First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. I wish everyone all the best in 2013.
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01090)
Presiding Officer, with your permission I would like to pay tribute to Jimmy Halliday, the former chairman of the Scottish National Party, who sadly passed away last Thursday.
Jimmy Halliday led the SNP in the 1950s, when we had two candidates in the general election, and in his career he laid the foundations for the subsequent expansion of the party and the success that we have enjoyed more recently. His funeral is taking place in around an hour’s time, in Dundee. Although many of us cannot be there in person, I am sure that all members on these benches—indeed, members across the chamber—will wish to send our thoughts and condolences to Jimmy’s wife, Olive, and the wider family.
Later today I have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for that and of course we, too, would wish to send condolences to Jimmy Halliday’s family.
In the first week after summer recess, the First Minister moved his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, from health and put her in charge of the referendum and economic recovery. Four months later, it is becoming increasing clear why she was so keen to move on: a children’s ward threatened with closure at St John’s in Livingston, Borders general put at risk, surgery provision cut at Perth royal infirmary, the scandal of hidden waiting lists at NHS Lothian and beyond, and people with terminal illnesses being denied life-prolonging drugs that are available in other parts of the country.
Nicola Sturgeon proclaims herself “the yes minister”. Can we start calling Alex Neil the clean-up-the-mess minister?
That is a cheery start to the new year. As I remember it, when Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, moved, many voices across the chamber were saying how excellent she had been as the health secretary—even Jackie Baillie moved herself to say so. I admit that that was in contrast to what had been said before, but nonetheless that was the general tenor, so I do not accept Johann Lamont’s revisionist view of Nicola Sturgeon’s term as health secretary.
Let us look at some of the great successes of the health service. This Government has protected the front-line national health service budget and delivered record £11.6 billion resources, which would not have been guaranteed if we had had the misfortune of the Labour Party in office. We put patients and their safety first, which is why I suspect that the thing that really matters—public confidence and patient confidence in the NHS in Scotland—is at a very high level indeed.
I could also mention that, as I understand it, this party seems almost to be alone in this chamber in wanting to maintain an NHS that is free at the point of need. [Interruption.] As I understand it, prescription charges are part of the Labour cuts commission. That is perhaps another reason why the SNP Government’s record on the health service is so warmly supported by the Scottish people.
Perhaps the First Minister might not have been so fulsome in his praise of Nicola Sturgeon when she moved if he had realised what we are hearing now about what is happening in the health service. There is a real-terms cut and whatever the First Minister says about free prescriptions, we know that that service is under phenomenal pressure. His denial of that is a denial of his responsibility as the First Minister of this country.
No matter what gloss the First Minister wants to put on it, on November 7, the Auditor General for Scotland, Caroline Gardner, put our health service on “amber warning.” When I challenged the First Minister about that, he said that the
“national health service is performing in outstanding fashion”.—[Official Report, 8 November 2012; c 13224.]
However, the Audit Scotland report highlighted Nicola Sturgeon’s real legacy to the health service: a £1 billion repair backlog, health boards having to borrow to keep services up and running—[Interruption.] That is what the Auditor General said, not what I said. There have also been thousands of staffing cuts, which have left us with fewer nurses than we had when the SNP came to power.
Given the new revelations on a daily basis about the mess that Nicola Sturgeon has left the Scottish health service in, does the First Minister still think that the Auditor General is wrong?
I think that Johann Lamont is wrong, not the Auditor General. She is wrong in a range of ways but I notice in particular that she has now revised her previous claim, which she made on 4 September last year, that there were fewer staff in the health service than there were when I became First Minister. That is what she said in the Official Report on 4 September. In fact, in June 2012, there were 130,363 full-time equivalents in the health service compared with 127,000 in September 2006. There are actually more staff in the health service than there were when the Scottish National Party took office, which is probably why Johann Lamont has not sought to repeat that claim. No doubt we will get a correction some time.
Let us assume that it will be difficult to convince Jackie Baillie, who said that Scotland was the centre of hospital-acquired infections just when such infections were dramatically declining in Scotland, and others on the Labour benches of the excellence of the work of the people in the national health service. I think that, instead of that invalidation of their work, what really matters is the satisfaction rate among the people, which has been recorded not by the Government but in the Scottish household survey. According to the survey, 88 per cent of people—up from 81 per cent in 2007—were satisfied with their local health services. That satisfaction ratio is not just at a high level but significantly higher than when the SNP took office. I somehow think that the verdict of the people of Scotland is somewhat more impartial than the verdict of the Labour Party benches; after all, was it not the verdict of the people of Scotland that has this Government in office and the Labour Party in opposition?
First of all, the First Minister says that he thinks that I am wrong. I work on the assumption that the First Minister thinks that I am wrong; the problem for him is that the Auditor General is saying something very serious and he is saying that that is wrong. Staff across Scotland are raising concerns about the pressures that they are under in the national health service. This is not an attack on staff, who are doing a phenomenal job; the charge is that this Government is not supporting them, which is making their job more difficult.
It seems that every week we get another damning report on the health service. In 2008, Nicola Sturgeon said that she had
“made tackling health inequalities”
her
“top priority”.
However, the Auditor General, Caroline Gardner, told the Public Audit Committee that, in terms of life expectancy,
“the gap is still increasing.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 19 December 2012; c 1050.]
The chief medical officer, Dr Harry Burns, has also acknowledged the lack of progress in tackling health inequalities under this Government. Now we are told that we are having a rethink of the approach to health inequalities. Is that an admission that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have completely failed to deliver their top health target?
Health inequalities are a huge issue for the Scottish people. The reason that Harry Burns made that point—
You have done nothing.
I heard the comment that the SNP had done nothing. As Harry Burns indicated, the SNP made the tackling of health inequalities and facing up to that situation, which incidentally has been with us for a generation or more in Scotland, one of the Government’s top priorities.
I say gently to the Labour Party that a range of measures is directed towards improving the health of the Scottish people, one—and only one—of the most important of which relates to our attitude to alcohol. Our attempt to introduce minimum pricing would have a significant effect on improving the health of the Scottish people. If the Labour Party had shown rather more enthusiasm for it, its claims about the national health service might have slightly more credibility.
Members across the chamber would do well to remember that certain things such as health inequalities in Scotland and the whole approach to having a national health service free at the point of need should unite people in this chamber and should be joint objectives for it.
Nicola Sturgeon made the issue a key objective of Government policy and we will continue to pursue it. We know the task that has to be done and we know the measures—we also know that no measures will yield immediate short-term gains. However, the issue unites the Scottish Parliament because it is of huge importance to the Scottish people.
The problem for the First Minister is that saying it does not make it so. The difficulty for the First Minister is that we understand the challenge of health inequalities. We understand the challenge of inequality across our communities. The challenge in government is to test what the Government does and what it spends against the outcomes. When I said that, the First Minister said, “No, we will not have that debate at all.”
The fact is that Nicola Sturgeon was health secretary for five years. In the 127 days since she left office, her successor has had to deal with review after review. He has had to deal with a review into the full extent of the hidden waiting lists in health boards across the country, although Nicola Sturgeon had told us that NHS Lothian was an isolated case. He has had to deal with a review of access to groundbreaking drugs for people who are terminally ill, because under Nicola Sturgeon we went from being the best in the United Kingdom to the worst on that issue. He has had to deal with a review of health inequalities and the resuscitation of a task force, five years after Nicola Sturgeon made the issue her top priority.
How many reviews do we need? How many independent reports do we need before the First Minister realises that his Government is failing to deliver for the health of the people of Scotland?
There is a range of corrections that I could make. I point out that it was Nicola Sturgeon who established the review into waiting lists across Scotland. Of course, the fact that we were prepared to establish the review and do something about the issue puts us in stark contrast with the Labour Party, given that hidden waiting lists were institutionalised in Labour Party policy.
Johann Lamont talked about the difference between saying something and doing something. We said that we would protect the health service budget and we have done that. We have delivered in full on the manifesto commitment to pass on the Barnett consequentials arising from the United Kingdom 2010 comprehensive spending review, which means that there will be a record £11.6 billion resource budget for Scotland in 2014-15. We are doing exactly what we said that we would do.
In sharp contrast, the Labour Party would not give a commitment to protect the health service budget. In the famous interview on “Newsnight”, Iain Gray refused to say that the health service budget would be ring fenced in Scotland. We said that that would be a key priority of public spending in Scotland and we delivered that. We did exactly what we said in the election that we would do. That is why the Scottish people trust this party with the national health service and our other vital public services in Scotland.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01089)
I have no plans in the foreseeable future.
Two years ago, this Scottish National Party Government brought in community payback orders. The justice secretary said that criminals would be
“paying back through the sweat of their brow the harm they have done in our communities.”
Can the First Minister tell me how much of the work that was handed down during the most recent financial year has been completed? Does he think that his CPO scheme is working?
I think that we are making good progress on CPOs, as we are across the range of justice issues in Scotland.
I gently remind Ruth Davidson that crime in Scotland is at its lowest level for 37 years, with just over 105,000 fewer recorded crimes reported to the police than in 2006-07. On a 30-year comparison and a session-of-this-Parliament comparison, the SNP is delivering on criminal justice in Scotland, in sharp contrast with Tory Governments in Westminster and the Labour-Liberal coalition in Edinburgh.
So that is a no; the First Minister cannot tell me about his own scheme. However, I can tell him, and I can use his figures.
In 2011-12, more than 10,000 community payback orders were handed out, of which 7,763 involved actual work. Of those, only 2,536 were completed—less than a third. Even worse, of the more than 2,500 work requirements that were officially terminated last year, a third were signed off uncompleted, so the work will never get done.
Last week, a sheriff raised concerns about the fact that criminals are turning up and being marked down for two hours’ work without lifting a finger. Sheriff Graham Buchanan thinks that the public would be horrified if they knew how
“these so-called robust community sentences were being administered.”
There is a massive backlog, whole sentences are signed off only partially completed, and offenders are credited with work that they never do. Communities are being conned and not paid back. Is that why, on Monday, the Scottish Government advertised for an outside body to evaluate whether CPOs are working at all?
We evaluate policies because we welcome that sort of independent scrutiny of the success of the policies. Independent scrutiny is something that I welcome, and today is an excellent day to be saying that, as I have been cleared yet again of nefarious charges that have been made by the Opposition parties in this chamber.
With or without a reference to an outside body, we look carefully at the success of our justice policies. It would therefore be helpful to point out to Ruth Davidson that the reconviction rate in Scotland has just dropped to a lower level than it has been in each of the past 13 years. That is particularly important because the community payback order is part of an approach that focuses on disposals being effective in reducing reoffending.
Not only are we intent on making those disposals effective and not only are we subjecting all policies to scrutiny, the fact that we have 1,000 more police—and more—in the streets and communities of Scotland means that this is the worst time in recent history to be a criminal in Scotland and the best time in recent history to be a member of the public, with the fear of crime falling in Scotland for the first time in many years.
Last week, NHS Tayside made a reduction in the provision of emergency cover for surgery at Perth royal infirmary, which comes on top of reductions that have taken place in paediatrics and maternity services in the past few years. Does the Scottish Government support those reductions in an area that includes many rural communities and is set to see substantial population growth in the years ahead?
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will be delighted to address the question directly with regard to NHS Tayside. We are intent on securing high standards of care in Perth and Tayside and, indeed, across Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order.
What support can the Government offer the staff of the Foyer restaurant and gallery who are to be made redundant following the sad decision to close that well-thought-of social enterprise?
The Government will extend the normal impact and partnership action for continuing employment schemes and try to help the people who are in that situation. I am, of course, familiar with the Foyer restaurant and gallery and have been there a number of times. The Government has indicated record levels of support for social enterprise in Scotland and we encourage all people, including local authorities, to extend the same level of support.
Child Benefit
3. To ask the First Minister what the impact of changes to child benefit will be on families in Scotland. (S4F-01103)
The United Kingdom Government’s attack on the previously universal child benefit is expected to affect 91,000 households in Scotland, which will lose £1,400 a year on average. Of those households, 60,000 are expected to lose their entire child benefit payments, and 31,000 will see their payments reduced.
The First Minister will be aware that the vast majority of Scottish MPs voted against this attack on child benefits at Westminster. Does he agree that that is further proof that this Parliament should be the one that has responsibility for welfare, in order to protect Scotland from further Tory cuts?
Of course, Labour and the SNP voted in the same lobby in the House of Commons on Tuesday, because there was a recognition that the range of changes will affect a million households in Scotland, which will lose substantially. That includes many working households in Scotland, which will lose huge sums of money as a result of the policies of the Tory and Liberal Administration at Westminster.
That unity of purpose in defending people at this time of great economic trouble is to be applauded. There would have been an extra vote if the leader of the “No” campaign in Scotland had not been going about the country stirring up antipathy instead of doing his duty. Alistair Darling should have been in the House of Commons, voting with his Labour and SNP colleagues.
“Scotland’s place in the Renewable Energy World”
4. To ask the First Minister how the recent report by Pinsent Masons, “Scotland’s place in the Renewable Energy World”, aids Scotland’s sustainable growth. (S4F-01102)
A clean, green energy supply based on renewables is a key part of a strategy for sustainable economic growth. I welcome the fact that 84 per cent of respondents to the survey said that Scotland is the most attractive place across these islands to invest in renewables. Pinsent Masons said:
“Scotland’s renewable energy market is upbeat about its prospects for success in 2013 and beyond.”
It went on to say:
“There is every reason for confidence.”
And so say all of us.
I note that the Pinsent Masons report also highlights Scotland’s international reputation as a leader in renewables. Does the First Minister agree that that is a very encouraging fact and that we must seek to attract further investment to Scotland as a result, to create clean energy jobs from the Mull of Galloway to Muckle Flugga?
I agree with that. There is a contrast between this Government’s—and often, it must be said, this Parliament’s—encouragement of and enthusiastic support for renewables and the somewhat mixed messages emanating from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in London. I welcome the report and I particularly look to the section that highlights our international reputation. It states:
“Scotland is recognised as an important contributor to the development of renewable energy markets globally. It is indeed viewed separately from the UK, and has a clear place in the hearts and minds of many investors.”
Police Service of Scotland
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the assertion by the chief constable of the police service of Scotland that a change in legislation is required to properly define the roles and responsibilities of the service’s human resources and finance functions. (S4F-01106)
The respective roles of the Scottish Police Authority and the police service are set out in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012—which was widely supported across the chamber—and are based on those which have been in place and have worked well for more than 40 years. The key operational point is, surely, that the chief constable and the chair of the SPA are due to meet on Friday next week—18 January—with a view to reaching an agreement on corporate functions. Everybody in the chamber, including Jenny Marra, will look forward to seeing that agreement, I hope, a week on Friday.
We look forward to the conclusions of that meeting, but we were looking forward to a conclusion that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice promised us before Christmas. He said on 5 December:
“There is no remaining contention about what the legislation says about the respective roles.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; c 14329.]
The First Minister himself, before Christmas, dismissed the issue as “creative tension” between the two men. That was wishful thinking at the time and remains so today. Is it not true that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has stood back and let a beast with two heads emerge as both camps duplicate HR, finance and other functions? The cabinet secretary is not in control of the situation. What will the First Minister do to ensure that this power struggle is sorted out immediately?
I overestimated Jenny Marra’s goodwill and enthusiasm for the resolution of the dispute. The proposed structures are intended to be free from duplication and overlap. I also point out—to correct Jenny Marra’s memory—that before Christmas, in a letter to the Justice Committee of 20 December, the chair of the SPA confirmed that good progress had been made and that he hoped for a formal agreement on corporate functions to be reached at the SPA’s next meeting, on January 18. That is what was said before Christmas.
Despite Jenny Marra’s remarks, there is substantial agreement across parties. We look forward to that meeting and, I hope, to that agreement on corporate functions.
I am sure that the First Minister welcomes the member’s genuine interest in ensuring that the new police service of Scotland is a great success. Does he agree, however, that we need to focus on and highlight the substantial progress and success that have already been achieved since last summer and that have, among other things, resulted in the establishment only the other day of a national road patrol, which I am sure we all welcome as a way of making Scotland’s roads safer?
That is a fair point. It is important to focus on the very substantial range of issues that have been introduced and are ready to go, rather than just focus on a disagreement that, I hope, is near its reconciliation.
I should also say to Sandra White and to the chamber that the new police service of Scotland will have 17,454 officers—that is the figure as at 30 September last year. If I remember correctly, the Labour Party forecast that it would take us 13 years to deliver that commitment. It seems that that commitment, like many commitments, has been delivered rather early.
I have here the application pack for the appointment of the chief constable—[Interruption.]
Order.
I quote from the application pack:
“Overall Purpose
To establish and lead the Police Service of Scotland ... Providing inspirational leadership ... including the direction and control of over 17,000 police officers and 6,500 police staff”.
Were the applicants misled? Is the legislation flawed? First Minister, what went wrong?
I know that job prospects for Liberal Democrats are poor these days, but I had no idea that Alison McInnes had offered herself for the task.
I know that Alison McInnes and members from across the chamber are genuinely looking forward to the meeting a week tomorrow and a reconciliation of the situation so that we can go forward with the new national police service of Scotland. Of course, had it been up to the Liberal Democrats, the new service would never have been brought into being at all, so I have to revise what I said. Given that Alison McInnes was dead against having a national police service of Scotland, it is probably not true that she had the application form in order to put herself forward.
Tourism (CNN Poll)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recent CNN poll that places Scotland as the number 1 tourist destination for 2013. (S4F-01104)
I hear some disgruntlement from the Tory benches—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
—about a strong good news story for the Scottish visitor and tourism industry. The fact that one of the world’s major broadcasters put Scotland forward as the number 1 tourist destination for this year will genuinely be felt across Scotland to be something of a success and an accolade for our visitor industry. Only in the ranks of the better together campaign could they possibly find anything in that accolade from CNN to be disgruntled about. I suggest that most people in Scotland will say, “Well done CNN for making such a wise choice in putting Scotland top of the list.”
The First Minister will be aware that North Lanarkshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council have come together for this year to celebrate Lanarkshire 2013, which will include events surrounding the bicentenary of David Livingstone’s birth. What boost to that campaign does the First Minister expect will result from the CNN poll rating?
That is a substantial point, because the David Livingstone bicentenary is a very important aspect for celebration. I recently visited the national museum of Scotland’s exhibition on that, which I commend to people in Scotland. Last year, along with Cameron McNeish, I had the pleasure of launching the Scottish national trail, which was cited by CNN as a key reason for people to come to Scotland this year.
This is the year of natural Scotland and I am delighted therefore to announce an additional £2.9 million—as part of the shovel-ready capital projects programme—to improve visitor facilities at the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national parks. Scotland’s national parks are already hugely popular and I know that the extra funding will boost their appeal as tourist destinations and help us to encourage ever more people to come to our beautiful country.
The First Minister will be aware of the 12 per cent drop in tourist numbers this summer, which is very worrying now that we are into the winning years. What steps is he taking to stop this dramatic decline?
There was actually a 12 per cent increase in overseas tourism expenditure over the period. There was a 2 per cent decrease in domestic expenditure—that is, in terms of GB tourism visits, in which there was a 3 per cent decrease.
Most analysis of the figures, particularly given the increase in spending, would say that that was an exceptionally good performance, particularly during a year in which many people suspected international tourists might be diverted elsewhere because of the understandable concentration on the London Olympics. I do not share Rhoda Grant’s pessimism—the figures are very good in the circumstances. I know that she will join me in welcoming the CNN accolade as further evidence that Scotland will achieve even more in international tourism in the years to come.