Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02630)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Earlier this week, the Scottish National Party Government published its latest economic strategy. At the heart of it is tackling inequality. To do that, we need to expand opportunity, particularly for women. Can the First Minister tell us whether the number of women at college in Scotland is higher or lower than it was when the SNP first took power?
People can guess the answer that Kezia Dugdale wants me to give to that question, because she never comes to the chamber with anything that is good news. Her entire objective is to talk Scotland down.
I am very passionate about increasing opportunity for women, which I thought was something that Kezia Dugdale agreed with me on. That is why the Government has, for example, been increasing childcare—[Interruption.]
Order, Mr Kelly.
—and is determined to increase it even further over the next parliamentary session. It is also why we have been taking action to ensure that those who go to our colleges come out of them with a better chance of having the qualifications that equip them for the workplace. We will continue to take real action to ensure that women, young people and indeed everybody in Scotland have the opportunity that we want them to have. We will leave Labour to its desperation.
It is quite clear from that answer that the First Minister does not have a clue how many college places women have. The reality is that, under the SNP, the number of women studying at college across Scotland has fallen by 85,656.
Members: Shame!
Order.
Rubbish!
Order!
The member shouts, “Rubbish!” Those are the Government’s own figures.
I want to hear about Prestwick.
Ms Grahame!
There are 85,000 fewer women studying in our colleges. The cuts to colleges are hurting women the most—women who want to get a better education so that they can get a decent job.
We know that women are being left behind when it comes to education under the SNP. Let us try skills. Here is a wee challenge for the First Minister: let us see whether she can get through a whole answer without mentioning the Labour Party. [Interruption.]
Order! Let us hear Ms Dugdale, please.
Can the First Minister tell us how many women in Scotland started an engineering apprenticeship last year?
I think that Kezia Dugdale’s back benchers would like her to get all the way through all her questions without mentioning the position of the Labour Party.
I will again try to share some facts with Kezia Dugdale. Here they are. [Interruption.]
Order.
She might be interested in this—I think that it is rather important. Scotland has the highest female employment, the lowest female unemployment and the lowest female inactivity rate of any nation in the United Kingdom. That is a result of the action that the Government has been taking.
Let me give Kezia Dugdale some more facts, about colleges. We are spending more on colleges today than Labour ever did throughout its entire time in office. We have delivered on our commitment to maintain full-time college places. In 2013-14, approximately 14,000 more students successfully completed courses leading to recognised qualifications than was the case in 2008-09, which is an increase of 33 per cent. We are delivering on providing the opportunities that women, young people and people across Scotland need, and this Government will continue to do so.
I am glad that the First Minister finally found the answer to the first question in her book.
I asked about apprenticeships. Last year, just 68 women started an engineering apprenticeship. There have been 25,000 apprenticeships in the past year, with just 68 women learning to be engineers. Under the SNP, women are being locked out of the jobs of the future and are being deprived of the opportunity to develop their skills.
Perhaps, once women get into work, things improve under the SNP. Can the First Minister tell us how many women in Scotland earn less than the living wage?
Dearie me. Let us address the point on skills in modern apprenticeships. Under Labour in 2007, just 15,000 people started modern apprenticeships. We are now delivering more than 25,000 every year and we intend to increase the number to 30,000 by 2020.
I want to see more women going into modern apprenticeships. I particularly want to see more women going into modern apprenticeships in careers such as engineering. That is precisely why, last Friday, I visited GSK in Irvine to launch a campaign to encourage more women into apprenticeships.
On the living wage, it is because we want to see more people and more women included in the living wage that we are funding the Poverty Alliance to run the living wage accreditation scheme. A growing number of companies are signing up to that scheme and paying their staff the living wage.
We will leave Labour, which has had ample opportunity to tackle these issues in the past, to talk about them. This Government will get on with doing them and delivering.
The First Minister talks about ample opportunities, but she has had eight years to do something about this. She was the minister who ordered her MSPs to oppose the living wage when we fought for it last year. The reality is that 264,000 women in Scotland earn less than the living wage. That is more than a quarter of a million Scottish women who are locked into low-paid work and struggling to make ends meet.
The SNP’s record on supporting women is not one that it should be proud of. College cuts are hurting women the most. Quality apprenticeships for young women are lagging miles behind those for men. The SNP voted against the living wage for hundreds of thousands of women in Scotland. Just saying that you are for gender equality does not make it so. Hundreds of thousands of women in Scotland applauded when this First Minister walked through the front door of Bute house but they are already wondering what difference it makes.
The First Minister might know that the theme of international women’s day on Sunday is make it happen. When will she?
This line of questioning on important issues might have more credibility coming from Labour if it was not the party that resisted every single attempt to devolve employment legislation to this Parliament and linked arms with the Tories to prevent this Parliament from having control over the minimum wage. The Government will get on with delivering and making sure that we are providing opportunities and extending the living wage in a way that Labour never did when it had the opportunity in government. It is because people see the Government delivering that people right across our country—men and women—are opting to support the SNP and have left Labour languishing in an obviously desperate position.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02631)
No plans in the near future.
When Nicola Sturgeon was health minister, the number of accident and emergency admissions hit the 1.5 million mark and she said that we had to act. The Scottish Government introduced a new target of performance, telling health boards across the country to reduce the number people attending accident and emergency departments. In fact, she told Parliament:
“NHS Boards will achieve agreed reductions in the rates of attendance at A&E between 2009/10 and 2013/14.”
Has the First Minister met her own targets?
I will share with Ruth Davidson some facts on accident and emergency performance. Of our 14 health boards, 11 are treating nine out of 10 patients within four hours and six of them are already meeting the 95 per cent target.
We have three health boards in which there are significant challenges, partly as a result of higher winter demands in those areas. If we look at our two poorest-performing health boards, we see that in NHS Ayrshire and Arran the rate of hospital admissions is more than double the rate in the rest of the country and that in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde it is nearly double that rate. That is why we are working intensively to support those boards to improve their performance.
I want to see people accessing care where it is most appropriate for them to do so. When that is an accident and emergency department, we must ensure that all our boards—not just 11 out of 14 of them—are meeting the targets that we set. We also need to ensure that, when people require care in settings other than accident and emergency departments, whether that is through general practitioner services or through NHS 24, they can do that.
The Government will continue to support our NHS to improve on the performance that it is already delivering.
With the greatest respect, I have to say that that was an answer but not to the question that I asked.
That is okay, however, because the Scottish Government’s own website this morning has the answer that I sought. It admits that the emergency admissions figure for 2013-14 is
“the highest figure seen so far”.
The target was introduced six years ago, but it has still not been met. In fact, the latest figures, which were published this week, show that A and E attendance was up by 83,500 compared with 2008, which is higher than ever before.
I accept that we need a range of solutions. The A and E staff I spoke to this week told me that one of the biggest problems that they face is the people in the emergency departments who simply do not need to be there. Those include thousands of people who clog up casualty wards simply because they have drunk too much. This week, we suggested that we could ease the pressure by setting up recovery centres, so that A and E units would not be required to mop up after a Friday night out. I know that the First Minister needs to use all her powers to sort the matter out, but will she consider our plan as part of the solution?
First, I remind Ruth Davidson that the Government is reviewing out-of-hours care. I hope that she welcomes that move. Secondly, I am not sure whether Ruth Davidson is saying—I assume that she is not—that people who go to A and E departments over the winter period are inappropriately accessing accident and emergency services. If she looks at the figures in depth, she will see that the increase in the number of people who are being admitted to hospital from accident and emergency departments suggests that the people who are presenting are ill and require hospital care.
On the specific question about alcohol, I am happy to discuss the proposal in more detail with Ruth Davidson. It is important that our accident and emergency departments are not burdened with people we do not want to see there. We do not want people who get drunk and disorderly adding to the pressure in our accident and emergency departments. We are providing investment to support the setting up of safe zone buses in Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh to provide alternative care for people, and I am happy to discuss the matter with Ruth Davidson.
The final point that I make is a serious one. Yes, we need to look at how we care for and deal with people who get into that position, but surely we should be trying to ensure that we reduce the number of people who do that. I say to Ruth Davidson and others in the chamber that, if we are serious about reducing the burden on our accident and emergency departments that is caused by alcohol, it strikes me that one thing that we certainly should not be considering doing is bringing alcohol back to football matches.
I ask the First Minister what can be done to protect the livelihoods of sustainable fishers in the Inner Sound off Applecross, in my constituency and Dave Thompson’s constituency, when those local fishers, who have harvested the area regularly, are to be excluded by the Ministry of Defence plan unilaterally to double the size of the British underwater test and evaluation centre—BUTEC—torpedo testing range there.
Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, is writing to MOD ministers, stressing the need for them to take full account of the impact of their proposals on local fishing communities and the marine environment before they come to a decision. He is also seeking a more rigorous basis for the consenting of marine defence developments, with formal involvement of the Scottish Government. I am sure that Richard Lochhead will be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with Rob Gibson, who has a constituency interest in it.
The First Minister will be aware that Police Scotland wants to merge its K and L divisions to create a policing area covering more than 3,000 square miles from Tiree to Clydebank. It was forced into consultation, it has refused to answer freedom of information requests, and it tells me that everybody agrees with it although it has no evidence to support that. It will not even tell us when the decision will be made. Will the First Minister draw back that veil of secrecy, ensure that consultation responses are published before a decision is made and see that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice meets local representatives?
I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would be very happy to discuss that and other matters with people with an interest, including Jackie Baillie. What I would say on it is that Police Scotland was right to consult on the issue, and it should consider the responses to that consultation very carefully.
These are important decisions, they are obviously and for understandable reasons very sensitive decisions, and they should be taken with the appropriate degree of transparency.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02627)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
NHS Fife’s standards have been below target in 10 out of 19 areas since October. Performance has got worse since Christmas. There is an internal review, but, as a former health secretary, the First Minister must have some insight into why people in Fife seem to be getting a raw deal. Why have things got so bad in Fife?
NHS Fife, like many of our health boards, is dealing with a range of challenges. NHS Fife, like all of our health boards, is performing well at meeting those challenges but needs to be supported to do so even further.
That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing discusses these matters regularly with NHS Fife and with other health boards. We will continue to make sure that that health board gets the support that it needs to meet the challenges appropriately.
None of that is new. Levels of delayed discharge have been soaring; cancer treatment and accident and emergency waiting-time targets have been missed; and—this is critical—our dedicated national health service staff are under increasing strain, with alarming amounts of work in Fife.
Patients there are waiting for answers. What is the longest that the First Minister is prepared to wait to see Fife turn around?
As the member is no doubt aware, there is a plan in place between Fife Council and NHS Fife to tackle delayed discharge. If memory serves me correctly, I spoke to the chair of NHS Fife about this particular matter on my first day in office as First Minister. The two bodies are working hard, as are other health boards and local authorities, to tackle delayed discharges, because, as we all know, tackling delayed discharges helps to tackle some of the other pressures on emergency services.
The most recent statistics available—those for the week starting 16 February—show that the performance of NHS Fife against the four-hour accident and emergency waiting-time target was 88.2 per cent. That is not good enough, but we are working with the board to improve it.
Our NHS boards face challenges each and every day. This Government will work with them each and every day to help them meet those challenges, and that is the case in Fife as it is in every single part of the country.
River Clyde (Environmental Concerns)
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Ministry of Defence regarding environmental concerns on the River Clyde. (S4F-02632)
According to the MOD’s figures, there were 105 nuclear safety incidents on the River Clyde in 2013-14. That is a 50 per cent increase since 2012-13, which, I am sure, is of concern to all of us.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency regularly engages with the MOD about environmental issues relating to its sites, but the current legislation limits the role that we can play. That is why we are proposing to legislate so that SEPA has the power to demand action from the MOD to enforce the requirements on radioactive substances.
As the First Minister mentioned, there has been an increase in safety incidents at Faslane, which was reported at the weekend. There was also a nuclear convoy travelling over the Erskine bridge in January at a time when the bridge was closed to high-sided vehicles due to high winds.
Does the First Minister agree with me that that dangerous act, along with the environmental concerns, show us just how dangerous and damaging it is to have these weapons of mass destruction in our waters, and that that is why they should be scrapped?
I absolutely agree with that. The Scottish Government is strongly opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons, and we are committed to seeing the safe withdrawal of Trident nuclear weapons from Scottish waters.
The financial costs of the proposed replacement of Trident have been estimated at a staggering £100 billion over its lifetime. I think that that money would be far, far better spent on initiatives to support our people and our economy.
I have to say that I was interested to see that most of the Labour Party’s candidates for the general election agree with the Scottish National Party on the issue of Trident. According to a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament survey reported in New Statesman, 75 per cent of Labour’s candidates are opposed to renewing Trident. Maybe one day the leadership will find the backbone to agree with the majority of its candidates.
NHS 24 (Recruitment and Retention)
To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that NHS 24 is able to recruit and retain the staff it needs. (S4F-02633)
Safe and effective staffing levels are a priority for all national health service boards, and NHS 24 is no exception. We work closely with all boards to ensure that they comply with our requirement that they recruit and retain a high-quality workforce that is fully able to deliver high-quality services.
A record high number of staff are working in Scotland’s NHS, and NHS 24 staffing levels have risen by more than 9 per cent under this Government. Despite a busy winter, NHS 24 has provided safe and effective support to tens of thousands of people when they needed it. I take the opportunity to thank all the staff of NHS 24 for the work that they do.
I join the First Minister in thanking the staff. However, Professor Crooks, the medical director of NHS 24, was reported this week as saying that NHS 24’s difficulty in recruiting nurses might make the service unsustainable in the long term.
In 2007, Labour’s last planned intake of nursing students was more than 3,300. Why has the First Minister cut the intake of nursing students in every year of the Scottish National Party Government, which has resulted in 3,000 fewer nursing students being admitted to training? Is not that another of our NHS emergency services being put in jeopardy by the SNP Government’s planning failure?
The number of qualified nurses working in our NHS has increased under this Government. There are 10,000 more people in total working in our NHS than when we took office. NHS 24 staffing levels, in particular, have increased by 9 per cent. NHS 24 staffing increased by 4.6 per cent between September and December last year and George Crooks, whom Richard Simpson quoted, said:
“We can absolutely assure the safety and effectiveness of NHS 24 services to the patients who call us.”
That is delivery by the Government working with the NHS. We will continue to work with the NHS to ensure that it continues to deliver high-quality services to all the people of Scotland.
The First Minister will be aware that there are particular problems with recruitment of general practitioners in rural and island areas. Will she advise members what assessment has been done of whether there is greater reliance on NHS 24 in those communities? Will she undertake an assessment of the potential impact of staff shortages in NHS 24 on rural and island communities?
Liam McArthur has raised a valid point. It has long been the case that there are particular recruitment challenges in some of our more rural communities and, certainly, in our island communities. I am more than happy to pick up the specifics of his question—which asks for us to assess the impact of NHS 24 staff shortages—in our general review of out-of-hours care. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport would be happy to discuss that with him in more detail.
Planning Process
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the National Trust for Scotland, the John Muir Trust and RSPB Scotland’s view that the planning process should be wholly independent of government. (S4F-02629)
I am not sure that Liz Smith’s representation of the views of those organisations is entirely correct. If we look at the RSPB’s website, we see that it says:
“Of course the Government must have a central role in planning and in other nationally important decision making”.
We believe that local and central Government have important and complementary roles in our planning system. In terms of an appeals process, we already have the respected and valued reporter and the directorate for planning and environmental appeals, which provide a separate process to the planning authority.
We continue to engage with stakeholders to ensure that planning remains efficient, effective and inclusive, with the majority of decisions being taken locally.
I have here the letter to The Herald in which those important bodies and some others express their deep-seated concern that the public has largely lost confidence in the planning process and that local communities that unite to conserve our most popular natural assets are frequently swept aside in an unequal battle with Government and powerful commercial interests. Does the First Minister accept that that is a serious issue that undermines the heart of local democracy and can be addressed only if an independent body is involved?
I, too, have the letter in front of me. I will be very happy for the Government to engage with the organisations that are signatories to it to discuss with them how we can further improve the planning system.
I have two points to make. First, the vast majority of planning decisions are already made locally by those who are best placed to consider in what circumstances planning consent should or should not be granted. I think that that is right and proper. Secondly, planning benefits greatly from being part of a democratic process. It is informed at all stages by high-quality, objective and professional advice.
I am happy to discuss the points that have been raised with all the organisations concerned, but I do not think that we should take the planning system out of the democratic process. I think that that would be a mistake.
Does the First Minister share my concern that if the proposal were to become a reality, that democracy would be removed? For me, there is no greater test of democratic accountability than the ballot box. If people are unhappy about local decisions, they can take it out on their councillors or, indeed, on us.
I generally agree with that point, but that is not to say that we cannot improve the planning process further. This Government has been working to do that over the past number of years, and I am sure that there is still work to be done.
There is an important point of principle here, which is that there needs to be democratic accountability in the planning process, as there does in any other aspect of Government policy. That is the principle that we need to start with. Within that, of course we should look at where we can make further improvements.
The published letter refers rather vaguely to improvements to existing planning procedures, including
“potentially ... the creation of a body or process that is truly independent of government”,
without providing any detail on the proposal. Some of the concerns might be alleviated by the publication of an options paper on the creation of an environmental court. What is the First Minister’s position on that?
As Rod Campbell candidly and rightly says, no great detail is provided on the proposal that is made in the letter. As he will be aware, in our manifesto we committed to consulting on an environmental court, and we will publish an options paper on an environmental court or tribunal later in 2015.
We have already made significant improvements to ensure that we have the appropriate structures in place to protect our environment. Those improvements include changes to environmental regulation and planning policy, as well as the changes to the civil court system that we made through the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.
Given that the planning system is not wholly independent of government, does the First Minister agree that it is hugely important that the views of local people are taken into account by the Government when it takes final decisions on planning applications?
I think that there is a real debate to be had about whether the planning process should be entirely independent of government, because of the points that I have already made about democratic accountability. That might well be a debate that Parliament wants to have—it is a legitimate debate, but there are some big issues at stake in it.
As regards Elaine Smith’s point about the views of local people, of course I believe that local people’s views are important. That is why I think that it is right that, rather than being made by national Government, the majority of planning decisions are made locally by people who are best placed in local areas to decide in what circumstances it is right to grant planning consent for a particular project and in what circumstances it is not. We want to continue to make sure that there is that local accountability as well as the overall democratic accountability that I have spoken about.
The First Minister may well be aware of a planning decision in Ayrshire that was famously known as the plot 9 decision, in which every councillor on the regulatory panel voted against the proposal for Ayr seafront, but it was overturned by Scottish ministers. If she is looking for an example of local democracy not being allowed to have its head, she could find no finer example in holding her ministers to account.
There will be circumstances in which planning decisions are taken nationally. That does not change what I said, which was that the vast majority are taken locally. When decisions fall to be taken nationally, it is vital that they are taken in line with the proper planning considerations, which will have been the case in the circumstances that John Scott cites. That is what is required, and it will have been done in that case. I will be happy to ask the minister who is responsible for planning to discuss the circumstances of the case with John Scott directly.
There is outrage in Aberdeen about the decision to proceed with the Marischal Square development against the feelings of people of that great city. How can we ensure that people’s views are taken into account when councillors and others take decisions on planning? In this case, the people’s views are not being listened to.
I certainly think that Aberdeen City Council could do with a few lessons on taking account of the views of local people. It has appeared to be the case that it wants to ignore those views whenever possible.
As well as all the checks and balances and safeguards in the planning process that rightly exist, it is open to people when they get the opportunity at the ballot box to make their views known. Perhaps that is what people in Aberdeen should choose to do.
Previous
General Question Time