Plenary, 21 Jan 2010

Meeting date: Thursday, January 21, 2010

Official Report 723KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether you have received a request from the First Minister to correct some erroneous statements that I believe he made at First Minister's question time in relation to the study conducted by the Nuffield trust into the relative performance of the health service in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

At First Minister's questions, the First Minister said:

"it"—

that is, the Nuffield trust—

"should not arithmetically"

miscalculate

"the number of doctors that there are in Scotland."

The fact is that the Nuffield trust did not arithmetically miscalculate the number of doctors in Scotland. It has issued a statement that says:

"This figure was obtained by the authors of the research from the Office for National Statistics using data provided by Scotland, and was subsequently published as the official figure for Scotland in 2006/07 … the validity of this statistic was not questioned as it was officially published by the ONS and it has not been disputed while it has been in the public domain for the past three years."

In other words, the source of any arithmetical miscalculation is the statistics published and authorised by the Government; it is not an error by the Nuffield trust.

The First Minister went on say that "the error"—that is, the Government's error—

"affects a number of the criteria"

that the Nuffield trust

"was judging."

In fact, the Nuffield trust has told us that it does not substantially affect the conclusions that it reached in its research project on the productivity of the NHS in Scotland relative to other parts of the UK. Is the First Minister prepared to apologise to the Nuffield trust for calling into question the integrity and methods of this well-respected international research foundation?

I am not convinced that that is a point of order. [Interruption.] Order.

This is quite unusual procedure. I have offered the First Minister the opportunity to comment, but he has asked whether the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing can do so. As long as—[Interruption.] Order. As long as it is purely a point of clarification, I am happy to let the cabinet secretary respond.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will take your point of order after the cabinet secretary has responded, Mr Purvis.

Presiding Officer, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to clarify what is, in essence, an extremely simple matter. The comments that were made by the First Minister during First Minister's question time reflect telephone conversations yesterday between the Nuffield trust and my officials and the contents of an e-mail in which the Nuffield trust quite clearly recognises the inaccuracy of some of the figures contained in the report.

What is not at issue is that there is an error—a mistake—in the Nuffield report. The fact is that the figures used for doctor numbers in Scotland included dentists; the figures in the other parts of the UK did not. It is therefore not reasonable to compare the figures for Scotland with the figures for other parts of the UK. It is not comparing like for like. That is the fact of the matter.

I ask members to reflect on one final point, Presiding Officer. What motivation would this Scottish Government have to try to correct figures from 2006 if we did not feel strongly that the figures were inaccurate? We were not in office in 2006; Labour and the Liberals were. [Interruption.]

Order.

I believe that when people falsely talk down Scotland's national health service it is my duty—our duty—to stand up for our NHS's reputation.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I have other points of order to take, Mr Rumbles. I will take Mr McLetchie's point of order, although I make it clear that I am not prepared to have another debate on this subject.

Presiding Officer, in relation to my point of order, you asked the cabinet secretary to provide clarification. The fundamental point is that the figure in question was provided by the Scottish Government. It matters not that that figure might emanate from the period when the other side formed the Administration. The fact is that it is an official statistic that the researchers used in good faith. The integrity of that research is now being called into question by the Government that was responsible for the error in the first place.

The bottom line is that that is a question of the veracity—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will come to you in due course, Mr Rumbles.

The bottom line is that that is a matter of the veracity of answers, and members know perfectly well that that is not a matter for Presiding Officers to deal with. The specifics of the issue should be taken up with the First Minister if members wish to do so.

The next point of order is from Jackie Baillie.

David McLetchie's point of order and my point of order relate to comments that were made by the First Minister, not the cabinet secretary. It is important that the First Minister, who appears to have inadvertently misled the chamber, answers for that.

We have already heard that the Nuffield trust has been absolutely clear that the figures were compiled using data that was provided by the Government of Scotland to the Office of National Statistics. The implication is—

Order. I would like to know what your point of order is.

I will be very quick. The First Minister implied that the statistics are inaccurate. Is the figure of there being double the number of hospital managers per capita in Scotland that there are in England, which is a rise of 4.2 per cent to a record level on this Government's watch, equally inaccurate? The First Minister needs to answer to the chamber.

That is simply not a point of order. Reference has been made to an unusual procedure; I undertook an unusual procedure—I have the right to do that. That is not a point of order, Ms Baillie; we are back to questions of veracity.

My point of order relates to what David McLetchie said. It is not about veracity, and I do not want to get into an argument about whether something is true. David McLetchie's charge was quite clear: the First Minister misled the Parliament. I do not know whether the facts are right or wrong. Quite frankly, this is not the moment if the First Minister does not want to clarify that. My point is that there has been an accusation of misleading the Parliament, and that needs to be dealt with.

That should be dealt with through the ministerial code of conduct, if members want to take it any further.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I believe that David McLetchie said that Nuffield acted on information provided by the Scottish Government. Can I clarify, Presiding Officer—

No, but you can make a point of order.

Is it in order for David McLetchie to suggest that the Scottish Government provided the information to Nuffield? Nuffield took the information from published sources. It did not check whether that information was comparable to the equivalent information for England, Wales and Northern Ireland—

I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but I must ask you to take your seat. That is a continuation of the debate that I have said I am not prepared to have. I have made it quite plain that if members want to pursue a specific point from what the First Minister said today, they should do so with the First Minister.