First Minister’s Question Time
12:00
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00570)
Later today, I will visit Irvine to welcome plans by the pharmaceutical manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline to invest £100 million and create 100 new jobs across its Scottish operations in Irvine and Montrose. That major investment reinforces Scotland’s global reputation in the life sciences.
I also welcome the fact that, yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer responded to John Swinney’s proposal of 7 February that Irvine, Dundee and Nigg should be granted enhanced capital allowances as part of their status as enterprise areas. I am sure that members recall the chancellor generously acknowledging that that was John Swinney’s proposal when he made his budget statement yesterday. I welcome those developments, as does the Parliament, and I look forward to announcing further investment in those areas in the coming months. I will visit Nigg tomorrow.
I am sure that the First Minister will enjoy his visit. Labour always welcomes glimmers of hope for employment and investment in the interests of communities throughout Scotland.
Very few of us would agree with the approach that is taken by the Tories when it comes to our health service. I was glad when the First Minister told us, last month, that Scotland is choosing a different path. Since then, however, we have found out a little more about the path that the First Minister is taking, which seems to have been on a bit of a downhill gradient. We have fewer nurses, decreasing standards in care of the elderly, cuts to social care budgets and patients going without blankets. Even the good statistics cannot be trusted—as we found out yesterday. Before the First Minister rhymes off the statistics that he has, no doubt, already prepared, I ask why we should trust them.
We should look at the record of public satisfaction with the health service in Scotland, which is currently at a record level. The ultimate verdict in such matters is the people’s confidence in their national health service, and that contrasts with what is happening south of the border, where many people wonder whether they are going to have a national health service worthy of the name. This Government, this health secretary and this First Minister are totally committed to a national health service in Scotland.
The point of the Scottish Parliament is that we all aspire to better than what the Tories are offering at Westminster. We expect the Scottish Government’s record to be better, too. I will talk about individuals in a moment. First, let us consider what experts have been saying over the past few weeks. The Royal College of Nursing says that there are not enough nurses to provide “basic, safe care”. Audit Scotland warns that councils and health boards are failing to ensure that vital care services can be delivered in the future. The Centre for Public Policy for Regions says that, since 2006, Scotland has been lagging behind the increase in resources for England. Does the First Minister think that they are all wrong as well?
There are now more qualified nurses and midwives in Scotland than there were in 2006. Let us look at the figure per head of population in Scotland in comparison with the figures in the other countries in these islands. For every 1,000 people in Scotland, we have eight nurses and midwives compared to 5.9 in England, 7.3 in Wales and 7.6 in Northern Ireland. That indicates the huge priority that the Government and the Parliament give to our national health service in Scotland.
Johann Lamont says that there is not much point in comparing what we are doing in Scotland—as a united Parliament, I hope—in preserving our national health service with what is happening in England. We could look at what is happening at the moment in Wales—the sole area in these islands where the Labour Party is in government. I have great sympathy for the Welsh Government, which is under the same pressure from the Westminster Government that we are under. However, the Welsh Government decided not to protect the revenue budget of the national health service in real terms—it is due to fall by 8 per cent in real terms between 2011 and 2014—unlike the Scottish Administration, which decided to protect the revenue budget of the national health service in real terms.
The contrast is not just between the Scottish National Party in Scotland and the Tories in Westminster but between the SNP in Scotland and Labour in Wales. I think that the vast majority of people in Scotland support this Government’s policy of protecting our national health service.
The Government’s health budget has been cut in real terms by £319 million. The substance of the First Minister’s answer was that the RCN—the nurses union—is wrong. He talks about Wales; we would like him to focus on his responsibilities as First Minister here. I assure him that Labour members would love to be in his position.
Once again, the Government’s rhetoric does not fit the reality. If the First Minister does not accept the picture that the experts paint, what does he have to say to Helen Macbeth? Mrs Macbeth is 92 years old. When she was seriously ill in the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, she spent her first night frozen, because embarrassed staff could not get her a blanket. She had to rely on her daughter to bring one in for her the next day. Jack Barr is a great-grandfather who went into the RAH for a serious operation. He spent three nights in hospital with only his beach towel to keep him warm. Does the First Minister realise that it is not enough just to say that he is protecting the NHS—he actually has to do it?
The health secretary has indicated that she is prepared to look into any case in which care has not met the standards that we expect in the national health service. The national health service is a huge priority for the Government and the Parliament.
Johann Lamont should just have a care. Jackie Baillie has already partially had to apologise—I think that that is how to word it—for her scare story about a shortage of blankets in Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, which turned out to be totally untrue, as she is very well aware.
I know that the survey that was published this week, which was—incidentally—not a Scottish survey, indicated concern among nurses across the United Kingdom. That survey had no Scottish sample, but the RCN has had surveys with a Scottish sample. For example, in a survey that questioned 4,000 nurses in Scotland in April 2006—when, I remember, Johann Lamont was a minister—two thirds of nurses said that their workload prevented them from providing the standard of care that they wanted to provide. In a September 2011 survey, the number who were concerned had declined to 50 per cent. I would like no nurse to express in a survey concern about the pressure of work but, by any standards, the situation now, when the SNP is in office, represents a substantial improvement on when Labour was in office.
Let us remember that, when Labour was in office, it could not even spend the Scottish budget that it was allocated, because of its incompetence in financial management. We have protected the national health service against the most ferocious cuts for many generations. That is why we stand proudly on our record on Scotland’s national health service.
It is one thing for the First Minister to repeat his version of his record, but he must confront the reality of what is happening in people’s lives. It is also one thing to attack Jackie Baillie, but it is something entirely different to attack others who raise concerns about the national health service.
We have established that the First Minister will not listen to me or to independent voices. Will he listen to people who are suffering from his mismanagement of the NHS? Mrs Macbeth and Mr Barr are sitting in the public gallery.
We have found at least seven recent cases of patients going without blankets at the Royal Alexandra hospital. We pointed out the situation, but the Government denied it. George Adam, the MSP for Paisley, called on me to investigate my health spokesperson, Jackie Baillie, for having the audacity to give voice to the complaints of her constituents. If he had just shelled out 45p for his local newspaper, the Paisley Daily Express, he would have seen that our claims are true.
If the First Minister will not believe me, why does he not come and meet Mr Barr and Mrs Macbeth in my office after question time to explain that we do not have a problem in the NHS and that the problem is a figment of Jackie Baillie’s imagination? They will tell him, as I am telling him, what the NHS is really like under the SNP. When will the First Minister stop the rhetoric and face up to the reality of his responsibilities?
I refer Johann Lamont to my last answer. [Interruption.]
Order.
I said, specifically, that the health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, would investigate any case in the NHS where treatment fell below expectations. She will be delighted to meet the patients concerned, or any other people who experience care that is of a lower level than all of us would expect. That is what I said in my last answer. I did not criticise the nurses of Scotland. On the contrary, I said that we would look to have a situation in which nurses were not concerned about numbers and standards of care and I merely pointed out that surveys show that the standard of care, according to the nurses, is in an improving situation, compared with when Labour was in power.
Of course, we should not be surprised about that. We should remember that, in 2007, before the current Scottish Government came into office, the Government that Johann Lamont was a member of said that the NHS would just have to cut its cloth, as it would get no consequentials whatsoever. That was the policy of Jack McConnell. Further, on 8 September 2011, during the election campaign, Iain Gray—who is sitting a few rows behind Johann Lamont—said on “Newsnight Scotland”:
“We wouldn’t ring fence the health budget.”
The reality is that, thanks to the election of the Scottish National Party Government in 2007, the NHS had more money spent on it, and thanks to the re-election of this Government last year, the NHS is having more money spent on it. Given what is happening in Wales, nobody can be in any doubt that the only party in Scotland that is committed to protecting the national health service and its real-terms budget is the SNP.
Whatever that was, it was not taking responsibility. I point out to the First Minister that his health secretary wrote and said that the problem with the towels was that, although they were there, the staff could not source them. The First Minister said that the incident was isolated. However, as was reported in the Evening Times, Unison members have been complaining for 10 months that this is a serious issue. It is about time that the First Minister took responsibility, recognised the powers that he has to defend the NHS and responded to constituents’ concerns.
As Johann Lamont well knows, the health board explicitly denied Jackie Baillie’s claims with regard to the recycled towels, and I do not think that it is useful to return to an issue that the Labour health spokesperson should be genuinely embarrassed about.
Like Nicola Sturgeon, I have a great interest in ensuring that every patient who experiences less than satisfactory care is not just met but has their issues and complaints dealt with. I merely point out that it is beyond argument that, if Labour had come to power in 2007 and continued in office, or if it had come to power last year, less resource would have been spent on Scotland’s national health service. Johann Lamont was in government in 2007 and was deputy leader last year, so she should hang her head in shame about the fact that she was prepared to underresource Scotland’s national health service.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00554)
I have no plans to do so in the near future, but I think that Ruth Davidson has an appointment with the Prime Minister in the very near future.
Indeed.
Can the First Minister say how much money has been diverted within the health budget in Scotland to fund free prescriptions for people like him, who are perfectly willing and able to pay?
I am not surprised in the slightest that Ruth Davidson does not want to talk about yesterday’s budget, and particularly its effect on old people across Scotland. However, let us remember the huge number of people—hundreds of thousands of people—who earn less than £16,000 who were having to pay for prescriptions in Scotland, before the charges were rightly abolished by this Government. I can tell Ruth Davidson that the idea that we should cut taxes for the richest members of the community at the expense of the provision of medicine that people can afford will be deeply unpopular in Scotland. However, deep unpopularity is nothing new for the Scottish Conservative Party.
I am happy to talk about the 73,000 people taken out of tax altogether, the 2.1 million people who see their tax rate rise, and the biggest rise in pensions, which will benefit pensioners across the country. However, those are not the numbers that I asked the First Minister for. I will give him the numbers that I asked for.
The Government’s own figure is that £130 million will have been spent on funding free prescriptions by the end of this month alone. There is £130 million to buy votes at the last election, but, as we heard last week, there is no money for a cancer drug fund. There is £130 million for free prescriptions, but the Royal College of Nursing tells us this week that there is less money for nurses on the front line and—despite the First Minister’s protestations today—that the number of nurses in Scotland is the lowest for six years. There is a £130 million bill for free prescriptions, but yesterday a health board was found to be fiddling the figures because it was missing its targets. Today, the British Medical Association says that even visiting the family doctor means getting treated in substandard conditions in crumbling buildings.
Government is all about choices. Will the First Minister now admit that there are far greater needs in Scotland’s health service than a free prescription giveaway, which is his choice?
I think that pressure on the national health service and other budgets in Scotland might be something to do with the cutbacks that are taking place because of the Westminster Government. I am surprised that even Ruth Davidson would want to defend a situation in which pharmacists across the country testified that patients had to choose which medicines they took because of prescription charges and the impost on people with repeat and regular prescriptions.
I do not think that it was a particularly good idea for Ruth Davidson to mention the BMA. As I understand it, the BMA is thinking of standing candidates against the Conservative Party in England so disgusted is it by the performance of the Tory Government on the health service.
However, I am delighted that Ruth Davidson wants to talk about yesterday’s budget, because David Mundell on television last night was unable to tell us how many people in Scotland would benefit from the cut in top-rate tax and how many pensioners in Scotland would suffer because they had been punished in the budget. I can tell her that 15,000 top-rate taxpayers in Scotland will benefit and 327,000 current pensioners and half a million future pensioners will be punished by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition.
Incidentally, I believe that the 15,000 top-rate taxpayers in Scotland would not have wanted their bonus to be at the expense of half a million pensioners in Scotland. Therein lies the difference between the politics of the Scottish National Party and Scotland and the politics of the Conservative Party. Punish the pensioners and keep the rich happy is the policy of the Tory party; devoted to all the people in Scotland is the policy of this Government.
Since the publication of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the waiting times scandal in NHS Lothian I have been approached by a number of patients and staff who have raised further concerns about management culture, governance and practices in NHS Lothian. Will the First Minister now instruct a comprehensive and independent review of the whole of NHS Lothian’s activities?
In her statement yesterday, the health secretary dealt with that exact point in terms of taking forward this issue. I do not think that anyone listening to that statement or participating in the questions on it could be under any impression other than that the cabinet secretary takes the situation very seriously and is determined to ensure that it is sorted out, as it is being sorted out.
However, I do not think that the issue should deflect from the reality that more people in Scotland right now are satisfied with the national health service than ever before. We owe an enormous amount to the dedication and work of the health professionals, nurses and all the staff in our national health service across Scotland.
What assurances can the First Minister provide to the 60-strong workforce at Solway Precast in Barrhill, which is facing closure, and the workforce at the nearby Nestlé plant in Girvan, who are facing significant redundancies, following announcements from both companies over the past week? Will the Scottish Government work effectively to mitigate the impact on them, their families and the local community?
I share the member’s concern about the recent developments at Solway Precast and Nestlé and the impact that those will have on the employees affected, their families and the communities in south Ayrshire. I can confirm that we will do everything that we can to help. The local Ayrshire partnership action for continuing employment team is making contact today to offer support to Nestlé employees who will or may be affected by redundancy. I understand that the company itself is committed to providing support to employees to find new jobs with local employers.
I hope that that reassures the member that we are doing and will do everything that we can to provide support to minimise the time that those individuals are affected by redundancy and to minimise the impact on the local economy.
United Kingdom Budget
3. To ask the First Minister what the impact will be of the UK budget on the people of Scotland. (S4F-00560)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget is a missed opportunity to get the economy moving to deliver greater fairness. The budget allocated next to no meaningful new resources and contained no new initiatives to support growth in the economy. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that in its budget document, which states:
“The Government has announced policy measures that ... have had limited effect on our economic forecast.”
What about the oil industry?
I hear the comment on the oil industry from the member on the Tory benches. If the summit of the Tories’ ambition is to undo part of the damage that they did in last year’s budget—although they will no doubt blame the Liberal Democrats for last year, just as the Liberal Democrats will blame the Tories for the effect on pensioners this year—it is hardly surprising that they have been reduced to their current poor position in Scottish politics.
Does the First Minister share my concern that George Osborne’s budget will do more to benefit millionaires than the people of Scotland?
The First Minister will be aware that the chancellor’s proposal to freeze age-related tax allowances for pensioners will, according to figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, leave average pensioners £83 worse off in 2013-14. Can he indicate what impact that disgraceful raid on pensioners’ tax allowances will have on pensioners in Scotland?
Yes I can—and unlike David Mundell I actually know the numbers. The decision will affect 330,000 current pensioners. John Wilson rightly indicates the effect in 2013-14, but by 2016-17 the effect will be £220 more in income tax, and the number of pensioners affected will have risen to 500,000—[Interruption.] I say to Alex Johnstone that his party has punished half a million pensioners, many of whom will no doubt be watching this debate.
Finally, I say to the Conservative Party that the pensioners’ allowance was first introduced by Winston Churchill when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have got to the stage at which the Conservative Party, in its determination to pursue its own agenda, is prepared to punish millions of pensioners across the UK, including half a million pensioners in Scotland, and reverse the policies of Winston Churchill—and Conservatives wonder why next to nobody is voting for them.
Just for clarity, does the First Minister welcome the increase in personal tax allowances to more than £9,200? Does he welcome the cut in corporation tax to 24p next month and 22p in 2014? The Government’s press release and his answers today completely ignore those two very important measures for Scotland.
I heard John Swinney welcome a number of specific measures in the budget yesterday. It is true that we welcome taking people out of taxation, and more competitive areas in the economy. I wish that the chancellor had been prepared to acknowledge Mr Swinney’s role in the capital allowances for the—[Interruption.] When Mr Swinney, out of the goodness of his heart, makes a proposal on 7 February, but I then find out that it was all Danny Alexander’s brilliant idea, as presented by the Liberal Democrats, that should be corrected.
The serious point is this: I do not believe that the relatively few people in Scotland who will benefit from the reduction in the top rate of tax would want to have that benefit at the expense of half a million pensioners in Scotland. I do not believe that, but it is clear that Gavin Brown does. That is the difference between our two parties, which is why we are here and he is there.
Regional Pay Awards
4. To ask the First Minister what impact possible changes by the United Kingdom Government to regional pay awards would have in Scotland. (S4F-00573)
Although Scottish ministers set pay policy for devolved bodies, we should remember that 32,000 public sector workers in Scotland are employed by United Kingdom departments and could be affected by the UK Government’s policy. Such a move could penalise public servants, damage public services, increase regional pay disparities and result in spending cuts to pay for higher public spending elsewhere. It will do nothing to promote growth for fairness, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should think again about that half-baked plan.
Will the First Minister outline what the Scottish Government is doing to offer the public sector workers who are under its control some security of pay, and will he expressly rule out following the Con-Dem coalition’s approach?
The Scottish Government’s policy has been consistent. We want a Scotland where a fair wage is a living wage and where work pays.
I am sure that Roderick Campbell is aware that every employee of the Scottish Government, the national health service and our agencies is guaranteed from this year at least the living wage of £7.20 an hour. Of course, almost two thirds of the thousands who have benefited from that policy have been women.
The living wage will also be introduced for local government employees in all councils, a substantial number of which will, I hope, be led by the Scottish National Party after May’s elections.
A majority of members are obviously against the UK Government’s policy on pay and pensions. I will ask the First Minister about his own pension. He was part of the previous scheme, under which he would have accrued benefits on the basis of his time in service. Has he moved to the new scheme, which would be much better for the public purse but perhaps not for him?
John Park needs to look up the record. He will find that his question is based on a totally false premise.
Bonus Points Scheme (Hospital Doctors)
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will reconsider its support for the continuation of the bonus points scheme for hospital doctors in light of a reduction in national health service jobs and a general pay freeze in the public sector. (S4F-00569)
There are huge issues throughout the public sector at present. How could it be otherwise, with our budget being cut so substantially? However, it should be noted that staffing in NHS Scotland is higher than at the start of the previous session of the Parliament: between September 2006 and December 2011, overall NHS staff numbers increased by 3.3 per cent—that is more than 4,000—and medical and dental staffing numbers increased by 17 per cent.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy has led by example on our commitment to long-term reforms of local and national consultant bonus award systems in Scotland. Richard Simpson will be aware that distinction awards and discretionary points have been frozen in Scotland since 2010-11 and that the spend on distinction awards is now less than it was in 2007, when we came into office. [Interruption.] Jackie Baillie seems to be questioning the numbers, as she often does. The spend was £24.1 million in 2007 and has come down progressively to £23.8 million in 2011.
I do not know whether I can thank the First Minister for that answer, because I am talking about the bonus points scheme, not the distinction awards.
When his Government imposes a pay freeze on everyone in the national health service who earns more than £21,000, how can the First Minister justify to those on low pay the fact that there were 201 new entrants to the hospital doctor bonus points scheme last year and that they received top-ups of between £3,200 and £25,632 over and above their salaries? How can he justify the fact that more than one third of the consultants who are already in the bonus scheme—not the distinction awards scheme—were given increases at an additional cost to the health service of £2.6 million? That happened despite the promises from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy to freeze the system to new entrants and cease increases for other people.
I know exactly what the difference is. I am sure that Richard Simpson would be the first to acknowledge that the discretionary points scheme—the local awards scheme that he is talking about—was in place throughout Labour’s time in office. The NHS boards believe that they are contractually obliged to continue with it until a new system can be negotiated.
It is not good enough for Richard Simpson to sweep aside the distinction awards scheme. There is no contractual entitlement to those awards, so it has been possible for the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy to freeze their value. Between 2009-10 and 2011-12, 84 fewer consultants held awards—a decrease of 15 per cent. Over the same timeframe, there was a saving of £4.1 million.
I understand why Richard Simpson does not want to thank me for my answer to his question. It is an inconvenient reminder that he is complaining about a system that Labour not only established but did nothing about in its entire time in office. It also allows me to draw attention to the area that is not contractually binding, on which the health secretary has taken decisive action.
United Kingdom (Separation)
6. To ask the First Minister whether he considers that separation from the rest of the United Kingdom could be negotiated within a year of an independence referendum. (S4F-00558)
If John Lamont was so confident about his position, he would not feel the need to describe the process of independence, self-determination and self-respect in such pejorative terms. I refer him to paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 of the “Your Scotland—Your Referendum” consultation paper, which I note has now received 7,000 responses. If I remember correctly, that is a somewhat greater number than the membership of the Scottish Conservative party recently. Mr Lamont will find in that part of the document a timetable for what would happen after a vote for independence in the autumn of 2014. I am sure that in his heart he genuinely agrees that the proposed timetable is proper. Following a yes vote in the referendum, the first election of an independent Scotland will take place in May 2016.
Another non-answer from the First Minister this afternoon.
Given what he has said about a possible timetable, will the First Minister enlighten us as to the discussions that he has had with each of Her Majesty’s Government’s reserved departments on the implications of separation for Scotland?
I note that the member continues to use that pejorative term. What is it about independence that so frightens the Conservative Party that it dare not speak its name? Is it because the number of independent countries in the world and in the United Nations has increased from 50 to almost 200? How many of the independent countries in the UN describe themselves as separated or as having engaged in a process of separation? I look forward to the United States of America celebrating separation day on 4 July. The greatest ally of the Conservative Party—[Interruption.]
Mr Johnstone—enough!
Many countries have become independent on a very timeous timescale. For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia declared independence on 17 July 1992 and became formally independent on 1 January 1993. Every UK Prime Minister since Harold Wilson has accepted the right of the people of Scotland to declare their independence and I am sure that that means that, after a yes vote, the Westminster Government will seek to conclude independence negotiations in a prompt and efficient manner.
Finally, I congratulate John Lamont on falling only 22 per cent in Tory Hoose’s popularity poll of its members. In contrast, Ruth Davidson managed to fall by 77 per cent. All the votes went to someone we can only call the lost leader—Murdo Fraser, who increased his popularity by 37 per cent. Mind you, with his opposition to minimum pricing, maybe we should call him the loss leader, not the lost leader.
That ends First Minister’s question time. We resume at 2 pm.
12:32
Meeting suspended.
14:00
On resuming—