First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01368)
I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
In February, I asked the First Minister about the case of 84-year-old John McGarrity who, having been admitted with chest pains, was left for eight hours on a hospital trolley in a corridor. At the time, the First Minister said that these things happen in the national health service and his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said that it was “not a true reflection” of the NHS. Can the First Minister tell me whether the number of people left on trolleys is getting better or worse?
That is not what I said at all. I remember very specifically saying that this Government takes seriously any individual case in which treatment is less than satisfactory. That is what we should do and what we do. I made the point that there are very substantial indications that overall treatment in the national health service and patient satisfaction are improving. There is also the point, which we should all be aware of when we quite properly raise such cases, that everyone should be proud of our national health service in Scotland.
I think that the First Minister did say that, but he has clearly not reflected on it.
I do not dispute that we all love and care about the NHS, and the First Minister and I agree that it is a disgrace that pensioners such as John McGarrity wait for eight hours on a trolley in a corridor for treatment. I presume that when I raised the matter with him in February he investigated such occurrences, so I will try again. Can he tell me whether the situation is better or worse?
I call tell Johann Lamont that the situation in terms of treatment in the national health service overall is improving. It is improving despite the great pressure on all public services, and it is improving because of the commitment and effort of our nurses, doctors and ancillary staff in the national health service. I can give her a range of statistics that indicate as much.
Of course, individual cases in which treatment is less than satisfactory are looked at seriously and taken into account, but in pursuing such cases Johann Lamont should not be deflected from the fact that, overall, treatment is—in terms of waiting times for treatment, the efficacy of treatment and the number of people who are being treated—improving in the national health service. I think that that is an enormous tribute to the staff and their commitment to our national health service in what are, inevitably, difficult times.
I have absolutely no doubt whatever that the First Minister can give me a long list of answers to questions that he was not asked, but he has not answered the question that I asked him.
This is not about anyone running down the NHS; it is about taking our job seriously. I can only presume that the reason why the First Minister does not know the answer to my question is that he does not care. He has not even asked. [Interruption.] He has not even asked. Perhaps he does not like to ask in case the answer breaches his perfect view of his world.
Let me tell the First Minister what is happening in the NHS that he is supposed to be running, while deciding what currency a fantasy Scotland will have in his fantasy world. In the real world, the number of people who are languishing in accident and emergency departments is increasing; we know that, thanks to a freedom of information request on our health boards.
In John McGarrity’s area of Glasgow, the number of patients who waited over four hours to be seen has more than trebled—up from 10,100 in 2009 to 31,700 this year. Looking across Scotland, I note that in NHS Lanarkshire—the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing’s own backyard—the number of patients who are waiting more than four hours in A and E has also more than trebled and that in NHS Grampian, which is the First Minister’s own backyard, there was an increase of 1,300 in the number of patients waiting more than four hours in A and E, compared with last year. Now that the First Minister knows what is happening in the NHS on his watch, will he tell us what he is going to do about it?
Is not that exactly why the health secretary announced the plan for reinforcing the staff and resources at accident and emergency units across Scotland, so that the NHS can be sustained under winter pressures and the position improved? [Interruption.] That is what the health secretary announced, because that is the correct response to the pressures that we have seen over the winter.
The capacity of our accident and emergency units has substantially increased under this Government, and the number of diagnoses and treatments in hospital A and E departments is up by 6 per cent since 2007, under this Government. That has been possible because the resource budget of the national health service in Scotland has increased under this Government, despite the extraordinary financial pressures that have been imposed on us from Westminster.
We know that that would not have happened had the Labour Party been in power. We know that because the Labour Party would not, in the run-up to the elections either in 2007 or in 2011 commit to protecting the budget of the national health service. We also know it because in the only place where Labour is in power in these islands there has been a real-terms decline in national health service funding. That is a reality.
Let us answer the question in this sense—[Interruption.]
Order.
Where there is pressure on the national health service, this Government responds by devoting additional resources to accident and emergency services, so that we can treat real patients with real conditions and sustain the health service against winter pressure. I do not think that a party that was unable to commit itself to the health service in the election campaigns, and which is unable to commit itself to the health service in Wales now, is in any position to pose as a defender of the national health service, when it wanted to spend the money elsewhere.
We would settle for the First Minister answering the question in any sense whatever. That answer certainly does not qualify.
The First Minister talked about Wales, but he is in power here. He is responsible for the NHS. I am sure that he understands that he has been in power since 2007, dealing with the national health service.
On the point about winter pressures, the winter pressures this year were less than they were in 2010, so the explanation simply does not stack up.
If the First Minister ever made it out of Bute house to the real world and met a patient who was waiting on a trolley for treatment, we can assume that he would say to the person who was lying in front of him, “Listen. You are more satisfied with the NHS than ever before.” He would tell the person on the trolley that things are better under his area of responsibility.
The First Minister is simply not serious. When will he understand that patients need medical treatment, not slogans? He has been in charge of the NHS for six years—
Thank goodness.
It is not “Thank goodness” for the people who are lying on trolleys. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister tells people that they should be grateful for that. It is not “Thank goodness”, at all. The number of people who wait more than four hours in A and E is increasing, but what does the First Minister do? Instead of cutting times—we can hardly believe this—he cuts the target.
I have raised the issue with the First Minister time and again. Is it not the case that the reason why things have got worse, the reason why he has done nothing to improve the situation, and the reason why he does not even know, is that he does not care about NHS patients and cares only—[Interruption.] Scottish National Party members also care only about SNP slogans. [Interruption.] You might want to ask your own guy for an answer occasionally. That would be encouraging. [Interruption.]
Order. Please speak through the Presiding Officer.
Then we would really know that we were in a new place.
Here is a phrase that sums up this country, and the First Minister should reflect on it: in this country, under Salmond, Scotland is lying on a trolley while his referendum is in intensive care.
It struck me, as I was listening to that, that folk who are being treated now in Monklands or Ayr hospital accident and emergency departments will know that their hospitals would not even be there if they had been left to the Labour Party. Not content with not securing the budget, the Labour Party was going to cut the hospitals.
Perhaps what is more important than Johann Lamont’s view of the national health service is what the people think about the national health service. Eighty-five per cent of Scottish in-patients reported in the in-patients survey that their overall care and treatment was good or excellent. In 2011, 88 per cent of people were very satisfied or satisfied with their local health services—up from 81 per cent in 2007. Those issues were tested at the 2011 election, which is why people vindicated the SNP’s stewardship of our national health service and left the Labour Party languishing in opposition.
Johann Lamont says that we should not talk about what is happening in Wales. Why should we not talk about what is happening in Wales? It is because it shows what actually happens when the Labour Party is in power. We are in a position where fierce cuts from Westminster are affecting both the Welsh and Scottish budgets. In Wales they decided to cut the health budget in real terms. They were under financial pressure and could not see the commitment to maintain the health service budget in Scotland. In Scotland, this Government decided to maintain and sustain the resource budget of the national health service in real terms.
When it comes to political commitment, the record of this Government on the national health service, which was vindicated by the people in the 2011 election, and the financial commitment that has been made, show that the national health service being in our hands is, above all, the reason why we are in government and the Labour Party is in opposition.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01369)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.
This week, a diagnosed psychopath and triple axe murderer who killed a fellow patient in Carstairs, a nurse and a police officer was set free. Thomas McCulloch was told that he would spend the rest of his life in jail but, thanks to a human rights appeal, he is once again walking our streets. I know that nothing can be done retrospectively in this or any other historic case, but what has the First Minister done to ensure in future that, as in England, when such violent and vicious people are given a whole-life sentence, it will actually mean life?
The terms of the release of prisoners are a matter for the Parole Board for Scotland under legislation from 1993—if I remember correctly—and it is not for ministers to intervene in the decisions of the Parole Board. The Parole Board makes these decisions; its decisions and independent status are protected by a statute that, incidentally, was passed while the Conservative Party was in power. I am glad that Ruth Davidson acknowledges that retrospective decisions could not be made anyway, but I am sure that she understands and is not suggesting that we should compromise the independence of the Parole Board. If she has a specific proposal, let her come forward with it and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will of course consider it.
I note that this time the First Minister is saying that it is the Parole Board that is the reason. The problem is that, when I put the same question to the First Minister in November 2011, he used European Union human rights law as an excuse for not having whole-life tariffs in Scotland. Last January—16 months ago—the European Court of Human Rights ruled on this and upheld the principle of whole-life sentences for the most dangerous offenders. Since then, we have seen William Kean get just 22 years for the brutal murder of an 80-year-old woman in Perthshire, and Saima Gul and Fazli Rahim given only 23 years after attempting to decapitate their murder victim in front of a 12-year-old girl. Had the Scottish National Party acted in its first term in government, we could have been certain that Colin Coates and Philip Wade, who tortured Lynda Spence to death, would never be freed.
The SNP has had six years in which to take action. Whole-life sentences are clear and unambiguous, yet they were absent from last year’s Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, which was described by Professor James Chalmers as
“a tortuous system which is barely intelligible to lawyers, let alone to the general public”.
It is simple: life should mean life. Will the First Minister give an assurance today that he will finally take action to give the public the protection that they deserve? Will he ensure that, in the most extreme cases, when the most violent criminals are taken off the streets they will never return?
Ruth Davidson seems to think that I am bringing the Parole Board in as a defence. I have just looked at the 1993 act, and I was right. The act, which was passed by a Conservative Government, states that all life sentence prisoners are entitled by law, including those convicted of murder, to have their suitability for release on parole considered after expiry of the punishment part of their sentence. The act also states that Scottish ministers are required by law to accept any direction of the Parole Board to release a prisoner.
The justice secretary and I are perfectly willing and able to consider suggestions that come forward constructively. However, it does Ruth Davidson ill to complain about the law and the relationship of the law and the Parole Board to the release of prisoners when it turns out that the exact provisions under which the Parole Board has acted were carried into law by a Conservative Government. At some point, if there are complaints about the judicial system of Scotland—which ignore the extraordinary success of our having the lowest level of recorded crime for more than 30 years and having the best public satisfaction for many years in terms of people’s feelings of personal safety—will the Conservative Party acknowledge that the things that it is complaining about are the very things that it enacted when it was in government?
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01356)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The Deputy Prime Minister is in Essex today, promoting the United Kingdom Government’s expansion of nursery education to thousands of two-year-olds. In Aberdeen, the First Minister is restricting plans to around 40 children. Under the affordable plans that I put to him, 1,040 children would secure a nursery place in Aberdeen. Is it not a shame that so many two-year-olds in Essex will get help but those in Aberdeen will not? Is it not a shame that he cannot go anywhere in Scotland and make that sort of commitment?
Willie Rennie has surprised me. It has taken him a considerable time, but he has surprised me. When I was wondering about his question today, I thought that the one thing that he would not ask about was childcare, because I heard the reports about Nick Clegg on the radio this morning. As members will know and recall, for some time I have cautioned Willie Rennie against telling us that what is happening south of the border is fantastic and ideal. He has said that no, that is the thing that we should aspire to. He has accused me of being “the road block” to achieving that in Scotland, but it turns out that the road block in England is Nick Clegg. Nick Clegg has said—and has indicated to the Conservatives—that
“he will block government reforms to adult-child ratio limits for childcarers”.
It is said that his veto will jeopardise the entire childcare package.
Nick Clegg has finally paid attention to the points that I have been making to Willie Rennie over the past few weeks, when I have warned him that the dilution of ratios poses a severe danger to the quality of provision. I am now in the position of having converted Willie Rennie’s party leader to the points that I am making. At some stage, I shall manage to convert Willie Rennie.
I anticipated that the First Minister would think that I would not ask that question—[Laughter.]
Order.
I wonder whether there will ever be a week in which the First Minister does not use an excuse to do absolutely nothing for two-year-olds. The First Minister seems to be taking a leaf out of Homer Simpson’s book. Homer Simpson said:
“If something’s hard to do, it’s not worth doing.”
It is quite remarkable that, while the UK Government battles to improve the life chances of two-year-olds, the First Minister does nothing—[Interruption.]
Order.
He does nothing but raise the white flag. He has excuse after excuse for doing absolutely nothing. It is good enough for two-year-olds in Essex, so why is it not good enough for two-year-olds in Aberdeen?
This is kamikaze. The point that Nick Clegg is making is that he thinks that lowering the quality of childcare is not good for two-year-olds in Essex. At the moment, UK ministers are not battling to expand childcare; they are battling with each other. Nick Clegg has said that he will block the changes because he is concerned—rightly so, I think—that the diminution in quality will involve danger to the childcare system.
I understand that mumsnet has been campaigning on the issue and that Nick Clegg has paid particular attention to the views of mumsnet. I myself could claim the credit, but perhaps mumsnet has been influential as well. At some stage—whether it is through myself or through mumsnet—perhaps we can get through to Willie Rennie that there is a problem in England that his party leader has identified. It might be wise, for a time at least, for Willie Rennie to reflect on that before he tries that particular line of argument again.
Queen’s Speech
4. To ask the First Minister what the implications for Scotland are of the Queen’s speech. (S4F-01364)
Yesterday, we were looking for an indication in the Queen’s speech that the Westminster Government realises the seriousness of the economic situation facing the country, given the lack of growth in the economy, and that there would be new measures to deal with that. Not only was that not in the Queen’s speech, but progressive measures such as minimum pricing for alcohol were dropped and there was no legal commitment to overseas aid, despite repeated promises. Overall, that speech indicates why this country needs good government from this Parliament as opposed to bad government from Westminster.
Certainly, yesterday proved that Westminster is not working for Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that, particularly in the tough economic times that people are facing, we need to see a United Kingdom Government that is focused on delivering jobs and prosperity for Scotland rather than one that is pandering, in a blind panic, to the threat of the United Kingdom Independence Party after last week’s local elections south of the border?
That analysis about the UK Government’s response is widely shared among political commentators and, indeed, politicians at Westminster. Such a response would be unfortunate, because the real issues that are emerging were not those that were contained in the Queen’s speech yesterday but those that will be in the new spending review that is currently being prepared at Westminster.
Yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“The current government plan”—
at Westminster, that is—
“is for eight successive years of tax increases and spending cuts”.
It seems that the choice facing Scotland is clear. We have heard so much from the no campaigners, on the Labour and Tory sides, about the uncertainty of independence. Here is a certainty of UK Government: there will be eight successive years of tax increases and spending cuts on the Scottish people.
I call Gavin Brown with a brief supplementary.
Presiding Officer, allow me to cheer up the First Minister and his back benchers just a little bit—
Briefly, please.
The national insurance contributions bill that was in the Queen’s speech yesterday got a big thumbs up from the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that it will be a shot in the arm. What is the First Minister’s view on the national insurance contributions bill?
I support measures that bring people back into employment. The point that I was making is that, for an economy that is suffering severely from a clear deficiency of demand with huge unspent resources and many skills and people lying idle, not to address that fundamental question seems to me to be a failure of leadership and of stewardship.
Given the real-term cuts—as the member well knows—of 8.2 per cent that are already in the Scottish budget, to anticipate eight successive years of tax increases and spending cuts is a dismal prospect, which I think will encourage many people to think twice about continuing Tory rule from Westminster when we could mobilise the resources and people of this nation to build a prosperous and socially just future.
Also briefly, Neil Findlay.
Yesterday, the UK Government dropped plans to regulate the lobbying industry. Does the First Minister think that that was a mistake and does he support plans to regulate the industry in Scotland?
If the member brings forward ideas or plans, we will see how they are appropriate to the work of this Parliament. It should be said that, in general, this Parliament operates with a greater degree of transparency than the Westminster Parliament. Having served in both, I am in a reasonable position to judge that. If the member brings forward suggestions in a positive fashion, they will be treated in a positive fashion by the Government.
Ageing Population (Scottish Government Policy)
5. To ask the First Minister whether the reported comments of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing that “we are still going to need the same number of beds, the same number of hospitals, the same number of doctors and nurses just to stand still” in relation to an ageing population reflect Scottish Government policy. (S4F-01367)
I have the full quotation here, which Jackie Baillie has not used. The cabinet secretary was talking about the population of over 75-year-olds being set to double, and he made the arithmetic point that
“if we are able through better treatment at home to reduce by 50 per cent the level of hospitalisation”,
the automatic calculation then follows.
Yesterday, the cabinet secretary announced development of the new bed planning tool, which will draw on the expertise of national health service staff and planners to ensure that health boards have the right type of specialist beds in the right places at the right time to meet patient demand.
The First Minister should be advised that the bed planning tool has already been renamed the bed cutting tool. Alex Neil made the promise about
“the same number of beds, the same number of hospitals”
and
“the same number of doctors and nurses”
to a Unison conference just two weeks ago. The following day, his civil servants were running around, forced to clarify and reinterpret his comments. Yesterday, not one back bencher defended his comments. Did Alex Neil actually mean what he said, or was he simply expressing his view “in terms of the debate”?
I heard an interview with Jackie Baillie on the radio yesterday. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
I pay close attention to Jackie Baillie’s interviews. Even in the context of the statement about the hospital-acquired superbug capital of Europe, her claim yesterday that, under Labour, we did not need a confidential helpline in the NHS because it was not necessary was absolutely extraordinary. When the Labour Party was in government, the number of acute beds in the national health service fell every single year. That happened, irrespective of Jackie Baillie’s inability to remember what happened when Labour was in power.
As the then health minister, Andy Kerr, said:
“There are good reasons for reductions in acute bed numbers:
Medical advances continue to reduce lengths of stay associated with many planned procedures, and some are now routinely carried out”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 March 2007; S2W-32254]
[Interruption.]
I see that Andy Kerr has been reduced to invisibility in the lexicon of the Labour Party. In that case, let us talk about Richard Simpson, who is still here, and who pointed out in 2011 that he was exceptionally pleased with the cabinet secretary’s recognition that the balance of care
“could result in a reduction in the number of acute beds.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2011; c 430.]
[Interruption.]
Mr Smith!
It ill behoves the superbug expert of this Parliament to come along and forget entirely what happened under the Labour Party, sweep to one side the changes in the balance of medical care and ignore entirely that the Scottish National Party committed itself to—and has delivered—a real-terms increase in health funding. No doubt because of Jackie Baillie’s inability to convince her colleagues, the Labour Party never promised that in Scotland and it certainly has not delivered it in Wales.
Foreign Affairs Committee (Report on Consequences of Scottish Independence)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report on the consequences of Scottish independence. (S4F-01370)
I thought that some of the committee’s report was eminently sensible. For example, it states:
“We do not doubt that Scotland, as an independent country could play a valuable role in Europe”.
However, it should be said that not everybody was convinced by the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Tory MP Douglas Carswell said:
“I can think of lots of good reasons”—
from his perspective—
“why Scotland might want to vote to remain part of the United Kingdom. But the Commons’ Foreign Affairs select committee report today is not one of them.”
I am surprised that the First Minister was surprised. I do not know what he expected from such a committee at such a time.
It struck me that, far from having an interest in Scotland—which it was meant to have—the report ended up being fraught with anxiety about what would happen to the reduced status of the rest of the United Kingdom when Scotland becomes independent. It talked about the reduced post-independence position in relation to the United Nations Security Council, the G8 and the European Union.
Does the First Minister agree that that should not influence us when we come to vote in the referendum? Our job is not to prop up an ailing power but to secure the future for our children.
That is a solid point. I clarify for Margo MacDonald that I was not surprised by the overall negative tone of the no campaigners who wrote the report. One would expect that no campaigners would write a negative report about Scottish independence. However, it was interesting that, within the overall volumes of negativity, there were one or two nuggets of common sense. That is the bit that surprised me.
Actually, Margo MacDonald is quite right. On the radio, Menzies Campbell said:
“I heard on your news bulletin a moment or two ago that it’s been dismissed as if it were in some way partial. That it was written by people whose interest was to argue against the independence of Scotland. That’s quite true in my case.”
As a member of the committee, he seems to agree with her analysis.
The other point that Margo MacDonald makes is equally substantial. The report focused, virtually entirely, not on the interests of Scotland but—this is what the major points that it seemed to make were about—on what would happen to the UK’s prestige in the world.
There, the committee makes a fundamental mistake. Prestige and influence in the world are not based on size or even on military intervention—the military intervention in Iraq, for example, did not enhance the UK’s place in the world. The UK’s or Scotland’s place in the world to be will be governed not by size or military intervention but by the quality of our ideas, the strength of our social services, the health of our economy and our ability to make a positive contribution to humankind.
Those are the things that matter, not the baubles of prestige on which the Foreign Affairs Committee concentrated.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. I will allow a short pause to enable members who are not participating in the next debate to leave and for the public gallery to clear before we move to members’ business.