate in a mature and sensible debate on the national health service, if it were possible to have one in the chamber. However, every time that the subject comes up, the figures are distorted, the positions that some members take are misinterpreted and the description of what is happening in the health service is unfair to those who work in it. The public's confidence in our national health service is not helped by the fact that Mr McLetchie comes to the chamber week after week, Thursday afternoon after Thursday afternoon, to demand that we use more private sector space and reduce the use of the public sector in our national health service.

I make it clear that we have absolute confidence in the public national health service in Scotland and will remain committed to it. When we act on that commitment—for example, by taking action on waiting times and using not only the public sector but spare capacity in the private sector—and we centralise decisions and establish a unit, the Conservatives say that we are not doing enough. Two weeks later, the Conservatives criticise us for centralising too much. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. Either we are taking action on the health service or we are not taking enough action.

We are taking action constantly in the interests of patients. When local decisions are required, they will be left to local decision making, but when national decisions are required, we will take them, act and ensure that more patients are treated as a result.

---

Care Homes

To ask the First Minister when negotiations between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the independent care homes will be finalised. (S1F-1623)

Finding a long-term solution to the problem of funding care home places is very important and we hope that COSLA and the Scottish care homes reach an agreement soon. Although the duty of care lies with local authorities, ministers are committed to contributing to a lasting settlement that provides long-term stability for those elderly people who need it most.

Given the Executive's recent announcement of £20 million to address bedblocking and the fact that the dispute has been running since last October—despite the agreement reached then between the Scottish Executive, COSLA and Scottish Care—will the First Minister tell me, first, why COSLA is not honouring that agreement and, secondly, whether he thinks that it is acceptable for councils to allocate £400 per person for those staying in their own homes but only £245 for people in independent homes?

This is a serious topic and negotiations are under way. I do not want to undermine those negotiations or to conflict with them. As we have laid money on the table, we share a responsibility with local authorities in the matter and it is important that we reach a proper negotiated settlement. We intend to do that in the best interests of patients. It would be nice if we could have done that last week, the week before or even this week. However, even if it takes time, it is best to do it right in the interests of patients, rather than to take a leap in the dark.

I do not think that those negotiations are helped by those who constantly put forward the case of the private care home owners, rather than that of the patients. I think that the patients should come first, that there should be a proper negotiated settlement and that that should be acted on as quickly as possible. If we can achieve that, we will.

Will the First Minister confirm that any agreement reached will be based on partnership? Will he confirm that both the Scottish Executive and local authorities will make a contribution based on partnership and does he agree that partnership is the only way forward to deliver services for our older people?

I indeed think that that is the way forward. However, I would not want to cut across the negotiations, other than to say that whatever conclusion we come to should be based on an understanding and recognition of our shared responsibility to provide the elderly people who need care home places with the quality of care that they deserve. That is our objective. The local authorities have that duty and we accept our part of that shared responsibility; I am sure that local authorities accept theirs too. I hope that a financial solution is reached as quickly as possible.

Does the First Minister agree that actions speak louder than words and that we need some real action by the Executive to resolve the care home dispute before the fast-approaching 11 February deadline? Will he accept that such action would be a far more effective way of promoting the interests of Scotland's older people than launching yet another glossy report such as the one issued today on health and the older citizen, which, although very worthy, tells us nothing new and is not what the older people of this country actually require from the Executive?

Shona Robison raised a number of interesting issues in that question. First, it is important that the chief medical officer presents a proper report on the future health care needs of Scotland's elderly population that can be considered in the Parliament and elsewhere. Everyone in the Parliament should welcome the availability of such evidence and analysis for our policy making because looking at such evidence before establishing our positions is exactly what we should be doing. Shona Robison may not consider that important, but I am afraid that we do. I hope that others will share that view.

Secondly, I agree that action is more important than words. If we had just taken the decision that I was urged to take by the leader of Shona Robison's party two weeks ago and had handed over as much money as we could as quickly as possible to the care home organisations, we might have had a resolution to the current dispute, but that would not have been in the interests either of Scottish taxpayers or of the elderly people concerned, who deserve to receive the highest quality of care in the care homes.

Action is important and negotiations are important. We will find a solution to this matter, but we will do it properly. We will not respond to deadlines set by other organisations. If this time last year—perhaps 13 months ago—I had established the deal that we reached with Scotland's teacher organisations and local authorities on the basis of a deadline that had been set six months previously by my predecessor, we would not have had a new system for disciplining teachers for poor performance in our schools; we would have handed over a pay rise without winning that concession. It was important to take an extra week then and, if we need to take extra days on this occasion, we will do so to get the right solution for Scotland.

---

Young Offenders

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to address the issue of repeat young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionately high level of crime. (S1F-1621)

The next steps will be: first, tough programmes for young offenders to make young people face up to the consequences of their actions and to prevent them from reoffending; secondly, involving the victims of crime in the youth justice system; thirdly, better joined-up working between police, education and social services; and, finally, proper facilities and activities within the community to help to provide fulfilling alternatives to crime for young people.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. He will be aware that a major study that was carried out in the mid-1990s found that 3 per cent of young people were responsible for 26 per cent of all youth crime. He talked about better joined-up working. If gaps exist in such essential provision by the Executive or the local government and voluntary sectors, how does the Executive intend to fill the gaps? Could he elucidate?

There are those in the gallery who think that my elucidation is not
necessarily the best in the chamber. I will do my best.

First, it is critical that we ensure that the police services in Scotland are involved in the multidisciplinary approach that I have described. When the Deputy First Minister and I met police officers in Torphichen Street in Edinburgh last Thursday morning, one of the issues that came up was that the police feel that multidisciplinary work sometimes does not involve them and that it involves only education and social work services, for example. However, community policemen are now in the community almost as much as the staff of local authority departments are, so they can play a role in finding solutions for young people. This week we have ensured that the department will take up that suggestion and fully involve police officers in our integrated services activities.

Secondly, some extremely successful projects operate around Scotland. We want to spread that best practice. On Monday morning, I visited the breaking the cycle project in East Lothian—in Musselburgh—with Susan Deacon. Some members may not find that information interesting, but even the SNP will find it interesting that 89 per cent of young people who go through that project do not reoffend. In a country where more than 50 per cent of our prisoners are back in prison within two years and too many of our young people offend time and again, an 89 per cent reduction in the number of young people who reoffend is a significant success. We should spread that word.

Does the First Minister agree that his announced intention of diverting more 16 and 17-year-old offenders to the children's hearing system, with its present limited powers, is unlikely to have a deterrent effect on offenders—young, repeat or otherwise?

Mr Aitken offers a simplistic distortion of the truth, but perhaps that is not surprising. As he is well aware, the proposal is for pilot projects to see whether, in certain circumstances, reoffending can be more effectively prevented by dealing with young people—16 and 17-year-olds—in the children's and young people's hearing system rather than in the courts. Only when that option might be more appropriate would it be tested and tried—it is worth a try in a country where we fail so significantly to tackle reoffending. It should not be an option in cases that are so serious that the courts should automatically be involved. We may be more successful—because of the young person's level of maturity, the nature of the offence or other circumstances—in preventing some offenders aged 16 and 17 from turning into adult criminals if we treat them in the way that has been proposed. If we can do that, it is worth a try.

---

Landfill Sites

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any plans to review landfill sites and their impact on the surrounding environment. (S1F-1605)

Yes. Most of all, we want to reduce the amount of waste by recycling and reusing household and industrial materials. We aim to move radically away from our reliance on landfill. When we use landfill, we will treat the waste before releasing it into the environment. Importantly, we will separate hazardous waste from non-hazardous waste. Decisions on the siting of any new landfill sites will take account of their potential impact on the surrounding environment.

Is the minister aware of the damaging report published this month in The Lancet, which has uncovered the possible danger of women giving birth to children with chromosomal disorders if they live within a 3km radius of a landfill site? Will the First Minister follow the precautionary principle in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's national waste strategy and cease all dumping until a full scientific inquiry has been carried out?

As always in such circumstances, it is not always straightforward to respond in the way in which the member suggests. The report in The Lancet is only one report and contradictory evidence has been published on the matter. However, I am pleased that at least one SNP member believes that medical evidence and analysis is important when we plan decisions.

It is important that we examine the medical evidence that exists and take action on the general issue of landfill and waste. We fully intend to do that, both through new planning guidance and by taking the action that is required under European directives to separate waste properly and ensure that it is properly contained.

Time is up.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During question time, Mr Macintosh used a bogus point of order to rebut a point made by a previous questioner. If we were all to use that tactic, question time would become a shambles. Do you agree that it is particularly unfortunate that a member of the Procedures Committee used such a tactic? Do you undertake to consider how the practice can be prevented?

This is the first time that I have had to deal with a point of order on a bogus point of order—which is, therefore, itself almost a bogus point of order. I cut Mr Macintosh short because he was making a bogus point of order, so Alasdair Morgan makes a fair point.