Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 21, 2012

Official Report 1131KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. I welcome the Deputy First Minister to her place and ask her what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00782)

Today the First Minister is travelling back from a successful trade mission to the United States, and I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

It is a pity that the First Minister cannot be here today, but I am glad that at last he has been able to make a trip to the pictures without it ending in farce—although in those trews he could give Jack McConnell a run for his money in the fashion stakes. Of course, I say that as something of a fashion icon myself. [Laughter.]

I know that this is a word that the Deputy First Minister cannot use, but how does she explain the fall in support for independence?

I reassure Johann Lamont that Jack McConnell’s hold on the title of champion of silly outfits is quite safe. She need not worry on that score.

I am very confident that the people of Scotland, when they see the proposition that this Government will put forward for an independent Scotland, will vote yes, for an independent Scotland.

Let me tell Johann Lamont that I am happy today and indeed on any day to talk about independence. I am happy to talk about the power that independence will give us to prevent any more illegal wars, the power that it will give us to rid Scotland of Trident and the power that it will give us to protect the vulnerable from Tory welfare reforms. Johann Lamont does not want to talk about any of those things, because she prefers to leave all those powers in the hands of her new friends in the Tory party. She prefers Tory government to self-government.

The First Minister is not here, but his spirit lives on in that response from the Deputy First Minister, which simply did not answer the question. Support for independence is falling. Is it not the fact that independence is becoming more and more unpopular because of airy and meaningless assertions from the likes of the Deputy First Minister, such as, “Scotland will have a seat on the monetary policy committee of the central bank of a foreign country”?

Johann Lamont mentioned the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England, and I have to say that she is becoming a bit like a broken record on the issue. The position of the Scottish Government is perfectly reasonable, and Johann Lamont does not have to take my word for it, because that is also the opinion of the former member of the monetary policy committee, David Blanchflower, who said that it is not unreasonable for Scotland to have a seat on the monetary policy committee. I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect that David Blanchflower knows a bit more about those things than Johann Lamont does.

On unpopularity, nothing will be more unpopular in Scotland in the coming months and years than the new coalition between Labour and the Conservatives—the coalition to hold Scotland back.

The problem for the Deputy First Minister is that she did not go on television and say, “David Blanchflower thinks it might be a good idea”; she said that it would happen, and she repeated that in the Parliament, without even asking anyone. That is what I mean by meaningless assertion in a serious debate [Interruption.]

Order.

Indeed.

I felt for the Deputy First Minister when she had to defend her boss’s love-in with Rupert Murdoch, but her defence of her boss’s banking plans is even more risible. We can imagine Wallace’s address to his troops at Stirling Bridge if Nicola Sturgeon had written it: “Don’t worry boys. If we win, we’ll still keep Edward as king. We’ll send him homeward with a seat on the monetary policy committee.” [Interruption.]

Order. We cannot hear the member.

Presuming that the Scottish Government is doing anything to prepare for independence—there is that naughty word again; maybe we should call it the “i” word—can the Deputy First Minister tell me how the discussions are going with the European Union about, shall we say, an independently-minded Scotland being a member?

An independent Scotland will be a member of the European Union and if Johann Lamont is arguing otherwise, she really is in an utterly absurd position.

It is interesting that Labour members are laughing, because Johann Lamont’s propositions are certainly something of a joke. I said that the monetary policy committee position was reasonable. David Blanchflower says that it is reasonable. However, the real question for Johann Lamont is this. If Scotland—when Scotland—votes for independence, is Johann Lamont really saying that she would argue against an independent Scotland having that representation on the monetary policy committee? If she is, she is arguing an absurd proposition, but we should not expect anything more from a party that is so happy to link arms with the deeply unpopular Conservative Party.

Again, the Deputy First Minister simply asserts something about the European Union. She does not ask anybody or check her facts. It is a simple assertion. She says that it would be absurd to suggest that an independent Scotland would not be on a monetary policy committee. In forty years I have not heard that argument being made by anybody in the Scottish National Party until this year.

There is another option that the SNP will not talk about, although Jim Sillars talks about it. It is, of course, an independent currency of your own. This is Monty Python’s “Life of Nicola”. What has being British ever done for us—apart from the pound, the monarchy, the Bank of England, financial regulation and the union jack. The only—[Interruption.]

Order.

The only dead parrot in the sketch, as the First Minister would have it, is independence. The reality is that the SNP—under its current leadership, on Nicola Sturgeon’s watch—is not even prepared to make the case, because Nicola Sturgeon knows that the Scottish people will not buy it: compromising the monarchy, compromising the currency, compromising the second question; we will still be British, but not nationalists; and the final humiliation of SNP members not even being allowed to say the word that they have campaigned for for their whole political lives. Is there anything that Nicola Sturgeon will not sell out on? [Interruption.]

Order.

I remind Johann Lamont that Monty Python actually worked quite well for the SNP in the election last year. We won an overall majority on the back of that particular broadcast. Johann Lamont was all over the place there, but I will try to take her points one by one.

On European Union membership, I will refer her to the words of the late and greatly respected Robin Cook:

“It’s in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all comers and Scotland would be a member.”

Was Robin Cook also wrong?

It might have escaped Johann Lamont’s notice that the SNP has been in favour of retaining the Queen since 1934. Johann Lamont says that she did not hear about our position on sterling—[Interruption.]

Order.

—until this year. That has been our position since 2005. Perhaps Johann Lamont should pay greater attention. [Interruption.]

Order.

I will tell Johann Lamont what the benefits of independence are: no more Labour illegal wars; no more weapons of mass destruction; an ability to tackle the poverty that Labour so abysmally failed to tackle; and an ability to protect people in Scotland from the policies of a right-wing Tory Government. Johann Lamont prefers to leave all those powers in the hands of a Tory Government. That is what she will find difficult to explain to the Scottish people.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. When the Deputy First Minister says that the Scottish National Party has been in favour of keeping the Queen “since 1934”, that possibly means 7.34 last night rather than 1934, when the Queen was not on the throne.

To ask the Deputy First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00775)

Dear oh dear. I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

The Deputy First Minister has said that she has sympathy with the doctors who are striking today and understands their frustration and anger at pension changes that they say are unfair. Will she explain to the Parliament precisely what she finds so unfair about an annual pension of £68,000?

That is a serious issue, so I will treat it extremely seriously. I deeply regret the action that has been taken today, although it is not a strike by doctors, because they are continuing to cover all emergency and urgent care as normal. However, those who are participating in the action are not covering non-emergency care. It is therefore unavoidable and unfortunate that many patients will be affected. I deeply regret the action. British Medical Association material states that the action is being taken to force the UK Government back to the negotiating table. I should point out that the Scottish Government has never left the negotiating table. I therefore consider the action not just unfortunate, but unnecessary.

I also regret the fact that the action is taking place over an issue on which the Parliament has limited room for manoeuvre. However, we remain willing to work in partnership with national health service trade unions to find a way forward on the pensions issue within the severe constraints that are imposed on us. I urge the BMA to continue to be a part of that.

I did not hear anything in that response from the Deputy First Minister about why £68,000 is an unfair pension income or about whether she would increase that at the expense of lower-paid public sector workers. All we had was more SNP grandstanding that it would do something different, just do not ask what.

On the point about sitting round the negotiating table, the Deputy First Minister knows fine well that the Department of Health had 23 meetings on pensions with the BMA, including five between the Secretary of State for Health and the head of the BMA.

Given that the responsibility of the Deputy First Minister and her Government is to stand up for the patients who are affected today and for the taxpayers, who finance three quarters of the multibillion pound pension bill—

Doctors pay taxes; it is Tory donors who do not.

Mr McDonald, please stop it.

I ask the Deputy First Minister how many appointments have been cancelled in Scotland because of the industrial action, how many operations have had to be postponed and how many patients have been denied treatment by their NHS because the taxpayers’ contribution of £50,000 a year to a £68,000 pension is not deemed to be enough.

I point out to Ruth Davidson—as I appreciate that she might not be aware of this—that the NHS pension scheme was reformed in 2008. Everybody in Scotland, including doctors and other public sector workers, and certainly the Government, understands and appreciates the importance of the long-term sustainability of pension schemes. However, many people in Scotland, including low-paid workers, think that the current United Kingdom reforms are more about a cash grab for deficit reduction than about the long-term sustainability of pensions.

I have already outlined the Scottish Government’s position. We will continue in negotiations, albeit within the limits of the severe constraints, to see whether we can find a better way forward. That is in the interests of patients and of those who work in our national health service.

On the impact of today’s industrial action, Ruth Davidson and other members will appreciate that I have been monitoring the situation carefully and closely and will continue to do so throughout the day. I am advised that approximately 3,200 out-patient appointments and around 450 in-patient and day cases have been cancelled. Patients have been advised and all appointments will be rescheduled as soon as possible. I also understand that approximately 60 per cent of general practitioner practices are affected to some extent. I will continue to monitor the situation as the day progresses. The interests of patients and of patient safety and continuity of care are absolutely paramount, which is why the Scottish Government will continue to work with doctors and health boards throughout the day to ensure that any impact on patients is minimised.

Why has the Dalai Lama not been afforded a proper welcome by the Scottish Government or the Scottish National Party-led Dundee City Council, which, after a visit from the Chinese consul wanted the city’s logo removed from the visit programme and will not even put up the deputy lord provost of the city to welcome the Tibetan leader? What message does that send about the SNP’s willingness to address human rights abuse in China?

The Scottish Government has on many occasions raised, and will continue to raise, with the Chinese Government in meetings and speeches the important issue of human rights. As for Jenny Marra’s question about Dundee City Council, I am sure that she appreciates that arrangements made by Dundee City Council are entirely a matter for that council. There has been no discussion or contact whatever between the Scottish Government and Dundee City Council about the Dalai Lama’s visit.

More generally, I say in all sincerity to members across the chamber that I think it unfortunate if anyone in any party seeks to politicise the Dalai Lama’s visit to Scotland. It is not a political or state visit; the Dalai Lama is making a pastoral visit to Scotland and is being very properly recognised and respected by this Parliament in what I understand will be a non-political meeting hosted by the Presiding Officer tomorrow in Queensberry House. I hope that all members will recognise that and reflect it accordingly in the tone that they take about the visit.

This week, Philips Lighting in Hamilton in my constituency announced the potential loss of 40 jobs. As the company has had a 65-year presence in Hamilton, the announcement will be a blow to the local economy as well as a shock for the workers concerned. What support can the Scottish Government offer both to the workers directly affected by redundancies and to Philips itself to ensure that the workforce in Hamilton is protected?

Like all members, I share the concern that Christina McKelvie has expressed with regard to developments at Philips Lighting and their impact on the employees affected, their families and, indeed, the general area. I understand that, as Christina McKelvie has indicated, there are around 320 staff on the Hamilton site and approximately 40 employees across production and support functions are likely to be affected. It is hoped that that number will be achieved through voluntary redundancies. I confirm that our local partnership action for continuing employment team has already contacted Philips to offer PACE support and that PACE presentations to staff have been arranged for 8 August with the offer of follow-up workshops and one-to-one career management interviews. I hope that that reassures the member that we will do everything possible to provide support to Philips employees who might be affected by redundancy and minimise the time that they are out of work.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the Deputy First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00780)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

In response to Jenny Marra, the Deputy First Minister talked about human rights in China. Let us remind ourselves that China is a country where 500,000 people have been detained without trial, where women are forced to have abortions on the orders of the Government and where political oppression is at its most severe in Tibet. The Deputy First Minister has a chance today to be very clear about what she thinks. Will she, on behalf of the Scottish Government, condemn the Chinese Government’s human rights record?

I condemn human rights abuses everywhere that they happen and am absolutely unequivocal in doing so.

I say again in all sincerity to Willie Rennie that I think every single member of the chamber has a deep commitment to human rights across the globe and that it is a mistake for any member to seek to divide the chamber on the important issue of human rights. I hope that that statement is unequivocal enough for Willie Rennie.

I am pleased to hear the Deputy First Minister condemning the Chinese Government’s human rights record—I have to say that it is a welcome change from the First Minister’s ambiguous attitude.

Will the Deputy First Minister now take some practical steps? We know that the consul general has put pressure on Scottish councils and the First Minister; Dundee has pulled back from the Dalai Lama’s visit and the First Minister is refusing to meet him. To put things right, the Deputy First Minister can do two things: first, encourage her colleagues on Dundee City Council to provide a high-level speaker to deputise for the lord provost; and secondly, get the First Minister or any other minister at any point over the next three days to meet the Dalai Lama. If the Deputy First Minister takes those steps today, she will send a loud and clear message to the Chinese Government that she condemns its human rights record. Will she make those changes happen?

Willie Rennie is making a serious mistake by trying to divide the chamber on these issues. I do not speak for Dundee City Council, but Willie Rennie’s description of its position is wrong. The Lord Provost will attend the reception for the Dalai Lama after he has attended a funeral. I hope that Willie Rennie is not seeking to make an issue of that.

As I said to Jenny Marra, the Dalai Lama is making a pastoral visit to Scotland. He will be properly recognised by the Parliament in a reception that will be hosted by the Presiding Officer and which, as far as I understand it, no party-political representative will attend. It is also my understanding—although Willie Rennie may know differently—that no United Kingdom Government minister, including Michael Moore and Danny Alexander, will meet the Dalai Lama while he is in Scotland.

I hope that Willie Rennie will do two things. I hope that he will accept the deep commitment of everyone in the chamber to human rights across the world, and I hope that he will accept that this is a pastoral visit by the Dalai Lama and that it would be wrong for anybody to seek to politicise it.

---

Carers (Support)

4. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government gives to carers. (S4F-00776)

During carers week, and, indeed, all year round, I acknowledge and applaud the tremendous work of Scotland’s unpaid carers and young carers, who care for their families, friends and neighbours. Yesterday, the Minister for Public Health launched in the Parliament the Support in Mind Scotland carers’ information pack, for carers of people with mental illness. With our funding, local authorities exceeded the target of delivering an extra 10,000 respite weeks by 2011 and achieved an extra 10,600 weeks. The Scottish Government is providing unprecedented levels of support to carers and young carers through our manifesto commitment, which includes at least 20 per cent of the change fund for older people—almost £50 million over 3 years—and will support carers of older people to continue to care.

I know that the Deputy First Minister recognises the great work that is being done in both my constituency and hers by organisations such as the Glasgow south east carers’ centre. When working with carers and carers groups, I became aware that many of the voluntary organisations that support carers and those who require care in Glasgow face extra difficulty, due to the unique tendering process that Glasgow City Council has put in place. Given those challenges, would the Deputy First Minister consider using the change fund to further support the work of those important voluntary organisations?

I am very familiar with the good work of the Glasgow south east carers’ centre. As James Dornan rightly said, it operates in his constituency and has a heavy presence in my constituency. I also know of the concerns expressed about the tendering processes. As I indicated in my original answer, we have made it abundantly clear that at least 20 per cent of the change fund for older people should be used to support carers to continue to care. That will apply in Glasgow as much as it will in any other partnership area. The change plan submitted by Glasgow city community health partnership states that approximately £2,600,000 will be spent on supporting carers, either directly or indirectly, which represents more than 20 per cent of its change fund application. However, we want evidence of support and will therefore ask all partnerships to submit a progress report in September, to review in particular progress on the development of support for carers and work on joint commissioning.

This week we all recognise the contribution that Scotland’s 650,000 carers make. I am confident that the cabinet secretary will be as concerned as I am and others are about this week’s survey of more than 3,000 carers, 80 per cent of whom believe that their caring role has an impact on their health. We know that work takes place, as she has just described, and that support is in place for many but, obviously, many carers are missing out. What action can we take to ensure that all carers receive the help that they need?

I very much appreciate Duncan McNeil’s question, and I think that he is absolutely right. I will be frank about the issue, as I often am when speaking directly to carers. First, we owe carers an unbelievable debt of gratitude, but we do not just owe them thanks; we owe them action to support them. Secondly, I am not sure that we will ever—no matter how much we do—properly repay carers for the extraordinary contribution that they make, but we have an obligation to do everything that we can.

I was struck by the survey to which Duncan McNeil refers, because it reflects evidence and information directly from carers that shows that they often care at the expense of their own health. That is why so much of the action that we have taken—and will continue to take, because it is work in progress—focuses on providing respite care and short-break provision, and on encouraging general practitioners and other health professionals to be conscious of the health needs of people who have caring responsibilities.

I am not standing here saying that the Government has got all that right and that there is no more that we can do, but we are going in the right direction and we will continue to work with carers’ organisations to ensure that we are fulfilling our obligation to them.

On behalf of every member in the chamber, I am sure, I end with a heartfelt thank you for the contribution that carers make. [Applause.]

---

Doctors (Industrial Action)

5. To ask the Deputy First Minister what impact industrial action by doctors could have on operations, diagnostic tests and out-patient appointments. (S4F-00778)

As members are aware, today’s industrial action is the first by doctors in almost 40 years. It is important to emphasise that doctors are not on strike, as they are continuing to cover all emergency and urgent care.

However, non-urgent care is being affected. As I said earlier about hospital care, boards have assessed the impact on operations at clinics and taken steps to inform patients of cancellations. As I said to Ruth Davidson, I am advised that approximately 3,200 out-patient appointments and approximately 450 in-patient appointments and day cases have been cancelled, and all appointments will be rescheduled as soon as possible.

I also understand that approximately 60 per cent of GP practices are affected by the industrial action to some extent.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer and advise members of my British Medical Association membership.

I think that every member in the chamber regrets the action for the effect that it will have on patients. Whatever the rights and wrongs on the pensions issue, I think that the public would be more sympathetic if doctors confined strike action to defending the national health service and patients.

However, the BMA gave three weeks’ notice of the strike rather than the statutory one week’s notice in order to allow patients to be informed in good time of the fact that their appointments, operations and diagnostic tests would be cancelled.

What action did the Government take? Was a chief executive’s letter issued to health boards? What monitoring has the Government undertaken to ensure that patients have been informed in a timely way of that disruption to their lives? What further action will the Government take to ensure that those patients whose lives are being disrupted today get their appointments as quickly as possible?

First, I reiterate what I said earlier: I deeply regret that the action is taking place, and I do not believe that it is in the interests of patients or the NHS—or indeed, ultimately, in the interests of doctors or those who work in our national health service.

Scotland’s health boards have been planning to deal with the impact of today’s industrial action since it became clear that it was going to happen. I have been receiving regular updates on the preparedness for the industrial action. As Richard Simpson may be aware, NHS Scotland employers and BMA Scotland agreed on and issued joint principles for dealing with the industrial action.

Health boards have taken all steps as quickly as they have been able to in order to advise patients whose appointments are affected or cancelled. Richard Simpson is right to say that the industrial action in general has been known about for a number of weeks. However, he will appreciate that, for some individual doctors, the decision on whether to participate in industrial action will have come later than that, so boards have had to assess the impact on an on-going basis and inform patients accordingly.

I am satisfied from the updates that I have had that boards have taken all appropriate steps to do that in order to minimise the impact on patients but, unfortunately, as I have made clear in previous answers, a number of patients—too many patients—will be affected by today’s action. I again give them an assurance that all appointments will be rescheduled as quickly as possible to minimise the disruption and the impact on patients, who should be the first priority for us all.

---

Rail Journey Times (Inverness to Edinburgh and Glasgow)

6. To ask the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made to reduce journey time on the main rail line from Inverness to Edinburgh and Glasgow. (S4F-00786)

Over the past five years, this Government has invested £1.9 billion in improving the infrastructure of our railways, which has included opening the Airdrie to Bathgate route, work on the Borders rail link and improvements to services between Dundee and Elgin. In addition, of course, the Minister for Housing and Transport will make further announcements on the future of rail this afternoon.

As part of that investment, we have made progress on reducing journey time between Inverness and Edinburgh and Glasgow by 35 minutes and increasing the number of services. In 2011, two additional trains were added to the service, which means that it is now provided by a total of 11 trains. Recent network improvements between Perth and Inverness complete phase 1 of the project.

I declare an interest as a regular user of the service. It would indeed appear to be more punctual and the number of services has increased. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that passengers to and from the north of Scotland will see further reductions in journey times by the end of this year?

As I said, the transport minister will provide further information about rail services in general this afternoon, so I do not want to incur the ire of the Presiding Officer by straying on to territory that he will cover later.

However, I am happy to confirm that a consultation on the new timetable was conducted in May and that the new timetable that is to be published in the autumn will see journey times being reduced again this December. In addition, Network Rail is currently examining what infrastructure improvements are necessary to further reduce journey times on the route. I hope that, as a user of the service and as a local MSP, Rob Gibson will welcome those developments.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—