Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02533)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
A Facebook plea was recently made for volunteers to help under-pressure national health service staff at the accident and emergency department of the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. Does the First Minister still think that there is not a crisis in Scotland’s NHS?
I make very clear to Kezia Dugdale, and to members across the chamber, the circumstances of the Facebook advert that she talks about. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde was seeking volunteers to offer a befriending service in the accident and emergency department of the Royal Alexandra hospital. Currently, similar befriending volunteers work elsewhere in the hospital. Those volunteers do not replace NHS staff or give any form of clinical care; instead, they might accompany patients who are on their own, and they can provide general information to patients and relatives. All health boards have volunteering policies, and volunteers have provided support to patients in the NHS for many, many years.
This is a good opportunity for all of us across the chamber to thank the many people who volunteer in our national health service. [Applause.]
Volunteers play a valuable role in our NHS, but there is no avoiding the fact that this is the first time that the befriending service has been extended to A and E and, by God, you need a friend if you have been waiting 17 hours in an A and E department.
I know from speaking to NHS patients and staff across Scotland that our health service is at breaking point. Those are the people who need treatment and the dedicated staff who provide it. NHS staff do a wonderful job, but they are struggling and they need support from their Government. Will the First Minister tell us whether the rise in the number of acute patient cases in Scotland’s NHS has been matched by staff increases?
There has been a 6.5 per cent increase in the number of staff working in the national health service since this Government took office. We are all well aware of the pressures on our national health service. A couple of weeks ago, Kezia Dugdale and I had an exchange on the challenges that face the national health service in England. I explained then the increase in perfectly genuine attendances at accident and emergency units in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in particular, from very sick older people, many of them frail and elderly and with respiratory conditions.
We know the pressures that our health service is working under. That is why the Government has been increasing funding for our health service and increasing the number of people who work in our health service. Only this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport announced an additional £100 million to tackle the challenge of delayed discharge in our health service.
We will continue to do everything that we possibly can to support those working at the front line in our national health service. It is perhaps because we work so hard to do that that a poll this week found that twice the number of people in Scotland trust the SNP with the health service than trust Labour.
Time and time again, the First Minister comes to the chamber to tell us about increased NHS staff numbers. We heard it again today: 6.5 per cent. The reality, though, is that the number of acute NHS patients in Scotland has risen by more than 10 per cent. That is an extra 1.4 million patient cases since 2007, and yet the number of NHS staff to treat those patients lags far behind. The Scottish Government’s £30 million this year to tackle the problem of bed blocking is welcome, but it is not enough, because tackling bed blocking is not the whole picture. The problem is not just at the back door; it is on the front line.
Scottish Labour would use the Barnett consequentials to set up a £100 million front-line fund to deliver more NHS patient services, in the evenings and weekends, where they are needed the most. Let us try that consensus thing again. Will the First Minister back Scottish Labour’s plans for the NHS?
When Labour finally comes up with some coherent costed plans for the national health service, then, in the interests of consensus, I will be very happy to consider them in an open and constructive way.
The fact is that Labour’s figures do not add up. I do not know whether Kezia Dugdale was listening to yesterday’s debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill. I do not know whether Jackie Baillie is in the chamber today, but I can understand why she might have chosen not to be. She spent most of her speech calling for additional money for local government and then, when she was challenged to say where that money should come from, she said that that was too complicated a question for her to answer. In the next breath, we heard a call for more funding for the health service, again with figures that do not add up.
I will tell Kezia Dugdale what I will continue to do as First Minister. I will continue to provide real money and real increases to the national health service from the Government’s real balanced budget. Since 2010, we have increased the health budget in real terms by 4.6 per cent. Next year, territorial health boards will get an above-inflation increase of 3.4 per cent. We will continue to deliver for the health service and work with it to address the challenges. Because we stand with our health service to make sure that it is equipped to deliver, 42 per cent of people trust the SNP to run the health service, which is more than double the number who trust Labour.
The First Minister has £113 million of unallocated Barnett consequentials. We are asking for £100 million of it. That is real money to tackle a real problem and it is about time that she took responsibility for it.
SNP members pat themselves on the back about the opinion polls but, during Christmas, a portakabin was given a lick of paint and used as an integral part of our NHS. The £30 million to deal with bed blocking is welcome, but it will not make the Scottish Government’s NHS crisis go away. Scottish Labour is putting the NHS first; when will the First Minister do the same?
Kezia Dugdale said that we should provide money from unallocated consequentials to the health service. The only problem with hearing that from Kezia Dugdale is that she is also asking us to make money available for local government, for a resilience fund and a whole list of other things. [Interruption.]
If Kezia Dugdale is now saying that it is not Labour’s position for us to use the consequentials to set up a resilience fund to help people in the north-east economy, that is a change in Labour’s position and she should clarify it.
To return to the fundamentals, this is about patients and staff in our national health service. Kezia Dugdale might want to talk about portakabins, but people across the country, and certainly those in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area, will be interested to know that a new hospital, at a cost of £850 million, is close to being constructed in the city of Glasgow. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy visited it yesterday. That is the investment that the Government is putting into our health service. We will continue to invest real money from real budgets in our health service and to support those at the front line. Frankly, we will leave Labour to its fantasy economics.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
I think that I might just know the answer to this question.
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02532)
I will meet the Prime Minister in about an hour’s time.
Yesterday, John Swinney announced that he was tearing up his previous rates and bands for the new land and buildings transaction tax and replacing them with more generous rates. He is able to do that because the Conservative-led Government at Westminster has cut stamp duty, which is reflected in Scotland’s block grant. Does the First Minister think that that tax cut, which will help homeowners across the United Kingdom and Scotland, would have happened if Ed Miliband had been Prime Minister?
That question gives me a massive opportunity to reflect on what I think is a curiosity in Scotland, although Labour will probably not want to hear it. Yesterday, a poll was published in Scotland that showed that Ed Miliband, a Labour leader, has managed to find himself with an even lower approval rating in Scotland than a deeply popular Tory Prime Minister. I do not know how he has managed to do that but nevertheless he has. For people who look at the Westminster establishment and do not fancy what they see coming from either side, the answer is to vote SNP and get strong voices standing up for Scotland.
On the question of LBTT, I am very proud that John Swinney yesterday put forward tax proposals that will take 50 per cent of people at the bottom end of the housing market out of taxation on house transactions altogether. That fantastic achievement will help first-time buyers, and I hope that Ruth Davidson will warmly welcome it.
I will warmly welcome the appearance on the next Conservative leaflet to pop through doors the words, “David Cameron is a deeply popular Prime Minister—so says the First Minister of Scotland.” I have to say, though, that it is strange that the First Minister will happily pass on a Conservative tax cut but wants to help Ed Miliband get into Downing Street so that she can stop such tax cuts taking place.
I want to ask about a point of detail on yesterday’s stamp duty reforms. When John Swinney first announced his rates in October, he said:
“I have decided that the taxes raised should be revenue neutral, raising no more or less than the taxes that they replace.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2014; c 39.]
He repeated that principle several times yesterday in the chamber. Following the chancellor’s tax cut, the Deputy First Minister had an additional £64 million to pass on in yesterday’s budget, but his climb-down amounts to only £53 million. Those numbers were confirmed to us by the Scottish Parliament’s own independent information service this morning. That extra £11 million will have to be paid by home buyers in Scotland. Why has the First Minister not passed on the full £64 million to Scottish taxpayers as promised? What is she planning to do with the other £11 million?
The answer to that is, of course, very simple. I am sure that John Swinney would be very happy to write in detail and provide it, but I will give Ruth Davidson the answer right now.
The tax changes that John Swinney announced yesterday are revenue neutral, and we had to wait for the detail of the block grant adjustment. However, there are two other factors that John Swinney has been very open about taking into account: the effect of forestalling and, as he has indicated, the contribution that will be made to the reserve. That is the definition of revenue neutrality that he has always given. I am sure that the finance secretary will be very happy to set out the detail of that in writing to Ruth Davidson.
I will make two other points. First, I am glad that Ruth Davidson has given me the opportunity to say very clearly again that the Scottish National Party would not in any circumstances—formally or informally—prop up a Tory Government. Scotland does not vote Tory, and I do not see that changing any time soon.
My second point applies to both Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale. Is it not rather strange that, on the day that the United Kingdom Government publishes its draft legislative clauses to supposedly implement the Smith proposals, neither Labour nor the Tories have the gumption to stand up here and say that the vow has been delivered? They know that it has not.
Is it true that contractors that are working on the new women’s prison project in Greenock will be told tomorrow that the project will not now go ahead?
As Murdo Fraser is aware, Michael Matheson has said that he is considering the issue very carefully. It is absolutely correct that, as the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice, he should take the time to do that.
It will not come as any surprise to any member that Michael Matheson and, indeed, the Government and I have carefully looked at the issue, because we want to ensure that the right decision is taken. I make it clear that my view is that all of us across the chamber should be determined to work to reduce not just the prison population generally, but the female prison population in particular. I am sure that, when Michael Matheson finally makes his announcement after his consideration, Murdo Fraser will be interested in that, and I hope that he will welcome whatever decision we finally arrive at.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02536)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
We know that the First Minister wants independence at all costs and at every opportunity, but that is not what the people voted for last September or what her party agreed to with Smith. It is therefore a pity that she has gone on a hunt for reasons to be miserable this morning. The vow has been met and delivered on time. This is home rule. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Mr Rennie.
Will the First Minister join the people who believe in partnership and say that this is a good day for the Scottish Parliament?
On the basis of recent opinion polls, there are certainly some people in this chamber who have good cause to be pretty miserable, but I will give Willie Rennie a clue—it is nobody on the Scottish National Party benches, that is for sure.
In all seriousness, let me engage in a very straight way with Willie Rennie on this issue. It is of course no secret that I did not think that the Smith proposals went far enough, but nevertheless I welcome the proposals as far as they go. It is really important that both the spirit and the letter of those proposals are translated into legislation. I welcome the draft clauses today as far as they go, but in some key respects, there has been a significant watering down of what the Smith commission proposed.
I cannot believe that Willie Rennie is going to stand up here and argue that in any circumstances it can be right for Westminster to retain a veto on whether this Parliament can abolish the bedroom tax. I do not believe that Willie Rennie will agree with the fact that, even though the Smith commission said that we should have a general power to create new benefits in any devolved area, that is not actually being delivered. Willie Rennie should stop swallowing the Tory line on this and instead get behind the Scottish Government and try to strengthen the proposals.
I say gently to the First Minister that in Smith she agreed to share universal credit with the United Kingdom Government. Now she wants to exclude the people she agreed to share with. Does she not realise how ridiculous she sounds? All we have to agree is a start date for the new Scottish system. That is not a veto—it is Governments working together. It is basic common sense.
When will the First Minister honour her part of the Smith agreement and extend devolution to local communities? Two months since Smith, there has been no action whatsoever. Last week, her most senior back bencher, Joan McAlpine, said that those who want to devolve power to local councils want to “bring down” this Parliament. Is that why the First Minister is dragging her feet?
I am very committed to devolving power away from this Parliament. That is why we have done the work that we have done with cities, and it is why we have done, and continue to do, the work that we have done with our island communities. I do not think that it is reasonable for Willie Rennie to say that we should be devolving away powers proposed by the Smith commission before the UK Government has even got round to giving this Parliament the powers in the first place.
Let me quote the draft clause in question to Willie Rennie. Before this Parliament could make regulations to abolish the bedroom tax, we would have to consult the UK Government about:
“the practicability of ... the regulations”
and the secretary of state would have to give
“his or her agreement as to when”
that change could be made. I am sorry if Willie Rennie cannot understand this, but when we require the agreement of another person to do something, that person tends to have a veto.
I am prepared to make common cause with Willie Rennie on this. Let us go together to the UK Government and ask for that draft clause to be changed. If it agrees to change it, we will have made real progress.
Type 2 Diabetes (Children and Adolescents)
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents. (S4F-02538)
To reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents, it is essential that we address the underlying risk factors that are associated with the development of this condition. Our obesity strategy, which was published in 2010, sets out our long-term commitment to tackling overweight and obesity. In addition, in January 2011, we published our framework to improve maternal and infant nutrition. From a broader perspective, our diabetes improvement plan, which was published in November last year, contains actions designed to improve the early detection of people of all ages who are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
Given that one in seven children in Scotland are now classed as either obese or overweight, I welcome the priority that is being placed on measures to prevent more children from being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. What more can be done to encourage school pupils to become healthy and more active by promoting cycle lessons, walking to and from school and putting greater emphasis in the curriculum on physical education and healthy eating? What more can be done to provide a determined and concerted focus in our most deprived areas?
The Government is committed to doing all that we can for children and young people, to prevent more children from being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Health and wellbeing is a core part of curriculum for excellence in Scottish schools, and across all learning stages it mandates that children and young people should enjoy daily opportunities to participate in physical activity and sport. The 2014 healthy living survey shows that 96 per cent of schools are delivering at least two hours of physical education in primary schools and at least two periods in secondary schools. That demonstrates remarkable progress since 2004-05, when less than 10 per cent of schools were meeting that target.
The First Minister will be well aware that having type 2 diabetes at a young age increases the chances of complications spiralling, including heart and kidney disease and even premature death. However, up to 80 per cent of cases of type 2 can be delayed or prevented through lifestyle changes. Does the First Minister share the vision of Diabetes Scotland of a future without diabetes, which can be achieved by funding research into new treatments and teaching children the importance of a healthy diet and regular exercise? Surely our aim should be a country free of Scotland’s silent killer.
I strongly agree, and I take the opportunity to commend the work of Diabetes Scotland. We look forward to continuing to work with Diabetes Scotland so that we can improve prevention and early diagnosis, which will enable us to limit some of the damaging effects later in life that Dave Stewart has spoken about. I look forward to working across the chamber on the actions that I have spoken about, and indeed on other actions, so that we can look forward to a Scotland without diabetes.
Reassurance to the Jewish Community
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government has taken to reassure the Jewish community following recent terrorist attacks and the reported rise in anti-Semitism. (S4F-02534)
Following the atrocities in Paris, I spoke with the director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities on 16 January to offer the condolences and support of the Government to the Jewish community in Scotland. Tackling anti-Semitism is a key priority for the Scottish Government and we continue to work closely with organisations representing the Jewish community. Most recently, we have provided funding to the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities to explore how attitudes to being Jewish in Scotland have changed in the past year, and I hope that that work, as part of our programme of support, shows our clear commitment to countering intolerance. We will also continue to work through Interfaith Scotland, which works to promote dialogue, and through education to eliminate religious intolerance as well as improving the lives of all of our faith communities in Scotland.
On 27 January, I will attend the national Scottish holocaust memorial event 2015 in Ayr, to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I will also be signing the book of commitment in the Scottish Parliament pledging the support of the Scottish Government to keeping alive the memory of what can happen if we allow hatred, prejudice and intolerance to remain unchecked.
I thank the First Minister for her comments and for the commitment that she is showing on behalf of the Scottish Government. Does she agree that our reaction should be one not of alarmism but of reassurance?
I would like to suggest one way of signalling the solidarity with the Jewish community that we wish to show. The First Minister issued a very welcome statement condemning the horrific attack on the kosher supermarket in Paris, just as she did condemning the Charlie Hebdo massacre. However, unlike the statement condemning the Charlie Hebdo attack, which has been put on the Scottish Government’s website, her statement to the Jewish community has not yet been put on the website. It is quite important that, as well as offering reassurance directly to the Jewish community, there is a public display of that message. I ask the First Minister to think on those comments.
I am certainly more than happy to take that on board and to rectify that, if indeed it is an omission. I assure Ken Macintosh that, if it is an omission, it is not a deliberate one and that it must obviously have been an oversight. I will ensure that that is rectified.
On the first part of his question, I absolutely agree. It was something that I also heard from the director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. It is very much a case of uniting together in solidarity but resisting alarmism, and instead taking every opportunity that we can to reassure those in our Jewish community. We are lucky in the diversity of our country. The Jewish community in Scotland plays a massive role in this country and makes a massive contribution. We are proud of that, and we should all stand shoulder to shoulder with it at this time.
I very much welcome the comments that the First Minister has just made and what is I hope a reassurance to the Jewish community in Scotland. However, in light of the comments by the Home Secretary about security at synagogues and schools down in England following the incidents in France, can the First Minister provide reassurance about the additional security measures that will be provided to the Jewish community, particularly at synagogues, social clubs, Calderwood Lodge primary school and the secondary school that is attended by Jewish pupils in East Renfrewshire?
Both the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I have had a briefing from the police on some of those specific matters. I assure members that Police Scotland is aware of the need to ensure that the reassurance and support that are given to local Jewish communities also encompass our universities. We will be working with university chaplaincies and other organisations to ensure that that is the case.
Similarly, the safety of pupils attending school is of paramount importance to us, to local authorities and to the police, who recognise the concerns of some Jewish communities. I assure members that the police will be undertaking a range of measures to provide not just reassurance but tangible reassurance.
I have no doubt that that will be a welcome message to everybody who, like me, wants to send out a very clear message that we will not tolerate in any way, shape or form the intolerance and prejudice that, unfortunately, some people in our faith communities are subject to.
My question underpins all of that. Does the First Minister agree that, whatever disagreements individuals may have with the day-to-day policy of the state of Israel, that should not be conflated with the Jewish community here in Scotland, and that such disagreements must never be allowed to justify the abuse or intolerance that, unfortunately, they are sometimes used to justify.
Yes, I agree whole-heartedly. Just as the wider Muslim community is in no way, shape or form responsible for the kind of atrocities that were carried out in Paris, so, too, the wider Jewish community is not responsible for any of the actions of the Israeli Government. Whatever people’s views are about Israel, that is not the responsibility of the Jewish community here in Scotland.
I want to see, and I believe that everybody in Scotland wants to see, all our wonderfully diverse communities coming together and demonstrating in how we behave and how we carry ourselves that, whatever differences there might be between us, we are one Scotland.
Trident Renewal (Impact on Public Services)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the renewal of Trident would have on the delivery of public services in Scotland. (S4F-02544)
The equivalent annual cost of Trident renewal is estimated by the Trident Commission to be £2.9 billion per annum at 2012 prices. How Scotland’s 8.3 per cent population share of those costs, which equates to around £240 million per year over the lifetime of the proposed successor programme, could be better used would be a matter for the Government to determine at the time, but I make it clear that, rather than spending billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction, this Government would want to use our proportion of that money to help Scotland to continue its journey to becoming a fairer and more prosperous country.
Is the First Minister as shocked as I am that, just a week after voting with the Tories to impose an additional £30 billion of austerity cuts, the great majority of Scottish Labour MPs backed the allocation of another £100 billion of public resources for new nuclear weapons?
The really sad thing is that I am no longer shocked when Scottish Labour decides to side with the Tories instead of siding with the people of Scotland. We saw that during the referendum campaign, and we saw it last week, when Labour voted with the Tories for an additional £30 billion of austerity cuts. Just this week—aside from a handful of honourable members of the Scottish Labour Party—most MPs from the Scottish Labour Party either did not bother to turn up and vote against Trident or voted with the Tories for the renewal of Trident. That is yet more evidence, if it were needed, that the only party that can be trusted to stand up for Scotland is the Scottish National Party.
Presiding Officer, I have a point of order in relation to the answer that the First Minister gave me in connection with the future of the proposed women’s prison project in Greenock. Given your statement to Parliament on Tuesday about communications and announcements being made by the Scottish Government first to the press and not, as they properly should be, to the Parliament, how can you assist members who wish to see further information on that topic being announced to Parliament and not in some other fashion?
There are a number of ways in which Government ministers can inform Parliament about their actions when they are a matter of significance. There are five different ways to do that. I am sure that Mr Fraser is well aware of those and I am sure that the Government is too.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In her response to me, the First Minister selectively quoted the draft clauses that were published by the United Kingdom Government today. She read the start but not the end of clause 20(4)(b). In full, it reads:
“the Secretary of State has given his or her agreement as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld.”
This is a very serious matter. I seek your advice, Presiding Officer, on how the First Minister can correct the record and correct her selective misquoting.
First Minister, would you like to respond?
I will read the clause, as Willie Rennie has done:
“the Secretary of State has given his or her agreement as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld.”
In other words, before a change, such as the abolition of the bedroom tax, can be introduced by the Scottish Government, the secretary of state at Westminster has to give his or her agreement. That seems pretty clear to me. I am not sure which bit Willie Rennie does not understand.