Engagements
If I may, I will depart from protocol for a second in this very important week. I have often disagreed with him and, frequently, I have complained about his tactics and his way of going about things but I do not doubt his commitment to Scotland, which we all share in different ways. So, I ask the whole Parliament right now to pay tribute to Craig Levein. [Laughter.] I also congratulate the First Minister on his longevity.
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00953)
I think that the whole chamber should congratulate President Obama on his re-election as President of the greatest democracy in the world. We should also congratulate Glasgow Celtic on their outstanding victory over what many people think is the greatest team in the world. [Applause.]
I have absolutely no difficulty in agreeing with the First Minister on those two counts.
According to Audit Scotland, the national health service has an outstanding £1 billion repairs bill. We have also lost more than 2,000 nurses and the First Minister has imposed real-terms cuts to the NHS of almost £200 million. Yesterday, the Auditor General, Caroline Gardner, said that the NHS in Scotland is on “an amber warning”. Does the First Minister agree with the Auditor General?
The Audit Scotland report pointed out that Scotland’s health service is well managed in terms of its finances. Johann Lamont will concede that there are now more people working in the national health service in Scotland than when the Scottish National Party took office and that, more important, on every single judgment of output on waiting lists and on patient care Scotland’s national health service is performing in outstanding fashion.
The First Minister’s breathtaking complacency in the face of a serious warning from the Auditor General that the NHS is on “an amber warning” does him and his Government no service whatever. The people of this country deserve better. It is clear that the First Minister does not agree with the Auditor General on the NHS. When we said that the Scottish Government had cut spending on colleges by a quarter, both he and his education minister said that we were wrong and that we were scaremongering. The Auditor General has now said—not once, but twice—that college budgets have been cut by 24 per cent in real terms. Is she right or is she scaremongering, too?
The Government has protected the spending of the health boards and the revenue budget of the national health service in real terms. Just in case the former deputy leader of the Labour Party in Scotland has forgotten, I remind her that, when she was its deputy leader, the Labour Party refused to make that commitment in last year’s election campaign.
Johann Lamont knows that we have kept our commitment on full-time equivalent courses in Scotland’s colleges. I point out to her that, as we look forward, given the extraordinary capital investment that is going into Scotland’s colleges at the present moment, the total funding for Scotland’s colleges will reach £655 million by 2014-15 in capital and revenue investment. That compares rather favourably not just with the funding now but with the £217 million when the Labour Party took office in the first session of the devolution Parliament. Incidentally, in that year, the total capital investment in Scotland’s colleges was £4 million; the expectation in 2014-15 is for £184 million.
If I was being charitable, I would say that that is just white noise between the end of one question and the beginning of the next one. The First Minister wants this to be a theoretical argument between him and me, but it is not. This is the independent voice of the Auditor General saying that there is a serious problem in the NHS and a serious problem in college funding, and he denies it.
Let me get this right. When Campbell Christie, Crawford Beveridge and the former Auditor General Robert Black say that we need to face up to a public spending crisis, the First Minister says that they are wrong. When the current Auditor General says that there is a cut in college funding, he says that she is wrong. When the Auditor General then says that the NHS is in crisis, she is wrong again.
If the First Minister will not listen to the people who count the numbers, maybe he will listen to the people who treat patients. Theresa Fyffe, of the Royal College of Nursing, says:
“Not being frank about the pressures on our health service, or transparent about how money is being spent, is storing up problems for the future”.
When will the First Minister face up to reality and be straight with the people of Scotland?
I acknowledge the very substantial pressures on public services in Scotland including the national health service, but I put it to Johann Lamont that things would have been a great deal worse without—the Labour Party did not defend this—the real-terms increase in revenue spending in the national health service that we committed to in the election but the Labour Party refused to commit to. That is perhaps one of the reasons why she is sitting there and I am standing here as First Minister of Scotland.
I think that Johann Lamont is edging towards talking about the affordability of public services and her cuts commission, which is to review the key pledges and promises that have defined not just the Administration of the SNP but perhaps the devolution era: the commitment to having no tuition fees, so that there is not an obstacle to our students going to university or college; and the commitment to pensioners, so that they have free travel and so that they do not need to fear not being able to fund their care in infirmity. Those are crucial gains of devolution, which Johann Lamont and her party are now putting at risk. Those were things that they committed to only last year in the election but which are now all up for review in the bleak Midwinter cuts commission. Those are the things not just on which this party has been judged and re-elected but on which the Labour Party will be judged and never elected, on that platform.
First of all, acknowledging pressures on funding is not the same as doing something about it, which is the First Minister’s job. Secondly, I am not edging towards anything; I am asking the First Minister to listen to what the Auditor General, nurses and doctors and people in public services are saying now about what is happening to their services. This is not an argument for an election; this is about understanding what is happening in the real world to ordinary people at this very time.
We know that the First Minister does not believe the Auditor General or her predecessor. He does not believe the experts that he himself appoints. Does he believe himself when he, Alex Salmond, said:
“politicians should have a higher duty and the duty is more to the economic cycle than the political cycle”?
I read that to mean that politicians should always put the interests of their country before the interests of their party. [Interruption.]
Order.
When will the First Minister come and join the rest of us in the real world? When will he face up to the cuts happening now in the real world and the £3 billion-worth of cuts that he is delaying until after his referendum? Does Alex Salmond still believe Alex Salmond, or has he joined the rest of Scotland in not believing a word that the First Minister says?
On points of correction, the Auditor General never said that the national health service was in crisis; on the contrary, her report pointed out that health boards were well managed. Furthermore, neither Campbell Christie nor Crawford Beveridge ever called for real-terms cuts in the national health service.
We have maintained real-terms revenue spending in the national health service, which is something that the Labour Party refused to do. That does not mean that there is no pressure—how could there not be any pressure when this Government and every public service face cuts from Westminster? I say to Johann Lamont that there is no solution to the problem of cuts from Westminster in threatening—as the Labour Party is doing—to cut the vital services to pensioners and students in Scotland.
Johann Lamont is the fourth Labour leader that I have faced across the chamber. If she pursues that line, she will certainly not be the last Labour leader that I face. She is putting forward to the people of Scotland the incredible proposition that somehow free personal care for the elderly, concessionary fares for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees are unaffordable—she also wants to cut a range of other things from the Scottish people—but the £163 million that Scotland contributes to the furbishment and refurbishment of the Trident missile system is affordable. How can the Labour Party maintain the position that spending on weapons of mass destruction is essential but services for the people of Scotland can be dispensed with? On that programme, it will never be re-elected to government in this Parliament.
I call Ruth Lamont. I am sorry—I meant Ruth Davidson. [Laughter.]
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00949)
I am sure that that was not an intentional slip by the Presiding Officer, although perhaps it was appropriate, given the circumstances of the better together campaign.
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.
I apologise to Ruth Davidson.
Let us stick with the Auditor General. This week, Audit Scotland published a highly critical report that shows that reoffending costs Scotland £3 billion a year. The First Minister has had five years to get reoffending policies right, so why—according to the Auditor General—is there such a
“mismatch between what is delivered and what is known to work to reduce reoffending”?
There are substantial signs of progress in the Scottish justice system—it is not possible to have the lowest level of recorded crime for 37 years without having established progress in the justice system. That has been contributed to largely by having 1,000 extra police officers in the communities of Scotland. Of course, the Conservative Party says in this Parliament that it supports that, but that is belied by the action of the Conservative Party at Westminster, which is radically cutting police numbers south of the border.
We take with great care and attention—reoffending rates are a key issue and concern of this Government—positive suggestions from anyone about reoffending, but I think that Ruth Davidson will be reasonable and concede that in terms of falling rates of recorded crime, which is what matters, the criminal justice system is performing very well for the people of Scotland.
The Auditor General seems to think that “what matters” is to have a reducing reoffending programme that works. Audit Scotland says that the Government is spending money on programmes that are not known to work; that there needs to be “stronger” national leadership; that there is a lack of cohesion; and that reoffending rates are “relatively static”. It has also looked at the Government’s plans to make things better—plans that have been up and running for more than six months—and it says that there is still “an urgent need” for improvement in “all of these areas.”
Communities across Scotland are seeing the same people committing the same crimes time after time after time. Whatever the First Minister is doing is not working. When will he do what Audit Scotland is urging him to do and get serious not just about crime, but about reoffending?
Let us look at some of the initiatives that are designed to tackle reoffending—and offending, for that matter. They include the violence reduction unit, which the Government introduced and supports and which commands general support from across the chamber. The work that is being done on violence against women, including domestic abuse, has increased substantially in order to address that problem, and the legislation on support for victims’ rights and compensation that has passed through Parliament commands general agreement.
I do not agree with Ruth Davidson’s sweeping aside of the reality of the statistics, which is that recorded crime in Scotland is at a 37-year low. That must indicate that some aspects of the justice system are performing very well for the people of Scotland. I urge her to look carefully at the interventions for early years and reoffending, for which the Government has budgeted under great difficulties and stringencies in order to give exactly the sort of national leadership that we believe is necessary so that we can continue to pursue our assault on crime rates.
I say ever so gently to Ruth Davidson that, as those achievements have been made against the backdrop of huge stringencies in public spending, I do not see how threatening to cut the Scottish budget by more than £1 billion—as she did this week—will help spending on criminal justice, on public services, on the national health service or on any other area of Scottish life. If the Conservative Party wants to pursue that programme, so be it—but it should not come to the chamber and constantly argue that public spending be directed at key areas while simultaneously proposing a further £1 billion budget cut.
What is the Scottish Government’s position on the compensation that was received by William Beggs as a result of delays to his appeals?
We contested the case vigorously. Of course, we have to accept the court judgment and have no choice in that. The Scottish Government’s position—as, I suspect, would have been the position of the entire Parliament—was to contest the compensation claim vigorously
I thank the First Minister—
I call Graeme Pearson.
I thank the First Minister for that response. Does he agree that the public in general—certainly, communities throughout Ayrshire—find such awards to be extremely distasteful? Will he reassure Parliament that his Government will take steps to minimise the opportunities of which prisoners can take advantage to receive financial benefit from such events?
That was a bonus question, Mr Pearson.
I doubt whether there is a single person in Scotland who does not believe that that award was “extremely distasteful”. We can be reasonably certain that that would command the assent of the overwhelming majority—indeed, that it would be the almost unanimous view of the Scottish people.
The point about opposing the award—it was opposed vigorously in our pursuit of the case—is that it indicates the seriousness with which the Scottish Government and, I am sure, the Opposition parties took the matter. However, Graeme Pearson must know that, once the court judgment is made, we must follow it—irrespective of how “distasteful” it may be. Although he is right to say that it is a matter of great distaste for the Scottish people, we must accept what happened in a court of law.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00950)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I was shocked this morning to read the Daily Record. [Laughter.]
In the Daily Record this morning—and this is serious—pharmacists were being condemned as “methadone barons”. Does the First Minister think that it is right for front-line health professionals to be attacked for simply carrying out the Government’s drugs strategy—a strategy that has been agreed across the parties in this Parliament?
I think that it is hugely important that we maintain the cross-party consensus on Scotland’s policy against drugs. Almost 20 years ago, I joined the well-meaning and well-meant cross-party political initiative, Scotland Against Drugs. I watched that initiative dissolve into acrimony amid the competing claims of a variety of treatments and approaches to the drugs problem. At the end, to an extent it did not matter who was right and who was wrong, because so much attention was given to the differences in treatment that the policy was compromised.
The road to recovery policy, which was agreed across the Parliament, is hugely important. That does not mean that it is perfect or that it cannot be improved and amended, but it is of paramount importance that we maintain the consensus on the road to recovery policy. If we do not do that, we will fail not just the people who are suffering from drug abuse and their families, but all the people of Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for that very sensible response. I am reassured by what he said.
We are now in the situation in which the people who are being attacked by MSPs are not drug dealers or pushers, but the pharmacists in the community who are working on the drugs programme. It is not easy work. I have seen the work that they do, and it is not pleasant, but it benefits everyone. The use of methadone has cut deaths and disease, and it cuts crime. As the First Minster said, MSPs should not seek to close down treatment options or to attack the staff who deliver them.
The scandal is not the provision of methadone for drug users, but that drug addiction remains so rampant in one of the world’s wealthiest nations. What leadership can the First Minister provide so that our drugs strategy is based on evidence and the expertise of our health professionals?
I do not think that the views that Willie Rennie cites are general across the chamber. People are entitled to their views, but I think that it is far better to achieve consensus on the road to recovery policy and on whatever amendments and improvements we choose to make to it. There should be recognition that the problem is hugely serious, as is indicated by the number of drug-related deaths. There should also be recognition that, with many of the individual tragedies that the statistics reflect, the pattern of early death was set some time ago.
However, there are indications that drug use among young people in Scotland is dropping. The incidence of drug use across the general population is also falling. That is not to minimise the scale of the problem; it just shows that there are some hopeful signs. We must continue to have a coherent approach to this huge social issue and try to unite behind it. I am absolutely certain that we can do that only if we unite on a consensual policy—as we have done before as a Parliament—so that people know that the key thing is not that we score points against each other but that we come together on a strategy that can assist the people whom we are here to serve.
Trees (Fungal Diseases)
To ask the First Minister what impact fungal diseases will have on trees in Scotland. (S4F-00960)
I thank Maureen Watt for raising what is a hugely important issue. Members will be aware that ash dieback has been detected at some sites in Scotland. Over the weekend and at the start of this week, Forestry Commission officials worked around the clock to complete a rapid survey to identify potential distribution of the disease in Scotland. I am sure that members will join me in thanking all those who helped to undertake that work. This week, we have also responded to a request for assistance from Forestry Commission England by sending 15 staff to help it to complete its survey.
I can inform the chamber that, as of this morning, there were 11 sites in Scotland with confirmed signs of the disease. Because infection from ash dieback is seasonal, we have a window of opportunity to further develop our plans to mitigate its impact. The Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse, will convene a summit of key stakeholders this Tuesday to take that process forward.
I would like to be the first person in the chamber to sincerely congratulate the First Minister on becoming Scotland’s longest-serving First Minister.
Given that the United Kingdom Government may not have released advice on the vulnerability of ash trees as speedily as it could have done and that there is now speculation that a threat could exist to our iconic Scots pine, what information and advice can the First Minister give to those who are concerned about the potential susceptibility of Scots pine to the disease?
The Forestry Commission has undertaken regular surveys of pine species and we are monitoring closely the impact on the Scots pine. Trials of forest management techniques and chemical treatments are under way to identify ways to manage the risk that the disease poses to those trees. As a Government, we are doing everything that we can to protect the Scots pine species, which is truly iconic in Scotland, as the member was right to say.
Given the concerns about various species in Scotland, is it time that we had a national plan in Scotland for tree health and biosecurity? This Parliament could take a lead that would set a new tone for the debate in the whole of Britain.
That is a positive suggestion, which I undertake will be considered at the meeting with stakeholders that Mr Wheelhouse will host this coming Tuesday.
Dementia (Treatment)
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve treatment for people with dementia. (S4F-00956)
As I am sure Jackie Baillie will agree, the key to effective treatment of dementia is early and accurate diagnosis. The latest figures show that the HEAT target that the Government introduced has led to a 39 per cent increase in diagnosis of the condition. That is welcome, but there is no room for complacency.
We will work with Alzheimer Scotland to put in place 300 dementia champions next year, to ensure that people who receive a new diagnosis of dementia are entitled to a minimum of a year of post-diagnostic support. That is further to the announcement just last weekend that every health board has appointed an Alzheimer Scotland nurse, as we work to do everything that we can for people with dementia, their carers and, of course, their families.
I very much welcome the progress that has been made. I am sure that the First Minister agrees that the 14 additional specialist nurses need to be set against the cut of 2,500 in the overall number of nurses in Scotland.
I bring to the First Minister’s attention a response from NHS Fife to a freedom of information request, which says:
“During 2011, the highest number of bed or ward moves for a dementia patient in a single hospital stay was 13.”
Does he share my view that that number of moves is unacceptable for dementia patients? What measures will he take to eradicate from our national health service the practice of boarding out?
We have introduced inspections of hospitals precisely to address such concerns.
Jackie Baillie’s comments about the appointments of Alzheimer Scotland nurses do her less than credit. I prefer the views of Henry Simmons, Alzheimer Scotland’s chief executive, who said:
“Completing these appointments is another significant milestone in our attempt to ensure that people with dementia and their families within general hospitals are treated with the utmost dignity and respect at all times.”
He gets the point that Jackie Baillie fails to get—that the appointments will directly ensure that people with dementia and their families are treated properly across our excellent national health service.
Can the First Minister give an assurance that the driving forward of the national dementia strategy will be enhanced by the integrated health and social care strategy?
Yes, I can—I am sure that that will be the case. This is Scotland’s first dementia strategy. It was completed in 2010 and it is being taken forward. It reflects the recognition, which I am sure is shared across the chamber, that the condition is extraordinarily serious in modern Scotland.
I am glad to hear the last part of the First Minister’s answer, but I have my doubts, because the people who are working at ground level on the integration of health and social care services are under great stress. They are trying to do everything at once, and I imagine that such work might be an extra task too far, so I will be getting in touch with the health minister to get an assurance about how that work will be carried out, if that is all right with the First Minister.
I am sure that Margo MacDonald’s efforts in that direction are much appreciated. That is part of the process of ensuring that our national health service responds—as I believe it does—to the Scottish population’s needs.
Female College Students (Support)
To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is providing to female college students. (S4F-00952)
The number of women students who attend colleges has been maintained at 65,000 full-time equivalent places, which is the same level as was delivered in 2006-07. That has been achieved with Scottish Government support for college students, including a 42 per cent increase in funding for childcare, which is crucial to many female students.
Can the First Minister explain how the 26 per cent decline in the number of female students since 2007, which is twice the rate of the decline in the number of male students, sits with the Scottish Government’s promises to widen access and to maintain overall student numbers?
The position on full-time equivalent places is as I have stated. It is true that the Scottish Government is concentrating on full-time courses because those are the courses that prepare people for employment. It is also true that we have expanded student support in colleges to record levels to enable people to attend full-time courses and that we have expanded funding for childcare by 42 per cent so that female students in particular are not disadvantaged.
I want to say two further things. First, the Conservative Party’s credibility on the matter would be somewhat greater if it were not for what is happening to the revenue and capital budgets for colleges south of the border. The pressure is infinitely greater there than it is in Scotland.
Finally, will there be some acknowledgment from Elizabeth Smith at any time that, this year in Scotland, we have the highest number of full-time students at colleges and universities that there has been at any time since the Parliament was reconvened? Is that not a matter for celebration?
Previous
General Question Time