First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01534)
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
In 2008, as part of the preparations for the Glasgow airport rail link, four plots of land at 57 Clark Street, Paisley, were bought on behalf of the Scottish Government for £840,000. Can the First Minister tell me from whom the land was bought and to whom has the land been subsequently sold and for what price?
If Johann Lamont wants to write to me with these questions, I will supply the answers. I should say to her that, as we heard yesterday, this Government’s track record in taking forward transport projects in Scotland under the circumstances of the cutbacks from Westminster is considerable indeed. That said, the member should by all means send in her questions and we will supply the answers.
There you go: there was me thinking that this was First Minister’s questions, where the First Minister has the opportunity to show how much in control of his Government he is.
Let me help the First Minister. The land was bought in 2008 for £840,000 from a businessman called John McGlynn, who was then a donor to the Scottish Conservative Party. Since then, of course, Mr McGlynn has been on something of a political journey; he now supports the yes campaign. Since then, he has been appointed to the Scottish Government national economic forum and he has bought back the land from the Scottish Government for £50,000 and made a profit of £790,000. Is there some connection here or has Mr McGlynn just benefited from the First Minister’s gross incompetence with public funds?
As Johann Lamont should know, ministers are not involved in property transactions with regard to transport projects or anything else. Maybe it was different when the Labour Party was in power, but that is what has happened since the Scottish National Party has been in power.
Clearly, Johann Lamont had the answers to her own questions all the time, so she was not really eliciting information. However, I was not clear from her question whether it was an attack because someone was a donor to the Conservative Party when the land was bought or it was just an attack for no apparent reason against a Scottish businessperson. [Interruption.]
Order.
If Johann Lamont has any evidence whatever that anything untoward has been happening in property transactions, she should bring it to the chamber or to public notice. If she has no such evidence—and she has no such evidence whatever—she should not attack people in Scotland with no reason whatever or come to this chamber to attack people who cannot answer back in the chamber. It is ridiculous.
I was attacking no one. I was expecting the First Minister to justify his actions, and he has absolutely failed to do so.
The fact of the matter is that the Scottish Government bought the land for £840,000; it was signed off by the Scottish ministers; and the Scottish Government then sold the land for £50,000 when not obliged to do so to kill a project that John Swinney himself has called “desirable” and which Transport Scotland is still exploring.
In case the First Minister has not noticed, Scotland has for the past five years been going through one of the deepest downturns in our history. In that time, the First Minister has slashed spending on skills and colleges; has underfunded vital public services with the result that some of our most vulnerable old people get just 15-minute care visits; and has cut funding so that many people with a bus pass have no bus to get on. In those circumstances, how does the First Minister justify buying a piece of land for £840,000 and then selling it back to the person he bought it from for just £50,000? What was the First Minister thinking of?
Neither the First Minister nor any other minister was involved in the property transaction that the member has spoken of. Such transactions are not conducted by ministers in this Government. I do not know whether the practice was any different in the previous Labour Government—I suspect not—but the purpose of Johann Lamont’s question seems to be to smear a perfectly respectable Scottish businessman for no apparent reason other than she did not like his politics then and does not, for that matter, like them now. I do not really think that that is the way a political leader should behave in a parliamentary chamber.
If, as Johann Lamont occasionally says, she wants to talk about the real issues, then let us do so. This Government has given an unequivocal commitment to universal services and benefits—the mark of the Parliament over these past 14 years. It is Johann Lamont who, as I understand it, wants to cut people’s bus passes and stop free access to higher education and who has put a question mark over free personal care for the elderly. Those are matters that, as I understand it, are being considered by her cuts commission as part of the something for nothing society that she outlined only a year ago.
As we said in our programme for government, we believe in a something for something society in Scotland. We believe that those benefits to people in Scotland are well justified, and I think that people in Scotland want to hear about those substantive policies, not totally unfounded smears on a Scottish businessperson.
I think that we might hear the First Minister talking about a something for next to nothing Scotland. I am not addressing the question of the businessman who benefited; I am asking the First Minister to take responsibility for what was done by his Government.
All of the displacement activity that we just witnessed might make the First Minister feel better for the present, to get him through the moment, but when he is done with that he will still have to answer this serious question—and I do not think that the First Minister understands, even at this stage, how serious the issue is. I am asking a simple question: how did we get in a situation in which a piece of land was bought with taxpayers’ money for the guts of £1 million and sold back to the same person a few years later for just a fraction of that?
There are people watching this at home who are struggling to pay the bills or put food on the table. They have to account for every penny that they spend. Can the First Minister explain to them either why the issue has nothing to do with him or how he managed to buy a piece of land with their money for £840,000 and sell it for just £50,000?
Because neither the valuation of land for purchase nor the valuation of land for sale is made by Scottish Government ministers, as Johann Lamont perfectly well knows.
If her question was not an attempt to smear a Scottish businessperson, as she said, why did Johann Lamont casually mention—or read out—that he was a donor to the Conservative Party? Why did she say that he was on a political journey? Why did she say that he was appointed to the Scottish Government’s economic forum? What was that about if it was not a fairly blatant attempt to smear a perfectly respectable Scottish businessperson?
I think that the people who are watching will be interested and concerned: are they going to keep their bus passes under Labour? [Interruption.] Well, we do not know—the cuts commission is still considering the issue. Is Johann Lamont not going to reintroduce tuition fees for Scottish students? Is free personal care going to be safe under Labour? The answer is no to all of those questions. She has them under consideration by the cuts commission and its something for nothing society.
Johann Lamont does not want to talk about the issues that concern the people of Scotland, because people know that Labour has let them down in the past and, if it gets the chance, will let them down again. That is why she is sitting there, reading out the questions, and this Government is in office.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01530)
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
No plans in the near future.
In 2010, when the First Minister announced his flagship non-profit-distributing model for big building projects, he promised to invest £686 million this financial year—if he is flicking through his notes for the figure, he will find it on page 173 of yesterday’s draft budget. Last year, the Government had to admit that, actually, it would deliver less than half of that—£338 million—and that figure has been revised again. Can the First Minister tell the chamber what the current estimate for NPD spending on building projects is for 2013-14?
That has been laid out, as Ruth Davidson rightly says. The whole capital programme, including the NPD programme, rising from £185 million in 2013-14 to £809 million in 2014-15 and £932 million in 2015-16, was laid out in the budget statement yesterday.
Also laid out was the total estimated capital investment programme, of which non-profit distribution is a key part. That will rise from £3,240 million in 2013-14 to £4,157 million in 2014-15 and £4,438 million in 2015-16. That is an increase from £3 billion to £4 billion to £4,438 million. That is an extraordinary achievement of capital investment when set against cutbacks by the Westminster Government that started at more than 30 per cent and are now just under 30 per cent.
Most people looking at those figures would recognise that Mr Swinney, under the most extraordinary pressure from the Westminster Government, is delivering a capital programme for growth and capital investment in the Scottish economy. Now that Ruth Davidson has the figures, perhaps she will have the grace to say that that is an encouraging and productive trend in Scottish society.
That was an extraordinary blizzard of figures, but it did not include the one that I asked for. Let us look at that, shall we? The figure that the First Minister would not give us is that, of the £686 million that the Government promised to invest in big building projects, it now says that it will deliver just £185 million. That is after a first year in which it promised £150 million but delivered nothing and a second year in which it promised up to £350 million but delivered just £20 million. The Deputy First Minister, who is sitting next to the First Minister and smiling, says that that is not incompetence but just a “reprofiling”.
Three years ago, the First Minister promised more than £1 billion of investment for big building projects through the NPD scheme, but he is coming up short by more than £900 million: his projects, his responsibility and his incompetence. The people of Scotland need to know what has happened to his £1 billion build.
The £185 million was the first figure in the blizzard of figures that Ruth Davidson complained about. Let me repeat it so that she can see the full importance of it. As the budget document says, the NPD programme will receive £185 million in the current financial year, £809 million in 2014-15 and £932 million in 2015-16. Those are impressive figures for a new system of public finance.
Let us get the background to this straight. The private finance initiative—the revenue finance system that was beloved of the Labour Party and supported by the Tories—is no longer a feasible option for revenue-based finance. Everybody agrees—even George Osborne has recently come to this conclusion—that PFI was a hideous, expensive mistake. Then there is the direct capital funding that is so beloved of Mr Swinney and me because it enables us to accelerate capital spending and deal with recession. That is the budget that has been cut by just under 30 per cent by the Westminster Government—a cut in capital allocations.
We have, therefore, introduced a new system of funding—non-profit distribution—that has been demonstrated to provide value for money and which is building schools and colleges across the country at the moment. Ruth Davidson complains about the fact that that new generation of funding has been brought into practice. However, because it has been brought into practice, we in Scotland now face, against Westminster cutbacks, an expanding capital budget over the next three years that will generate jobs, investment and prosperity in the Scottish economy.
Orkney’s internal ferry fleet provides a lifeline to some of our most fragile communities, but it urgently needs to be replaced. Apparently, however, discussions on funding the replacement programme have broken down, with the chair of Orkney Islands Council’s development and infrastructure committee claiming today that the Government has
“closed the door in our face”.
With Orkney set to be the only area where ferry services have been cut, does the First Minister understand why his Government has been accused by Orkney Islands Council this morning of treating my constituents “with contempt”? Will he now instruct his minister and transport officials to get back round the table and agree a practical way forward so that those who live in the inner and outer isles in my constituency are not held to ransom by his Government’s stubbornness?
The premise of the question is not correct. Regarding discussions, Nicola Sturgeon would be delighted to meet the constituency MSP. The Government’s investment programme in ferry services is very considerable indeed, so I encourage him to have that meeting as we take forward the discussions.
Given that several hospitals in my region have had to close this year to deal with norovirus, including two wards in the past few weeks, why is the finance secretary taking £10 million from the budget that supports hospital cleaning?
Neil Findlay would do well to look at the achievements in the reduction of hospital-acquired infections over the past few years, with the recorded figures dropping by a dramatic amount. Some of that is due to our decision to stop the privatisation and contracting out of cleaning services from the national health service. I know that he would not have supported such measures, but, unfortunately, they were pursued by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration. Thanks to what we have done and thanks to other measures under the patient safety programme, we are now in a considerably better position with regard to norovirus and other hospital-acquired infections than we have been previously.
Of course, we must continue to be extremely vigilant, but Neil Findlay can be absolutely assured that, as health secretary, Alex Neil will be exactly that.
Cabinet (Meetings)
Willie Rennie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01549)
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
A few days ago, the chair of the patient safety board of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh raised concerns that hospital care is substantially worse at weekends than on weekdays. For example, at Hairmyres hospital in Lanarkshire, the death rate among patients who are admitted for vascular surgery on a Saturday is more than 41 per cent compared with 16 per cent for those admitted on a Tuesday. At Dundee’s Ninewells hospital, the rate for Saturdays was more than 21 per cent, which is almost double the rate for Thursdays. In Fife hospitals, the rates for renal patients admitted at weekends are higher than for those admitted on weekdays. Has the First Minister been able to consider that issue?
The whole issue of patient safety in Scottish hospitals is part of the patient safety programme, which, as Willie Rennie will know, has achieved an estimated 12 per cent reduction in standardised mortality ratios. Certainly, differentials between weekdays and weekends are one aspect that is being considered.
As Willie Rennie will also know, Professor Don Berwick, who has been brought in by the coalition Government in London to try to deal with the difficult situation across the English health service in terms of patient safety, has given the Scottish patient safety programme the accolade of being one of the safest in the world. I think that we should recognise the achievement of the patient safety programme and recognise that one aspect of that programme is to look at issues such as differential rates of mortality between weekdays and weekends. That is part of the continuous improvement on which the patient safety programme is based.
I know that we have to be careful, but we have a duty to ask serious questions about these issues to satisfy ourselves that patients are being kept as safe as possible. Simon Paterson-Brown, who is consultant general surgeon at Edinburgh royal infirmary and chair of the patient safety board at the Royal College of Surgeons, has said:
“It could well be the weekend mortality rates in some medical specialities are not statistically significant. But on the other hand they could be and, unless we are fully investigating this, I don’t think anyone can say with certainty either way. I intend to take this further.”
I recognise that there are processes in place to look at such issues, but I think that we need some reassurance about what surgeons are saying, because these are not insignificant people—this is from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. When will the First Minister publish a report in response to the surgeons’ concerns?
I know that those matters are being looked at at the present moment. As I explained to Willie Rennie, that is part of the patient safety approach. He can be absolutely certain that one aspect of the patient safety programme is to ensure that all matters are properly considered. I will arrange for the health secretary to give Willie Rennie the detailed information.
Willie Rennie can be sure that, regarding any suggestion that improvements in individual hospitals have not been as quick as in other places in Scotland or that there are differences in standardised mortality ratios and patient safety between weekdays and weekends, the patient safety programme has such matters under active consideration.
Willie Rennie is perfectly right to raise those points—I hope that nothing in my first answer suggested that it was not an entirely legitimate area of inquiry. However, I expect that, when he looks at the achievements of the patient safety programme and the fact that, because of that programme, nine out of the 10 recommendations suggested by the Berwick review to address some of the questions about patient safety in hospitals across England are already in place in Scotland, he will give genuine credit to the efforts of those throughout the health service—not just the administrators at the top, but the nurses, doctors, consultants and other workers—who have brought about that impressive improvement in the standardised mortality ratios in hospitals. I absolutely agree that questions should be asked about worrying statistics and the opinions of reputable doctors sought, but the general improvement that the patient safety programme has brought to the Scottish national health service—a public service that we all share—should be acknowledged when the programme performs so well for the people of Scotland.
Fostering
4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to encourage fostering. (S4F-01535)
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
The Government works closely with the Fostering Network to encourage and support people to become foster carers. We have provided £1 million of funding to support its work, which includes running campaigns such as foster care fortnight, which not only raises awareness of fostering, but provides a focus for fostering agencies to run local recruitment campaigns. The impact of those efforts can be seen in the increase in the number of fostering households from 3,092 in 2008 to 3,989 this year, which is a significant and welcome rise.
Does the First Minister agree that we do not have many people coming forward as potential foster parents because of commonly believed myths about who would be considered unsuitable as foster parents, such as those in rented accommodation, same-sex couples, the over-55s and people not in full-time employment? Given the rise in the number of children requiring fostering and the enriching experience it can provide for child and foster parent alike, does he agree that it is vital to support campaigns, such as Action for Children’s fostering myth-busting academy, which is detailed on its website?
Yes, I do. I like Action for Children’s myth-busting campaign because myths have a real impact. We endorse that and other local campaigns, such as the recent award-winning campaign in Glasgow that focused on recruiting from diverse populations.
Foster carers offer vulnerable people a safe, caring and stable home. We should do all that we can to encourage more people into fostering. I hope that the campaign will see an even larger rise in fostering households next year.
Given that local authorities are using social work funds to pay external providers to foster children due to a lack of potential foster parents coming forward, will the First Minister assure us that the Scottish Government will address the funding crisis facing council spending in that area?
The best possible outcome is that we see a continued increase in the number of fostering households coming forward. Of course, we discuss with local authorities at all times the best way to meet those social obligations.
Kinship carers do a tremendous job supporting some of our most vulnerable children. What progress is being made to better support them, including moving towards parity of support with foster carers?
It is abundantly clear that the benefits system is failing kinship carers. That is why we legislated to recognise kinship care for the very first time, and we backed that up with significant funding for local authorities to support carers.
On 18 September 2012, we announced a review of financial support to kinship carers to tailor support and tackle inconsistencies across Scotland. Such inconsistencies cause a great deal of angst to kinship carers. We aim to publish the findings of the review by the end of the year.
Child Poverty
5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to address child poverty, in light of the findings in the “Annual Report for the Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland 2013”. (S4F-01538)
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
Any child living in poverty in Scotland is one too many. It is therefore encouraging that relative child poverty has reduced from 21 per cent in 2006-07 to 15 per cent in 2011-12. The Government is committed to going further. We will be publishing a revised poverty strategy next spring, which will stress the focus on maximising household incomes and improving children’s wellbeing and life chances. That will be backed by significant funds, including the £272 million collective investment in the early years change fund and the £33 million that we have committed to the Scottish welfare fund.
We should all be aware that the figures on children in poverty are seen against the backcloth of welfare changes, many of which are bearing hardest and firmest against households with children.
I agree with much of what the First Minister said, but the child poverty report tells us that the progress made by Labour in slashing child poverty has now stalled. I think that we all agree that more needs to be done.
Does the First Minister agree with the words of John Dickie of the Child Poverty Action Group, who said:
“it is absolutely critical that government in Scotland moves beyond describing existing policies and sets out how actions that can be shown to reduce child poverty are ratcheted up and rolled out across the whole country”?
What new action will the First Minister and his Government take now to tackle child poverty?
As Jackie Baillie should acknowledge, the £272 million collective investment in the early years change fund is a significant new action.
Neither John Dickie nor any other expert on child poverty would deny that we cannot divorce the impact of welfare changes bearing down upon families from achievements on child poverty. Given the straitened financial climate that we have been experiencing over the past few years, the reduction in relative child poverty from 21 per cent in 2007 to 15 per cent now is no mean achievement, but, of course, does not go far enough.
That is why I have a real puzzle with Jackie Baillie’s question. She is aware—she must be—that the analysis of changes to welfare benefits such as child tax credit and working tax credit showed that 88 per cent of the reduction, the average of which was, I think, £700 per family, bore down on families with children. That is what is happening under the United Kingdom Government’s welfare changes at present. Therefore, I find it incomprehensible that, when Jackie Baillie was on “Newsnight” on 3 September, she managed to make the statement that she was not saying that Scotland could not develop a social security system, but that it should not develop a social security system.
How can it be that, when any person, expert or authority would acknowledge that the background of welfare changes bearing down on families with children has the most enormous effect on child poverty in Scotland, the person who claims to be concerned about that goes and says that we should not develop a welfare system in Scotland that would give children—all children—in the country an equal chance?
On welfare cuts, I refer to child benefit—that excellent universal benefit with almost 100 per cent uptake. It has been slashed by the Westminster coalition leaving families in Scotland with one child some £650 a year worse off and those with two children £1,100 worse off. If the First Minister’s Government had power over welfare, what would he do about child benefit?
I would address the needs of people in Scotland in an effective and proper way.
Christine Grahame puts her finger on what the vote next year is about: either we build a more prosperous country and a just society in Scotland or we allow Westminster to wreck the dreams and the progress that has been made in recent years.
Palliative Care
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that terminally ill patients with conditions other than cancer are given access to palliative care. (S4F-01536)
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that compassionate, high-quality palliative and end-of-life care is provided for anyone who requires it, regardless of their underlying condition.
Therefore, we welcome the publication this week of the report “How good is primary care at identifying patients who need palliative care? A mixed-methods study” from the University of Edinburgh, Marie Curie Cancer Care and NHS Lothian and its recognition of the Scottish Government’s national action plan for palliative care.
We are examining how patients who require palliative care are best identified in all conditions. One example is for people who have suffered heart failure, on which we have established a national group that is charged with supporting improvements in the management of people with heart failure, which will include palliative care.
The report from Marie Curie, NHS Lothian and the University of Edinburgh to which the First Minister referred found that eight out of 10 non-cancer patients are not identified for palliative care and that those who do receive it often get it too late to benefit fully. The report also found that many primary care staff have difficulty—understandably so—raising death with their patients.
Will the Scottish Government instruct a review of the training and support for primary care staff to help to ensure that more non-cancer patients access palliative care in the last year of their lives?
That is a constructive suggestion, and I will certainly see that it is considered.
As Murdo Fraser knows, the report made four specific recommendations. He mentioned one of them, which was to do with the taboo around talking about death. The report suggested that the Scottish Government should lead a public discourse on that important subject. We agree, and we welcome support for that initiative.
We agree that training for doctors and nurses should be included as part of the support that is provided for professionals to have conversations about these difficult subjects, and that will be developed alongside the national plan for palliative care. We think that the other recommendations that the report helpfully made are extremely positive, and if Murdo Fraser would like to discuss matters in detail with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I am sure that that can be arranged.
Margo MacDonald—if your phone is off and you keep it brief.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. You will never let me forget that.
I have a serious question for the Government. Will it undertake to give a commitment to patient autonomy? A very small number of people who suffer from degenerative conditions such as MS or Huntington’s can—even with the best palliative care—find their existence to be unacceptable. Autonomy would mean that they would have the right to ask for assistance to end their life because they have had enough.
Margo MacDonald introduced a bill on the issue, and I understand that she has pledged to do so again. I am sure that the Parliament will discuss the matter very seriously and as a matter of conscience, and that it will look at her proposals as they come forward.
If Margo MacDonald is inviting me to say whether I have changed my mind on the matter, I have not, but all of us recognise its seriousness and importance and Margo’s legitimate role in bringing such issues to the chamber.