The next item of business is First Minister’s question time—[Interruption.] We have a number of guide dogs in training in the gallery today. [Interruption.] You are very welcome. [Laughter.]
Engagements
I hope that you will be as kind to me, Presiding Officer.
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02316)
It is appropriate to mark that we have all been saddened by news of the death of Angus Macleod, one of Scotland’s most experienced political journalists. He will be missed by members across the chamber and by his colleagues in the press corps, and our condolences go to his family and friends at this sad time.
I agree whole-heartedly with what the First Minister has said. We have lost a true friend of Scotland and a man who was able to capture in such wonderful terms the politics of our country. Indeed, his humanity was known to us all.
Is it true that Abellio, which has won the right to run Scotland’s railways, was more expensive for Scotland’s taxpayers than other bidders were, as has been reported in the press? If so, how much more is the deal costing the people of Scotland?
No. It was by some distance the best-value bid for running Scotland’s railways. It offers a substantial number of advantages, and Scotland will see the benefits over the franchise period.
Of course, it is not just members of the Government who assessed the bids and have been impressed by Abellio’s bid. Jenny Marra, the North East Scotland MSP, said:
“I was impressed they had taken the trouble to meet me. They had done their research and had recognised we were running this campaign and they were the only franchisee who had got in touch about our campaign. That gives me encouragement.”
In terms of the proper assessment of the bids and the widespread support and encouragement that Abellio seems to have managed to generate, I think that we can look forward to improved terms for Scotland’s railways and, in particular, improved terms and conditions for the staff working on Scotland’s railways.
That was a yard-long answer, but it did not answer the question that I asked the First Minister, which was: is the deal costing the people of Scotland more? We got a lot of words, but we did not get an answer.
We know that “price is extremely important” and that
“We live in extremely straitened times in terms of the public finances and it’s our responsibility to make sure we get value for money”.
Those are not my words but those of Keith Brown, the Minister for Transport and Veterans, speaking on 20 March 2012. He does not seem to have applied the same rules.
The Government says that the deal will involve new rolling stock, but, other than the new trains already promised for the Glasgow to Edinburgh route, when Abellio talks about new trains, does it really mean new rolling stock, or does it mean refurbished trains, some of which may be decades old?
The new trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow and the completion of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme are actually rather important for the commuters who go between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The refurbishment of the trains and rolling stock is vital for commuters across Scotland.
In terms of value for money, I point out what we can expect from the new contract. We can expect faster services between all our cities, with journey-time savings of up to 12 minutes between Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth and Inverness. We can expect proper high-speed diesel trains between the central belt and Inverness and Aberdeen, linking all our seven cities, with free wi-fi, increased comforts, galley and all-seat catering and more luggage space. We can expect new electric trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which Johann Lamont does not seem to think are very important but which I think are absolutely vital. We can expect new trains in the central belt, new stations across Scotland and more capacity on our trains, with a 20 to 24 per cent increase in seats on peak-time services, which is particularly vital.
Those are the characteristics that decided the bid and the franchise in Abellio’s favour, but I must say that I am impressed by the offer and the commitment to ensure that the living wage is paid to all rail staff. As Johann Lamont knows, this Government introduced the living wage in the public sector in Scotland, so to have a commitment to extend the living wage not just to direct railway staff but to subcontractors such as cleaners and catering staff is a substantial enhancement of delivery in Scotland. In terms of customer satisfaction and usage, and in terms of treating the staff on our railways with respect, that to me is a considerable advance.
Maybe the First Minister can get back to me later on the question that I asked him.
The Government had it in its own hands to make sure that every worker benefiting from a public sector procurement offer would receive the living wage—if it had only had the courage of its convictions. Instead, we have had cheap words but not action.
The First Minister may not be aware that this great company that we are being told about came 18th out of 18 in a survey by Which? in which concerns were expressed about cleanliness and value for money.
Mick Whelan, the general secretary of the train drivers union ASLEF, said of the deal:
“It’s a particularly perverse decision by the SNP government in Scotland, which was arguing for independence, and is getting many more devolved powers”—
Members: When?
Order. It is Ms Lamont who is asking the questions.
I am quoting Mick Whelan, the general secretary of the train drivers union ASLEF, who said that it was a
“particularly perverse decision ... to embrace privatisation and all that means rather than wait a few months, take a fresh look at the opportunities for rail services in Scotland, and then, instead of acting in such a precipitate fashion, make a considered decision next year.”
Will the First Minister tell me which part of that statement is wrong?
Here is a little bit of history. The Labour Party had the opportunity, when in government and looking at the railway legislation, to give the Parliament the power to introduce public sector bids from this country for the railways, but it refused to do so. Throughout the term of office of this Government, the Scottish Government has consistently requested that that power be transferred to this Parliament so that we can effect it.
However, in the current situation—and if we are to believe the vow, which requires the guarantee of a mass petition of the people of Scotland for its delivery—the transfer of that power, which is now supported by the Labour Party, although it did nothing about it in government, but is opposed by its friends and colleagues from the better together alliance in the Conservative Party, would take at least five or six years to be brought into legislative operation. Over that period, the ScotRail franchise would have to be extended, along with the profits for that franchise that some Labour members have been complaining about in recent times.
Johann Lamont’s position seems to be that we should hope that the powers will be transferred, despite the fact that her friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party do not agree with that, and that, in the meantime—for the next five or six years—we should extend the current franchise, with all its inadequacies, as opposed to getting better terms and conditions for the railway staff of Scotland and better services for the people of Scotland. If this is the relaunch of the Labour Party, I think that it is going to reach the end of the tracks very soon indeed. [Applause.]
Order.
I saw what the First Minister did there. That was really funny.
On the matter of asking for those powers, the First Minister should reflect on the fact that, although he made six key demands of the Scotland Bill as the UK Government went through the Calman process, not one of those demands was about the railways, so he should not pretend that that was something that he was concerned about.
The First Minister’s answer seems to be simply that there is nothing that he can do. As power seeps from him, the First Minister wants more powers but still spends his life telling us what he cannot do.
Why could the First Minister not wait for a few months and look at how we, with his successor, could improve Scotland’s railways? Why choose a deal that is more expensive for Scotland? Why settle for decades-old trains? Was the general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Mick Cash, not right when he said:
“All you’re seeing in private ownership is that money’s being sucked out of the industry and given to the private sector shareholders, or in this case is going to go to subsidise the Dutch railways”?
Why is the First Minister spending his last days in office selling out Scotland, rather than standing up for Scotland?
It would not be a few months; it would take five years to bring the powers from Westminster to Scotland and put them into operation to conduct a new franchise process.
Johann Lamont would have to persuade her Conservative friends, colleagues and allies in the better together campaign to support her. I do not know whether she ever said during the better together campaign, “Can we not unite Conservative and Labour in transferring power over the railways to Scotland?” We want that power to transfer. Keith Brown has written three times to the United Kingdom Government asking for that power to be transferred—[Interruption.]
I ask members to settle down, please.
During the long years of Labour Government, the power did not get transferred. It is so dramatically important that Johann Lamont did not even mention it in her relaunch speech last night.
In addition to the improved terms and conditions for the staff, which I think are so important in terms of the solidarity of this country, we have got from the contract improved terms and conditions for the railway passengers of Scotland, as I have laid out in very considerable terms. That improved and enhanced railway service seems to be a good deal. It is a better deal than waiting and hoping that Johann Lamont’s friends and allies in the Conservative Party are suddenly going to have a transformation and agree with us that that power should come to Scotland so that we can have not-for-profit or public sector bids from Scotland as well as public sector bids from the Netherlands.
In the meantime, we will get on with the job of running Scotland’s railways, expanding passenger numbers, enhancing services, reducing fares and ensuring that the staff of our railways have a better future under the new contract.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I add my condolences and those of my party to the family of Angus Macleod, who wrote with a clarity and a humanity that added hugely to the political life of Scotland.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02317)
No plans, near future.
Last week, the First Minister got caught out pretending that the Commonwealth games was the reason why his Government had cut health spending in Scotland. Despite that being exposed as arrant nonsense, the First Minister has continued to claim that, over the past five years,
“National health service spending in Scotland has increased in real terms”.—[Official Report, 2 October 2014; c 14.]
Does he still hold that view?
Our commitment has always been to resource spending. That was the commitment in our manifesto, and every single penny of consequentials has been devoted to the national health service in Scotland. That is why, in spite of the 7.2 per cent real-terms Westminster cut, we have ensured that NHS Scotland revenue will increase by 4.2 per cent in real terms over the period 2009-10 to 2015-16. That is a very considerable achievement in the face of the draconian cutbacks from Westminster.
After last week’s First Minister’s questions, I decided to double-check whether, as the First Minister has just said,
“every single penny of consequentials”
has indeed been passed on. This time, we double-checked with the Parliament’s own independent and impartial information centre. Guess what? Looking at health spending over the past five years, it concluded that the figures show a drop in spending
“equivalent to a 1.2% fall in the health budget in real terms”.
That is hundreds of millions of pounds.
The analysis also notes that the figures “do not include sport”, so the First Minister’s Commonwealth games excuse is rubbish, and it has been shown to be rubbish twice.
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the First Minister has cut health spending in real terms. The independent Scottish Parliament information centre says that he has cut health spending in real terms. The First Minister has got it wrong, and his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has got it wrong. Everyone can see that they have got it wrong, and hundreds of millions of pounds that they promised to Scotland’s NHS have never been delivered. Will the First Minister finally set the record straight and just admit it?
Actually, it is Ruth Davidson who has it wrong. [Interruption.]
Order.
This is from the 2011 SNP manifesto, on page 14:
“We recognise that if we want to have a first-class health service in Scotland the resources need to be there. That is why we have guaranteed that the revenue budget of the Scottish NHS will be protected in real terms.”
We have never expressed it in anything other than the resource budget. The mistake that the IFS made was to include resource and capital, which is not the commitment that we gave.
There is a very simple reason for that. The capital budget has been slashed by Westminster. Therefore, we have devised a new mechanism—the non-profit distribution mechanism—to ensure that we can continue to invest in the infrastructure of the NHS in Scotland. We now find out that the IFS forgot to include NPD spending in its analysis, which is quite important, given that the amount, through the hub and NPD, will be £380 million in the next financial year alone.
Now that it has been explained to Ruth Davidson that the mistake that the IFS made was not to include NPD spending, I am sure that she is reassured that, unlike south of the border, the NHS in Scotland is in safe hands. Why do we know that it is not in safe hands south of the border? In
“The NHS timebomb letter: ‘NHS and social care services are at breaking point. It cannot go on’”
we see that every area of the NHS in England is writing to the Prime Minister, pointing out the consequences of Tory policies: not just the extraordinary pressure on health service budgets, which we have in Scotland as well, but, as they put it, the “top-down reorganisation” that has dismayed staff and fragmented the health service in England.
That is why the NHS is safe in public hands in Scotland—there is a commitment to expenditure and a commitment, above all, to an NHS that is safe in public hands in Scotland.
We have a constituency question from Rob Gibson.
To ask the First Minister for an update on the reported fire aboard the MV Parida in the Moray Firth while it was carrying nuclear waste from Scrabster to Antwerp, which led to it drifting dangerously and to it subsequently requiring towage to sheltered waters for repair yesterday, and to ask what lessons must be learned.
First, there was no release of radioactivity. The radioactive waste was in cement, high-quality containers and therefore there was no release of radioactivity—as far as we can determine—from the incident, so people should be reassured about that.
The member is, however, right to focus concern on the incident. The MV Parida had a funnel fire in the Moray Firth around 8 pm on Tuesday evening and subsequently drifted for some hours. The Beatrice oil platform had to be evacuated as a precaution, although the vessel’s anchor slowed its drift. The Parida was carrying a load of radioactive waste that was being returned from Dounreay to Belgium. A tow took the Parida to safe anchorage in the Cromarty Firth on Wednesday morning.
The concerns that the incident raises are obvious. It was Scottish Government authorities that had to co-ordinate to ensure that the incident was safely addressed, but unfortunately the Office of Nuclear Regulation had not had sufficient consultation with those authorities before the incident took place.
It is signally unsatisfactory to find that boats carrying consignments of nuclear waste have to wait for a weather window in October in the North Sea in order to carry out their trip. It is also of significant concern that an apparently minor incident on a boat of that kind can result in it being totally without power—as is, obviously, the consequence of the evacuation of an oil platform.
Therefore, the whole chamber should unite in looking for the devolution of the relevant authority, to ensure that Scotland has the power not just to handle such incidents but to ensure, as far as possible, that they do not occur in the first place.
National Child Abuse Investigation Unit
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on Police Scotland’s national child abuse investigation unit. (S4F-02321)
We welcome that positive move by Police Scotland. The new national child abuse investigation unit will provide specialist investigative resources to lead or assist with complex or high-profile child abuse investigations. The unit will allow Police Scotland to work in a more structured way on child abuse that is not confined by geographical boundaries. The unit also demonstrates a clear commitment to child protection.
Grooming is often a precursor to abuse and sexual abuse but is often only detected once that subsequent sexual crime is committed. Is the First Minister aware that if a child is groomed in Scotland and the resulting sexual offence or abuse takes place outwith the United Kingdom, for example in France, that crime and the grooming can be prosecuted here, but that if the abuse takes place anywhere else in the UK, only the grooming can be prosecuted here? The Lord Advocate has raised concerns about the matter and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has advised that the Government is considering legislation to end that lacuna. Can the First Minister provide any further detail on when legislation might be introduced, so that both crimes can be prosecuted here?
Yes, I can. The member raises an important issue about how our justice system can deal with child sexual offences. However, it is important to remember that the situation does not mean that sexual offences against children cannot be prosecuted. That said, the member is correct that such cases can only be prosecuted in the part of the UK where the offence was committed. For example, an offence that is committed in England can only be prosecuted in England and such offences cannot, by law, be prosecuted in Scotland.
The Scottish Government ministerial working group on child sexual exploitation, which reported earlier this year, considered that there is a case for extending the extra-territorial effect of sexual offences against children to include offences committed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so that they can be prosecuted in Scotland if that is the best place to conduct the prosecution. The Scottish Government agrees with that recommendation. We intend to introduce legislative change when there is a suitable legislative opportunity.
I, too, welcome the introduction of the new unit, particularly its responsibility, along with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, for prevention. In that light, will the First Minister reconsider the decision not to have a public inquiry into historical child abuse, as such an inquiry would gather evidence that would help in the unit’s preventative efforts?
We should concentrate on the unit and its investigatory role. The important thing about the unit is that it is not there just to investigate and prevent future child abuse; it is also there to investigate historical child abuse. Therefore, a unit is being formed in Police Scotland with the appropriate expertise to progress any legitimate inquiry.
Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham provided very good evidence when he appeared before the Justice Committee on 7 October. In recent days, he has clarified and laid out in substantial terms how the unit will perform. It will draw on existing resources across the country and have that continuity; it will be fully up and running by the end of the year; it will take a similar approach to the national rape task force, which has seen specialist officers brought in and rape investigations put on a par with those into murder; and it will allow Police Scotland to work in a fundamentally more structured way in relation to child abuse, which will be helpful. I know that the unit, and the seriousness with which Police Scotland takes the matter, will be supported across the chamber.
Mental Health Issues (Stigma)
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the stigma surrounding mental health issues. (S4F-02319)
Tackling mental health stigma has been for many years, and continues to be, a Scottish Government priority. One of the seven key themes of our mental health strategy is:
“Extending the anti-stigma agenda forward to include further work on discrimination”.
See me, which was founded in 2002, was internationally recognised as a groundbreaking campaign. In November 2013, we built on that good work and launched a refunded programme jointly with Comic Relief with investment of £1 million from the Scottish Government and £500,000 from Comic Relief. That is three times the original funding in 2002.
The refunded programme will focus on the areas in which people say that they are experiencing the most stigma and discrimination, including in work, health and social care settings. It will directly involve people who have lived through the experience of mental health problems and thereby become a true movement for change.
I came across a considerable reaction from a minority of the community in my constituency when it was proposed to open a care home for people with mental health issues, which showed that stigma was still alive. Will the First Minister commit his Government to making mental health and education about it a priority area until we overcome stigma?
Yes. I hope that the answer that I have just given assures John Mason that that is, and will continue to be, the case. We acknowledge that much work is yet to be done, but I think that the refunded and refounded see me programme gives encouragement that that is the intention, which will be carried forward.
Will the First Minister and his Government match—on a per capita basis, of course—not just the extra £400 million that is being invested in the national health service south of the border to tackle mental health, but the extra £120 million to tackle mental health that was announced this week?
I will check the figures, for the benefit of the member. A record amount is being spent on the approach to mental health in the Scottish national health service. I have just pointed out that the programme about which John Mason asked is now funded to three times the original level in 2002.
Rather than have an argument about the exact figures, let us just unite to say that mental health has to be a key priority in the national health service in Scotland, and let us go forward on that basis.
ScotRail (Profits)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that ScotRail has recorded nearly £100 million in profit since 2008, with £95 million of that being paid to shareholders. (S4F-02326)
I have to confess to James Kelly that the Scottish Government has followed to the letter the legally binding franchise agreement that we inherited in 2007 from the Labour Party, under which we are required to make franchise payments to First ScotRail.
The Abellio model is one to which Scotland should aspire: a publicly run transport body that is able to bid for business all over Europe. Now that the Scottish Government has committed to a £6 billion, 10-year contract, through which profits that are generated by Scottish rail passengers will be invested in Dutch public transport, how does the First Minister intend to progress an agenda that will promote public railways in Scotland, allow a public bid in future and export Scottish services abroad?
By doing what we have done consistently over the years—that is, by demanding that the powers be transferred to this Parliament to allow us to do so.
I do not quite understand James Kelly’s tactics on this matter. I have already said to Johann Lamont that it could take five years to bring into being a new contract. There is, of course, a break clause in the contract that we have just negotiated, at five years, so we can hope in future to make sure that the contract does what we think that it can do.
To bring about his wish for substantial change, James Kelly called—I think in a parliamentary motion—for us to suspend the contract negotiations in the last week or two. If we had done that, it would have cost perhaps £30 million—[Interruption]—well, on the basis of the west coast contract suspension costing £55 million, in compensation to the contract bidders. I am not sure whether that is what James Kelly wanted to happen.
Even more interesting are James Kelly’s tactics on what would happen in the meantime, while we waited for the powers to be given to Scotland. His argument was that we should extend the ScotRail contract. James Kelly’s strategy, as he gets furious about the profits of First ScotRail, is to extend the contract to those disgraceful capitalists over a number of years, and in the meantime have a lesser service for the people of Scotland.
Last week I wondered whether there would be changes on the Labour Party front bench in the imminent future. With such talent on the back benches, it is only a matter of time before we have a wholesale change of timetable.
Accident and Emergency Departments (Overcrowding and Understaffing)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle overcrowding and understaffing in accident and emergency departments. (S4F-02325)
The Scottish Government supported the creation of local unscheduled care action plans for each health board, to determine steps that each accident and emergency unit should take to improve performance, including examining patient flow through hospital, beyond accident and emergency itself. In August, we targeted an additional £5 million at helping to address patient flow in a number of hospitals.
The most recent figures that we have—from June 2014—show that the performance of major accident and emergency departments was at 93.2 per cent in Scotland, 92.8 per cent in England, 85.3 per cent in Wales and 75.1 per cent in Northern Ireland. That is not what we want to see, because we want to get to the 95 per cent target, but we are doing relatively well in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in these islands. Of course, another pertinent comparison is with the 87.5 per cent that the then Minister for Health and Community Care, Andy Kerr, hailed in 2006 as a magnificent achievement.
It seems that, under huge funding pressure, accident and emergency departments throughout Scotland are performing not only better than their colleagues elsewhere in these islands, but significantly better than they did back in the dark days of 2006 when the Labour Party was in charge in Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for his response and reassure him that Mr Andy Kerr is nothing to do with me.
Following on from the comments on Monday of Dr Martin McKechnie—who is the new chair of the College of Emergency Medicine—that A and E departments were dangerously overcrowded and struggling with fewer doctors, and those of the medical director of NHS Grampian, who said last week in the Parliament that Scotland had fallen behind the rest of the world on incentives to keep medical practitioners, what is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that doctors working in A and E are retained and what is it doing now to ensure that those departments are adequately staffed?
I am glad that Murdo Fraser cited Dr Martin McKechnie, because he has been foremost in praising the action that the Scottish Government has taken. I will quote him exactly:
“there is a feeling within the speciality that there is a turn in how things are in terms of care of patients within the emergency department environment. We have had a lot of support and investment in the last 18 months from the government. And we are beginning, I hope, to feel and to see the effects of some of those changes.”
While acknowledging the huge pressure on our national health service, Martin McKechnie also acknowledges the efforts of the Government to cope and deal with that vast increase in the number of patients and to treat people successfully and safely.
That brings me to the comparison with what is happening south of the border. There, the national health service and social care services are at breaking point. The range of specialties south of the border—not only in accident and emergency, but in every area of medicine—wrote to the United Kingdom Government and, indeed, to the Opposition leaders at Westminster pointing out those things and that the very last thing that the health service needs is another top-down reorganisation causing chaos and dismay among health service staff. They will certainly not get that in Scotland. They will get encouragement and support so that we can continue to build our national health service in public hands.
Does the First Minister agree with Dr Roelf Dijkhuizen, the outgoing medical director of NHS Grampian, who said this week that consultants in emergency medicine want to practise their skills in trauma and resuscitation, not spend their time dealing with minor illnesses and injuries? Does he accept the point that Dr Dijkhuizen was making that the recruitment crisis in A and E will not be resolved until primary care and general practitioner services are adequately resourced in Grampian and everywhere else?
Oh, I certainly agree with the outgoing medical director that there has been an historic imbalance in funding for NHS Grampian compared with Scotland as a whole. That is why, when we came to office, the funding of front-line services in Grampian was—if my memory serves me correctly—9.1 per cent of the Scottish total but is now heading towards 9.6 per cent. In other words, the historical imbalance from the Arbuthnott formula, which we inherited from the Labour Party, has now year by year been closed so that, at last, Grampian and the people of the north-east of Scotland can look forward to a health service that is funded fairly and properly.
Of course, the legacy of Lewis Macdonald’s colleagues in the Labour Party left the Grampian health service underfunded in the past. Thank goodness, under the current Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, that disparity is being sorted out and we can look forward to the future with confidence.
Previous
General Question Time