First Minister's Question Time
Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2094)
Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
Under the ministerial code, ministers are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct. The First Minister is the ultimate judge.
Two weeks ago, Mark MacLachlan, an aide to Michael Russell, was identified as the anonymous author of a blog with a track record of smears and abuse of political opponents. On BBC Scotland, Mr Russell was asked:
"Did you know he was doing it?"
He replied, "No." Today, however, Mr MacLachlan says that Mr Russell was not only aware of the blog but even "suggested possible subjects." Is the First Minister undertaking an investigation under the ministerial code to establish whether Mr Russell told the truth to the BBC?
No. What I have ascertained is that, as Mike Russell has made repeatedly clear, he was shocked to be told about the matter, knew absolutely nothing about it and accepted, of course, Mr MacLachlan's resignation.
I deprecate attack blogs. I do not think that any political party should have anything to do with them. I do not think that that is what the internet is for.
This week we have seen a huge issue with the collapse of Globespan and the enormous planetary issue that is being debated in Copenhagen, and yesterday we saw the first drop in unemployment in Scotland in 18 months. Does Iain Gray not consider that those are some of the issues that the people of Scotland would expect the Opposition leader in Scotland to raise, rather than to focus on personality and process?
I have already made clear how important I believe the climate change talks in Copenhagen are—frankly, they are rather more important than an attempt at a photo call with Arnie Schwarzenegger. This morning, I have made very clear my concerns about the 800 employees of and the 4,000 travellers with Globespan. However, the First Minister cannot use those job losses to hide behind in order to avoid answering questions about this matter.
If Mr Russell did not know about this "black ops" blog, there is no impediment to his coming to the chamber to set the record straight. Will the First Minister instruct Mr Russell to come to Parliament and confirm whether he knew of the blog?
Mr Russell has already said repeatedly that he did not know of the blog, and Iain Gray has absolutely no evidence to suggest that that statement is inaccurate.
I used the words "personality and process" deliberately, because Labour members should remember that in Iain Gray's St Andrew's day speech, which he made on 2 December, he said:
"We focus too much on personality and process and not enough on the issues that the Scottish people care about.
Our politics needs the chattering classes, but we have to be sure that we are chattering about the right things."
I submit to the chamber and the Opposition leader that the people of Scotland would expect him to be chattering about the things that he says he cares about but does not bother to raise at First Minister's question time: the state of the Copenhagen summit and what is going on there. Let us debate that. Let us debate the plight of the staff and passengers of Globespan. Let us debate the unemployment figures in Scotland, which show the first decrease for 18 months. Those are the issues that he should be raising, not personality, smears and process.
It is exactly because I care about Scottish politics that I wish to see these anonymous blogs rooted out and got rid of. That is why, six months ago, when one of those blogs was spreading smears and rumours about me and my marriage, I asked the First Minister to take action. He refused to do so and said that those blogs were nothing to do with the SNP, but now we discover that the author of one blog worked for one of his ministers.
The First Minister says that Mr MacLachlan resigned, but Mr MacLachlan says that he did not resign and that Michael Russell phoned him to say that he had to go. Mr MacLachlan says that an apology that was issued in his name was written by Kevin Pringle, who is the First Minister's most senior adviser. If that is true, a cover-up has been attempted that involved the First Minister and his office. Did the First Minister order Mr Russell to sack Mr MacLachlan and order Kevin Pringle to draft a resignation statement for Mr MacLachlan?
Iain Gray descends from bad to worse. Mr MacLachlan is not an appropriate person to work for any MSP.
Iain Gray mentioned six months ago. At that time, a Tory blogger—Iain Dale—wrote:
"Readers in Scotland and Wales may be having a wry smile at the fact that the grubby Red Flag blog didn't quite make it to the internet in time"—
if we remember, that blog was connected with the Damian McBride affair—
"For in those two countries, Labour has indeed started up versions of the Red Rag"—
[Interruption.]
Order.
He continued:
"In Wales we have the Aneurin Glyndwr blog … and in Scotland A Leaky Chanter (started in December 2008)"—[Interruption.]
Order.
He continued:
"They are not as salacious as the Red Rag was intended to be, but they clearly exist as attack blogs".
Here is the challenge: if we want to talk about conduct in politics, let us condemn attack blogs from whatever source. After Damian McBride and the Leaky Chanter, the Labour Party should not pretend that it has not had serious involvement in such things. As a Parliament, can we not agree to deprecate such conduct?
I condemn absolutely attack blogs from whichever part of the political spectrum they come. I want the matter to be cleared up properly, so I ask: will the First Minister release any documents or e-mails that relate to Mr MacLachlan that any ministerial office or any of his special advisers holds? When did the First Minister, Kevin Pringle and any of the First Minister's other special advisers know about Mr MacLachlan's blog? Just for today, will the First Minister say when he or Kevin Pringle first had sight of the e-mails that were published in The Herald today?
I knew about Mr MacLachlan's resignation when Mr Russell informed me that his former employee was no longer working for him because he did not judge Mr MacLachlan to be a suitable person to work for him.
The question for Iain Gray is whether he knows the difference between an allegation and a revelation. I have a remarkable statement from him this morning in which he talks about "revelations" in The Herald today, which is a dangerous course of action to take. It is only a few days since the same journalist who writes in The Herald today said on the front page of the Sunday Herald:
"Labour leader Iain Gray in new donations ‘sleaze' row".
That referred, of course, to what has become known as the burgergate scandal in East Lothian. My point is that that is an allegation, not a revelation. A statement is a revelation only if it is established. If Iain Gray bandies about allegations as revelations, he should not be surprised if he has to answer the allegations about his constituency.
It is extraordinary that Iain Gray comes to the chamber to bandy about comments on process and personalities, to ignore the big issues that face Scotland, to be totally unaware of the feet of clay in his constituency, to recycle smears and not to accept a minister's clear statement that he—like me and, I hope, every member of Parliament—deprecates the smears and attack blogs that have been prevalent throughout the political system.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2095)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.
Obviously in the same boat as the Governor of California.
I bring a story of NHS good will to the attention of the First Minister. A Mr Guthrie recently received a new hip at the Scottish regional treatment centre at Stracathro. It was paid for by the NHS, the procedure was delivered by an independent provider, and Mr and Mrs Guthrie are full of praise for the attention and care received. I understand that, best of all, Mr Guthrie sought advice on 21 October and got his new hip in just less than three weeks.
Now some winter chill sets in. In due course Mr Guthrie will need his other hip to be replaced, but, because the unit is being fully transferred back into the NHS, he has been informed that the waiting time for that operation will be at least 18 weeks. How can the First Minister justify that as being acceptable?
First of all, the Governor of California had a meeting with our Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Mr Stevenson. [Interruption.]
Order.
I am reliably informed that Mr Stevenson was pleased to give the Governor his autograph as a result of that meeting.
Annabel Goldie should not, even as an aside, deprecate the impression that Scotland has made on the Copenhagen summit. The leaders' commitment session contained state governors, representatives and premiers from countries representing 350 million people. Every single one of our non-governmental organisations was well represented, and the summit has praised Scotland's efforts to make an impact on a global issue.
It is about health.
If Conservative members do not want to talk about climate change, they should suggest to Annabel Goldie that she does not refer to it in her question.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has been pleased to see the facility at Stracathro reintegrated with the national health service. Not only are the figures to which Annabel Goldie referred for maximum waiting times, but waiting times across Scotland have been falling under this Government. Under the administration of the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, we have the best delivery of operations to the people of Scotland in our health service history.
We do that as a national health service. The problem with the Tories on that issue—and perhaps the problem with them on several issues to do with public services—is that, fundamentally, people do not trust their commitment to a national health service within the public sector that is freely available at the point of need.
As the First Minister has just eloquently demonstrated, the hostility of the SNP and his health minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to involving the independent sector in the NHS is widely known and affirmed today.
Patients such as Mr Guthrie do not care who delivers a procedure; they just want pain relief as quickly as possible. The independent contribution at Stracathro has achieved a significant reduction in local NHS waiting times, there are no hospital-acquired infections, and there has been a saving to the NHS of £2 million. That is what patients want. What is the First Minister doing to promote such independent involvement in the NHS? If he is not doing anything, why is the First Minister allowing SNP dogma and prejudice to block the delivery of swift, cost-effective and quality health care?
I present Annabel Goldie with what we might call an inconvenient truth—the contract at Stracathro was terminated by the private company itself. That is a fairly fundamental fact that Annabel Goldie should have researched before she started asking her questions. Does she not understand the proposition that the unit would have closed if the health secretary had not brought it back into the national health service? I believe that Annabel Goldie and her deputy are in a small minority in Scotland who do not believe in a publicly funded, publicly delivered health service that is free at the point of need to the Scottish people and which delivers record service on waiting times and a variety of treatments throughout this country.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2096)
The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Last week Audit Scotland reported that health funding was "a challenge" and "difficult" and that it was
"difficult to see where the money would come from".
On Sunday morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said that we were scaremongering to point that out. On Monday morning, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board said that it was cutting the number of nurses to balance the books. What happened in those 24 hours to turn a scare story into the grim reality for patients?
As Tavish Scott should know from examining the budget, we have protected health spending in Scotland. In these tough economic times, it is one of the priority areas that are receiving an above-inflation increase. Egged on by Tavish Scott, every public body in Scotland is making provisions and examining where it can deliver public services more efficiently. It is right and proper that they should do that. The difference between the efficiency savings in the health service that this Government proposes and the savings that Governments elsewhere propose is that every single penny of the savings that we make will be reinvested in the health service. That is how it should be and how it will be under this Government.
Money is available for some policies. For example, it is available for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to award consultants bonuses of up to £75,000 each. Seven of the consultants to whom she gave bonuses last January now serve at the private Murrayfield hospital in Edinburgh. However, Nicola Sturgeon told the SNP conference:
"Our government will invest taxpayers' money always to build up NHS services, not to build up the private health sector."
Millions of pounds are being used to pay consultants' bonuses even though the taxpayer does not get all of their time for the NHS. Does the First Minister intend to do anything about that?
I remind Tavish Scott—because he has a selective memory on these matters—that the system of distinction bonuses was introduced by an Administration in which he served as a minister; not only that, but we now have the figure for the total that was paid during its term of office. During their period in office, Labour and the Liberals spent well over £100 million on distinction awards. I do not mind Tavish Scott raising questions and identifying issues—indeed, Mr Swinney has responded positively to such suggestions over the past week—but, when asking me to reform systems, he might occasionally reflect on his questions and remember that all of the systems that I must reform were put in place by him and his colleagues.
We will take a supplementary question from Liam McArthur.
The outcome of this week's fisheries negotiations in Brussels is the usual mixed bag. As ever, it will take some weeks to gauge the impact that new effort and quota restrictions will have on our fleet. However, does the First Minister accept that it is already clear that the roll-over of emergency management measures on the west coast for another 18 months will cause serious problems for a number of white-fish vessels? Will he ensure that the Government works with the industry to develop alternative proposals for the west coast as a matter of urgency, following the Commission's invitation to it to do so during the first half of next year?
I confirm that we will do that. The member, who represents a fishing constituency, has summed up the position ably and properly: the result of the negotiations was a mixed bag. There are certain huge challenges in the decisions that have been made to date. Obviously, some decisions have been deferred as a result of the breakdown of the negotiations between Norway and the European Union.
A number of white-fish boats will be affected severely by the roll-over of emergency restrictions on the west coast. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment is discussing with the industry ways in which the pressure on those vessels can be alleviated. It should be acknowledged—I am sure that the member would be the first to do so—that many of the gains that were made in the negotiations, in a most difficult situation, offer hopeful prospects of real underlying reform of the common fisheries policy. Reform and change are badly needed.
National Health Service Boards (Front-line Services)
To ask the First Minister, in light of its commitment to protect front-line public services, what the Scottish Government's position is regarding reports that some NHS boards are considering cost-cutting exercises likely to impact on front-line services. (S3F-2099)
The NHS budget is rising next year, to a record £11.347 billion, despite the toughest financial settlement since devolution. That represents a substantial increase in the face of extreme financial conditions.
The Government has prioritised and protected health in its draft budget for 2010-11, in the face of the first real-terms budget decrease from Westminster for the Scottish Government. Our commitment is that savings that result from efficiencies will continue to be reinvested in front-line services. We expect NHS boards, in their local delivery plans for next year, to focus on better outcomes with the funding that is available and to secure better value for every pound that is spent.
I point out the Government's track record of investing in front-line health services. Figures released on 15 December show that more people than ever before are now working for NHS Scotland. As at 30 September, there were 168,976 staff employed by the NHS, which is up by 3,425 on last year. The number of medical staff rose from 16,195 to 16,256, the number of nursing staff rose from 67,965 to 68,681, and the number of dental staff is now more than 5,000, which is up by 412. Most people who are concerned about the health of Scotland will welcome those increases in staff numbers in these most difficult of conditions.
At present, Westminster takes £30 million a year from Scotland as a result of the British Government's refusal to return attendance allowance, which was saved as a result of the introduction of free personal care. In the seven years since that time, the accumulated loss to Scotland stands at £210 million, which could have paid for 1,600 nurses. Instead, to quote the former First Minister Henry McLeish, that money has been used for
"increasing benefits to people in England."
Does the First Minister agree with me, and with his predecessor Henry McLeish, who wrote to the Treasury in 2002 to say that the on-going situation was "impossible to explain" and "Politically … doesn't look clever"?
Yes, I agree with Henry McLeish.
Oh!
There was a time when Labour members, who are now catcalling, supported Henry McLeish.
The recovery of attendance allowance funding for residents in care homes, which was removed by the Department for Work and Pensions following the introduction of free personal care in 2002, remains a key area of contention between the Scottish Government and Her Majesty's Treasury. Despite repeated attempts to solve the matter, we have been unable to reach a successful conclusion.
The removal of attendance allowance from self-funders and care homes in Scotland was estimated to have saved the DWP £23 million in 2002. When Lord Sutherland did his independent review of free personal care in 2008, the estimated saving had risen to more than £30 million. A figure of £200 million seems a reasonable estimate for the past seven years. I am sure that members across the chamber would think it the best Christmas present imaginable for the Scottish people if those £200 million of funds, which are being kept in London by the Treasury and the DWP, were made available for investment in Scotland's national health service.
Does the First Minister agree that the figures that he quoted mask a reduction in the number of clinical staff moving from full-time to part-time employment? Given that the NHS is labour intensive, does he agree with the British Medical Association that, last year, he presided over a reduction of 2.1 per cent in nurses and of 13 per cent in accident and emergency specialists, and that that has a direct impact on front-line services?
Only Jackie Baillie could interpret the real-terms increase in national health spending and the huge increases in the number of national health service staff as anything other than a triumph in the most difficult of prevailing economic conditions.
Jackie Baillie might consider this conundrum. If we accept that, in the coming year and certainly in the future, there will be a real-terms decline in public spending, does she not welcome the fact that the health service has been protected and will continue to be protected by this Government? Will there ever be any such assurance from the Labour Party, given that it is the colleagues of Labour members here who are looking forward to the decline in public spending?
Teacher Induction Scheme Employment Survey 2008-09
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to the General Teaching Council for Scotland teacher induction scheme employment survey 2008-09 showing that only one in five newly qualified teachers is in full-time permanent employment. (S3F-2105)
The Scottish Government wants there to be more post-probationer teachers in permanent full-time employment. To support that aim, we have taken forward the recommendations of the teacher employment working group, which was set up with representatives of councils and teaching unions, in order to find a better way to plan the workforce needs of our schools. What is more, we announced on 25 November that, through a £10 million borrowing facility between 2009 and 2011, up to 500 teachers will be able to take early retirement to enable the recruitment of new or recently qualified post-probationary teachers.
How would the First Minister respond to the question that flummoxed Michael Russell when it was posed on Tuesday by a secondary headteacher, who—after hearing Mr Russell extol the tremendous success of his predecessor, Fiona Hyslop, in taking a realistic, flexible and sustainable approach by working with councils to deliver the Government's long list of policy commitments—said, "There's no money, so tell me what your priority is"?
I am not certain that Des McNulty delivered that question in the way that he wanted.
I have already said what our priority is as regards teacher employment and securing posts for post-probationary teachers. Given that we are in the business of conundrums, I was puzzled to find that excellent suggestion of an early retirement scheme to create 500 posts for post-probationary teachers described by Iain Gray—if I remember the phrase right—as "a panic measure", only for the same scheme to be encapsulated a few days later in an amendment from Des McNulty to a motion for debate in the Parliament. I am delighted that Des McNulty prevailed over his leader to get him to see some common sense; it is a pity only that he did not do that before the First Minister's question time in which Iain Gray described the scheme as a panic measure. However, in this Christmas season, I salute the reasonableness of Des McNulty. No doubt next year he will get his leader on side on his reasonable position.
Yesterday, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning how the Government planned to deliver a 7 per cent increase in the number of classes of 18 or fewer in under a year when his Government has delivered only a 1 per cent improvement in the past two years. Can the First Minister tell us how that will be achieved?
Can the First Minister also confirm whether the discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on reducing class sizes will include the issue of teacher numbers, given the Scottish National Party's previous commitment to maintain teacher numbers at the 53,000 that it inherited from the previous Administration?
As the member knows, we are in discussions with COSLA on ways to accelerate progress, including on class sizes. Such progress will help to tackle the problem of post-probationary teachers being unable to find full-time employment. I hope that those talks will reach good conclusions and recognise the progress that is being made by many councils as well as the lack of progress on the part of some councils.
I am moving away from looking at the matter as just a party-political issue, but in my last reference to it as a party-political issue I am delighted to confirm that SNP councils are among the councils that have been enthused to make progress on reducing class sizes. SNP councils have the smallest teacher pupil ratios in Scotland and have achieved more on reducing class sizes. In the new year, perhaps that enthusiasm of so many SNP councils will be translated to Tory-led councils, to Liberal-led councils and—lo—even unto Labour-led councils in Scotland.
Emissions Targets (Nuclear Power)
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take in response to calls for investment in new nuclear capacity as a means of meeting emissions targets. (S3F-2098)
The Scottish Government has no plans to invest in new nuclear capacity. Scotland has a massive renewables resource, with a quarter of the European Union's wind energy, a quarter of its tidal power and 10 per cent of its wave energy potential. As we heard in a BBC programme just the other night, we have enough energy to power Scotland 10 times over in terms of its electricity requirements. Developing those clean green technologies to meet the challenges and opportunities that are posed by climate change as well as our energy needs has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs. Every penny that is spent on dangerous and unreliable new nuclear is money taken away from that renewables opportunity.
If we are serious about our climate change targets, is it not time that we had less hot air and grandstanding in Copenhagen from the First Minister and, instead, some practical solutions? When will he start listening to the growing chorus of voices in support of safe low-carbon nuclear capacity? Nuclear energy is supported even by Ian Marchant, the chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, who is the man whom the First Minister personally appointed to chair the Scottish Government's 2020 delivery group to ensure that we meet those important targets?
When Murdo Fraser described nuclear energy as safe, he reduced Mr Rumbles to a fit of giggles. [Interruption.]
Order.
Perhaps Murdo Fraser will consider this. It is almost 25 years since Chernobyl but there are still five farms in Scotland that are not allowed to engage in sheep farming—as a result of a nuclear incident many hundreds of miles away. Murdo Fraser shakes his head but, in the light of his description of the nuclear industry, he should reflect on the fall-out of a nuclear incident.
In Copenhagen, we have placed before a range of institutions the extent of Scotland's opportunity in power generation. It is extraordinary that, when more and more people are accepting Scotland's key competitive advantage on the energy technologies of the future and the marine renewable resource, Murdo Fraser is reduced to suggesting occasionally that a country that can potentially power itself 10 times over will be short of sources of power. Our biggest question in taking this opportunity is to remove the discrimination against our generators, which have to pay many times what generators south of the border are asked to pay to connect to the grid. Perhaps on that issue, going into the new year, I will get support from Murdo Fraser and we can unite to campaign together against anti-Scottish discrimination.