Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02445)
Meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Who was it who said, when talking about the national health service:
“a party that is now in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings”?—[Official Report, 12 December 2001; c 4711.]
If Jackie Baillie is talking about me, let me say very clearly that I will never avoid taking responsibility for the NHS. It is one of the most sacred responsibilities that any Government has. I am very proud of our national health service, but I will never shy away from facing up to the challenges in it. My job and the job of the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport is to work with the front-line staff in our NHS to ensure that we help them to address those challenges. That is why we are committing extra resources to our national health service. John Swinney had already announced £80 million more than planned for next year; yesterday, he announced £125 million of extra funding.
I have given a commitment that if the Government is re-elected, for each and every year of the next session we will commit to above-inflation increases in health spending. Labour has not yet committed to that. Perhaps Jackie Baillie will do so today.
I am delighted that Nicola Sturgeon, who is not normally coy about recalling her own words, recognises that those words were hers.
I will rise to the challenge. We will match the commitment on all consequentials going to health and the commitment to protect the revenue budget, but we will go further: our mansion tax will, in fact, increase funding for health.
Yesterday’s debate flew in the face of the comments that the First Minister has just made. There seemed to be a denial of the problems and the challenges. Indeed, last month, Alex Neil said that there was “no crisis” at NHS Grampian. In the past week alone, we have seen the crisis laid bare. Consultant shortages are so severe that doctors are being flown in from Jamaica and India. Accident and emergency treatment times and cancer treatment waiting times have been missed. There have been fewer nurses to beds than in other hospitals in Scotland. Bed-blocking targets have been missed. There has been a failing care-of-the-elderly service and, most damning of all, patient safety has been at risk. Things have been saved only by the dedication of staff who are working under extreme pressure.
The Royal College of Nursing told us that it had raised “serious concerns” about the NHS for quite some time, in particular in NHS Grampian. In fact, it raised those concerns directly with the Scottish National Party Government.
In any case, surely the Scottish Government should have noticed that there was a problem. Is there anyone in Government who has a clue about what was going on?
Jackie Baillie strikes entirely the wrong tone when it comes to our national health service. We should try to find common ground across the chamber. All of us accept that our NHS does great work, but it needs our support—the support of all of us—to do even better work.
As Jackie Baillie is well aware, Grampian NHS Board has in place a new chief executive, who has accepted all the recommendations of the reports that were published earlier this week. The health secretary will oversee the implementation plan very closely. All of us are now absolutely focused on ensuring that the failings that were identified in NHS Grampian by the inspection regime that this Government put in place can now be fixed in the interests of all the patients who rely on NHS Grampian. I hope that Jackie Baillie and Labour, too, can find it within themselves to get behind the efforts of the new management and the staff of NHS Grampian as they decide how to move forward.
I will pick up on a couple of the points that Jackie Baillie made.
I do not for a second deny that we still have work to do on waiting times, but they are now considerably shorter than they were when Labour left office.
Jackie Baillie mentioned consultants. NHS consultants are now at a record high number—up 36.8 per cent since the Government took office. Overall, the number of staff in the health service is up since the Government took office, as we saw in figures that were released earlier this week. The Government is acting.
Let us look at delayed discharge, which I consider to be one of the most significant challenges in our NHS today as it is a problem that then creates problems in other parts of the system. The number of delayed discharges is too high right now and I want it to come down, but it is significantly lower than it was in 2006 and when the previous Government left office. So we are making progress and we will continue to seek to make progress. It would fit Labour better to stop criticising those who are working so hard in our NHS and get behind them.
We support the efforts of all at NHS Grampian, and we thank them for doing the work that they should not have had to do but had to do because the Government let them down. They were under extreme pressure. The efforts of those staff are the only reason why patient safety is as it is. Therefore, I will take no lessons from Nicola Sturgeon about praising NHS staff. The difference is that we would support them.
Patient care should be at the centre of all our considerations, yet patient safety was put at risk in Aberdeen. Healthcare Improvement Scotland issued a stark warning. It said:
“We found a number of issues relating to leadership and culture which reduce the quality and safety of care.”
The General Medical Council said that the evidence that patient safety and care could have been compromised was overwhelming. The Royal College of Nursing said that, without a patient assurance system, managers were
“not able to assure themselves or their Board about the quality and safety of patient care.”
We should again thank the staff for putting patients first, despite the challenges that they faced. The Scottish Government was warned about the issues, which date back to the First Minister’s time as health secretary. Does the First Minister agree that the concerns about patient safety show a failure not just at NHS Grampian but in the Scottish Government health department, which she led?
Despite the provocation, I am not going to stand here and engage in a party-political bun fight, because I believe that the NHS is too important for that. However, Jackie Baillie should reflect on some of what she has said. In her desperation to throw as much dirt at the Scottish National Party Government as she can, she was in danger of misquoting the report that was published on Aberdeen royal infirmary earlier this week. Although I do not defend anything that the report points out, it was careful to say that patient safety had not been compromised. Of course, given the failings that were identified, patient safety could have been compromised, which is inexcusable, but Jackie Baillie should be very careful not to suggest that something happened that the inspectors said did not happen.
I repeat that I am proud of the NHS and of the progress that the Government is making on it. Waiting times are lower and our hospitals are cleaner although, as we see in the report published on Glasgow royal infirmary today, there is still work to be done on that. Infection rates are at an all-time low and rates of Clostridium difficile are down by more than 80 per cent among the over-65 population.
The Government is making significant progress and, unlike Labour, we do not have to be dragged kicking and screaming into making financial commitments to our NHS. A couple of weeks ago, I watched each and every one of the Labour leadership candidates refuse to give that financial commitment to the NHS. When Richard Simpson was asked yesterday in the chamber whether the Labour Party would give increases to the NHS budget, his answer was, “We will see.” Then, the next day, Jackie Baillie has come up with the commitment. We give that commitment freely to the NHS, because we put our money where our mouth is and we will always defend our national health service.
It is the First Minister who does a bit too much kicking and screaming. There was nothing desperate about our commitments, and I hope that she will welcome them. I remind her that, from 2007 to 2010, when Labour was in charge at United Kingdom level, it gave the Scottish Government more in health consequentials than she passed on to the health service, so I will take no lessons from her on that.
The First Minister, like Alex Neil, seems to be in denial about the scale of the problem that is facing Scotland’s health service. NHS Grampian is not alone. Even today, we have seen a damning report about the cleanliness of basic equipment at Glasgow royal infirmary, with instances of blood and body fluids contaminating beds and equipment being highlighted not once but twice, and with problems remaining. Does she take any responsibility for that, or for consultant vacancies having more than doubled, leading to a record £82 million being spent on hiring temporary doctors? Does she take any responsibility for bed numbers being slashed? For accident and emergency departments being in crisis? For delayed discharge increasing?
The Scottish National Party Government has failed patients not only in Aberdeen but across Scotland. The First Minister cannot duck responsibility for that, because for five years she was the health secretary. It was Nicola Sturgeon who said:
“a party that is now in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings”.
Will the First Minister tell us when she is going to take responsibility?
I used to ask the questions from the Opposition benches. I know that Jackie Baillie has only one First Minister’s question time left before she hands over to the new leader, but it might be a good idea if she actually listened to the answers.
I started by saying something that I will now say again, not for the benefit of Jackie Baillie but for the benefit of people watching. I, as First Minister of this country, take responsibility for the NHS. I will never shy away from that, and I and my Government will be judged by the progress that we are making and will continue to make in the NHS.
Jackie Baillie talked about the fact that there are more staff vacancies in the NHS. That is true, and we need to confront that challenge. However, there are more staff vacancies because there are more staff working in the NHS—there are significantly increased numbers of people working across our NHS.
Jackie Baillie also mentioned the number of beds. There has actually been a small increase in the number of beds in the past year. I point Jackie Baillie to the fact that—she can correct me if I am wrong—acute bed numbers fell in each and every year of the last Labour Administration. That was the reality.
On the Glasgow royal infirmary, this is another example of a time when Jackie Baillie might have benefited from actually listening to what I said. I mentioned the GRI report in answer to her second question. That report is unacceptable, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport has already spoken this morning to the chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. However, let me just put this into context. Since this Government took office, as I have already mentioned, rates of C diff have fallen by more than 80 per cent across Scotland—they have fallen by more than 84.7 per cent in Glasgow.
I will never shy away from addressing the problems that need to be confronted in our NHS, but I am also not going to stand by and let Labour trash the record of our NHS, because it does not deserve it.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02440)
I will have the pleasure of meeting the secretary of state this afternoon.
I wish the First Minister a good meeting.
Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer unveiled a tax cut of 98 per cent for all home buyers. From midnight, people who are looking to get on in life will save thousands of pounds. However, come April, when the Scottish Government takes over, that relief will go.
Under this Government’s Swinney tax, we now know that, if someone wants to move up the property ladder, it will cost them thousands of pounds more. It is a left-wing nationalist tax on aspiration. [Laughter.]
Order.
The First Minister doubtless has some pre-prepared lines rehashing claims that the chancellor has copied her plans and that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but people are not fooled when they are hit in their pockets. This is not a debating point; the measure is yet another ideological attack on the aspirations of middle Scotland. [Laughter.]
Order.
A person who wants to buy a £300,000 flat in Edinburgh or Aberdeen today will be taxed £5,000. From April, that will rise to £7,300. If the First Minister can for the moment leave her prepared lines to the side, can she explain why she thinks that that is fair?
I love the Deputy First Minister dearly, but I have always thought that he is an unlikely candidate for class warrior. [Laughter.]
I congratulate the UK Government on emulating Mr Swinney’s plans to get rid of an unfair system and to replace it with a fairer system. As the Deputy First Minister said yesterday, imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery.
The Scottish rates that John Swinney has proposed reflect the nature of the Scottish housing market—as they should—which is the whole point of devolving responsibility for the tax to the Scottish Government. Average house prices in Scotland are lower by £100,000 than they are across the rest of the UK. Therefore the higher tipping point—if we can call it that—in the UK system reflects the higher house prices across the rest of the UK.
Let me just inject a few facts for Ruth Davidson to reflect on. More than 80 per cent of all transactions in Scotland every year will attract tax of either zero or less than the amount that they would incur under the UK system that was announced yesterday. Under our system, 5,000 more transactions a year will be completely exempt from tax than would pay tax under the UK system that was announced yesterday. That is important because it will help to get more first-time buyers on to the property ladder. That is good for first-time buyers, and getting more first-time buyers into the property system is also good for people further up the ladder. We have proposed a fair and progressive system that is right for conditions in Scotland. I would have thought that Ruth Davidson would welcome that.
The First Minister wants to trade figures, so let us trade figures. Under the chancellor’s plans, 98 per cent of people are better off this morning. The First Minister will claw back those gains from thousands of Scots for no good reason. I do not think that the First Minister quite realises how isolated she is on this—even Labour has backed the chancellor’s proposals. In other words, the First Minister has, in just a fortnight, achieved the staggering feat of becoming even more left wing than Ed Miliband. [Laughter.]
Order! Can we hear Ms Davidson, please?
I do not know whether that is a damning indictment of the First Minister or a damning indictment of Ed Miliband.
The Conservatives will lodge an amendment to the Scottish budget to ensure that middle-income families who want to buy a home will pay less tax. We will campaign night and day for the amendment to be carried, and we will look for support for it from across the chamber because we know that we have plenty of support outside it.
The new First Minister has a choice. She can either show some humility and accept that there is a need for a rethink, or she can dig her heels in, drive her ideological agenda through and punish thousands of families. Which will it be?
Even John Swinney is more left wing than Ed Miliband; it is not much of a competition. Ruth Davidson should set the bar a little bit higher than that.
Ruth Davidson wants to trade figures, so before I try to find some genuinely common ground with her, let us trade accurate figures. She said that as a result of the UK Government’s proposals that were announced yesterday, 98 per cent of people will be better off. That is compared with the old UK Government scheme, not with the new Scottish scheme that we propose to introduce. To compare the new UK Government scheme with the Scottish scheme that will come in next April, in Scotland 80 per cent of transactions will either attract the same or less tax than they would under the new UK system—80 per cent of people will pay either nothing at all or less than they would under the new UK system. That is the reality with which Ruth Davidson might want to grapple.
In the interests of the consensus for which I am becoming so well known, I say to Ruth Davidson that we are in the middle of the budget scrutiny process, so if she wants to make proposals that would allow the 20 per cent who are at the top of the housing market to pay less, she is free to do so. As we do with all proposals that come forward, we will consider them. However, when she does so she should also bring forward her proposals for who should pay more, and from where the extra money should come. If she does that, she might want to persuade her UK Government colleagues to settle the issue of the block grant adjustment as well, so that we can genuinely know the extent to which our proposals are—as they are intended to be—revenue neutral. If she wants to answer all those questions, and not just the ones that it suits her to answer, I will be happy to listen.
Autumn Statement (Impact on Scottish Budget)
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the chancellor’s autumn statement and its impact on the Scottish budget. (S4F-02455)
We welcome the additional Barnett consequentials of around £200 million that result from yesterday’s autumn statement. As John Swinney said yesterday, we have committed to providing all the health consequentials of around £125 million to our national health service and we will make announcements on the remaining consequentials in due course. That said, it is important to point out that those consequentials make up just 8 per cent of the £2.7 billion-worth of real-terms cuts that have been made to the Scottish budget since 2010, so, although they are welcome, let us not pretend that they are anything more than a small fraction of the austerity cuts that Scotland has suffered.
This week’s edition of The Economist points out that the United Kingdom’s deficit as a percentage of national income is higher than those of France, Italy and even Greece. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which was published yesterday, warns that 60 per cent of UK Government cuts will come in the next Parliament. Does the First Minister therefore agree that the biggest threat to Scotland’s economy is continued austerity, which all Westminster parties are signed up to, and that next year’s UK election presents an opportunity for the people of Scotland to make clear that there is an alternative?
Kenny Gibson is absolutely correct to point to the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which was published yesterday, because it states, on page 6, that over the next few years, spending on public services is
“projected to fall from 21.2 per cent to 12.6 per cent of GDP and from £5,650 to £3,880 per head”.
To put it another way, under the Tories and, indeed, under Labour, which has signed up to the Tories’ austerity plan, spending on public services as a share of the economy is set to fall to levels not seen since the 1930s. That is the price of Westminster austerity. Kenny Gibson is right. I believe that we need a strong Scottish voice at Westminster—a Scottish National Party voice—to protect Scotland from the 60 per cent cuts that Westminster parties are still planning.
Those OBR forecasts that the First Minister was quoting also saw oil and revenue forecasts to 2019 cut by a further £4.5 billion. Does she agree that the Smith commission was wise not to devolve volatile oil and gas taxes and that the Scottish people were wiser still to reject an independence prospectus based on her predecessor’s predictions of a second oil boom now laid bare as fantasy?
No, I do not agree with that. I think that I will leave it to Labour to argue the absurd position that Scotland, alone in the world, is somehow uniquely incapable of managing our own vast natural resources. I will leave that paucity of ambition to those on the Labour benches.
We all know that oil prices right now are the feature of temporary factors in supply and demand in the world. I simply point to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries “World Oil Outlook 2014”, which was published just a few weeks ago, which assumed a nominal price of $110 per barrel for the rest of the decade. I was astonished yesterday to hear the chancellor talk about a sovereign wealth fund for shale gas in the north of England when we have had the failure of Labour and Tory Governments to set up an oil fund in Scotland, like other countries have done. That is the key lesson that we should all take from the mismanagement of our oil resources over decades. We should resolve not to repeat that mistake in future.
The First Minister will be aware of yesterday’s announcement of an increased retail discount of £1,500 for shops, cafes and restaurants with a rateable value of under £50,000. What is her response to that specific announcement?
As Gavin Brown will be aware, we have the most competitive business tax environment in the entire UK. The finance secretary will make announcements on the remainder of the consequentials in due course, but we will continue to take the right decisions for businesses across Scotland. The decisions that we have been taking have been giving our businesses, particularly our small businesses—including many retail and pub premises—the most competitive environment in these islands and that is what we will continue to strive to do.
In-work Poverty
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle in-work poverty. (S4F-02459)
The Government is taking steps now to tackle in-work poverty and to help individuals realise their full potential. We recognise the importance of appropriate, flexible and sustainable employment as well as appropriate levels of pay as a means to tackle poverty. We have been strong and consistent in our efforts to stimulate growth and jobs within the context of economic recovery.
We are also determined to progress payment of the living wage. We are already paying the living wage to everybody who works for the Government or for our national health service. Although we cannot mandate it in law, each and every relevant Government contract that is let from now on will have payment of the living wage as a central priority.
I am sure that the First Minister will join me in congratulating the Scottish Parliament on becoming a living wage employer. However, does she also share my disappointment and that of many organisations and academics across Scotland about the lack of welfare opportunities that are being offered by the Smith commission proposals and agree that it looks like a missed opportunity for Scotland to be able to tackle in-work poverty effectively?
If I may, Presiding Officer, I will join Clare Adamson in congratulating the Parliament, through you, on becoming a living wage employer. That is fantastic progress. [Applause.]
Clare Adamson is absolutely right about the welfare opportunities. It stands to reason, does it not, that in any area of policy, the more powers the Parliament has, the more we will be able to live up to the expectations of those we serve? We will do everything that we can within the powers that we have and we will use any new powers that we get to lift people out of poverty. However, if this Parliament was equipped to have power over the minimum wage, power over the personal allowance of income tax and power over the entirety of our welfare system, we could do so much more. That is why I will continue to have the highest ambitions for this Parliament and for this country.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (Health Services)
To ask the First Minister what response the Scottish Government has received to its representations to the United Kingdom Government regarding the implications of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership for health services in Scotland. (S4F-02444)
The Scottish Government has—as Neil Findlay refers to—made several representations to the UK Government and to the European Commission on this matter. In particular, we have made very clear our concerns about the national health service and public services.
Although both the UK Government and the European Commission have told us that TTIP does not pose any threat to the NHS, it is fair to say that both the Scottish Government and the public need to see the final legal text of any agreement before we can be fully assured that the NHS and our other public services will be unaffected, which we certainly want to ensure is the case.
I welcome the fact that the Government has joined Scottish Labour MSPs and MPs, community groups, individuals and trade unions by writing to David Cameron demanding that he uses his position to prevent the NHS being exposed to market competition via TTIP.
Will the First Minister join me in urging the Tories and Liberal Democrats in this chamber to acquire a backbone and do the same so that we can speak with one voice to protect the NHS and other essential services from privatisation?
I think that Labour is closer to the Tories these days than I am, so the member is probably better advised to have that conversation directly. I am sure that the mechanisms of the better together campaign are still in operation in some form. [Interruption.]
Order.
In all seriousness, Neil Findlay raises an important point. Whether the concerns about the inclusion of the NHS and public services in TTIP are well founded remains to be seen, but I understand why people are raising those concerns, so we will continue to call for the exclusion of our NHS from TTIP and we will seek to ensure that any agreement that is concluded does not put our public services under any threat.
I disagree very strongly with the privatisation of the health service in England, but that is not a matter for me. However, I will fight tooth and nail against any moves to privatise the NHS in Scotland by the back door, and if the TTIP agreement ever put that threat, it would be opposed strongly by this Government.
Crime Statistics (Reporting)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the accuracy of the reporting of crime statistics. (S4F-02448)
I agree with Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary for Scotland, Derek Penman, who was recently quoted as saying:
“Police Scotland’s own auditing of crime recording is good”.
I thank the First Minister for that response on recording.
Last week, the Scottish Government announced that recorded crime is at a 40-year low. At present, though, the figures do not take into account assault, stalking online or by any other means, abusive behaviour and drink driving—all of which are classed as offences rather than crimes. Will the First Minister acknowledge that the Government’s failure to include more than half a million of such offences does a huge disservice to victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system? Will she now carry out a review to ensure that the Government includes those offences when reporting on crime statistics?
This is a serious question. The public deserve to know that the statistics that are published can be relied on. That applies across every aspect of Government policy. Recorded crime is at a 40-year low, and we should all welcome that.
Margaret Mitchell draws attention to a distinction in the statistics between crimes and offences. She used a phrase in her question that “at present” that distinction is being made. Maybe Margaret Mitchell should have done some historical research before asking her question, because the separation of crime and offences statistics has been in place since the 1920s. We report on recorded crime in exactly the same way as previous Administrations, with the bulletin that is published in the same format as it has been since 1983. There has been no change in the approach that we are taking.
At times, new legislation can enhance the definition of a particular crime or offence. For example, prior to the introduction of the offences of threatening or abusive behaviour and stalking, those incidents would have been classified as breach of the peace. Breach of the peace has consistently been classed as an offence and therefore to ensure consistency of reporting of breach-of-the-peace-type offences over time, those offences are also classified as offences. It is all about ensuring that there is consistency in the figures.
Obviously, national statistics are prepared independently of Government. I will always look at these things to see whether we can improve them, but members should not come to this chamber and suggest that there has been some change to a system that has been in place since the 1920s.
Previous
General Question Time