First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day.
With permission, Presiding Officer, I should tell the chamber that I spoke to the Prime Minister this morning about the hostage-taking situation in Algeria. As the chamber will know, a terrorist group has seized the BP-Statoil facility in the Algerian Sahara. Citizens of a number of nationalities are involved, including United Kingdom citizens. I can confirm to the chamber that a number of Scots are among the hostages. The UK Government reports that one UK national has been killed in the attack.
I know that the chamber will understand that, in the interests of the safety and security of the hostages, the information that can be given out is necessarily limited. The priority is the safety of the hostages and keeping the families informed. The Scottish police service is fully engaged with the Metropolitan Police on the latter and Scottish Government ministers are in contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the former.
This is a hugely serious situation. I know that the whole chamber is united in condemnation of the attack and in hoping for the early and safe release of the hostages.
We entirely agree with the First Minister on the conclusion that he comes to. Our thoughts are with the families concerned at this very difficult time.
On 22 March 2010, the then health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, said:
“hidden waiting lists have been abolished.”
She added:
“no one ... is on a hidden waiting list.”
On 21 March 2012, Nicola Sturgeon told Parliament that there were hidden waiting lists at NHS Lothian but assured us that there were none elsewhere in Scotland. Since then, failures in waiting times have been discovered at NHS Tayside, and questionable activity has been reported at NHS Forth Valley, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and NHS Lanarkshire. Yesterday, we learned of serious problems with NHS Grampian.
In the light of that, was Nicola Sturgeon misleading Parliament and the country, or was she just incompetent and not on top of her job?
Let us remember that under the Labour Party, hidden waiting lists in the national health service were endemic. Those endemic practices were abolished by the Scottish National Party. I do not think that any Labour leader is in a position to attack the SNP on waiting lists across the national health service.
As a local MSP, I am well aware of the situation in NHS Grampian; indeed, all local MSPs should be well aware of it because they were given a briefing by NHS Grampian in December. The 18-week treatment time guarantee—from referral to consultant—has not been breached in NHS Grampian. It had a serious difficulty with one of its DEXA—dual energy X-ray absorptiometry—scanners, which went out of operation due to a flood. That has resulted in a backlog of treatment.
The health board prioritised, as it should do, those who were covered by the 18-week guarantee and, of course, cancer patients, who have an even more rigorous guarantee. The reported situation of 3,500 people being in a backlog is quite untrue. The backlog consists of 550 cases, which are being dealt with by the health board. Provision is being made for the Golden Jubilee hospital to help to clear the backlog. I can confirm that the DEXA scanner is now back in operation at NHS Grampian. Both of its scanners in Aberdeen are being moved to the Aberdeen royal infirmary.
Nothing in that justifies the charge that there are hidden waiting lists in NHS Grampian. Hidden waiting lists across the national health service were abolished when the Labour Party was turfed out of office.
That answer was astonishingly complacent. I did not talk only about Grampian, although the First Minister might want to reflect on the fact that the Auditor General for Scotland said that there is a £1 billion repairs backlog and that £500 million of that might affect patient care. That might be part of the reason why there was a problem with the scanner in the first place.
I talked about other places, too. I understand that the First Minister has a London life coach. It would suit him to make sure he understood what real life is for most people in this country. Simply denying that there is a problem and talking about what happened before he was responsible is not the job of the First Minister.
Before the Scottish National Party’s hidden waiting times scandal broke, the figures across Scotland for patients missing appointments for treatment due to social unavailability peaked at almost 21,000, in June 2011. Now, those figures have fallen to just over 9,500. If the figures were not being fiddled before, how does the First Minister explain the patients who are suddenly available for appointments that they were not available for before?
The very fact that Johann Lamont is now able to quote figures indicates the difference between the SNP position and the Labour Party position. In 2006, we knew only after investigation that 35,000 people had been given an availability status code—that was the system by which people were hidden in the NHS so that statistics could never come to light.
Incidentally, the idea that, if the Labour Party was in charge, there would not be flooding in any building across Scotland is one of the most remarkable indications of the difference between our two parties’ positions, as even Johann Lamont can see.
I am a north-east of Scotland MSP, and my family and constituents use the health service in Grampian. Therefore, I think that I have more immediate knowledge of the situation than Johann local authoritymont has.
On NHS Grampian’s current performance, 90.3 per cent of patients were seen and treated within 18 weeks of referral, against a national standard of 90 per cent. On 30 September 2012, no patient in NHS Grampian had waited more than 12 weeks for a first out-patient consultation or for in-patient or day-case treatment. That compares with waits of six months in March 2007, under the Labour Party.
Members of the Labour Party should be the last people to come to the chamber and pretend that the national health service was safe in their hands. Under Labour, tens of thousands of patients were on hidden waiting lists.
The First Minister does not seem to understand something very basic. This is not the difference between the SNP’s position and Labour’s position; this is the difference between the SNP’s position and the real world that everybody else is living in.
The First Minister can give us all those figures about Grampian, but I asked him not only about Grampian but about the whole of the country. He should also reflect that his own internal audits tell us that there is insufficient data to tell us what the scale of the scandal is, and he might want to address that problem, too.
We seem to be in a situation in which Nicola Sturgeon was right when she said that waiting lists were abolished, right when she said that the only problem with hidden waiting times was in Lothian and still right when it turns out that there are problems with hidden waiting times the length and breadth of the country.
According to the First Minister, the system that Nicola Sturgeon presided over was working well. Why, then, is her successor, Alex Neil, having to change the system because it is not transparent enough?
I point out that it was Nicola Sturgeon, as health secretary, who ordered the investigation into NHS Lothian.
I remember having this conversation last week with Johann Lamont, when I pointed out the praise that was heaped on Nicola Sturgeon as health secretary as she left office. I remember Jackie Baillie looking askance at that point, so I questioned whether I had remembered correctly and looked up what was said last year. On 5 September 2012, Jackie Baillie said:
“Regardless ... of the differences that I have had with the Deputy First Minister, I have always respected her talent and energy and I have always enjoyed working with her ... we are missing you already, Nicola. It is a shame that her talent and energy are being diverted.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2012; c 11042.]
Johann Lamont has achieved almost the impossible: she is less optimistic than even Jackie Baillie.
If I were the First Minister, I would listen back to that. I think that he might find it a little more than embarrassing, because I am asking him about a very serious issue.
The First Minister says that Nicola Sturgeon called the investigation into NHS Lothian. The problem is that she did not then look at what the answers were and she did not look beyond NHS Lothian to find out what was happening in the rest of the country. It would appear that Nicola Sturgeon was the health secretary for the good bits but that the bad bits are nothing to do with this Government whatsoever. The trouble is that it is the bad bits and the difficult bits that patients and staff across Scotland have to face every day of the week, and it is about time the First Minister took responsibility.
The First Minister has this week been talking about the rights that Scots could have under a written constitution in a separate Scotland. Let me tell him some rights that all Scots should have now—and he might need to write this down: the right to a Government that tells the truth; the right to a First Minister who will be straight with them; the right to be treated by the NHS within 18 weeks; and the right to be told the truth when the Government cannot deliver.
Is it not the case that whether it is the First Minister on Europe, John Swinney on the Bank of England, Mike Russell on colleges or Nicola Sturgeon on NHS waiting lists—[Interruption.]—the people of Scotland cannot trust a word this Government says?
Just in case Johann Lamont missed it in her peroration, the phrase from behind me was “Tony Blair on Iraq”.
It was Nicola Sturgeon who ordered the investigation. We have already had the account from the health boards across Scotland. The reason why Johann Lamont moved off NHS Grampian is that the charges that she made in her first question do not stand up to any examination.
I will tell members the reason why we doubt Labour’s bona fides on the issue. As it was Eleanor Bradford who did the reports on NHS Grampian for BBC Scotland, this is relevant. Last month, she reported a story on health inequalities, and this is what she said:
“I put this report to the main political parties yesterday. The SNP said it has shifted more to preventative spending ... The Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties have both called it respectively ‘a disgrace’ and ‘disturbing’, until I pointed out to them that they were also in government for this period and also therefore must share part of the responsibility, and they said they would get back to me with an amended statement, but I am still waiting for that.”
Even when it is totally clear, as in health inequalities, that the Labour Party shares responsibility across the chamber, its reflex action is to call something a disgrace and disaster, followed by an embarrassed silence. It is rather like Jackie Baillie on hospital-acquired infections last year, when Labour found out that part of the statistics covered the period that it was in office. That is why people doubt whether the Labour Party has a genuine concern for the national health service: it is unwilling to face the failures in performance in its time in office, which I am delighted to say Nicola Sturgeon amended and heavily improved in her excellent term of office as health secretary.
Of course, the bitterness extends because this is a question of dispossession. The Labour Party cannot get used, after all these years, to the fact that it is not in government in Scotland. That is why, I presume, Johann Lamont’s deputy just the day before yesterday—days after calling for a rise in the quality of debate in Scotland—suggested that this Parliament
“is not a democratic place in the conventional sense”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 January 2013; Vol 556, c 798.]
This is a proportional Parliament, elected by the people of Scotland—unlike at Westminster, where someone is foisted on the people with no mandate whatsoever.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. I, too, associate myself with the comments made by the First Minister regarding the very serious situation in Algeria.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01109)
I have no plans to do so in the near future.
In the week before Christmas, I asked the First Minister why he promised the people of Scotland that he would spend up to £500 million on non-profit-distributing model big building projects between 2011 and 2013 but will actually spend just £20 million. He blamed legal delays on the Aberdeen bypass. Is that still his reasoning?
I gave the Aberdeen bypass or peripheral route as an indication that, in a project-based financial system such as an NPD trust, obviously the project has to come forward in order for the money to be spent. If I remember correctly, the budget for the Aberdeen bypass or peripheral route is some £600 million, so it is a substantial part of the NPD programme.
I remember the exchange as well, because that is a perfectly reasonable explanation given the delays, which are no part of this Government’s choice, that took place on that project. The chamber has of course welcomed the fact that the legal challenges have been fought off and the project is now going ahead.
I remember the looks on the faces of Ruth Davidson’s North East Scotland colleagues when she pursued that line of questioning. Is it the position of the Conservative Party that, for example, we should have spent the money on another NPD and then not had it available for the peripheral route in the north-east of Scotland? I do not think that we should have done so. It is a perfectly reasonable situation, and I think that folk in Scotland—particularly in the north-east of Scotland—are delighted that, under this Government, that badly needed peripheral route is going ahead.
I am no Sarah Montague, but I too was there for that exchange. If he looks back at the transcript, the First Minister may wish to make his weekly trip to the official report this afternoon.
The First Minister is broadly sticking to his story that the Aberdeen western peripheral route was an issue to do with NPD spend. Yesterday, we heard something different from the man in charge of the organisation that the First Minister personally set up to build new schools and hospitals. The head of the Scottish Futures Trust, Barry White, said that the unspent millions were very little to do with the Aberdeen bypass, which was “more for 2013-14 and onwards”.
After European Union advice that did not exist and college funding that was going down instead of up, we now have yet another example of the First Minister telling the people of Scotland something that is simply untrue. The real tragedy here is that our construction industry and our communities were promised nearly £0.5 billion of NPD big building projects, which this First Minister has failed to deliver. Even his placemen on the Finance Committee, John Mason and Kenny Gibson, have said that the whole NPD scheme is “overoptimistic”.
Will the First Minister now hold up his hands and admit that he is not spending the NPD money, that his excuses do not stack up and that barely a brick has been laid?
Ruth Davidson has just made the statement that we are not spending the NPD money. All of the NPD programme and more is going ahead. It is simply untrue that we are not spending the non-profit-distributing money. By any estimation, the NPD programme of the Scottish Futures Trust has been an extraordinary success. How do we know that? Because even George Osborne is turning away from the private finance initiative and trying to set up a non-profit system similar to the NPD programme in Scotland.
The Scottish Government faced a 30 per cent and more cut in the capital budget. The great advantage of direct capital spending by Government is that it can be processed quickly, as John Swinney has amply demonstrated time after time in the capital budget. The NPD programme is a fantastic improvement on the discredited private finance initiative. Far from being cut back in any way, all of the NPD programme is being spent.
Given the remarkable savings that the Scottish Futures Trust has brought about as a result of being established by this Government, although it was criticised by the Conservative Party, Ms Davidson should hang her head in shame at suggesting that we should either not spend the money—not have the programme, not have the schools, not have the peripheral route and not have the capital spending—or, alternatively, move back to the discredited wasteful private finance initiative that has been abandoned even by her colleagues in London.
We have a constituency supplementary question from Dennis Robertson.
The First Minister welcomed this morning’s news that it is deemed safe for the oil to start flowing again from Cormorant Alpha. What action can the Scottish Government take in relation to leaks such as the one just experienced at Cormorant Alpha?
Through Marine Scotland, the Scottish Government has responsibility for environmental concerns. During major leaks in the past, our officials have been embedded into the incident room, which is an excellent approach to pursue. Initial responsibility for the security of oil supply lies, of course, with the Westminster Government.
Members will wish to note that the precautionary shutdown of the Cormorant Alpha platform, with the effects that that had on the other platforms in the Brent system, was exactly the right thing to do. The problem was identified remarkably quickly, it has been dealt with, and production is resuming across the Brent system.
Dennis Robertson brings a legitimate issue to the chamber, but the practice at Cormorant Alpha—there will, of course, be an official incident report that examines this in detail—would seem at first sight to be an excellent example of how a company and its procedures should respond to such an oil leak incident.
The incident is a reminder that the recovery of oil and gas and hydrocarbons from the waters around Scotland is an inherently difficult process, and the procedures to safeguard the environment must be first class.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01118)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Tomorrow, the new Scottish Police Authority is set to strip the chief constable of significant powers and impose three new powerful group directors over whom the chief constable will have no control. Last time, the First Minister laughed that off as “creative tension”. Since then, the chief constable has called for fresh legislation and both sides have spent thousands of pounds hiring lawyers to fight each other. Is the First Minister still laughing?
I dispute the premise of Willie Rennie’s question: I have never regarded this as anything other than a serious matter. I have said in the chamber that I believe that the matter is capable of resolution—I hope that every member looks upon it with that attitude.
I do not agree with the detail—never mind the premise—of Willie Rennie’s question, but perhaps it is better to allow the meeting to take place tomorrow and, if he wants to question me next week, no doubt he will have the opportunity.
On how the structures were set up, I point out to members that it is not for the First Minister to determine such matters but—make no mistake—the Government is well aware of its responsibilities and it will discharge them.
If the First Minister will forgive me, I will ask him the questions this week, when it matters, before the decisions are taken; he is responsible to Parliament and he should answer the questions. He should not be so complacent. Despite what he says, the chief constable is being stripped of his independence. It gets worse: how can the chief constable be held to account by the Scottish Police Authority when that authority will control many of the services? It will be a jumble and lead to a blame game.
Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland said that the authority will not be able to hold itself to account. Does the First Minister accept that the legislation is not fit for purpose and must be changed?
I do not accept that the legislation that was passed by an overwhelming majority in the Parliament is not fit for purpose. I am quite certain that those on the Labour benches, if they had felt that it was not fit for purpose, would have realised that and not voted for it when it came to decision time.
It is not a question of the legislation; rather, it is a policy question. I dispute Willie Rennie’s premise in two ways. First, I regard this as a situation that needs to be resolved. I regard it seriously and the Government takes its responsibilities extremely seriously in this matter. Secondly, if Willie Rennie waits to see the decisions that are made, I think that it will turn out that the premise of his question was inaccurate. That is why I sometimes think that it is better—[Interruption.] I could use a range of figures, for example Willie Rennie’s forecasts on college waiting lists, which may or may not turn out to be true.
Given that the meeting is tomorrow, I think that it would be better to wait and see what happens; Willie Rennie can then come back. That would be better than my answering a question that I assure him is based on an aspect of false premise.
Pension Reforms
4. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the impact of United Kingdom pension reforms in Scotland. (S4F-01120)
Obviously, the precise implications require further study by the Scottish Government, which is being done. However, it is already pretty clear that the initial claims that the majority would be better off are not, in fact, true. It now appears, particularly from the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that most of those who were supposed to be the big winners from the change—including women—will end up with a lower pension.
What action can the Scottish Government take to protect the people of Scotland from UK pension reforms that will consign many of our older citizens to poverty in old age through a miserly state pension? Does the First Minister agree that the reforms are further evidence that we are neither in this together nor better together?
Across the range of social security measures and reserved areas, the Scottish Government has taken the action that it can—that is, limited action, as powers lie elsewhere—to try to mitigate some of the effects, for example, on council tax benefits or the emergency loan fund. However, let us not pretend that, without power and authority over those areas, the Scottish Government can do anything other than ameliorate some of the worst effects of changes that are made at Westminster.
I saw the Conservative members look somewhat askance when I said that the vast majority of people would be worse off. I will quote exactly from the Institute for Fiscal Studies:
“as is often the case with pension reforms ... the overall effects will be more complex”
and
“in the long run will be to reduce pensions for the vast majority of people”.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis suggests that the initial presentation of the changes earlier this week by the UK Government gilded the lily somewhat. The UK Government’s attitude across a range of things will hugely strengthen the yes case in the upcoming referendum campaign.
Online Material (Convicted Criminals)
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government allows convicted criminals to post online material purporting to cast doubt on their conviction. (S4F-01119)
Those who are serving sentences in prison are not allowed access to the internet. The Parliament passed the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, which makes it illegal for prisoners to have in their possession any device that allows them to post material online.
Will the First Minister confirm that rule 73 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 forbids the use of
“films or recordings”
obtained in prison
“for … transmission ... by any form of electronic medium”
without
“the prior written consent of the Governor and subject to … such conditions as the Governor may impose”?
Will he confirm whether the Scottish Prison Service gave such written consent in the case relating to the murder of Jodi Jones, whether it imposed conditions to prevent the film being posted online and what action will be taken in the case if conditions attached to written consent have been breached?
I will see whether I can be helpful to Lewis Macdonald, because I know that everyone will deeply regret the hurt and upset that irresponsible use of the footage will have inflicted on the family and friends of Jodi Jones.
On Tuesday 15 January, Brigadier Hugh Monro, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, visited the prison concerned. Following that meeting, he issued a report to the Scottish Prison Service. I will quote it exactly. It says that he
“has investigated the matter and it is clear that the Governor followed Rule 63 which entitles a prisoner to an extraordinary visit, provided it is in the sight and hearing of a prison officer. He therefore allowed the prisoner to go ahead with the visit by the British Polygraph Association. The test was carried out in the Agents’ Area and it was agreed it could be filmed by the testers. All of this was set out in letter from the Governor to the prisoner. All of this appears to have been carried out correctly and within Prison Rules. My view would be that the SPS have acted correctly and in good faith.
At no stage has the SPS at any level authorised or encouraged the film to be uploaded on to You Tube”.
However, in light of the full circumstances surrounding the case, the SPS intends to review the processes for considering any future requests and to consider ways in which safeguards can be put in place to ensure that the feelings of victims and their families are given full consideration and are appropriately acknowledged.
In our judicial system, we have a huge range of checks and balances. If the appeals process is exhausted and people still maintain that there could have been a breach of justice, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is the final stop. That is the correct process for people in that position to use, because it follows the integrity and processes of Scots law.
Appointment Procedures (NHS Boards)
6. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with national health service boards about appointment procedures for senior health managers. (S4F-01111)
The Government discusses a wide range of issues with the boards, not least our aim of reducing the number of NHS senior management posts by 25 per cent. Between March 2010—the year that we announced the initiative—and 2012, the number of such posts was reduced by 16.1 per cent.
However, Liz Smith will be aware that the appointment of individual senior managers is the responsibility of individual NHS health boards, in accordance with their locally agreed recruitment policies and procedures.
When Nicola Sturgeon was the health minister, she rightly put in place procedures to ensure that the appointment process for senior doctors and consultants in health boards was based on full transparency and public accountability. Does the First Minister agree with his colleague John Wilson, who at the weekend made clear his concerns that the process that one Scottish health board adopted recently for the appointment of a senior manager lacked that transparency and accountability? Does he agree that the Scottish Government has a responsibility to address that?
That is an entirely legitimate question to raise. It is legitimate for any member to comment on such a situation. As a result of the reports in the Sunday Herald, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing requested clarity and assurances from NHS Tayside on the appointment concerned.
NHS Tayside is clear that the appointment was consistent with its organisational change policies. As part of its consideration of the change, NHS Tayside sought independent advice from the national evaluation committee on any potential impact of moving the associate director to the role of director. It was the NEC’s view that a change in grade would not arise simply on the basis of a change in title from associate director to director. In essence, the role was neither diminished nor substantially grown, so there was no requirement to re-evaluate the grading.
Crucially, it now transpires—this was not in the press report concerned—that there was no change in salary involved in that process. I would have thought that that tends to support the view of the NEC, which NHS Tayside sought. As the member will know, the health secretary responded to the press report. Members of this Parliament are perfectly entitled to raise such matters; that is quite proper. However, I think that the member will agree that the health secretary has fulfilled his function in ensuring that matters were handled properly in NHS Tayside.