³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Plenary, 26 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, June 26, 2003

Official Report 618KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-121)

When I next meet the Prime Minister, I will be delighted to inform him that in the first eight weeks of the second session of this young Parliament we have published, as promised, proposals for court reform and new support for witnesses and that today we have announced proposals for tackling antisocial behaviour. I will also inform him that we have reviewed our policy on school exclusions in order to support head teachers and that we have taken forward road and rail transport plans. I will further tell him that today we contributed to the reform of the European common agricultural policy and that tomorrow we will publish our plans for the reform of the national health service. I think that the Prime Minister will be very impressed.

At least the pace of activity has increased over the past eight weeks compared to the previous four years. However, my question is about one of the other proposals that was made in those four years but, unfortunately, has not come to a conclusion. What is the current position on payment of compensation to those people who, as a result of treatment on the national health service, contracted hepatitis C?

The current position is that we are discussing the matter with our colleagues in Whitehall. In the past fortnight, the Minister for Health and Community Care and I have discussed the matter with the new Secretary of State for Scotland and, over the next few weeks, the Minister for Health and Community Care intends to discuss it with the new Secretary for State for Health in the United Kingdom Cabinet.

I am interested in the First Minister's answer, because it is similar to the ones that we have had before about the continuing discussions with the UK Government. In January, the Minister for Health and Community Care said that he wanted to pay compensation. At that time, the only obstacle seemed to be Westminster. Since then, we have been told that progress has been made and that meetings, top-level discussions and negotiations have taken place.

Yesterday, the Health Committee heard in a letter from the Minister for Health and Community Care that, despite all those assurances, the UK Government has not yet responded to his key concerns and that no agreement has been reached on the issue. For the sake of clarity, will the First Minister agree to publish the legal advice, correspondence and list of meetings at ministerial and official level to which the Minister for Health and Community Care referred in his letter? That would allow the victims to see with their own eyes that the Scottish Executive is doing all that it can to secure justice for the victims of this tragedy.

In response to the concerns that were expressed in the Parliament, the Scottish ministers expressed the view that they wished to provide assistance to those victims. However, we want to do that in the right and proper manner. That is why we have taken the right time to do it.

Mr Swinney knows that we do not publish the level of detail that he has asked for. However, we rightly take up issues of concern. It is right and proper that we seek to reach an appropriate conclusion that will stand any legal tests that could follow. We will take our time. We will do things properly. At the end of the day, I hope that we will get the right result for those who have been affected.

The First Minister says that he wants to act as quickly as possible, but that is the language that we have been getting from the Government for the past six to 10 months on the subject. The issue is not new; it has been going on for the best part of 13 or 14 years. Let me quote from the Minister for Health and Community Care's letter to the Health Committee. The minister said that, after 10 months of talks,

"Agreement has not yet been reached on the issue of devolved competence, or on social security clawback and we have not set any fixed deadline."

We have been here before on similar issues. When Westminster would not agree to the Scottish Executive's position on free personal care for the elderly, the Executive threw in the towel. I ask the First Minister for an absolute assurance that the victims of hepatitis C will not see the Government abandon them. Will the victims get the compensation that they justly deserve?

We hope that they will get the appropriate payments that can be afforded in the budgets that are available and we hope to secure that in a manner that is not open to challenge in Scotland or elsewhere. It is right and proper that we clarify the legal position. We also need to clarify that those who might benefit from the payments do not lose out as a result of money being clawed back. That is entirely responsible government. We will continue to pursue that course until a proper conclusion is reached. It would be entirely wrong for a responsible Government to raise people's expectations beyond that level until we can be certain not only that the payments will be made, but that they will be meaningful.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-124)

The next Cabinet will, as always, discuss matters of importance. Yesterday, the Cabinet paid tribute to Sir Muir Russell after his 33 years' service to the civil service and his period of service as permanent secretary during the early years of devolution. We wished him well, as I am sure the Parliament will want to do, too.

I am happy to echo the First Minister's words on Sir Muir Russell, with whom I look forward to engaging in dialogue in his new post and with his new responsibilities at the University of Glasgow.

I wonder whether the First Minister and some, at least, members of his Cabinet read the Prime Minister's recent speech to the Fabian Society on public service reform. The Prime Minister said:

"Those who defend the status quo on public services defend a model that is one of entrenched inequality."

That echoed what the former Secretary of State for Health, Mr Milburn, said last February:

"In 50 years, health inequalities have widened, not narrowed. Too often, even today, the poorest services tend to be in the poorest communities."

Does the First Minister accept that that analysis is just as relevant to the health service in Scotland and that the failure to provide high standards for some of the most disadvantaged of our citizens is one of the most pressing arguments for reform?

I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for recognising that any such development occurred over a period when, I believe, the Conservative party was in government for more years than any other party was. However, it is critical that we recognise that, particularly in the 21st century, not only the health service but other public services need to reform and to adapt to the demands of current and future generations. That is why, in recent months, we have published proposals for reform in education, in our courts and in our justice system and why we will publish tomorrow our proposals for reform in the national health service in Scotland. I hope that those proposals will meet with support in the Parliament.

I suggest that the First Minister's so-called reforms, which are to be published tomorrow in an NHS reform bill, are simply tinkering around the edges of the problem and will fail to address the real design faults in the health service. As the First Minister might acknowledge, some of the fundamental design flaws in the service result from excessive centralisation, political interference, bureaucracy and a lack of choice for patients. He might also acknowledge that those problems are exactly the same north and south of the border and that, consequently, the system is failing patients whether they be in Lancashire or Lanarkshire.

Last week at question time, the First Minister told me that

"patients in Scotland for whom our guarantee on waiting times is not met locally will have the right to access their health care elsewhere".—[Official Report, 19 June 2003;
c 977.]

In other words, the system will have failed the patient before anything is done. Does the First Minister agree that it would be better to avoid such failures in the first place and that that means empowering patients and giving them choice from day one, an approach that will be absent from his NHS reform bill when it is published tomorrow?

No, I do not agree with that at all. The reforms that we will publish tomorrow will include significant new opportunities for the involvement of patients, not only individually, but collectively, in the provision of services in their area.

Mr McLetchie should reflect on the fact that it is likely—I do not have the figures to hand and suspect that they are not published, but this is my absolute belief—that a more significant number of NHS patients travel north of the border from England for treatment than patients from Scotland travel in the other direction. We would all be surprised if that were not the case. That is a tribute to the Scottish health service, to the increased capacity in the Scottish health service and to the delivery by doctors, nurses and many other professionals of a quality health service here in Scotland.

Reforms are required, but those reforms should build on our comprehensive service and should not move us to the kind of health service that the Conservative party has taken to putting forward over recent years—a service that would be much more exclusive in its provision.

---

Scottish Executive (Honesty and Integrity)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive enforces honesty and integrity amongst its members. (S2F-131)

The standards expected of Scottish Executive ministers are contained in the Scottish ministerial code.

On 13 March, the First Minister stood in the chamber and argued for us to support Blair and Bush over Iraq. Does he now accept that he was wrong to support the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister was guilty of deceiving Westminster, the First Minister and the people of Scotland?

No, I do not. I can only assume from Mr Sheridan's comments that he would prefer that Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq. He is wrong to take that view.

On 13 March, the First Minister said that

"action should be authorised by the United Nations"

and that the Iraqi regime should

"give up its weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; c 19434-35.]

Given that Blair and Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq without authorisation from the United Nations and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, does he now admit and apologise to the people of Scotland that he misled them in supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq?

I and many others are on record at the time regretting the fact that there was no United Nations decision to act, but that does not make the success of the action any less good for the people of Iraq. They needed a change of regime; they now have that change of regime and they should be supported in rebuilding their country.

---

Electronic Tagging (Children)

To ask the First Minister whether he intends to restrict electronic tagging of children to those children who might otherwise be placed in secure accommodation. (S2F-136)

As members are aware, we are committed to combating antisocial behaviour in our communities, particularly by a minority of young persistent offenders. The consultation document published earlier today includes possible options on tagging young people who might otherwise be placed in secure accommodation.

Does the First Minister agree that electronic tagging has a range of possibilities? It could be a way of preventing those young people who might otherwise be in secure accommodation from being away from their communities. Furthermore, electronic tagging could provide protection for some victims of crime, as offenders can be monitored electronically. However, will the First Minister assure me that he will not take it for granted that, because tagging has been a successful measure for adults, it will necessarily be successful for young people? Will he also assure me that the proposal will be properly monitored and assessed? I am sure that he will agree that, whatever Parliament does, tagging can be only part of an overall solution.

Yes, I agree with Pauline McNeill's comments. We should not close our minds to the possible solutions in tackling antisocial behaviour. Today's consultation paper contains a number of open-ended questions to which I hope people will take the chance to respond. We want to pursue a number of immediate actions, not least the limited use of electronic tagging that was proposed in the partnership agreement and again today in the consultation document, although it is important to ensure that there is a range of other services and opportunities for young people.

Antisocial behaviour is carried out by a minority of young people in Scotland; the vast majority of young people deserve our support, our encouragement and the creation of opportunities to allow them to fulfil their lives. One of those opportunities is the chance to use their streets, parks and leisure facilities in peace and safety. In tackling antisocial behaviour, we will be enabling them to do just that.

I am encouraged by the First Minister's answer. Does he agree that, although electronic tagging has a role to play in tackling youth offending, it is not the only solution? Given the current shortage of secure unit accommodation and social workers, will the First Minister give an assurance that electronic tagging will not be used as a cheap alternative to detention, where that is more appropriate, or to the kind of intensive support measures that have been applied to many young offenders, which not only control their offending behaviour, but tackle the underlying causes of it?

I am absolutely determined that the various sanctions, penalties and other measures that we propose today should be used only in appropriate circumstances. I am pleased that the SNP has in some ways changed its policy on the issue and now takes a more comprehensive approach—in the past, it focused solely on secure accommodation.

It is important that we recognise that we are dealing with a deep-rooted problem that requires a variety of actions to tackle it. My personal view is that it is not appropriate to give antisocial behaviour orders to, or electronically tag, eight-year-olds in Scotland, but we must recognise that some eight, nine and 10-year-old children in Scotland—and even some six and seven-year-olds—behave appallingly in their communities. This morning we heard of the stoning of building workers on a site and, on Monday, I heard that a pregnant woman was stoned by eight-year-olds in my constituency. Antisocial behaviour orders might not be appropriate for such children, but their parents must be held to account and appropriate action must be taken. That is why we must and will produce a comprehensive set of measures.

When will the promised additional 29 secure accommodation places be available? Does the First Minister agree that, if a children's panel decides that a child should be sent to a secure accommodation unit, that is what should be done and we should not rely on the next-best option?

I hope that that would always be the case. The changes in secure accommodation will take place as quickly as possible. Those changes include not only the additional places, but the reconfiguration of secure accommodation to ensure that it is appropriate and in the right locations and that it provides the right services for young men and women and boys and girls.

---

Care Homes

To ask the First Minister what comparison has been made in terms of value for money between offering financial support to the Church of Scotland to keep care homes open and finding alternative accommodation for residents affected by the closure of Church of Scotland homes. (S2F-130)

We do not want to see the unnecessary closure of good-quality care homes. I hope that negotiations between local authorities, which have a duty to provide best value, and the Church of Scotland will ensure that older people's care needs continue to be met in appropriate settings.

Does the First Minister agree that it is most unfortunate that the Church of Scotland, which is the one organisation that did not go in for brinkmanship by threatening not to take new residents, should be hit in such a way? The two Church of Scotland homes in my constituency, Achvarasdale House and Oversteps Eventide Home in Dornoch, are faced with closure, which is terrible for the residents. Does the First Minister agree that it would be best if the appropriate officials and representatives of local government and the kirk got round the table and sorted out the problem?

It would be helpful if Highland Council and the Church of Scotland had such a discussion. I am pleased that Jamie Stone helped me with the pronunciation of the home in Thurso. I am also pleased that, despite the stories that were circulating about the Church of Scotland's decisions and the potential for mass closure of facilities, the church has not immediately pursued such a course of action. There is an opportunity for a reasonable discussion about the way ahead and about the combination of capital investment, services and on-going revenue funding that might be required. The Church of Scotland has a proud record of providing good-quality care for people in Scotland and it is important that it retains as many of its facilities as is appropriate in the 21st century. I hope that that is the case in Jamie Stone's constituency as much as anywhere else.

Does the First Minister agree that the situation in which the Church of Scotland finds itself is only the tip of the iceberg of the issue of care home accommodation? Given that local authorities such as South Ayrshire Council are trying to get out of providing such services directly, the question is who will be left to provide such care if action is not taken urgently to ensure that appropriate financial arrangements are put in place. What action is the Executive taking to ensure that there are enough care home places for those who will need them in the future?

The Executive is taking a considerable amount of action, not only in financing existing care home places, but in subsidising the creation of new care home places. Since July 2001, we have provided £130 million to the sector and there will be considerable additional finance in the years to come. We engage constantly in negotiations to reach agreement on the appropriate level of fees so that we do not pay more than required and simply line the pockets of others and so that we can ensure that care home places are properly funded and can be filled.

A combination of services provided by local authorities, by the Church of Scotland and other voluntary providers and by the private sector should be decided at a local level in a way that is most appropriate for the local community and people in the area. That is by far the best way forward. The matter cannot be set out in great detail and determined at a national level; it is right for local authorities to take the lead and for us to provide additional funding. Everybody should be involved in the discussions to secure the best possible way of providing care home places in the future.