First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day.
Today we have the fantastic news that the Lanarkshire life sciences facility BioCity Scotland, together with the Scottish universities life sciences alliance and the University of Dundee, has won a £100 million drug discovery contract. That means 40 highly skilled jobs in Newhouse immediately, with the promise of many more developments to come. That puts Scotland at the very centre of European drug discovery, and I know that that will be welcomed by the whole Parliament.
Indeed.
Yesterday morning, the First Minister visited the technology company Clyde Space in Glasgow, where he said:
“This is one small satellite for Clyde and a giant leap for their extraterrestrial export business”.
In the afternoon, his back benchers applauded a £24 million cut in college budgets. Does the First Minister feel that he and his party are in touch with real Scots?
Yes.
Scotland needs jobs. Last year, the Scottish Government said that it would spend £353 million on shovel-ready capital projects. In reality, it spent just £20 million. Of the £119 million that it said it would spend on new schools, it has spent nothing—not one coin. On Monday, however, the Deputy First Minister said that, within 15 months of the referendum, we could be like Namibia or Togo. Does the First Minister feel that he is in touch with the real priorities of Scots?
The direct capital budget, from which shovel-ready projects are funded, is being cut by 26 per cent by the Westminster Government. The Westminster Government’s defence of that is that it is better than the 35 per cent cut that was the projected cut of Alistair Darling, the man who wanted to implement cuts that would be “deeper and tougher” than those of Margaret Thatcher.
The great advantage of direct capital spending by Government is that it can be spent on shovel-ready projects and can be spent quickly. The fact that Johann Lamont does not know the difference between direct Government spending and the non-profit distribution trust is a signal feature of the Labour Party’s inability to understand the basics of public finance. NPD funding is project based—we have to build a project and we have to gather in the finance. The great virtue of NPD is that it is a lot cheaper than the private finance initiative. We introduced the NPD programme because we did not want ever again to see the Scottish people pay out billions of pounds over the following 30 years on PFI projects, resulting in payments of many times their capital value. The fact that even the Conservative Party now admits that PFI was a ghastly mistake exposes the better together campaign as two right-wing parties competing over which one can be the more extreme.
Even I, in my least charitable moments, did not imagine that the First Minister planned not to spend any money through the NPD programme on schools. It is not that I do not understand the project; it is that the First Minister said that the Government would spend the £119 million but has not spent one coin. The jobs have not come. The complacency is astonishing.
I ask the First Minister to come back with us to the real world. This morning, we spoke to Anne Fisher, a 50-year-old mother of three who has cancer. She lives in Greenock. If she lived in England, she would be receiving drugs that could prolong her life. However, because she lives in Scotland, she does not get that treatment. The Government’s delayed drugs review will be too late for Anne. Her case, sadly, is not an isolated one.
While Anne Fisher fights for treatment, the former health secretary Nicola Sturgeon had time this week to publish the words of Abraham Lincoln on, apparently, a written constitution. Does the First Minister believe that he and his Government are in touch with the real needs of people such as Anne Fisher?
The whole area of access to drug treatments is an extremely serious issue and should be treated as such in the chamber. The Labour Party will remember that it agreed with us on not going down the road of a cancer drugs fund, and many of the cancer charities agreed with us on that aspect. Labour also welcomed the health secretary’s recent announcement on the introduction of the rare conditions medicine fund.
It should be accepted that, in trying to deal with these extraordinarily difficult issues, we are trying to find the best possible system that allows our people to have access to the best possible treatment. The idea that these issues are easy to deal with—as if they could be waved away—is extraordinary, given that they are one of the great challenges facing health services across the world. We believe that the combination that we have tried to arrive at in Scotland, where we have the Scottish Medicines Consortium, the newly introduced rare conditions medicine fund and individual patient treatment requests, is the best possible system that we can have at present, as we move to the new drug-pricing system.
I hope that, whatever view people across the chamber take, they will recognise that this Government, like all parties in the chamber, is trying to deal with that issue in the best possible way to help the greatest number of people.
I can assure the First Minister that I take this issue extremely seriously. What I ask the Government to do is to listen to what people are saying and to act. It has taken newspaper headlines to get Alex Neil to act, and I think that that is a problem. Even now what the First Minister says does not address Anne Fisher’s problems, so I ask him to look again.
Whatever the First Minister is doing, he is certainly not addressing the real needs of Scots. He would rather play games, imagining where he might be in three years’ time, than face the reality of today. While he pretends, the needs of Scots seeking jobs are ignored, patients such as Anne Fisher go untreated and students miss out on a college education—all while the First Minister prepares the seating plan for our independence ball. The First Minister even seems to have given up on trying to make the case for independence and is instead trying to persuade Scots that they have already voted for it. When will the First Minister start addressing the real needs of Scots rather than continue his own game of let’s pretend?
First, I remind Johann Lamont that the Labour Party voted with the Government not to establish a cancer drugs fund. Secondly, Alex Neil as health secretary took the advice that was coming forward in setting up the rare conditions medicine fund. Thirdly, the Routledge review is looking at this very issue to ensure that we have the best possible system in Scotland. That indicates to me that we are taking these things extremely seriously, as every member should.
This Government’s commitment to the national health service is, in my view, beyond argument. We are the party that in two successive elections promised to increase funding to the national health service; Johann Lamont leads a party that in two successive elections would not give that commitment. Therefore, on the national health service, which like all public services is under great pressure at present, it should be remembered that it is because of this Government’s success in being re-elected that the national health service revenue budget is increasing in real terms. There has been no guarantee on that from anyone else.
The difficulty for the Labour Party in making political points about the national health service was well exemplified only yesterday by the extraordinary and dreadful revelations about Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Those things occurred not when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister or under the Tory-Liberal coalition but under Labour’s watch.
According to page 19 of the inquiry report,
“Management thinking during the period under review was dominated by financial pressures and achieving”
Foundation Trust
“status, to the detriment of quality of care”.
I submit to Johann Lamont that this Government’s decision to have a properly integrated national health service, instead of one that competes internally and is on the road to privatisation—which was started by the Labour Party south of the border—is vindicated by events in both Scotland and England.
The First Minister accuses me of making a political point and then goes on to do precisely that in complacent defence of what is happening in the national health service. All I ask is that he understands that the people of this country are not talking about constitutional platforms—they want a First Minister who will address the needs of women such as Anne Fisher now.
The fact that in the House of Commons I voted against foundation hospitals and the Labour Party voted for them is something that is worthy of political debate.
Johann Lamont says that she does not like constitutional politics, and she worries that the SNP’s attention is devoted to constitutional politics. I have been doing a bit of analysis on the questions that Johann Lamont has asked me. What is the number 1 subject that she has asked me about at First Minister’s questions? Is it the economy, the health service or education? No—it is Scottish independence.
The woman who accuses this Government of being obsessed by independence comes along here and invariably asks about Scottish independence. Johann Lamont asks about Scottish independence because the Labour record on everything else is so lamentable. I enjoy her asking about Scottish independence because it is only by accessing the resources—human and material—of this nation that we can put to rights not only the public services but the economy of this country.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01167)
I have no plans to do so in the near future.
By asking about college funding, non-profit-distributing model failures and the cancer drugs fund, I am not sure whether Johann Lamont has just gone through the Scottish Conservatives’ greatest hits. However, I want to take the First Minister through some of his pet projects.
First, the rural parliament for Scotland was announced in September 2011, but 17 months on it has not been established; legislation on the Scottish sentencing council was passed in June 2010, but two years and eight months on it has not been established; and, although the college reform programme was announced in September 2011, there are no timescales at all for some of the mergers. That is from a First Minister who says that he can build an entire independent nation in just 18 months.
The constitutional expert Professor Adam Tomkins says that that timetable is
“not just unrealistic, but hopelessly unrealistic.”
Given the First Minister’s own failings, why is he right, but the acknowledged expert in the field is wrong?
As far as the Conservative and Labour parties’ greatest hits being one and the same is concerned, presumably that is all part of the better together campaign.
As far as the college reorganisation is concerned—I thought that the basis of many Conservative MSPs’ concerns was that we are proceeding too fast on that—that, of course, is an essential part of the future of Scotland’s colleges.
During yesterday’s budget debate, I was struck by two things. First, Mr Swinney has managed to devote to Scotland’s colleges the highest revenue figure—higher than any figure during the entire Labour-Liberal coalition—of £522 million. The coalition’s highest figure was £510 million. That seems—[Interruption.] I am glad that Tory members are asking about real-terms funding. I have been casting my eyes south at the position, as we understand it, on college funding in England. [Interruption.]
Order.
It appears that the cut that is coming is not 4 per cent, but nearer 20 per cent in terms of the comparable budget. Given the fact that Scotland’s finances—as the Conservative Party knows, having drawn a line in the sand—are directly dependent on Barnett consequentials, is it not a triumph that we have avoided the near 20 per cent cut in college funding that the Conservatives’ colleagues are inflicting with Liberal Democrat support south of the border?
On the timetable for independence, if 30 countries across the world managed to progress from a referendum to independence more quickly than that timetable, the Conservative Party should ask itself why on earth Scotland should not manage to do that as well. The reality is that, whatever timetable the Scottish National Party laid out and however many international examples it gave, the Conservative Party—mired in its negativity—would always say, “No, ye cannae.” Well, yes we can.
Despite the bulging-eyed bluster, the only thing that happened yesterday was that Mr Swinney cut college funding by more than £24 million while his back benchers clapped and cheered.
Let us focus on only one body—quite apart from a welfare state, a Scottish treasury and a Scottish supreme court—that the First Minister needs to establish in that 18-month timeframe: the armed forces, because the defence of the realm is the first responsibility of any Government.
There are—[Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Order, we will hear Ms Davidson.
Ten thousand jobs cut.
Mr Stevenson—
Ten thousand jobs.
Mr Stevenson—enough!
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
There are 65,000 Ministry of Defence civil servants supporting the United Kingdom military right now, but the Scottish Conservatives have learned that the number of people that the Scottish Government has planning for a Scottish defence force is just seven. That is seven people who not only face an impossible task but who were better deployed delivering the public services for which this Parliament is responsible.
In fact, defence is only one of 16 policy areas in which officials are being diverted from their devolved duties to work on the First Minister’s separatist obsession. [Interruption.]
Order. Settle down, please.
It is no wonder that the First Minister cannot create a rural parliament or a Scottish sentencing council, or get the college merger programme through in time. Will he admit that he is failing to run a devolved nation, never mind planning a new one?
I was waiting for the climax.
I restate again that, if the average time period for the 30 countries that were listed is 15 months, I find it difficult to understand why Scotland and the UK as developed democracies could not achieve a similar or, actually, slightly greater time period. That seems an entirely reasonable point. Actually, for the four European countries on the list, the average time period seems to be four months. That position is pretty well established by international comparisons.
I do not know whether the defence industry and the troops—the ones who are being made compulsorily redundant; the ones who are fighting for the country and then being handed their P45s by the Tory-Liberal Government—are the Conservative Party’s strongest suit at present.
I thought that the Conservative Party’s complaint was that there were too many people in the Scottish Government planning for independence. Now it seems to be suggesting that there are too few. The thousands of folk in the Ministry of Defence that Ruth Davidson quotes in aid are the thousands of planners who planned to have aircraft carriers and then forgot to have the aircraft to put on them. I see her noting down, “That’s a point, yeah. Great aircraft carriers; no planes to put on them.” It is not the most fantastic example of Ministry of Defence planning.
People used to say that military intelligence was an oxymoron; MOD planning is the real oxymoron.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01166)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Yesterday, in the budget debate, I was told that the Government had rejected my realistic and costed proposals to give 24,000 two-year-olds a free nursery place. I was told that the First Minister’s Government preferred family nurse partnerships instead. Will he tell me how many children currently benefit from family nurse partnerships?
It is a low figure at the present moment, which is exactly why the programme is being rolled out across Scotland, as we announced last October. The pilot was in Lothian, and the programme is now being rolled out across Scotland.
Willie Rennie’s argument was carefully considered, and the reasons why the Government took the stance that it did are twofold. First, we believe that we should get to the provision of 600 hours of early learning and childcare—I remind him that we inherited the figure of 412.5 hours, I think—make it apply to three and four-year-olds, and give it statutory backing. Our partners in councils say that we can achieve that with the high-quality standards that Scotland is used to in childcare and nursery provision, which, as Willie Rennie should know, are much higher than in England and Wales at the present moment, given the qualifications that staff need.
Secondly, there is a strong belief in England, which has been expressed by many local authorities, that the only way that the Conservative-Liberal coalition will be able to extend provision to two-year-olds is by reducing the standards. Willie Rennie shakes his head, but it is only a week since it was announced that there would be a relaxation of the number of children per worker in nurseries.
There is a case to be made about the quality of provision as well as the incredible extension of provision to 600 hours, which many families across Scotland will increasingly welcome.
I suspect that even the most sycophantic back bencher will have recognised that my question was about family nurse partnerships, not three and four-year-olds. The First Minister should check his facts: in England, the Government is increasing the standard for nursery education, not reducing it.
The First Minister is right that the number of children benefiting from family nurse partnerships is low. It is only 908. Family nurse partnerships are a good thing, but they are no substitute for 24,000 nursery places. The authorities are providing both in England—not one or the other.
I should not have to remind the First Minister that all the experts say that investment before the age of three is the best investment to make as it gives the best return.
If the First Minister is not going to use his budget to make the change, how will he close the gap between the 900 people who he wants to help and the 24,000 people who could benefit under my plans?
As I have already pointed out, the family nurse partnerships will be rolled out across Scotland because of their success in the pilot study. That was the purpose of the October announcement.
I hope that Willie Rennie will go back and revise his question in terms of the record. He said that standards were being increased. Perhaps he was referring to the qualifications of the staff in England, but that was not the point I made to him. The point I made was about the relaxation of the number of children per staff member: increasing the number of children allowed per staff member would tend to indicate to me a lowering of quality of provision, as many people have said.
We are very happy to debate with Willie Rennie the best way forward. However, I think that, with the expansion to 600 hours provision, the initiative has been taken. Early years development is a substantial part of this Government’s programme; there is a stress on the early years.
I hope that we listen and respond to Willie Rennie’s argument about early years planning, but I must remind him that he represents a party that, in government, is destroying the livelihoods of low-income families across Scotland. Those families have lost hundreds if not thousands of pounds in respect of tax allowances and childcare, and they now face the prospect of being forcibly evicted from their homes, due to the changes in finance, if they happen to have a spare room. Given that Willie Rennie represents a party that is engaged in that sort of policy, he has a bit of a brass neck to come along here and pretend that he is on the side of young families.
Fishing Fleet (Mackerel Quota)
4. To ask the First Minister what the impact will be on Scotland’s fishing fleet of Iceland’s proposed 15 per cent reduction in its mackerel quota. (S4F-01177)
Iceland’s declaration of another large unilateral quota is disappointing. Although it has reduced its quota by 15 per cent, it continues to take 22 per cent of the total allowable catch—a share that is well in excess of its claim to 15 per cent of the fishery, which is in itself too high, given the short time for which Iceland has participated in the fishery. That behaviour is unsustainable and is putting at risk Scotland’s most valuable fishery, which in turn puts at risk the jobs that are important to vulnerable coastal communities.
Can action be taken to set up a mediation process to bring Iceland into the overall stock-management arrangements for mackerel in the north-east Atlantic?
The current process has involved 15 rounds of negotiation over four years and clearly has not worked. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment is therefore right to call for a new approach. That is why he has put forward the idea that there should be an international mediator—an independent and respected person—who can help to bring the parties together and facilitate an agreement. We are liaising with the appropriate European commissioner and with other mackerel-fishing countries to take forward that notion. I know that Parliament will appreciate the situation’s seriousness and I hope that we have unanimous support for Richard Lochhead’s initiative.
Does that answer mean that the First Minister and his Government have turned their back on the European Union sanctions that the European Commission previously agreed? Does he recognise that white-fish boats from Shetland, as well as those from north-east Scotland, are now prevented from fishing in Faroese waters because the Faroese Government has taken unilateral action, too?
My answer did not mean what Tavish Scott suggested: we pressed for the sanctions as a means of getting people back to the table. However, the member must accept that we must find a new approach. We have had 15 rounds of negotiation over four years and neither the fishermen whom he represents nor those whom I used to represent are in any doubt that the situation cannot be allowed to drag on.
We have strongly supported enforcement of the sanctions, on which the European Union has dragged its feet. However, we also support a new initiative to try to bring the parties back to the table. International mediation is a new idea in this context, and I think that it will get a broad welcome from the people who realise how important it is for us to make a breakthrough.
Victims Surcharge on Offenders
5. To ask the First Minister who will administer any fund established from the proceeds of a victims surcharge on offenders. (S4F-01178)
Lewis Macdonald refers to an important proposal that is in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, which was published today. It will help to raise funds that are to be used to support people who are affected by crime. The detail will be in subordinate legislation, but our first choice for an administrator of the victims surcharge fund is Victim Support Scotland, working in collaboration with other national victim support organisations.
A victims fund is a splendid idea that is to be welcomed. However, the issue—as ever—is how the idea will be implemented. Has the First Minister read the Government’s policy memorandum to the bill, which was published today? It says that the Scottish Court Service expects fully one third of court fines to remain unpaid 12 months after they have been imposed and that more than half the fiscal fines that have been imposed in the past three years have not yet been paid in full. How will the victims surcharge be different?
I welcome the welcome for the initiative. Lewis Macdonald is right. We have proposals on legislation exactly so that they can be discussed in Parliament and so that we can get to the best possible position in order to secure the victim support fund’s success. Now that we have agreed on the principle, perhaps Lewis Macdonald and Kenny MacAskill can agree on the practicalities.
Be very brief, Ms Grahame.
The Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill will go to the Justice Committee. I note that the bill proposes separate and distinct police restitution orders. How will they work?
Offences against police officers are unacceptable. In the bill, we propose to create a new penalty—the restitution order—whereby those who are found guilty of assaults on police will be required to contribute to treatment and rehabilitation services for police officers. Restitution orders are not intended to replace existing compensation orders for individual police officers.
Hospital-acquired Infections
6. To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government has made on tackling hospital-acquired infections. (S4F-01180)
The Scottish Government established the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate to help to reduce healthcare acquired infections and the risk to patients, through a rigorous inspection framework. The chief inspector’s annual report was published earlier this week. It highlighted that, between October 2011 and September 2012, the number of cases of Clostridium difficile had reduced by 42.7 per cent, and the number of cases of MRSA had reduced by 52.2 per cent, in comparison with the numbers when the inspectorate was established in 2009-10.
The progress in the past year is very welcome. The First Minister might recall that, in January last year, Jackie Baillie claimed that Scotland was the supposed “superbug capital of Europe”. However, she failed to notice that her statistic related to 2005-06, when Labour was in office. Will he tell me what progress has been made since 2005-06 to reduce MRSA cases?
From October 2005 to September 2006, there were 1,002 cases of MRSA. From October 2011 to September 2012, there were 185 cases. That is an 81.5 per cent reduction in cases.
Aileen McLeod is absolutely right, of course. Jackie Baillie issued a press release that said that Scotland was
“the superbug capital of Europe”.
She was no doubt unaware that the statistic referred to 2005-06, when the Labour Party was in office. Now we have had a dramatic reduction. An 81.5 per cent reduction is incredible and is not the full extent of what we are trying to do, but it is substantial progress.
Jackie Baillie will no doubt accept that her “superbug capital of Europe” epithet—I do not know that that is the wisest thing she has said—applied to her party’s administration of the national health service. Thank goodness that administration and the Government have changed.
I whole-heartedly applaud the Government’s success and the focus that it has brought to the issue through both the current cabinet secretary and his predecessor, and I congratulate all those in the NHS who have made that progress.
However, we cannot afford to be complacent. Will the First Minister respond to a message that I received this morning? The person said:
“As a Nurse I was rather disgusted to see the Scottish Health minister park his backside on a patient’s bed while opening a new hospital and wittering on about infection control.”
I implore the First Minister to encourage his colleagues to desist.
It is absolutely true that one of the successes has been to instil changed behaviour on the part of patients, visitors and staff throughout the national health service, and that includes Government ministers. In the future, every single one of us will aspire to the high standards of Jackson Carlaw.
Given the recent concerns of public health officials in NHS Lothian about the unexplained rise in HAIs, what discussions has the First Minister’s Government had with public health officials in NHS Lothian? What assurances can he give that the health improvement, efficiency and governance, access and treatment target will be met?
One of the reasons why hospital-acquired infections are falling so fast in Scotland is that the process is on-going; it is part and parcel of, and integrated into, the health service.
I know that people will have noticed that, in response to the serious situation in health in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, the Prime Minister called in a former adviser to President Obama, who, when looking at the health improvement and safety initiatives that are being taken in the health service in Scotland, gave them the highest praise and said that they are world leading. That indicates that, even in an area in which substantial progress has been made, there can be no complacency in terms of how the situation is developing. There has to be an on-going process in order to ensure that we continue to make improvements, and that is what is being done with hospital-acquired infections.