First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. In a conversation with me and Miss Goldie last night, the First Minister mentioned rediscovering the joys of watching television after the election. I rather suspect that some of us have more time for that than others. I am just relieved to be back on Thursday daytime television rather than watching it at home.
I saw on television this week the “Panorama” documentary that showed the appalling abuse of residents in a private hospital in England. Yesterday, four staff who were involved were arrested. The programme highlighted the failing of the care regulator—the Care Quality Commission. The Scottish equivalent of that commission is, of course, Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland—SCSWIS—which is a newly formed body from the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and other bodies. What assurances can the First Minister give us about the new regulator’s capacity to ensure standards of care in Scotland?
With permission, Presiding Officer, I will answer the question about my engagements and then the question that Iain Gray asked. I know that that was inadvertent.
Later today, I will meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to discuss the uptake in modern apprenticeship opportunities. The latest figures show that, of the 25,000 modern apprenticeship places that the Government promised for this year, which is an unprecedented number, Skills Development Scotland has now contracted for 24,300 with training providers. I am sure that all members will wish to welcome the significant progress that has been made on that vital jobs initiative only two months into the financial year. [Applause.] I shall keep members updated as those youngsters move into employment in their training opportunities.
I saw the commentary on the documentary that Iain Gray mentioned, which raised matters of great concern. SCSWIS will review the current position of the three registered services that are run in Scotland to ensure that it is satisfied that there are no areas of key concern. That is clearly an important work of investigation. It is a matter for the authorities in Scotland to ensure that the Scottish position is up to scratch in all respects.
My apologies for my lack of practice at doing this, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.]
We can practically see the Elsie Inglis care home from the Parliament; it is just down the road. Two residents of that home have died in recent weeks and six more have been hospitalised. The conditions are so bad that the rest of the residents have been evacuated.
I asked about the capacity of the new care regulator in Scotland. It is a fact that the care regulator has had its budget cut by 25 per cent, 55 staff have gone and another 50 might go in the year ahead. Those are the very staff who are meant to inspect homes such as the Elsie Inglis care home. Should not we consider what happened at Elsie Inglis and cancel that cut?
Perhaps I can reassure Iain Gray both on the generality and on the specifics at Elsie Inglis.
On 31 May this year—that is, in the past few days—there were, in total, 1,333 care homes for adults. During 2011-12, we will inspect a minimum of 961 of those care homes. At least 1,549 inspections will be carried out—some care homes will be inspected more than once because of the risk-based evidence that is held on the service.
Specifically on Elsie Inglis, a complaint about the standards of care there was received on 25 March and the regulator undertook a full inspection in April. During that period, the City of Edinburgh Council and Lothian NHS Board put their own staff into the home. That was done by 12 May. By 26 May, all 46 residents had been moved to suitable settings, where their needs are currently being met.
Members will agree that unsatisfactory conditions existed, but it is clear from that timetable that the relevant authorities acted quickly to rectify the situation and, as we must all agree, had the position and wellbeing of the residents as their primary concern.
I did not criticise the response of SCSWIS to the situation at the Elsie Inglis home; my question was about the inspectorate’s continuing capacity to carry out such work. We are moving from a statutory requirement for six-monthly inspections to a risk-assessment model that will mean fewer inspections. Further, the number of staff who carry out those inspections has been cut and will be cut in the two or three years ahead. However, concerns have been expressed not only about the regulator. Audit Scotland has today condemned the community health partnerships, which are supposed to plan and manage social care, and doctors say that those partnerships have “spectacularly failed”.
Southern Cross Healthcare, which runs 98 care homes in Scotland, is on the verge of collapse after financial speculation on the beds in which our older people are cared for.
So, the inspectorate is being cut, the social care system has been declared not fit for purpose and the biggest provider of residential care in Scotland is on the verge of collapse. This week, the First Minister held an emergency Cabinet summit on the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Does he not think that a summit on the crisis in care is more urgent than that?
There were a number of points in that. Just as a point of fact, I did not have an emergency Cabinet summit—the issue was discussed at the Cabinet, as was Southern Cross. I have given the figures on the inspection regime for social care homes in Scotland. Perhaps Iain Gray and the Labour Party did not want to hear those figures, but they indicate an impressive level of inspection. One crucial point that I did not make is that all care home inspections are now unannounced. That is a crucial part of ensuring that care homes in Scotland are at the best possible standard. I also mentioned the response to the situation at Elsie Inglis, and Iain Gray seemed to agree that it had been an effective response to a difficult situation.
He has now taken us on to Southern Cross. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy is dealing with that issue daily in conjunction with the UK Department of Health and in constant communication with all others who are involved in that serious issue. It is true that Southern Cross, which has more than 3,000 residents in Scotland of a total of about 98,000 across the UK, is on the brink of administration. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Scottish Care and the relevant local authorities are ready to ensure continuity of care for the residents concerned if Southern Cross moves into administration.
There is one cautionary note that we should take from the Southern Cross situation. Southern Cross is an example of a private company that is involved in social care. Some people seem to think that that model should be applied across the health service in England. Indeed, in the past, the Labour Party wanted to introduce private companies into mainstream health services in Scotland. Given the difficulties that arise when a private company is on the brink of administration and given the position in which that leaves vulnerable people in social care or the health service, the current situation should be a cautionary note for those who seem to think that private intervention is a solution in the health service or in the social care service.
A cautionary note to the First Minister: I think that he will find that the Scottish National Party council in Fife is currently transferring its publicly owned care homes to the private sector. We should not try to score points on the issue; we should try to move forward. We have done that before in the Parliament. In the first session of Parliament, when the First Minister and I were both members, we introduced the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, the learning disability strategy and then free personal care, although I think that Mr Salmond was not a member by that time.
Only last week, the First Minister said:
“This Parliament speaks for the people of Scotland, and the people’s voice should be heard.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2011; c 67.]
I agree with him. It is too late for Lynn Beveridge from Elsie Inglis to be heard, but we need to hear the voices of the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable in the Parliament. They are not talking about the things about which we have heard so much—the constitutional issues, the Supreme Court, corporation tax or the Crown estate—important as those may be. No, those voices are asking what we are going to do to improve and secure the care that they need. Our job is to do that together. What are we going to do to improve the situation?
Iain Gray referred to community health partnerships. He also referred to the importance of the Parliament acting together and of not making party-political points. Community health partnerships were established in 2004. Today’s Audit Scotland report, like last year’s independent inspection report, has indicated that there are serious problems—not failing across Scotland—in some areas, with a lack of integration of health and social care. That is exactly why the Government has established such integration as a priority.
If I were to take a non-political look at the establishment of community health partnerships, I might say that we have learned from experience something that may not have been evident when the relevant legislation was introduced. The legislation left the co-ordination of health and community care as a voluntary aspect of the 36 partnerships in Scotland. Why is that important? Today’s Audit Scotland report did not indicate that the system was failing across Scotland. On the contrary, one of its key findings was that there was co-sharing of services in 20 of the partnerships. That begs the question, why has it not happened in the other 16 partnerships? I suggest that it was a flaw in the Parliament’s legislation that those of us who were in the Parliament in 2004—neither Iain Gray nor I were—did not realise that the co-ordination that was hoped for had to be made compulsory and that integration had to happen and should not be left to individual health boards and local authorities across Scotland. That is why the Government has made making such integration happen a priority.
In the spirit of not looking to score party-political points about whose legislation was best and of not saying that the system is failing across the country, we should recognise that, for example, delayed discharges have not been increasing in community health partnerships. In April 2004, there were more than 1,000 delayed discharges; two days ago, the recorded figure was 12. Twelve may be too many—there is no room for complacency, given the pressure on local authorities and the health service from budget cuts from Westminster—but it would be wrong not to regard the improvement that has been made as significant. To get a sense of perspective, we should take what is good and proper about the change and the aspects of it that have worked, and should ensure—as is the Government’s priority—that health and community care are integrated as a service across Scotland.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00001)
I have no plans to do so in the near future.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, disparagingly alleged that the majority of Supreme Court judges
“do not know Scots law”,
except what they may have picked up on a trip to the Edinburgh festival. Does the First Minister endorse Kenny MacAskill’s remarks?
I fully endorse the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in all aspects of his excellent work.
Annabel Goldie should look at the issue, because it is extremely serious. I have been looking through the Official Report of the debates on the Scotland Bill back in 1997 and 1998, in which I was involved, to see who foresaw what for most people were unforeseen consequences of the way in which the legislation was drafted. Foremost among the people who identified that there might be a serious difficulty in the legislation were Scots Tory peers. Foremost among them was John Mackay, who asked in the House of Lords for an assurance that we would not arrive at a situation in which the High Court of Justiciary was not the final court of appeal for Scots criminal matters. He was given that assurance, which any fair-minded person would say has not proven to be anything like copper bottomed.
The late John Mackay made his comments in the days when a person could be a Scottish Conservative and defend Scots law’s independence. Would that the Scottish Conservatives now defended Scots law as vehemently as he did back in 1998.
If the First Minister had been a little more thorough in his research, he would have found that, when this Parliament considered the creation of the Supreme Court, I expressed reservations. My reservations were based on constitutional structure and function and on the basic fact that if something is not broken, why fix it? As everyone knows, the First Minister’s objection to the Supreme Court is that it sits in London. His trenchant dislike of and hostility to the concept of a British court is evident by his little Scotlander approach and his and Mr MacAskill’s ill-advised and provocative rhetoric.
The First Minister has denigrated the Supreme Court as causing delays, sitting in another country and not having a majority of judges who are expert in Scots law, so will he explain why he considers a court that sits in Strasbourg with a huge backlog of cases and no permanent Scottish judge to be a better option?
I have never understood the apparent inability of the Scottish Conservatives now to defend Scots criminal law as John Mackay did back in 1998. I have also never understood Conservatives’ antipathy to the European convention on human rights. After all, the convention’s principal author was a Scot—Sir David Maxwell Fyfe—who was, incidentally, a Conservative politician.
The Strasbourg court has 40 jurisdictions in its remit. Those 40 countries all manage to rub along with the Strasbourg court on human rights because, unlike the Supreme Court, the Strasbourg court does not quash convictions and does not unlock prison cells—that is not its role. It is unfortunate that Annabel Goldie seems unable to distinguish between the Supreme Court’s actions and the Strasbourg court’s remit.
A point was made about my objection to the situation. That concern is shared by such notable figures as Paul McBride QC, who is not unknown to Annabel Goldie as a legal adviser; Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, a former Conservative Lord Advocate; Elish Angiolini, whom the Labour Party appointed as Lord Advocate and who was a terrific Lord Advocate; and, of course, the Scottish judiciary in its submission to the Advocate General for Scotland’s review of devolution issues last year.
I will tell members something. I have looked again through the record. Someone pinpointed the difficulties of the assumption of British law—was that how Annabel Goldie put it? Somebody—a senior figure in Scottish judicial circles, I understand—with a great far-seeing and perceptive nature wrote in The Herald of 3 December 2003:
“The problem I think is that if you describe the court as a supreme court of the United Kingdom that tends to suggest there is a body of United Kingdom law ... Scots may well feel that that would introduce a drift away from their system of law into an English system.”
The author of those wise words? Lord Hope.
John Scott has a constituency question.
The First Minister will be aware of the proposed closure of the industrial injuries disablement benefit centre in Ayr, with the loss of 42 jobs. The centre is apparently the most efficient of five centres in the UK that deal with industrial injuries disablement benefit, so does he agree that the centre should be retained instead of closed and that it should be expanded to protect and develop jobs in Ayr? Will he make reasonable representations to the UK Government to that effect?
I shall be delighted, on a constituency matter, to join John Scott in making representations to the United Kingdom Government on one of many policies covering that area, which look to me as if they are deeply mistaken. John Scott would be the first to agree that those policies are deeply mistaken, not just in his constituency but in just about every other constituency in the country.
Spending Plans
3. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will set out its detailed spending plans for this session of the Parliament to allow its commitments to be met. (S4F-00022)
The Scottish Government will publish detailed spending plans in September, which will draw on the conclusions of and be informed by the commission on the future delivery of public services.
I am interested in what those figures will show for the justice budget. Annabel Goldie is right. I am astonished that a Government minister—and now, apparently, the First Minister—has attacked senior judges in that way. I am surprised that the First Minister has not taken action to seek the withdrawal of those remarks. Was Kenny MacAskill speaking for the whole Government when he said that he would stop the budget for the Supreme Court on the principle that
“He who pays the piper ... calls the tune”?
Did he seek the First Minister’s approval for that proposal?
The budgetary issue that is the subject of Willie Rennie’s question is a matter of serious concern. The funding of the Supreme Court is only one aspect of that. Of much more concern is the cost of having that further tier of justice.
Let us take as an example the Somerville ruling by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the forerunner of the Supreme Court. It was a civil case, in which the total cost of the representations—which I know, because we have had it compiled—was more than £3 million. Incidentally, the great wrong that was being righted in that case was not something that happened with Kenny MacAskill, but something that happened when Lord Wallace was justice minister because of his action—or, more likely, his inaction—in forgetting to get the prison estate into proper condition. It cost us £8 million because a series of lawyers, following on from that decision, wanted to pursue claims not just for the past year but all the way back to 1999. The potential bill for Lord Wallace’s inaction, way back in 2002, could have run to £100 million if it had not been for the actions of this Government in introducing emergency legislation to limit that exposure.
I say, in case Willie Rennie thinks that those matters are not important in budgetary terms, that it is enormously expensive to plead cases before the Supreme Court. The implications of the decisions can cost tens—indeed hundreds—of millions of pounds, which many of us believe could properly be spent on police services, courts and the law-abiding citizens of this country.
It would be helpful if the First Minister answered my question. Is it really the First Minister’s policy to cut funding for the courts that dare to disagree with him? As well as the budget implications, did the First Minister discuss with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice his attack on the judges? That was my question. Let me go over it again. The cabinet secretary called one of the most senior independent judges in Scotland an ambulance chaser. That is not the language of Government ministers; it is the language of the football terraces. Did the First Minister give approval for those tawdry remarks?
That was not the nature of the remarks. As Willie Rennie may or may not know, the term “ambulance chaser” is generally used to describe some—and it is only a few—members of the legal profession who see, in loopholes in the law, opportunities to pursue cases right back. The example that I gave Mr Rennie is an interesting one. The one-year time bar on human rights cases is, I think, shared by every other jurisdiction in Europe, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said that in the case of Scotland, and Scotland alone, it might have to go back to 1999 because of a deficiency in the Scotland Act 1998.
Willie Rennie may think that it is perfectly acceptable for people to pursue compensation cases over that period. He might think that it is perfectly acceptable for us to have imperfections in our legal system—unintended consequences of legislation, or major constitutional changes, as it was put to Lord Wallace’s review last year in the judicial submission. I do not think that that is acceptable, because I do not think that it is right and proper for the citizens of this country to feel that their justice system is being second-guessed because of imperfections in legislation.
What is right and proper is to proceed in the way that the Cabinet agreed on Tuesday, which is to have a review group. The group will present proposals to this Parliament, which can then reach conclusions on behalf of the people of Scotland.
High Court of Justiciary
4. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the High Court of Justiciary should be the final arbiter of criminal cases in Scotland. (S4F-00009)
Yes. It is our firm view that the final appeal court for any Scottish criminal case should be in Scotland, as it was always meant to be. The Scottish Cabinet discussed the issue on Tuesday at its normal session—not in emergency session—and agreed to establish an expert review to examine how best to achieve that.
I put it on record—I am sure that the First Minister will wish to confirm this—that there is international law, European law, English law, which happens also to run in Wales, and Scots law; there is no British law.
Yes, there is. There is employment law—
Can the First Minister confirm what I suspect to be the case: that an appeal from the High Court of Justiciary, the highest Scottish criminal court, can run to the Supreme Court without leave from the Scottish court, whereas there would be no appeal to the Supreme Court in England without leave from the Court of Appeal there?
I was trying to listen to Mr Don despite Mr McLetchie heckling from the sidelines—
Telling the First Minister that there is such a thing as British law.
And doing so in a way that no court in the land would find acceptable, incidentally.
Nigel Don makes a highly important point, and it is worth reflecting on the matter, for those in the chamber who do not believe that there is a difficulty. The current situation is that the Court of Appeal in England, in a criminal case, would have to give leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, with the possibility of the Court of Appeal’s decisions being overturned, whereas the Supreme Court can take a criminal case that has been heard in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, even if the High Court does not give leave to appeal, with the Supreme Court acting as another court of appeal.
I make that point in response to people who have said in the past few days that we should all be equal under the United Kingdom. In the present situation, it seems that some courts are more equal than others. Either those who argue that the present position is perfect should suggest that the Court of Appeal in England reverse its procedures or, more likely, we should go back to what was always the case: that our appeal court is in Scotland. Those of us who have faith in the Scottish courts and in our ability properly to protect human rights, and those of us who are not frightened of the European convention on human rights—as we have faith in our system’s ability to accommodate that convention—might wish for Scottish justice to be brought home, where it was always meant to be: with the courts of Scotland.
Older People (Standards of Care)
5. To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government will take to ensure the highest possible standards of care are in place for older people. (S4F-00015)
As Jackie Baillie knows, and as has been alluded to earlier, the Scottish Government has reformed the inspection regime for social care so that, from 1 April this year, it focuses on those services and homes where there are concerns about the welfare of people using the service.
Even in these challenging times, we have invested an additional £70 million to improve the quality of health and social care services, and that shows how we all value our older people in Scotland.
The First Minister will be aware that this is an extremely anxious time for families and older people in homes run by Southern Cross Healthcare, which is the largest private sector provider of care in Scotland. I know that the Government’s position is to monitor the situation, but essentially to leave planning to local authorities.
Is the First Minister aware that planning in West Lothian includes removing respite beds, ceasing to deal with hospital discharge and even utilising hospital beds? Such measures take us back decades and, as has been said, will release only a small amount of capacity. Does the First Minister believe that that is acceptable at any level? If not, will he intervene to ensure that we plan for the care of our older people across Scotland?
We are doing that. The care of vulnerable residents in Southern Cross homes will not be compromised as a result of Southern Cross’s business model being in trouble at the moment.
There are 96 care homes in operation in Scotland, which care for more than 4,700 vulnerable people. Of those 96 homes, only a handful are under threat of closure, but we will ensure that there is continuity of care. We will do that by working with the local authorities.
I said that aspects of the matter should cause us to pause for thought. The Southern Cross model that is under such pressure is the model of a private company in social care. I would have thought that there is a reasonable point to make—and I hope that this view is shared widely across the Parliament—that given the difficulties of Southern Cross, which will be dealt with effectively by the Government in conjunction with our local authorities, and given the difficulties of a business model in areas as vital as care, the last thing that we should be doing is anticipating the introduction of such business models into the general national health service. I hope that the Parliament can be largely united at least on that point.
I hope that Jackie Baillie accepts that we will ensure that there is continuity of care for the elderly residents who are affected by the situation and, perhaps, that that objective and assurance are of rather more importance than is the generality of politicking at First Minister’s question time.
We started late, so I intend to take question 6.
Berry Farmers
6. To ask the First Minister what support is being provided to berry farmers whose crops and infrastructure were badly damaged by the recent severe weather. (S4F-00005)
As Murdo Fraser will be first to acknowledge, the soft fruit sector is one of Scotland’s success stories. Its output has grown by 30 per cent over the period of the previous Administration in the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government recognises the challenge that many businesses in the sector face as a result of the recent severe weather. Richard Lochhead visited soft fruit growers yesterday to see the consequences of the storms at first hand. What we have heard is clear: the sector remains open for business and Scottish soft fruit will continue to be available on shop shelves.
However, the severe weather has heightened concerns in the sector that possible changes to tax rules for their equipment could compound the difficulties that they face in the aftermath of storm damage, when many facilities require to be replaced. That is why Mr Lochhead has written to HM Revenue and Customs, urging it to protect Scottish soft fruit farmers by not making the changes that are envisaged.
The First Minister is right to acknowledge the sector’s importance and the damage that has been caused. In Perthshire alone, the cost of the damage runs into many millions and the losses are not insurable.
The First Minister referred to calls from the sector for changes. Some of the issues are reserved, but there is one devolved issue on which the First Minister could take action, and that is to abolish the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, which, given that the equivalent English body is being scrapped, potentially puts Scottish fruit farmers, who employ large numbers of migrant workers, at a competitive disadvantage. Will the First Minister take that action to help our fruit farmers?
In making what I think is a valid point of concern about the implications of storm damage for soft fruit farmers, Murdo Fraser rather spoiled his case by going on to make a point that will be widely regarded by many people, not least across the Parliament, as yet another attempt by the Conservative Party to see the situation as an opportunity to depress wages.
I honestly think that the vast majority of soft fruit farmers in Scotland want to see continuing help, like—
What I asked about is what the farmers have asked for—
I can identify many things, if Murdo Fraser wants me to do so, in relation to support, research and other help for soft fruit in Scotland, which have led to the success of the past four years. I would have thought that this is the very last moment for the Conservative Party to revert to type. Let us unite to defend soft fruit growers in Scotland, rather than make another Fraser attempt to persecute the workers.
12:34
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—