First Minister's Question Time
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1821)
We will next meet on 29 April, when we will discuss the good partnership that we continue to have in improving public services in Scotland and the Scottish economy.
I remind the First Minister of what he said to me during question time on 28 February. He said:
"Mr Swinney might wish to reduce company taxation and increase personal taxation, but that is not the policy of the Labour party or of the partnership."—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; c 9849.]
In the light of the fact that the chancellor has reduced company taxation and increased personal taxation, what on earth is the stance of the First Minister?
If Mr Swinney's assertion were true, that would be an awkward question to answer, but his assertion is not true. If I remember rightly, the proposal that one of Mr Swinney's many economic spokespeople made that week was that in Scotland we should reduce company taxation and increase personal taxation, which his party has supported for so long. A very small amount of money would have been raised by that proposal, but Mr Swinney clearly treasures it.
In the budget that I welcomed an hour ago, a position was announced whereby national insurance contributions will not simply be increased, but changes in allowances, benefits and other matters that secure benefits for the vast majority of Scottish working families will be made. That positive step, which will make a real difference, was not part of Mr Swinney's plans, which we discussed on 28 February.
Mr Swinney will note that the contributions towards our national health service will also come from companies. It is right and proper that companies and individuals should be asked to make that small contribution, because that is the means by which we will achieve a step change in expenditure on the NHS.
There was so much wriggling in that answer that I thought the old First Minister had come back.
I return the First Minister to the statement that he made a few moments ago. One of the reasons for the chronic shortage of staff in the NHS is that we do not pay high enough salaries to the staff we already have and, as a result, cannot attract the numbers of staff we require to fill the vacancies that exist. I will give the First Minister a couple of examples.
Four months after the resignations of consultants from the Beatson oncology centre, all the vacancies have still not been filled. The recent report into cancer by the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland highlights shortages of surgical and oncology staff and of specialist nurses in every single area of Scotland. Will the First Minister learn the lesson of the past five years, that one cannot rebuild the NHS without the consultants, the doctors and the nurses who are essential to that rebuilding process? Will he take this second opportunity to give a commitment in Parliament that the salaries of NHS staff, especially nurses, will be increased? Furthermore, will he indicate that he is prepared to offer staff in Scotland a higher remuneration package to give us a competitive advantage to win the staff we need to rebuild the health service in Scotland?
Last night in Perth, somebody said to me, "What is the difference between John Swinney and a car battery? A car battery has a positive side to it." We get negative statements from John Swinney every single week. Today we have announced a 50 per cent increase in the health budget in Scotland, which will take the Scottish health service to even greater levels of improvement, over and above those that apply to our colleagues elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those improvements relate to waiting times, as I mentioned earlier, and to staff.
When the SNP first proposed having rates of pay in Scotland that are different from those in the rest of the UK, the proposal was rubbished by every nurses' organisation. It was pointed out that the type of competition that would be created would be damaging for the NHS and for nurses and would lead to an escalation of pay levels north and south of the border. There would be no guarantee that Scotland would win in such a situation. The proposal is daft and does not do Mr Swinney or his party any good at all.
We need to do the things that we are already acting on. Malcolm Chisholm has acted to get the extra staff for the Beatson who were so desperately needed. They are now being recruited in Glasgow and elsewhere. We must ensure that we are able to enjoy the Scottish health service's substantially higher levels of nurses and doctors for a long time to come.
There we have it: a crystal-clear statement of Government policy that it is daft to pay nurses more money. What an absolutely ridiculous statement for the First Minister to make. However, that is what the First Minister has told Parliament today.
The First Minister knows that the problem in the health service is that we cannot recruit enough staff to deal with the demands of patients. We know the problem, we know the solution and we now have the money to get on with solving it. Why will the First Minister not deliver a proper solution to Scottish requirements? Why does he not follow the chancellor, recognise the strength of SNP policy and implement another SNP initiative?
It was not I but Scotland's nurses who said that the SNP proposal was daft. This morning, was there a nurse anywhere in Scotland who criticised the increase in the health service budget? They are all saying, "Good. That is what we have been needing, wanting and demanding for so long." That is why our Cabinet met at lunch time today to commit us to that extra spending right away.
When I have visited general practitioner clinics, out-patient clinics, wards and hospitals across Scotland, the staff have told me that more money is needed for investment in staff, buildings and equipment. We need more money to improve staff morale and to provide for health improvement campaigns. In all those areas, we are now about to deliver the most substantial increase in Scottish health spending that has ever been delivered. For once in his life, Mr Swinney should welcome that increase—along with the nurses of Scotland—instead of condemning it. [Applause.]
I thank members for that warm welcome.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-1819)
At the risk of sounding evasive, let me say that I will meet the Prime Minister the next time that I have an available opportunity.
It is very good of Mr McConnell to squeeze him into his diary. I am sure that the Prime Minister will appreciate that response.
When the First Minister finally gets round to sparing the Prime Minister 10 minutes of his valuable time, he might discuss the implications of yesterday's budget, to which he referred earlier. The chancellor's freeze on personal allowances and increase in national insurance contributions amount to a tax on ordinary families—as Gordon Brown himself described it in 1996—and a tax on jobs. Will the First Minister commission a report from his chief economic adviser on the effect that the budget will have on the Scottish economy and on sectors such as the North sea industry, which have been singled out for special attention by the chancellor?
Is there not a real danger that the increased taxes on businesses, individuals and important contributors to our economy such as the North sea sector will lead to higher unemployment, lower growth and lower tax revenues, which will mean that even higher taxes are needed to meet the spending commitments that have been announced? Surely we should avoid at all costs that kind of vicious circle if we are to have sustainable development in our economy and public services.
We commission reports all the time on the implications for the Scottish economy of significant matters such as the budget. We will continue to monitor the progress of the Scottish economy, the decisions of the UK Government and the impact of our own decisions. I believe that, on balance, yesterday's budget will be good for Scottish business. The reforms will reduce bureaucracy and liberate small firms from some of the form filling and bureaucracy to which I admit Governments of different political colours have subjected them. Those are important reforms that are long overdue.
It is absolutely right and proper that the sector of the Scottish economy that is consistently making the highest profits in industry is now making an extra contribution over the next period towards the public services that we know we need; and it is absolutely right and proper that the budget extended and improved grants for research and development and capital allowances to encourage investment. The budget also introduced a range of other measures, all of which will be good for Scottish business. We need to take opportunities rather than criticise them.
I want to ask the First Minister about how money is to be spent. The health service figured largely in his earlier statement, but does the First Minister agree that all the extra money will make very little difference if it is not accompanied by meaningful reforms—reforms that are greater than those seen from the Executive over the past three years? Those reforms have focused on delivering an increasingly centralised and politicised NHS, which is failing people and not giving them the improvements that they are entitled to expect. Waiting lists are longer, waiting times are longer and more beds are being blocked, exacerbating the problem.
Indeed, as we have been sitting here this afternoon, the Church of Scotland, which is one of the largest providers of care for the elderly, has announced the closure of eight day centres and care homes. That is the reality of people's experience under Labour's programmes of reform. Why should we believe that more of the same approach will produce any better results than those seen to date?
On that final point, I would point out that, in a statement today, the Church of Scotland said that the Executive was to be commended for its input to the efforts to resolve difficulties in care homes in Scotland. The Church of Scotland has praised us as the first Administration for a very long time to take the matter seriously. The closure of a very small number of its homes is very regrettable. It is a decision that the church has had to take and one that we will no doubt want to discuss with the church in due course.
On the general point on the reform and modernisation of the health service, I do not think that I could have made our position more crystal-clear in my earlier statement. The reforms that have already been pursued, even just this year, in setting up the national waiting times unit; in delivering operations for people in Scotland who would not otherwise have had them; in extending, as I announced this afternoon, the work of having a national database of waiting times so that GPs and patients can go straight to the relevant information and quickly get the appointments that they need; and in the reforms to the Scottish Ambulance Service, announced this week, that will lead to long-overdue improvements in the service so that it can deal with emergencies properly and offer a more efficient service across the board—all those reforms, and many more to come, will make a difference in our health service.
I seriously object to the fact that this week we have seen Tories who represent English constituencies in the House of Commons wandering around the greens of London criticising the Scottish health service. Jacqui Lait said yesterday that the Scottish health service delivers a poorer service than the service in England. In Scotland, waiting lists are 1,578; in England, they are 2,091. In Scotland, there are 144.9 operations per 1,000 of population; in England, the figure is 130.5. A series of measures show that the Scottish health service is delivering for Scots. The only reason that Jacqui Lait and members of the Conservative party in this Parliament regularly criticise the health service is to run it down and ensure that it is replaced by something else.
Tory members may rubbish that comment, but Liam Fox, the Conservative spokesperson, says that the first phase of their campaign is to show that the NHS is not working and the second is to show that it cannot work and will not work. The Conservatives do not want the national health service to work. We do, and we will now deliver.
Budget
To ask the First Minister what benefit will accrue to Scotland from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget. (S1F-1829)
After the statement and the questions that we had earlier, it may be best to say, "Lots." As I said earlier, the chancellor's statement will benefit business, the health service, older people, children, families and people in and out of work in Scotland. For those reasons it is to be praised. We have to use the opportunities that it offers to build a better society.
I take this opportunity to say that the coalition side of this chamber is delighted with the chancellor's redistributionist approach and the positive consequences that will flow from it towards the NHS, towards better public services and to the drive towards full employment.
Will the First Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the chancellor's proposals for the child tax credit will do much to close the income gap for thousands of families in constituencies throughout Scotland, including Anniesland? Will he further take the opportunity to condemn the response of the Tories, which lays bare their ultimate aim, which is to privatise the NHS? Finally, will he take the opportunity to comment on the SNP's routine response to good news: to girn, greet and groan, and to provide no costed alternatives?
The child tax credit and several measures that were announced yesterday will make a significant difference, not just to individual constituencies—although I know that members will be concerned about that—but to the Parliament's commitment and the Executive's work towards tackling child poverty. Yesterday, the Child Poverty Action Group said that the creation of the child tax credit was brave, positive and showed a clear commitment to tackling child poverty. That is a good endorsement. The credit will benefit 450,000 Scottish families and it is long overdue.
Will the First Minister confirm how much taxpayers' cash, whether from the chancellor's budget or from elsewhere within the Scottish Executive budget, will be used to purchase the HCI private hospital in Clydebank? Will the First Minister tell us what the Scottish Executive's plans are for that hospital? Will he explain why, if the Scottish Executive now needs a private hospital to tackle undercapacity in the NHS, it has pursued a policy of deliberately cutting acute beds in the NHS by 650 over the past three years?
The final point is a gross distortion and flies in the face of the demand that is regularly made in the chamber that we ensure that we modernise our health service. It is vital that we move the situation in Scotland so that people are no longer treated overnight in hospital beds, but are treated in their own locality, in out-patient and GP clinics. We must merge the duties of doctors and nurses in a flexible and modern way and ensure that people are treated more quickly in their own locality. That is the strategy of the health service in Scotland. It will modernise the service and put patients first.
For national newspapers to say, under banners on their editorial pages that use words such as honesty, that the Executive would ever countenance spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a building in Clydebank for the health service is completely untrue and irresponsible. We have said all along that we will maximise the use of health facilities in Scotland, in the private and public sectors, for the benefit of our NHS patients. That will not involve spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the HCI hospital in Clydebank. That is a silly and irresponsible proposal. However, we are in discussion with HCI and others about how best to maximise the use of that facility and others. We will consider all options in securing the best health service for Scottish patients.
Longannet Coal Mine (Closure)
To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Executive intends to make available to the workers and communities affected by the closure of the Longannet deep coal mine. (S1F-1811)
I would like to express my deep sympathy for those most affected by the decision, some of whom I know very well, having worked in the Tullibody area for many years. Tullibody is an ex-coal mining area that lost its mines long before today.
The closure of Longannet coal mine was deeply disappointing. Our priority now is to assist those facing redundancy. We have arranged for a rapid response team to be put in place, led by Scottish Enterprise Fife, with the participation of other relevant national and local bodies. This team will urgently address the needs of those individuals and businesses affected by the closure.
I thank the First Minister for that useful answer. I am sure that he agrees that it is a tragedy that such an important asset was lost to the nation.
Will the First Minister tell me what further support will be provided to the 120 men who lost their jobs last year? Will he confirm that he is aware that the mine closed under a cloud of heavy suspicion? Last year the mine lost an important face, following a roof fall, and more recently suffered a catastrophic flooding, both of which caused miners extreme concern and suspicion, particularly given that the company was already in deep financial trouble. Because of the level of concern and suspicion, does the First Minister support the miners' call for a full public inquiry to reveal the truth about how the tragedy was allowed to happen?
The immediate priority is to deal with the people concerned. That is why Wendy Alexander met with those most directly involved last week in her capacity as Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning.
It is critically important that we move on behalf of those people and their families and that we ensure that the right support is in place to secure long-term jobs and opportunities, not least for the modern apprentices who were employed at the mine. They might now be worrying about their future. We have already had discussions with Scottish Enterprise Fife to secure new opportunities for them after the summer when they complete the first stage of their courses.
I thank the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning for the meeting she held in Glasgow last Wednesday. That brought together representatives from her department, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Scottish Enterprise Fife to discuss the ramifications of the closure of Longannet. The meeting was constructive.
As the First Minister indicated, one of the main concerns is not only the 500 men who were made redundant but the apprentices who have now lost their employment. Those apprentices succeeded in getting there after taking a long and complicated path and were the crème de la crème, as described at that meeting in Glasgow. Will the First Minister assure me that those apprentices will secure appropriate placements with local employers and that they will be able to continue with their apprenticeships and secure their deserved completion?
As I have already indicated, I regard that as a priority. The apprentices were on the verge of a great opportunity. That opportunity has been taken from them with the closure of the mine. It is vitally important that local bodies secure new opportunities for them, as they have been instructed to do, by the summer.