First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2945)
Presiding Officer, if I may, I will briefly mention two important homecomings. First, I mention the return of the body of Lance Corporal Tasker, who was from Kirkcaldy, in Fife. The story of Liam Tasker and his dog Theo, and their courage, their life-saving activities and their sacrifice, has touched many, many people across the country. The Parliament sends its condolences to Lance Corporal Tasker’s family.
Secondly, we should welcome home the team from Grampian Fire and Rescue Service. The team of six has just returned from New Zealand, where it has been assisting the search and rescue operation following the devastating earthquake in Christchurch on 21 February. I know that the Parliament values immensely the team’s contribution, which is something that everyone in Scotland can be proud of. [Applause.]
I am happy to associate Labour members with the First Minister’s remarks. We send our condolences to the family of Lance Corporal Tasker.
I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will speak to the British Medical Association today to tell them how well she is doing. She might be better speaking to patients, such as the 24,500 patients who had their operations cancelled by the national health service last year. Does the First Minister think that that is good enough?
I am sure that Iain Gray acknowledges the tremendous work of the health service and the fact that waiting times for operations and treatment have been slashed in Scotland during the past two years. The most recent statistics show that at 31 December 98.8 per cent of patients were waiting 12 weeks or less for operations and 99.6 per cent of patients were waiting 12 weeks or less for in-patient or day-case treatment.
There are a variety of reasons why operations have to be cancelled, but the whole Parliament should acknowledge that the figures, which are the best-ever statistics that our national health service has achieved, indicate that our doctors and nurses, and all workers in the health service, do exceptional things on behalf of us all.
Twenty-four and a half thousand cancelled operations last year is not the best statistic that the NHS has ever had. Behind every number is a personal story. Yvonne Williams, from Helensburgh, represents one of the 24,500. She was due to have her gall bladder removed at Vale of Leven hospital last year. The hospital cancelled the operation with four hours’ notice, because there were not enough beds. She was given a new date and told to phone the hospital on that day at 5.30 am to ensure that it had enough beds.
There are reasons why operations are cancelled. Yvonne’s operation was cancelled because there are not enough acute hospital beds. In opposition, Nicola Sturgeon said that she would increase the number of acute beds in the NHS, but in Government she has cut them. Why has she broken her promise to patients?
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will be happy to look at the circumstances of an individual case.
I am sure that Iain Gray would not want to give the Parliament or indeed the wider public the impression that the health service is failing the public in any sense. It is not doing so. Ninety-eight point five per cent of operations go ahead as planned when patients come to hospital. We would all like it to be 100 per cent—of course we would—but 98.5 per cent is an impressive statistic. As with the other statistics that I quoted, the hope and belief is that we can get the figures up to record levels.
Iain Gray should remember that the number of hospital beds fell every year when the Labour Party was in control of the Scottish Administration, so it seems rather foolish to try to make a political point on the issue. I am sure that he will acknowledge that 98.5 per cent of operations going ahead as planned, although not the 100 per cent that we would all like to be achieved, is nonetheless a formidable statistic on achievement in our health service.
The number of long-stay beds indeed fell under our Administration—as we transferred patients to care in the community, where their care properly should be.
Nicola Sturgeon promised to increase the number of acute hospital beds. Over the past year alone, NHS Tayside has cut 100 beds; Glasgow has cut 200 beds; Grampian has cut 600. NHS Scotland has lost 1,400 acute beds over the past year and 4,000 acute beds have been cut since Nicola Sturgeon took charge. That is why more operations are being cancelled. Last year, 2,500 staff were also cut from the NHS, with hundreds more job losses planned. Beyond the press releases and the photo opportunities, is it not the truth that the First Minister has failed to protect our NHS in Scotland?
I am glad that Iain Gray chose to ask about staffing in the national health service in Scotland. We have the statistics, of course. In quarter 1 of 2007, the figure was 153,400. In quarter 3 of 2010, it had risen to 161,300. That is an increase of 7,900, or 5 per cent. That includes 1,500 more medical and dental staff. The dental staff are particularly important, as that increase has led to 1 million new dental registrations in Scotland. This country has a public dental service again. There are more than 1,000 more nurses and midwives, and nearly 1,000 more allied health professionals.
We have been able to achieve those expanded staff numbers in the health service because this Administration did not go down the road that the Labour Party stood on at the last election—to remind members, that involved having no consequentials awarded to the national health service in Scotland. The Labour Party stood on a manifesto that said that health would just have to cut its cloth while money was directed elsewhere. We know that more money has been spent on the national health service under this Administration and that that has allowed the increase in staff numbers.
Looking to the future, anyone who saw the extraordinary “Newsnight” interview, when Iain Gray was asked whether national health service funding would be ring fenced and he could not answer, will know that the present Administration’s commitment, even in these difficult times, to award consequentials to the national health service stands in stark contrast to a party that does not even know the answer to that particular question.
I will take on the First Minister any time when it comes to who will stand up for our NHS. Telling us his spin in a quiet voice does not make it any less spin. Last year, 2,500 jobs were gone—652 of them in Glasgow and 705 of them in NHS Lothian—and 3,000 more job losses are planned in NHS workforce plans. The health secretary promised not to cut bed numbers, but she has done. She wrote personally to NHS staff, saying that their jobs were safe, but they are not. She promised that delayed discharge would be zero, but in one NHS area 93 people died waiting to get out of a hospital that they did not need to be in.
The First Minister boasts that our NHS is better than England’s. I should hope so. In England, the Tories are dismantling the NHS. Is that the best that he can do? Has not the First Minister broken his promises on the NHS, just as he has done on schools, jobs, students, class sizes and everything else?
The three commitments that we have given are, first, that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the NHS in Scotland in the lifetime of this Government. Secondly, we said that at the end of the current parliamentary session there will be more staff working for the national health service in Scotland than there were at the beginning of this Administration—that is the 7,900 figure that I mentioned earlier. Thirdly, we are looking extremely carefully at ensuring that we can redeem a commitment in terms of awarding all consequentials to the national health service, and we intend to do that.
Iain Gray says that he is willing to take me on. I point out that, in terms of making that commitment to the health service, he was not even able to take Gordon Brewer on, never mind me.
As far as the tone of answering or, indeed, asking questions is concerned, I think that putting forward reasoned arguments with backed-up statistics is a good way to do things. If Iain Gray objects to my speaking to him in a quiet voice, I point out that appearing every week as Mr Angry does not make him either tough, effective, or respected by people in Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2946)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.
Six years ago, there were nearly 1,500 health visitors in Scotland. How many are there today?
The health visitor numbers in Scotland, like the rest of the health service, are performing extremely well in the national interest and purpose. [Interruption.]
Order.
If the First Minister does not know, would it not be easier to say, “I don’t know”? Let me confirm the facts. In 2005, there were nearly 1,500 health visitors. In 2010, there were marginally over 1,200. Back in 2009, the First Minister said to me:
“I am interested in and concerned about the position and numbers of health visitors in Scotland, and that will be an abiding concern.”
That concern is so abiding that we have seen the number of health visitors in the majority of health board areas drop under his watch. So much for an abiding concern.
For the Scottish Conservatives, health visitors are the vital point of contact with parents and young families. In the community and in the home, they speak to mum and dad, giving reassurance, health and advice, and often spotting problems before they develop. Their value was recently reinforced by Professor Susan Deacon’s report.
What will the First Minister do to match the Scottish Conservatives’ commitment to spend £20 million a year on getting more health visitors to support more parents and more children right across Scotland and to give that crucial early years support?
The figures that I have show that there is an increasing number of health visitors in Scotland.
I say to Annabel Goldie that, yes, it is true that the Conservative Party has said at the United Kingdom level that there will be real-terms increases in the national health service budget, and this Administration has committed to moving forward with putting the consequentials into the national health service in Scotland. That is what has, over the past four years, allowed the expansion of health service numbers, and it is what will protect the national health service from much of the public spending pressure.
However, Annabel Goldie should also realise that even that commitment does not make the health service immune from pressure. We all know that health service inflation is extremely rigorous, and in many cases higher. It also means that we have to restore our commitment to a national health service. I think that the direction of travel of the national health service in England is deeply problematic. I look to the recent circumstance where we found that we were able in Scotland to provide—by the medium, incidentally, of health visitors and also through our general practitioner services—an effective response to the situation with a potential flu pandemic. That was not able to be performed in England.
Therefore, before we take any lessons from Annabel Goldie or anyone else about the direction of travel in the English health service, let us consider the protection of funding in the national health service in Scotland and the fact that we have an integrated service, with people working for something that they are proud of. That is one reason why the performance of the national health service is better than it has ever been before, and why every member of the Parliament should be intent on defending it.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2947)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
Does the First Minister accept that the most recent reorganisation of Scottish local government cost between £375 million and £720 million? Does he also accept that the previous UK Government, to its credit, abandoned an enormous reorganisation of the police in England because it would have cost at least £400 million? The First Minister said today that he wants decisions on the police and other matters to be based on evidence. If he questions those figures, when will he publish his own?
The figures in terms of the review of police are being and will be made available and are being studied at the present moment. As Tavish Scott well knows, they are the subject of quite legitimate debate among the chief constables and other people in Scotland who have an interest in such matters.
I do not accept Tavish Scott’s argument that having a police structure in Scotland, whereby one force covers half the population of the country and seven other forces—with another seven chief constables, all the attendant assistant chief constables and the whole panoply of bureaucracy that that inevitably involves—cover the other half, can possibly be considered to be the most effective way to run a police service across the country. Therefore, it is entirely correct that those matters are under review. I have set out the Government’s direction of travel. As I understand it, Tavish Scott stands alone in not thinking that there is room for improvement in the current structure of eight police services across Scotland.
My argument is that the Government must have a case that is based on evidence, and it has not produced any. The real question is why the Government cannot produce any figures to support its own consultation. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice promised them in January and again in February. Two weeks ago, the First Minister told me that they would be published “shortly”. The Parliament could have been given the figures today, but no. The chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police says that the consultation that the Government is responsible for is “inaccurate and potentially misleading”.
The First Minister is going to the councillors conference this afternoon. They will have to pay for any changes. If he will not tell the Parliament how expensive his plans will be, will he tell local government? Why is he withholding that evidence?
There are very few people in Scotland who believe that we could not make substantial efficiency savings by having fewer police authorities. The debate that is taking place among chief constables is about the extent of the savings that are possible from altering the structure of the forces.
It is correct and proper to have that debate and for these matters to be examined properly, but we cannot content ourselves with the view that we will not make progress on the issue. We must make progress because, apart from the need to have efficient delivery of government in Scotland, every public service is coming under the most profound revenue and capital pressure thanks to the Liberal Democrats and their Conservative colleagues in the Government at Westminster.
I believe that Tavish Scott sincerely holds the views that he expresses when he asks his questions. As regards his comments elsewhere, I particularly salute his fair-mindedness when he said in Holyrood magazine:
“I think the SNP has done well after four years in a minority government.”
I agree with him.
Old Firm Summit
4. To ask the First Minister what progress was made at the summit on Tuesday 8 March concerning the disorder at and following recent old firm football matches. (S3F-2954)
The Scottish Government, at the request of Strathclyde Police, was happy to convene Tuesday’s summit to chart a way forward. There was good will from all parties in addressing the issues that we know are our collective responsibility. There is no place in football for those who let their passion for the game become violence or their pride in it become bigotry. These issues will not be resolved overnight. I know that the chamber is united in supporting that continuing process and the work of the action group that came out of Tuesday’s meeting.
Does the First Minister agree that one of the biggest concerns about football violence is related domestic violence? That is not caused by football, nor is it caused by alcohol. Football gives the excuse; alcohol turns thoughts into actions. Until we, as a society, tackle the underlying issues that allow some men to think that violence is acceptable behaviour, all the summits in the world—welcome as that one was, especially as it was held on international women’s day—will not turn the problem of domestic violence against women around. We need to get to the root of the problem, which means not just asking why some men are violent after football games, but asking why some men are violent, and what each and every one of us can do to tackle that together.
I thank Anne McLaughlin for raising the issue. The rise in the incidence of domestic violence after old firm clashes was charted and presented by the chief constable and was one of the central reasons for the summit.
Domestic violence is abhorrent and it has long-term implications for future generations. Work done by the violence reduction unit, for example, shows that children who witness such behaviour at home are damaged and go on to be disturbed and violent adults who repeat the cycle. There can be no excuse for domestic violence—not alcohol, not football—but that does not mean we cannot take targeted action together when we see flashpoints and when people and institutions can be mobilised to help the campaign.
One of the positive results of the summit was the police initiative, supported by the old firm clubs, for an agreement to examine the use of football banning orders and the clubs’ codes of conduct to deal with criminal behaviour away from the grounds. That criminal behaviour—and it is criminal behaviour—includes domestic violence. That was one of the positive ideas that came out of the summit.
I welcome the continuation of funding to groups that are involved in shifting attitudes against sectarianism. There is no doubt that it is a complex issue that requires a coherent response backed up by leadership. In addition to that funding, what specific civil service resources will be used to provide support and guidance to those groups to bring about a positive change in attitudes in our communities?
I salute the work of the nine anti-sectarianism groups that are funded by the Government. As the member well knows, that funding has increased substantially during the past three years and it is money well spent. The actions and direction of organisations such as the sense over sectarianism project, Nil by Mouth, Show Racism/Bigotry the Red Card, the Iona Community, the Youth Community Support Agency, Bridging the Gap and Supporters Direct in Scotland are community-based actions that should be lauded and supported by every single person in the chamber.
Earlier I mentioned the action group that was formed from Tuesday’s summit. That will go ahead with good work. The work of the other groups that I mentioned is to be supported and co-ordinated so that we can be certain that the excellent work that they do has the maximum effect. In addition to supporting each of those groups, as we should do, the co-ordination and the will to make that happen will mean that community initiatives receive greater support from the national Parliament and have greater impact in the communities in which they work.
Does the First Minister agree that the overwhelmingly searing image of the recent events was the sight of the manager of Celtic and the assistant manager of Rangers squaring up to each other, following a number of on-field incidents involving players and staff? Does the First Minister agree that when football managers and players are paid the sums of money that they are and act as role models for our young people, the clubs and the Scottish Football Association must get their houses in order? Was that discussed at the summit? What undertakings did the First Minister get from the clubs on those issues?
Yes, that was discussed at the summit. The clubs willingly made undertakings and the police made proposals that were directed at addressing and reinforcing that point. They were well received and agreed at the summit.
I want to mention another important aspect. Football players and management are heroes or role models to hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland. That must be well understood and they must take responsibility for it.
The summit also considered the spread of threats and violence, particularly because of the recent threats against the Celtic manager that were, of course, condemned by everyone, as we would expect. Threats and sectarian behaviour on the internet were also discussed. I thought that it was a positive aspect of the summit that the police indicated their determination that there can be no immunity and no anonymity. If people commit illegality over the internet, they shall be traced and dealt with just as if they had committed illegality in any other aspect of life.
Apprenticeships
5. To ask the First Minister, in light of comments by Sir Tom Hunter that Scotland is facing a tsunami of unemployment and that the people of Scotland deserve better, whether the Scottish Government will now enable every qualified young person to have access to an apprenticeship. (S3F-2959)
Tackling youth unemployment is a priority for the Scottish Government, as it should be for every single member in the chamber. I hope that everyone will join me in welcoming the fact that over the next financial year we have provided additional investment that will deliver almost 100,000 training opportunities across Scotland. That includes a record number of 25,000 modern apprenticeships: the highest number ever available in Scotland.
In that light, I find it incomprehensible that the Labour Party should have chosen to vote against a budget that contained such progressive measures to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.
I am glad that the First Minister has indeed followed Labour’s lead on apprenticeships to some extent. He clearly still has some way to go—[Interruption.]
Order.
Does he share Tom Hunter’s concern that there are 35,000 young people who are not in employment, education or training? Will he now also back Labour’s new green deal, in order not only to insulate thousands of houses and tackle fuel poverty, but to give many of those young people access to skills and work?
Let us talk first about Labour’s lead, as Lewis Macdonald described it. In 2006-07, the Labour-led Administration offered 15,000 modern apprenticeships in Scotland. The figure of 25,000 this coming year is not only a record, but a 66 per cent increase on what Labour led. Lewis Macdonald may describe that as following a Labour lead, but I think that it is a very substantial and welcome bonus, and an increase in hope for young people throughout Scottish society.
As far as other aspects go, Lewis Macdonald should perhaps agree and accept that when it comes to the green economy, the Government has been groundbreaking in its approach and has put forward double the number of approvals in renewable production systems that the previous Administration managed. We therefore do not just lead the Labour Party: in some of those technologies, Scotland now leads the world.
Universities (Appointment of Principals)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the reported comments by Universities Scotland that “Universities are autonomous legal entities” and that “The appointment procedures for the university’s principal is a matter for each institution’s governing body”. (S3F-2953)
We must remember that Scottish universities are responsible for spending around £1.1 billion of taxpayers’ money. It is therefore essential that they have a proper balance between legitimate autonomy, of course, but also accountability to the public purse.
Elizabeth Smith will be aware that a group of some 200 academics from the University of Glasgow have put their names to a paper that calls for greater democracy within university management. They have suggested that principals should go through a confirmatory election before they are appointed.
That is an interesting and radical suggestion. Given the obvious strength of feeling among academics, it is only right that their proposal is properly discussed and debated before the Government takes a view.
It is good to hear that the Scottish Government is very supportive of robust, transparent and autonomous processes. They can perhaps be enhanced, but many are already in place.
Will the First Minister agree that another advantage of introducing a graduate contribution, apart from ensuring that the universities would receive more money, which they require, is that such a system would make the leaders of those institutions even more accountable to students and staff?
No. I think that the Conservative party’s suggestions would have the danger of not awarding places in higher education and university education on the basis of ability, as opposed to the basis of ability to pay. I do not agree with the direction of travel of the Conservative party in this chamber, nor do I agree with the direction of travel of the coalition Government in Westminster, which seems intent on a wholesale withdrawal of state funding from higher education.
One of the advantages that I believe we have is that the balance of thinking in this Parliament and this country sees a totally different and better future for higher education and our students.
I think that the First Minister said that universities and their practices have been very much in the news recently—the University of Glasgow in particular, but also other universities throughout Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that universities cannot remain static? They need to change, and they must respond to the concerns raised, becoming more accountable and transparent. As I think that the First Minister said, they are, after all, public institutions.
I agree with much that Sandra White says and with the direction that she takes, and I have already mentioned the 200 academics from the University of Glasgow.
We should remember for a second that Scotland’s ancient universities in particular were founded on a principle that is, I think, unique in terms of university governance. The rector who chaired the court of many of those universities was elected by the academic body and by the student body as a whole. Let us not bring ourselves to believe that democratic accountability would be a novel idea for Scottish universities. In many ways, democratic accountability to the academic and student body would be a reassertion of one of the founding principles of Scottish universities.