Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02110)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Last week, when he sprang to the defence of his health secretary, the First Minister revealed something that a lot of us had suspected for some time. He said:
“I am in on everything”.—[Official Report, 15 May 2014; c 31065.]
If he really is in on everything, will the First Minister tell us why Alex Neil reversed the decision that had been taken by Nicola Sturgeon on mental health services in Lanarkshire? If Alex Neil was acting in the best interests of patients in Lanarkshire, can the First Minister explain what Nicola Sturgeon was doing?
Every health secretary has the right, when taking office, to review a whole range of decisions. Johann Lamont is right, in that this is about health provision in Lanarkshire, which affects 500,000 people. The health secretary was well within his rights to look at health provision in Lanarkshire and the proposals that were coming forward and to make his views known.
He made his view known that there should be provision in Monklands district general hospital, Wishaw general hospital and Hairmyres hospital, the three hospitals concerned. That is what he said in the memo on 26 September. I think that a health secretary is well within his rights to do that. He discharged his responsibilities and he was acting in the best interests of the health service of Scotland.
We are in the unusual situation in which both Alex Neil and Alex Salmond agree that Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong. Who else does the First Minister think got it wrong? Ian Ross, the chief executive of NHS Lanarkshire, on the very morning when he was instructed by Alex Neil’s office to reverse his plan, was still insisting that the original proposals would mean
“improved quality of service to patients”.
Ian Ross said:
“There is no alternative option which can deliver the same benefits”.
Catriona Borland, a senior official in the Government’s health team, said that retaining beds at Monklands would result in a “less than optimal service”.
Can the First Minister explain why health professionals wasted two years trying to redesign a service, if it was not in the interests of patients?
I am not sure whether Johann Lamont is aware that in the proposals of 2006, which were approved by the health team when she was a member of the Government, it was proposed that there be an acute ward in Monklands hospital. I could equally ask her why the Government of which she was a member approved that formulation, if she is now criticising the health secretary for agreeing with her. I find it quite extraordinary that that lapse of memory has crept into Johann Lamont’s articulation.
Other considerations have to be borne in mind—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr McNeil.
Johann Lamont is quite right. There is a letter—which I know is known to Johann Lamont because it was released under freedom of information. For understandable reasons, it is a confidential letter. The letter was written to me by a patient. I found it then, and I find it now, a very moving account of why that patient did not agree that the ward should be closed. The patient said:
“These nurses in the wards know us personally over many years, as long as 20; that’s a very long time. We as patients have bonded with our nurses in such a way that we trust them with our lives. ... Many mentally ill patients can’t read or write, but we do know we need these wards to stay open. Families are much concerned at the best of times; they visit us when they finish work and work long hours, too. Ask yourself this, if one of your own family was ill, after working 12-hour shifts then to have to travel at least 15 miles or so at hours without public transport being available, could you do it? ... You should keep it open for the mentally ill.” [Interruption.]
Order.
I think that that is a moving letter, which should be listened to with respect by members in this chamber—[Interruption.]
Order.
The letter was written in September 2012 by one of the patients who was particularly concerned by rumours about the ward closing—[Interruption.]
Ms McMahon!
I think that it is entirely reasonable for the Government to take those opinions into account and entirely reasonable for a health secretary to discharge his responsibility in the way that Alex Neil did.
For the absence of doubt, the First Minister believes that Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong. He believes that Scotland’s most senior health officials got it wrong.
Of course we should listen to patients and users. What does the First Minister say about Francis Fallon? Mr Fallon is the chair of Lanarkshire Links, which advocates on behalf of 800 mental health service users and carers. Mr Fallon has said:
“The members of Lanarkshire Links were totally shocked, bewildered and very upset about this decision, taken in a spur of the moment, knee jerk reaction by Mr Neil, without any discussion or consideration of those hundreds of service users and their carers.”
Mr Fallon was a mental health nurse for 30 years. He was given an MBE for his work on mental health. He and his colleagues spent two years working on the proposal, only to be ignored. What does the First Minister have to say to him and the members of Lanarkshire Links who have been let down by Alex Neil?
I have read out a moving letter from a patient who was frightened about being affected by the proposals as they were. That was one of the interests that were taken into account—quite rightly—by the health secretary. What the health secretary sent back, through his officials, to the board was a proposal to look at the provision across Lanarkshire and three of the hospitals.
Many of us believe that matters of local provision are really important, both in mental health services and across the range of health services. The board is confident that the configuration that NHS Lanarkshire has now will offer excellent provision for the people of Lanarkshire. That involves acute facilities at Hairmyres, Wishaw and Monklands hospitals. It also involves an expansion of services in the community. That seems to me to be a good position for the people of Lanarkshire.
Those things are, quite properly, taken into account, as they were taken into account in other hospital situations in Lanarkshire. That is what health secretaries are elected to do. A health secretary discharges responsibilities for all the patients of Lanarkshire. [Interruption.]
Order.
There is a great deal of opinion that the formulation and the circumstance that we have come out with is an excellent provision as far as mental health services are concerned. It is really important—the point was made in the letter—that when these patients, who are not always the patients with the strongest voices, make their opinions heard, their voices are listened to with respect. That is what the health secretary did, and he should be proud of his actions in that respect.
I do not know what is more depressing—that the First Minister makes that case or that he thinks that it is a credible case to make. It is desperate stuff. For two years, his cabinet secretary Nicola Sturgeon, the board, the patients, the staff, people who cared for folk with mental health issues and people who used the service themselves came to one conclusion and Alex Neil came to a different one.
One week into this, we have still to hear a credible explanation for Alex Neil’s behaviour. Let us look at what I believe is his charge sheet. Putting his political interests before patients—guilty; undermining the integrity of health professionals—guilty; misleading the Parliament and the people of Scotland—
Ms Lamont.
In my view—
Ms Lamont.
As I said, in my view—
Ms Lamont, “misleading” is not acceptable at First Minister’s question time.
I ask other people to judge an email in the morning that directs the health board to do one thing and, in the afternoon, the health secretary’s claim that he has stepped back. Is the First Minister really prepared to debase his own office and the Parliament even further to save the skin of the health secretary?
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable for Johann Lamont to disagree with the decision—the evaluation—that the health secretary made. It is perfectly reasonable for her to point out that different people have different opinions, although I have heard nothing about why the Government of which she was a member in 2006 considered that there should be acute facilities in Monklands hospital. I presume that all the expertise and advice was available in 2006, when a different proposal and conclusion came forward. When we get to the debate in a few minutes time I will read extensively from a document that demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that that fact and all other facts were volunteered by the Government—[Interruption.]
Order.
Perhaps I should read from the document now. The document, which is dated 1 December 2012, was released to John Pentland on 5 March 2013. Every iota of that information was available to Johann Lamont’s MSPs last March. [Interruption.] I just heard Richard Simpson say, “Oh no, it was not.” I hope that he stays for the debate because yes, it was.
Oh, I will be.
Dr Simpson!
I say this to the Labour leader. This is a time when people are rightly concerned that the Labour Party may be planning to remove free prescriptions from the national health service, a time when people are concerned about the Labour Party’s open questioning of free personal care, and a time when people are concerned that the Labour Party will reintroduce tuition fees. The Labour Party chooses to have a spurious motion of no confidence at a time when people are debating and looking at the great issues that face the country. [Interruption.]
Order.
There will not be judgment on Alex Neil; there will be a judgment on this pathetic Opposition.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02109)
No plans, near future.
The Scottish National Party’s case for independence as contained in its white paper relies heavily on oil income, but the figures that are quoted in it are massively out of date and need to be refreshed. John Swinney promised 14 months ago, in the Government’s oil analysis, regular updates on oil projections. He has not delivered. He promised my colleague Gavin Brown in the chamber, eight weeks ago, today a fresh analysis of Scotland’s oil production and income “within weeks”. Nearly two months on, we still have silence from the Government.
Last year, the difference between the SNP’s projected oil income and what was collected was nearly £3 billion. The SNP has a duty to tell people how it would balance the books in an independent Scotland. Instead, all that we have had is promises of updates month after month, week after week. If the Government has not done a fresh analysis, why not? If it has done that analysis, why will it not publish it?
The analysis will be released, as Mr Swinney committed himself to doing. Ruth Davidson should be very careful what she wishes for in such matters. When that analysis is released, it will examine the United Kingdom Government’s track record on forecasting oil revenues—not just over the past few years, but over the past 30 to 40 years. If we believed the Conservative Party on the subject of Scotland’s oil, it would all have been finished more than 10 years ago. That was the forecast of the Conservative spokesperson.
When the forecast comes out, it will look at the credibility of an Office for Budgetary Responsibility that suggests that oil prices will be less than $100 a barrel, when the price is currently $110 a barrel. It will look at the credibility of an oil-price forecast from the OBR that says that prices will be under $100 a barrel, when the Department of Energy and Climate Change says that the price is pushing towards $130 a barrel. It will look at the huge surge of investment of £13 billion sterling in the North Sea, which is, of course, taken off current oil revenues because of the allowance against capital investment, but is there to increase future oil production and, therefore, revenues. It will recognise that, over the next 40 to 50 years, there are massive quantities of oil and gas to come from the Scottish sector of the North Sea. However, there is a fundamental question: will it go where it has gone for the last 40 years, and disappear into the maw of the London Treasury or will it be invested in the economy and future life chances of the people of Scotland?
We hear more blithe assurances after eight weeks of similar. It is not just me who is asking. The Scottish Parliament’s information centre asked the Government for answers two weeks ago and was told, “Soon.” Then it asked last week, and was told, “Soon.” In better times, when the SNP was keen to shine a light on oil figures, it pulled in civil servants over the weekend to publish a report. Now that the news is not so good, it seems to be dragging its feet.
The OBR has changed its figures and the oil and gas industry has revised its production estimates downwards, but the Scottish Government continues to deny reality. People want clarity, but the First Minister has stalled on giving it, because if he did it would blow yet another hole in his independence white paper.
Is not the reason why John Swinney is refusing to honour his months-long commitment to give promised updates on those oil figures that they wreck the SNP’s key case for independence?
No, it is not. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to keep up with the changes in the OBR figures, since they change more often than the weather, where oil forecasts are concerned. In my first answer, I pointed out some of the substantial difficulties with the OBR figures and how they are incompatible with other figures that have been produced by the UK Government on forecasts of oil prices.
However, the most important underlying point is the massive investment that is currently taking place in the waters around Scotland. Of course, it could be that all those huge international and domestic oil companies are investing because they do not believe that there is any more oil and gas left in the North Sea and they believe the OBR, which says that production will be absolutely flat and will not increase at all, thanks to that investment. They could be investing all those funds for no return whatsoever—or, we could conclude that if oil companies are investing £13 billion in the waters around Scotland, it is probably in the expectation that oil production is going to rise. As oil production rises, guess what: the revenues rise.
Of course, we then come back to the question: where are those revenues going to go? Are they going to disappear into George Osborne’s coffers for election campaigns, or are they going to be used to benefit the people of Scotland? I say that the people of Scotland should have our turn after 40 years of the London Treasury having its turn.
The First Minister will be aware of today’s announcement that the all-energy conference—the biggest renewable energy conference on these islands—is set to leave Aberdeen after 13 years of success and 13 years of year-on-year growth, which will bring £4 million to the local economy this year. Can the First Minister tell us when he first became aware of the plan and what he did to prevent it?
Our officials have discussions all the time. I have had the great honour of participating in the all-energy conference on many occasions. It is really important that we do everything possible to foster renewables conferences wherever and whenever, but of course that means carrying through on the commitment that this Government has made—with, I hope, support from Lewis Macdonald—on the importance of investment in offshore renewables. That is because—interestingly enough—as this Government’s commitment to renewables has been declared and applauded time and again, we have not always had the same consistency of approach from his party, and there has been even less from the Conservative Party.
We will work to retain conferences in Aberdeen, which I believe should be seen not just as the oil capital of Europe but as the energy capital of Europe. Of course, as Lewis Macdonald well knows, in an independent Scotland administration and regulation of the energy industry would be committed from Aberdeen.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02108)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
There has been much concern that, since this Government came to power, the use of police stop and search has increased fourfold. The response from Kenny MacAskill has been, “Don’t look at me, I’m only the justice secretary.” Now, there is a big increase in the number of police officers permanently carrying guns, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice says, “Who cares? Ask someone else.” The tearing apart of the long-cherished character of Scottish policing is being met by casual indifference. Does the First Minister care?
I do not accept the depiction of the response of the justice secretary that I read in the record this very morning. I mean the record of Parliament, not the Daily Record, although I am sure that the Daily Record reported him more accurately than the depiction by the Liberal Democrats.
I was struck by another article that appeared, and I ask Willie Rennie to consider it. It was by Hugh Reilly, who is obviously a journalist, but speaks with some authority as a former police officer. He said in The Scotsman of 19 May:
“A minority of Scottish officers bear firearms while on routine business, but this is hardly the scare story some are making it out to be … Instead of sniping, politicians and others should put things into perspective. There are more than 17,000 police officers, of whom less than 3 per cent are armed, hardly the stuff of a ‘police state’. Unfortunately, the operational decision made by the head of Police Scotland, Sir Stephen House, to prevent any unnecessary hold-ups in armed officers arriving at a firearms incident has been turned into a political football.”
Those are not my words but those of a respected Scotsman journalist. Willie Rennie and others would do well to bear them in mind as they address this important issue.
The First Minister needs to recognise that the policy has changed. Police Scotland has admitted that more armed police officers are ready and armed at all times, even on normal duties. So we now have more police carrying guns at road traffic accidents, more police carrying guns controlling crowds outside nightclubs, and more police carrying guns when stopping and searching children. [Interruption.]
Order.
SNP members do not know what is happening on their watch. They need to take this issue much more seriously than they are. The relationship between the police and the public is at risk, but the justice secretary says that it is nothing to do with him. Police officers carrying guns was supposed to be exceptional, but now it is being normalised. If the First Minister will not act, will he at least appoint an independent reviewer to look at the use of guns by the police?
Willie Rennie should pay attention to the response to his question that came from around the chamber. There are 275 officers who have standing authority to carry firearms on patrol. That is out of a total number of police officers in Scotland—thanks to this Government—of more than 17,000. That sense of perspective should be placed in the realm of Willie Rennie.
The alternative to having the efficient operation that the chief constable has proposed would be delay in those officers being properly equipped to respond to serious incidents. That would not be desirable. The alternative, if any of those 275 officers were not available for other duties—let us remember that that is the total and, on any one shift, the figure would be a fraction of that 275—would be officers having, because they were armed, to drive past incidents to which they happened to be first responders. That would be impractical and undesirable.
On the question of operational response, every single police board in England bar one uses exactly the same operational response as the chief constable. I can hear Willie Rennie saying that that is not our responsibility, but it is an interesting fact. I would like to know whether, given that his party is in Government in England at the present moment, he has expressed that concern or those fears to his colleagues in Government at Westminster, or does he just reserve his hyperbole for coming along to this Parliament to express unnecessary fears and to put things in a way that is not at all reasonable?
This is a serious subject. We should be proud of how our Scottish Police Service defends the interests of our communities. We should have confidence in its operational decisions and we should regard as a triumph the huge decline in recorded crime and the massive decline in violent crime—and, indeed, in the carrying of firearms. Just for once, maybe Willie Rennie will come to the chamber and give our police their due for their success in keeping us safe from harm.
House Building
To ask the First Minister how many houses have been built in the private and public sectors in each of the last three years. (S4F-02117)
The latest available figures for the completion of private sector homes are 10,150 in 2011, 9,990 in 2012, and 9,938 in 2013. The affordable homes figures include all homes that counted towards the Government target of 30,000 affordable homes by March 2016; the latest figures are 6,296 in 2011, 6,385 in 2012, and 7,189 in 2013. Those figures show that we are well on our way to meeting the 30,000 affordable homes target, which will be welcomed across the chamber, although I should point out that the 2013 figure is higher than anything achieved in any year by the Labour-Liberal Administration.
The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said at the weekend that not enough houses are being built in the United Kingdom. Can the First Minister indicate how the record on house building in Scotland compares with that in the rest of the UK and what action is being taken to boost house building in the private sector?
The governor of the Bank of England was absolutely right to focus attention on supply in the housing market. In direct answer to the question, the rate of home completions per 100,000 population for the year to end September 2013 was much higher in Scotland, at 268, than it was in England, at 202, and in Wales, at 180. That has been the case throughout the period from 2007-08 to 2012-13. The difference is particularly marked in social housing, as the new-build completion rate in that sector was 80.9 per 100,000 population in Scotland compared with 41 in England, 25 in Wales and 70 in Northern Ireland.
One of the reasons why we are experiencing less pressure on housing and less of a housing bubble in Scotland in general is that our housing supply statistics are better, but they are not good enough. I therefore think that, given the initiative from the Bank of England and its governor, it would be particularly instructive to have a joint look at what we can do with the finances of housing associations, in particular, to allow them to increase the excellent work that they are already doing.
Will any further reviews of housing association grants be carried out to increase the number of new developments by registered social landlords?
Yes, we are having on-going discussions with the housing associations. As Mary Fee has just heard, that is one of the keys to avoiding some of the great difficulties that we currently see in some parts of England. I think that she would acknowledge, as a fair-minded colleague in the chamber, that the figures for affordable homes are impressive in the circumstances that we have experienced over the past few years. Given that those circumstances—the straitened economic times and the cutbacks from Westminster—are far more severe than anything experienced by the Labour-Liberal Administration, it seems particularly impressive that the figures are higher than anything that the Labour Party achieved when in office.
Racial Intolerance and Hate Crime
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle racial intolerance and hate crime. (S4F-02120)
Racist incidents are decreasing. In 2012-13, 4,628 such incidents were recorded, which is 13 per cent fewer than there were in 2006-07. The clear-up rate, which is crucial, is also improving—it is up 3 per cent.
However, there is much more to be done. In February, we launched the speak up against hate crime awareness campaign to help victims of and witnesses to hate crime report all incidents to Police Scotland. We have provided £60 million of funding for a range of equality projects between 2012 and 2015, which is more than double the £28 million that the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition provided between 2004 and 2007. The funding includes more than £8 million that we are using to support 40 local and national organisations in their work to break down barriers to racial equality.
In that context, can the First Minister explain why the Scottish Government is cutting by more than two thirds the funding to the only national charity focused on anti-racism? The Show Racism the Red Card charity received funding of £70,000 in 2012-13, but the figure fell to £40,000 last year and the intention is that it will be £20,000 this year.
Perhaps that is not what Graeme Pearson meant to say, because I have a list here of 40 local and national organisations across Scotland that benefit from the budgets that I have just outlined, which are substantially more than the budgets that were allocated when his party was in office.
If the member would like, I will start reading them out. They include Access Apna Ghar, Amina, Article 12 in Scotland, BEMIS, the Bridges Programmes, Bridging the Gap, the Red Cross and the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights. I could go on right through the alphabet—[Interruption.] Graeme Pearson suggested, and it may have been a mistake, that only one national organisation was active in this field. Many, many organisations are being supported by the Scottish Government.
A funding package was signed up to and agreed with the particular organisation that Graeme Pearson mentioned. The other 40 all do valuable work across Scotland. Nothing should be said—even if it was a mistake or a misapprehension—that diminishes the work that is being done by those vital organisations.
It is vital that we acknowledge that work because, although we have made progress on the issues, a huge amount has still to be done. As Graeme Pearson and I both know, there are people in society who seek to take advantage of racial divisions. They must be combated in every possible sense in the chamber and at the ballot box.
Modern Apprenticeships
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to promote the value of modern apprenticeships to employers and young people. (S4F-02116)
I was delighted to announce on Sunday that, in the past year, we have again surpassed the target of delivering 25,000 new modern apprenticeships. We intend to build on the programme’s success by guaranteeing 30,000 opportunities every year by 2020. Through the make young people your business campaign, we will continue to encourage employers and, in particular, small businesses to realise the benefits that a modern apprenticeship can bring.
In setting out the Scottish Government’s vision for apprenticeships in Scotland, does the First Minister agree that all young people deserve the best possible start in life and that a modern apprenticeship provides the ideal opportunity for a young person to gain valuable skills, hands-on work experience and—crucially—a job on completion?
Yes—I do. There are some key figures to get across. We know that 92 per cent of modern apprentices are in employment six months after completing their apprenticeship. That is a highly important figure to get across in recruiting young people to the modern apprenticeship programme.
We should articulate the fact that modern apprenticeships are for both genders. In 2013-14, 10,445 women started a modern apprenticeship, which represents 41 per cent of all modern apprenticeship starts. That compares with 2,857 women a few years ago, which represented only 27 per cent of starts.
The message that modern apprenticeships are for men and women is vital, as is the message that getting a modern apprenticeship is a passport to a lifetime’s employment.
Previous
General Question Time