Engagements
Less than 1 per cent of health board expenditure goes to the private sector in Scotland. The figure in England is already 6 per cent. According to the Labour Party, it is heading towards 20 per cent. To describe a software or an IT system as an example of privatisation when, incidentally, the company already provides such systems to the health boards in Scotland and has done so since 1998, is—[Interruption.]
Well—this is what has happened to the Labour Party. I have said before that The Telegraph has become its house journal. If the Daily Mail has become the source material for the Labour Party, we can see why its questions get ever more ridiculous. [Interruption.]
Order.
MSD Informatics, the company concerned, has supplied software to the national health service across the United Kingdom since 1998, which means by definition that Tony Blair must have been privatising the health service in 1998. Actually, I think that he started the process of privatisation when the Labour Party pushed through foundation hospitals in the NHS in England.
Scottish health boards were involved in the design and management of existing systems to calculate payments to GP practices across Scotland. An IT system does not represent privatisation of the national health service, nor does a £450 million cost pressure over the next two years—[Interruption.]
The cost pressures are caused both by pensions and by the ending of the national insurance rebate, which involve decisions that were taken by the Westminster Government. Does that not exemplify the position of the Scottish Government, which is that cost pressures originating from Westminster have a huge impact on the Scottish national health service? [Interruption.]
The position for the Scottish health service is simple: if there is a move to privatisation and the introduction of charging—and therefore a lowering of public spending—south of the border, it impacts on the finances of the Scottish health service. That is why if we are to keep our national health service in public hands we have to control both the finances and the administration. That is what we should do, that is what we intend to do, and that is what is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people.
Order.
I am delighted to confirm to Parliament that we have increased health service spending on the front line in real terms, and that we will continue to do so. I am delighted to tell Parliament that the vast majority of people in Scotland understand why we have to control the finances of this country and our health service, as well as the administration, if we are to be protected from Tory and Labour attempts to privatise our health service.
Johann Lamont says that she will retain her current position. I hope that she continues to behave as she has done and continues to lead the Opposition in this Parliament for a considerable time. If she does, however, it will not be because of the enthusiastic support of her colleagues. I quote:
“The catastrophic thing would be for her to go and not to have Jim”
Murphy
“as leader. If we end up with an MSP or Anas Sarwar, we might as well all go home in 2016.”
I am not as pessimistic about the Labour Party’s prospects as the Labour Party is. I am sure that Johann Lamont will put up an excellent fight in the coming election and will end up exactly where she is now, as the Scottish National Party continues to keep the national health service in public hands.
There has been a huge increase in private spending on the First Minister’s watch—and he knows it.
Perhaps the First Minister can break the habits of a lifetime and indulge in a little truthmongering. He claimed—and now appears to continue to claim—that the NHS would be privatised if there was a no vote, but as he said that, he was increasing the amount of public money that is being spent on private health providers. Six weeks before the referendum, the First Minister privatised the health records of every person in Scotland. Will he just admit that he has done more to privatise the NHS in Scotland than any other politician in history?
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02288)
Getting an IT system and the use of a computer system from a company that already provides IT systems to general practitioners across Scotland does not constitute privatisation of the national health service. What it constitutes is having a better IT system than we have at present.
Johann Lamont has argued that I should beware of my anointed successor, but I have read in the papers that there seems to be a number of anointed successors for her. [Laughter.] However, she can be confident in having the support of the members of Parliament whom she leads at Westminster. The Herald quotes one MP, when
“asked if Ms Lamont was under threat”
as saying:
“‘Yes. People will rally round but the sharks will be circling.’”
I say to Johann Lamont that one leadership election in the political parties in Scotland is enough at any one time—[Interruption.]
Order!
I know that the Parliament will allow me to note that today is the funeral of Iain MacCormick, the late member of Parliament for Argyll. Mr Swinney is attending on behalf of the Scottish Government. Iain was the brother of Neil MacCormick and the son of John MacCormick, the greater home ruler. He was a fine member of Parliament for Argyll. He went to vote terminally ill last Thursday, because he wanted to cast his vote in the referendum in person. We will all miss him very much indeed.
—but we can be absolutely confident that whatever happens, a lot more people will vote in the SNP leadership election than will vote in the Labour Party one.
On our side, we of course send our condolences to Iain MacCormick’s family at what is a very sad time.
For the past six weeks, the First Minister has warned the people of Scotland—some might even say that he has misled them—that the national health service would be privatised if there was a no vote. Last week, there was a vote and we now know that it is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland to stay strong in the United Kingdom.
Some weeks before that no vote, the First Minister of Scotland privatised the medical records of every Scot in the country. Why did he keep that quiet until after the referendum? Is not it the case that Alex Salmond has done more to privatise the NHS than anyone else in Scottish history?
No, that is not the case. The Scottish primary care information resource is an information technology system, which replaces another IT system. To describe a contract for the Scottish primary care information resource as “privatisation” is like saying that this Parliament is being privatised because we use the Windows system in our computers. It is a ridiculous argument to put forward. The SPIRE system gives very substantial advantages in terms of collection and governance of information throughout the national health service. It is right and proper that the Government has sought and received guarantees on the data’s security. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
Johann Lamont, who denied this—indeed, I think that Alistair Darling said that no Government would privatise the NHS—should have a look at what Andy Burnham has been saying at the Labour Party conference, confirming the route for privatisation and charging that the Labour Party believes is going on at Westminster at the present moment. Given that that is now being confirmed by the Labour Party, will there be some acceptance of the knock-on effect that that has in Scotland in terms of finance and the critical importance for Scotland’s future of controlling not just the administration, but the finances of our national health service?
Do not worry. When the First Minister is long gone, I will still be doing my job on behalf of the people of Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order!
It might be a while since we last had an exchange of questions and answers, but that is no more credible than anything else that the First Minister has said in answers over the past period.
The First Minister, and his anointed successor, Nicola Sturgeon, have increased the number of NHS patients who are treated privately by almost 500 per cent. He spends £100 million of public money on private healthcare. This Government privatised our health records during a campaign in which the First Minister claimed that the health service would be privatised if we did not vote for him and—guess what—he was privatising it anyway. Now that the campaign is over, will the First Minister be honest with the people of Scotland and admit that he is doing more to privatise the NHS than anyone else in Scotland?
As an optimist, I hope that the coronation of Nicola Sturgeon will ensure that she answers a question or two, which is something that her boss is evidently not able to do.
But, to the serious business of this Government. We now know, because of the courage of a whistleblower, about the £450 million-worth of cuts that the First Minister is planning for the NHS, but decided not to tell us about until after the referendum. During the referendum campaign, the First Minister secretly privatised the health records of every Scot while warning—[Interruption.] It is astonishing that he was privatising the health records of every Scot while warning of the dangers of privatisation. The First Minister has increased spending on private healthcare to £100 million. I ask him: why does he say that he is against privatising the health service when that is exactly what he is doing? When was he planning to tell us about the £100 million spend on private health? When was he going to tell us about the privatisation of our health records? When was he going to tell us, in honesty, about the half a billion pounds-worth of cuts to our precious health service?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
There was a spectacular lack of forthcoming legislation in that list. Can it really be that the First Minister does not get it? We have at least two more months of what the papers are describing as a “zombie government”.
In the meantime, the First Minister will pick up another £20,000 of taxpayers’ money in salary and will go on his farewell photo op tour before the inevitable happens and his deputy takes over. We know that the First Minister has plenty of time on his hands, as that is what he told us all in a green-ink letter that he wrote to a national newspaper this week, but we also know that it is not legislation that he is working on—it is his book deal. If the First Minister is in office but not in power, what is the point in his hanging around?
One of the reasons why, about half an hour ago, the Scottish National Party had 62,870 members is that our membership expects us to go through a democratic process for, first, the election of a leader and deputy leader and, second, through the Parliament, the election of a First Minister. I have already indicated to Ruth Davidson the substantial work of the Government, including legislation, that is going on as we speak. I know that we will have the enthusiastic support of the Scottish Conservative Party, particularly for the important measures in land reform—[Laughter.] I know that that is close to the heart of Jamie McGrigor and other Conservative members. I say to the Scottish Conservative Party that we have no intention whatsoever to not allow the landowners of Scotland to develop renewable energy on their substantial holdings.
Across the range of that legislation, the Conservative Party—as ever, in that total democratic phase for which it is so famous—will give us substantial support on virtually nothing. However, the Scottish people recognise that the Scottish National Party epitomises, in that programme, the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Scotland; hence, the democratic success of our party and the lack of democratic success of the Conservative Party.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service proposes to cut whole-time fire provision in West Lothian from 77 to 61—a reduction of 16 firefighters. Local people are rightly up in arms about that and are very concerned about safety issues. Does the First Minister think that such a significant cut is acceptable, and will he meet me to discuss the concerns that are being raised by my constituents about that cut?
There will be crewing changes, but there will be no job losses whatsoever involved in those crewing changes. If the member is concerned about the matter, I will arrange for a relevant meeting so that he can express those concerns. Given that I am told that there will be no job losses involved, I find it difficult to understand why the member describes the situation as he has just described it. Nonetheless, let us have that meeting and see whether he can articulate those concerns so that we can get to the bottom of what his question is about.
That shows why we need a woman’s touch.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02284)
No plans, near future.
Following questioning by my colleague Gavin Brown yesterday, it emerged that we will not have a programme for government from this Administration until late November. However, bizarrely, we will have a budget before that. In other words, this Government will draft a budget for a legislative programme that does not exist.
The First Minister spoke at great length about what would happen in the event of a yes vote, and of the team that he was building for the first 100 days. However, he does not appear to have any plan for the first eight weeks, now that he has lost.
The people of Scotland demand that we get back to the real issues. People want to see a Scottish Government working in the interests of all of Scotland. Why should they have to wait two more months for this Government to do its job?
As Ruth Davidson correctly says, the Scottish Government will publish its budget. We will bring forward a bill on land reform, following the report of the review group. We will introduce a bill to end automatic early release. We are in the process of delivering the Ryder cup, which I hope will emulate the Commonwealth games as one of the most successful sporting events that Scotland has ever seen. [Interruption.]
Order.
We are bringing forward regulations to allow the first ever same-sex marriages in Scotland. We are introducing, from January, free school meals from primaries 1 to 3—the Labour Party was foolish enough to vote against that when it came to this chamber. We are working with all stakeholders to secure successful on-going operations at Ferguson’s shipyards. We will have stage 3 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will streamline civil justice. And, of course, the figures on the economy indicate that the efforts of the Scottish Government in employment and unemployment, particularly with regard to the huge increase in women’s employment, are bearing some fruit.
I have a list of another dozen things that the Scottish Government is employed in at the present moment. I could read out that list as well—I am sure that there would be a lot of enthusiasm for that—
I think that we have got the point.
I think that I have already made the point that the Scottish Government is getting on with the job of governing Scotland effectively, which is, perhaps, why its opinion poll ratings are at almost 50 per cent, which is about five times those of the Scottish Conservatives.
Cabinet (Meetings)
Yes, I think that we will be able to have a very constructive discussion to try and improve Scotland’s situation and circumstances.
I must say that I do not follow the position on home rule “as close to federalism” as Willie Rennie espouses given that, as far as I can see, that was not the position that was produced last spring, although that was what was talked about in the referendum campaign.
I was struck during the campaign by someone who tweeted:
“I’m voting ‘no’ then supporting anyone who’ll give us Devo Max”.
That was JK Rowling, who was the no campaign’s lead donor. That seems to emphasise that there is a considerable expectation among many people who voted no and, indeed, who financed the campaign, of seeing real economic powers.
The one difficulty that I have in this conversation with Willie Rennie is that, when I mentioned on Tuesday that my reading of the Campbell commission report was that it was proposing the ending of the Barnett formula as opposed to the vow that was produced last week, Willie Rennie denied that in the chamber. Therefore, I went back to the Campbell commission report just in case I had misread or was misrepresenting the position. I am puzzled, because recommendation 26, which follows paragraph 131, says:
“The UK should move to an independent, transparent, needs-based formula to serve all parts of the UK well and allow fiscal federalism to be sustained in the long term, recognising that the Barnett Formula was only ever intended to be a temporary measure”.
Willie Rennie, at some stage, must clarify what exactly the Liberal Democrats are proposing. Are they proposing what is in the Campbell report or what is in the vow? He might find that my successor, whoever he or she may be, may be slightly less indulgent with his misremembering of his own policies than I have been over the past few years.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02286)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Yesterday, I heard John Swinney set out his support for home rule and federalism. He joins illustrious company: Gladstone, Grimond, Gordon Brown and now—of all people—Michael Forsyth. Ming Campbell published our plans for home rule and federalism two years ago. Is the First Minister now a supporter of federalism? If so, in which bits of our plan does he think we can find common cause?
Following the referendum, there is an expectation, which carries a wide canvass, that, given the comments not of Gladstone but of Gordon Brown, who was espousing home rule as “close to federalism” as it possibly can be, people will want to see a genuine powerhouse Parliament coming from the steps being taken at Westminster rather than the insipid group of proposals that were published last spring. In terms of the test for a powerhouse Parliament of securing jobs, I shall be standing shoulder to shoulder with William Gladstone, Gordon Brown and Willie Rennie.
I thank the First Minister for that promise of constructive engagement, but he should remember that the plans that were put to the voters last week were set out by our three parties. I look forward to his plans coming forward as well, because we will then be able to create a Scottish Parliament with the tax powers to give us the flexibility and the agility to do things differently in Scotland and with the powers to tackle inequality, to invest for the long term and to create a stronger economy and fairer society, driving down power into the communities—which, I am sure, the First Minister is strongly in favour of—and creating a federal UK. So far, he has not commented on our proposals. Can he find common cause, comment on what we have suggested and engage in a proper, constructive discussion?
Voting Franchise
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to discuss with the United Kingdom Government extending the voting franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. (S4F-02296)
About 90 per cent of all 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote in the Scottish independence referendum. As I made clear on Tuesday in the chamber, their thoughtful and passionate engagement in the debate means that there is an overwhelming case—indeed, an unanswerable case—for giving 16 and 17-year-olds a vote in all future elections in Scotland and, indeed, across the UK. I am delighted that that case has the support of all parties across the chamber.
Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister urging the UK Government to devolve full responsibility for elections to the Scottish Parliament as a matter of urgency, so that we can ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to take part in the 2016 election.
I welcome the First Minister’s comments just as I welcomed his comments on Tuesday. He will surely agree that it would be wrong to remove the vote from 16 and 17-year-olds after having allowed them to help chose the country’s future. Will he assure me that the issue will remain a Scottish Government priority and will be discussed the next time that he meets the Prime Minister?
I assure Roderick Campbell that that will be the case. As I have indicated, yesterday the Deputy First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on the issue.
Now that there is consensus on the issue, we must keep faith with the youngsters who voted in the referendum and the next group who are coming forward. It would be a substantial setback in democratic terms if, in our 2016 election, 16 and 17-year-olds were not entitled to vote. Therefore, there must be a sharp focus on securing the ability to make sure that in our elections in 2016 we extend that franchise and keep faith with the young people who demonstrated in such overwhelming numbers that they were well able and willing to take part in democratic discourse.
Minimum Wage
The First Minister is, of course, aware that Ed Miliband is proposing a national minimum wage rate of £8 per hour to make sure that work pays. [Interruption.]
Order.
The majority of members support that, as they do the living wage, which is currently set at £7.65 per hour. Although the Scottish National Party Government did not take the opportunity to introduce the living wage for all those who deliver public sector contracts, will the First Minister now work with Labour to ensure that wages in the public sector and for those who deliver public sector contracts are increased to £8 an hour, so that we can help to address the cost-of-living crisis and help working people who are struggling in communities throughout Scotland right now?
I point out to Jackie Baillie that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since 2008, it would already be £7.48 an hour. Although the proposal to increase it to £8 is welcome, it is a proposal for 2020 and includes, as I said, a 2 per cent increase year by year—to get there by 2020—which is actually less than the increase that was taking place in the minimum wage before 2008.
People on low wages have been betrayed by successive Westminster Governments, including when Alistair Darling was chancellor, in having been offered increases to the minimum wage that were less than inflation. Therefore, it is hugely important to understand that it is forecast that, by 2020, the living wage would be £8.57 an hour even if it was only to keep pace with inflation.
The Parliament should aspire to that and to raising the minimum wage to the living wage, as recommended in our welfare proposals. I am certain that when the Parliament has control over the minimum wage, the progressive influence of Jackie Baillie and me will ensure that we move towards the living wage in Scotland.
If the minimum wage were to increase in line with the commitments in the white paper, in which year would it reach £8 an hour?
The commitments in the white paper are to a guarantee from the proposed fair work commission that the national minimum wage keep pace at least with inflation. Therefore, we would be in a fundamentally better position than the one in which we have been over the past few years when—[Interruption.]
Order.
—first the Labour Party and then the Conservative Party, going through a recession, decided to penalise the lowest-paid people in the country.
I do not think that Gavin Brown was among the most enthusiastic supporters of the Government’s introduction of the living wage across the public sector. However, we have been totally vindicated by the answer from the electorate on the introduction of the living wage, which is at £7.65 an hour now. We look forward to raising the level of the minimum wage to that of the living wage so that all workers in Scotland get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on raising the minimum wage to £8 per hour. (S4F-02289)
We welcome any increase in the national minimum wage, which has failed to keep up with inflation in recent years, leaving workers more than £600 worse off than they would otherwise have been.
I also note that the increase proposed at the Labour conference is phased and will not take place until 2020, meaning that it is an increase of just 82 pence in real terms.
The expert group on welfare suggested that Scotland should explore increasing the minimum wage to the level of the living wage. Those are the proposals that I hope will be considered as part of the package of more powers for this Parliament.
Ryder Cup (Legacy)
I am sure that we all welcome the work that is going on to capitalise on the Ryder cup’s benefits. I was interested to hear from the First Minister earlier that he seems to think that the Ryder cup is part of his legislative programme for the coming year.
With his upcoming retirement from office, is the First Minister looking forward as much as we are to him spending more time with his golf clubs?
I am looking forward enormously to playing golf as often as possible but I suspect that the Conservative Party’s wish to see me disappear from the Scottish body politic is going to be as disappointing to it as future election results in Scotland almost undoubtedly will be.
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to capitalise on the legacy of the Ryder cup. (S4F-02290)
Golf tourism is already worth £220 million to Scotland annually and supports 4,400 jobs. The 2014 Ryder cup is the perfect catalyst for further growth in golf tourism and reinforces Scotland’s position as the home of golf. VisitScotland estimates that it will benefit our economy by at least £100 million.
One of the most important aspects of the process that has brought the Ryder cup to Scotland is the commitment that Henry McLeish made as First Minister as part of the Ryder cup bid. That commitment has been taken forward and 350,000 youngsters throughout Scotland have been introduced to the game of golf.
Yesterday, I announced that the club golf programme would be continued and, indeed, extended into a family golf approach, under which youngsters will ask their parents to come and play with them. That emphasises that golf should be a game for everyone in Scotland.
I also note that 50 young unemployed people volunteered for the Ryder cup to get the increase in skills and improve their future employment opportunities.
The Commonwealth games was a remarkable success for the city of Glasgow and the nation of Scotland and, all round, we intend to do exactly the same thing with the Ryder cup in Gleneagles.
Previous
General Question Time