Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02614)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The people who work in our national health service perform heroics every single day, but they are under pressure like never before. Earlier this week, Dr Martin McKechnie, Scottish vice-president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, said that the NHS in Scotland is suffering from
“a hospital and medical service crisis.”
He said:
“We are doing the damn best we can. But it is awful for patients and families and awful for staff.”
Does the First Minister think that Dr McKechnie is wrong?
No. The Government listens very carefully to Dr McKechnie. We are taking his advice. He is assisting us with the work that we are doing to try to improve conditions in our accident and emergency departments and on unscheduled care generally. Of course, Dr McKechnie said:
“what the SNP Government have done, to their credit, is help us with the number of consultants, which has gone from 120 to 190.”
That was a quote from the Daily Record earlier this week.
When our NHS faces challenges, as it undoubtedly does, it is the role, job and responsibility of the Government—of me as First Minister and of the health secretary—to work with our front-line health staff and with health boards to equip and support them as they face up to those challenges.
However, waiting times are down significantly under this Government. That is a fact. The NHS is performing now much better against tougher targets and in the face of rising demand than it was when the previous Labour Administration left office. For Labour to deny that does not do a disservice to the Government; it does an enormous disservice to the thousands of front-line staff who have worked so hard in our NHS to deliver these improvements. We have work still to do, but let us all acknowledge the progress that has been made in our NHS since the Government took office.
I have come to the chamber many times now and told the First Minister that she cannot rely on things that Labour did eight years ago as an excuse to get out of the problem that she is in today. If she does not listen to me, she should have a read of Iain Macwhirter, writing in today’s Herald, who says:
“When politicians blame the previous administration, you know there’s a problem.
When they blame an administration that left office eight years ago, you suspect there could be a crisis.”
That is from Iain Macwhirter, who is no friend of the Labour Party.
We have an NHS at breaking point. The usual Scottish National Party solution of sticking a plaster over the wounds will not do—serious treatment is required. On Tuesday, the SNP Government’s own figures showed that Scots are waiting longer for treatment than they were promised by the First Minister, with more than 10,000 people waiting over four months for treatment. Thousands of Scots with a legal right to treatment are not getting it in the time that they were promised. Only in the world of the First Minister is the SNP doing a good job of running the NHS.
Colin Howie, president of the British Orthopaedic Association and a leading surgeon, said:
“We no longer have a short winter bed crisis. Surgical cancellations happen throughout the year because of the lack of facility. It is a bed crisis.”
Does the First Minister think that Colin Howie is wrong?
I listen, and will always listen, carefully to NHS professionals, but I am quite staggered to listen to a representative of the Labour Party talk about declining acute bed numbers, when acute bed numbers declined in every single year of the last Labour Administration.
Acute medical beds—[Interruption.]
Order.
Acute medical beds, on the other hand, have slightly increased over the past year.
I will say very firmly that it is not about seeking to blame anybody when we record and acknowledge—[Interruption.]
Order.
—the significant progress that our NHS staff have made over the past number of years.
Kezia Dugdale mentioned the esteemed journalist Iain Macwhirter. In his column this morning, Iain Macwhirter mentioned delayed discharge. We have a challenge in delayed discharge, but let me illustrate my point about the progress that has been made. In October 2006, 908 patients were delayed more than four weeks; in October 2014—the latest stats that we have available—that was down to 321 patients, or down by two thirds. Let us look at something else: the average length of delay—it has come down from 69 days in October 2006 to 30 days in October 2014. Yes, we have work to do, but progress has been made and to deny that progress is to deny the achievement of our NHS staff.
On in-patient waiting times, our NHS provided more than 1.5 million in-patient and day-case treatments in the past year. Of those who were covered by the treatment time guarantee over the past year, 9,000 patients waited longer than 12 weeks—that is less than 3 per cent. By contrast, in the last year of the Labour-led Administration—[Interruption.]
Order.
—if we look at all planned in-patient, diagnostic and day cases, more than 129,000 patients waited more than 12 weeks. I will continue to discharge the obligation and the responsibility that my Government has to support the NHS so that it can make progress, but I will not stand here and allow Labour to trash the achievements of our NHS staff.
That was dire and there was not a word of comfort in it—not a crumb of comfort—for a pensioner lying on a trolley in an A and E ward last night. [Interruption.]
Order.
We learned this week that some of the most vulnerable Scots are being let down by the SNP Government. Young Scots with mental health problems are waiting more than six months to get the treatment that they so desperately need. Whether someone is visiting A and E, waiting to get a hospital bed or planning for an operation, there are problems all across our NHS.
Suzanne Hunter, a dedicated nurse from Clackmannanshire, said:
“This winter the NHS reached breaking point because we simply don’t have the resources. Our NHS needs real help now.”
Does the First Minister, like other nationalists, think that Suzanne Hunter is wrong?
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think that any healthcare professional is wrong when they talk about the health service; I think that Labour politicians are wrong when they talk about the health service.
Let us look at the issue of resources. There is still work to do, of course, but all the improvements that I have outlined that our NHS staff have delivered over the past number of years have been possible because of the resources that we are making available to our health service. Three billion pounds a year more is being spent on our health service than when we took office. The health service budget is now more than £12 billion for the first time. Next year alone, there will be £383 million more in the health budget than there is this year. There are nearly 10,000 more people working in our NHS today than there were when Labour left office.
I will continue to discharge my responsibility and my Government’s responsibility to improve the health service further. I am not standing here and saying that there are no challenges in our health service and that there is not more work to be done. However, I will defend the achievements of our health service staff, because those achievements are considerable. Against tougher targets and in the face of rising demand, our NHS is performing better today than it was under Labour so, instead of trying to trash that performance, we should thank our health service staff for what they are doing.
It is NHS staff who are telling the First Minister that they do not have the resources that they need to do their job.
This week, the First Minister will mark 100 days in office, but she has been at the heart of the Government for more than 3,000 days. The SNP might see that as a landmark and a chance for a lap of honour, but what exactly is the First Minister’s record on the NHS? It is targets missed, an A and E crisis, fewer beds, thousands of patients waiting months on end for the treatment that they need, and dedicated NHS staff warning of chaos.
We have expert staff and patients on one side who are exposing the crisis in our NHS, and on the other side we have the SNP Government refusing to take responsibility. With our NHS on life support, when will the First Minister listen to the experts and start to take the crisis seriously?
Kezia Dugdale does not do a disservice to me or my Government with language like that. She does a disservice to the hard-working men and women in our NHS, who every single day of the week work hard to treat the vast overwhelming majority of patients within the tougher treatment time guarantees that this Government has introduced.
What is the Government’s record on health? It is lower in-patient waiting times, lower out-patient waiting times and fewer delayed discharge patients than under the previous Labour Government. There is much, much more to do, but considerable progress has been made. When Labour was in office, not only did it not meet its less stringent waiting times, it privatised an entire NHS hospital, which this Government brought back into the NHS. I think that the people of Scotland and the staff of our national health service will choose to continue moving forward with the SNP Government rather than going backwards with Labour.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02615)
No plans at the present time.
The Scottish Government is bringing forward fresh plans for land reform. Some of those plans we support, but family farmers are telling us that we need to look at much of the plans again. They are not the only ones: this morning, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors added its name to the criticism and said that the current plans ignore what should be the primary purpose of agricultural land: namely, to produce food. That echoes the criticism from NFU Scotland and comes on top of the warning from the Scottish Government’s own review group that the taxpayer could be stung for millions of pounds in compensation when farms are broken up.
There is a real risk that less food will be produced in Scotland, which will lead to less food security, and that the taxpayer will be stung for compensation in order to make land reform happen. That is the warning. Why are all those people wrong?
When the “Review of Agricultural Holdings Legislation” report was published, it was warmly welcomed by a wide range of stakeholders.
The food policy was first introduced by Richard Lochhead, as the responsible minister. Of course, food and drink production and exports, and the contribution that they make to our economy, are a significant success story.
With regard to land reform, Scotland’s land makes a huge contribution to our society and to our economy, but I believe that the people of Scotland want the land to be owned and used for the benefit of the many, not the few.
I have said on a number of occasions that responsible landowners have nothing to fear from our land reform agenda. In direct response to the opinions that Ruth Davidson mentioned, I say that we will continue to enter dialogue with all those who are interested in the subject. We will listen and respond, and we will in due course introduce legislation that we consider meets the needs of people across Scotland.
I am talking about food in our shops: the price of a Scotch beef beefburger. I am talking about family farms being broken up and taxpayers being stung for millions of pounds in compensation. That is really fundamental stuff, and the First Minister should have an answer. I have heard the ideological case for land reform, but I have never heard a practical case for it.
When serious players in the industry are telling the Scottish Government that it is pushing through the changes without giving any thought to food production, then it is clear that the policy is about dogma rather than being about making our countryside work. Let me ask the First Minister this: what actual hard evidence exists—which we have, I presume, not seen yet—that shows that her plans will make farming in Scotland more productive, give us more food security and lead to lower prices in the shops for ordinary families? There is none.
First, what we are proposing is not about breaking up family farms. That suggestion is absolute nonsense. [Interruption.]
Order.
One of the big problems that tenant farmers face is the ability to get land. In my view, the people who are being ideological about this issue—not for the first time—are the Tories, who have stood in the way of land reform. The principles behind our land reform agenda are transparency, diversity and ensuring that the land of this country, which is one of our greatest assets, is used for the benefit of the many, not the few. I think that those are principles that the majority of people in Scotland, including those who work our land, would get behind. It is the Tories who are out of step on this agenda, not the Government. Perhaps we will see that more vividly as the legislation passes through Parliament.
Stop and Search (Research)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to claims that its officials and Police Scotland sought to influence the content and publication of Kath Murray’s PhD research into the use of stop and search. (S4F-02619)
The research that was carried out by Kath Murray was co-funded by the Scottish Government. In line with standard practice, the Scottish Government was invited to provide comments on the research, so Government analysts provided factual comments on technical issues. Ms Murray approached Scottish Government officials seeking views on the publication date in order to avoid scheduling clashes. I understand, though, that the final date of publication was decided by her.
I think that people will be surprised that this is considered standard practice by the Government. Government officials and spin doctors persuaded an academic to delay publication of her damning research on stop and search for two days. They then embarked on a frantic round of emails and discussions to create a ministerial event that was designed to rubbish the report, and they held it during those two days. The emails show the First Minister’s justice department manipulating all that.
Government is a powerful force, but academic freedom is a precious guard against an overmighty state. Scottish ministers and their political advisers overstepped the mark in the matter.
Can we get a question, please?
What guarantee can the First Minister give that the behaviour that she thinks is “standard practice” will stop?
First, on a note—I hope—of consensus, I agree with Alison McInnes on the importance of academic freedom. She described it as “precious”; I think that it is sacrosanct. However, there is an exchange of comments, particularly where research is co-funded by the Scottish Government, that is standard practice. The comments in this case were technical.
I will read out one of the comments that were made by Scottish Government analysts.
“Concerns were expressed about the methodological robustness of pulling a main conclusion about ‘extent’ of usage when comparing (i) one dataset where recording practices are seen as fully recording practice and (ii) one dataset where under-recording is seen as an issue with the data.”
That is about technical issues, and that was the nature of the comments that were made.
Again, I hope that there is a degree of consensus between me and Alison McInnes on this, but I think that the important substantive issue now is the future of non-statutory stop and search, on which I had an exchange last week with Willie Rennie. The practice is now under review, with a report to come to the justice secretary by the end of March. I think that we should all welcome that and look forward to a time when the practices around stop and search by the police have the consent and agreement of the Scottish people, which is what we should be aiming for.
It is my understanding that the impact of stop and search on police and community relations was not covered in the research. Although I welcome a review of the practice of consensual stop and search, a recent opinion poll suggests that the majority of Scottish voters apparently still support consensual stop and search. Does the First Minister agree that it is important to consider all the appropriate evidence before deciding on the way forward?
I certainly agree that there must be appropriate consultation by Police Scotland on the practice, which is why it has put in place a process and has agreed to update the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on its findings before the end of March.
The short-life working group that has been put in place to review consensual stop and search will meet this afternoon. It includes a broad range of organisations. It is important that the group considers all the available evidence so that we can move forward on the basis of evidence and agreement. That is something that everybody across the chamber should welcome.
Does the First Minister still have confidence in Chief Constable Sir Stephen House, given that it has been revealed that Police Scotland data has been lost, wrongly recorded, incorrectly disclosed and now manipulated?
Yes, I do; I still have full confidence in Chief Constable Sir Stephen House. Stephen House is leading a police force that is helping to ensure that we have low crime levels in this country. We should all get behind and express confidence in not just the chief constable of Police Scotland but all the police officers who work so hard daily, and who often put their lives on the line for us.
Educational Attainment
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to raise educational attainment among children from deprived communities. (S4F-02621)
Ensuring that every child reaches their full potential whatever their background is at the heart of our ambition for education. That is why we have launched the Scottish attainment challenge, backed up by £100 million, and why we want to expand free nursery early learning and child care to 30 hours a week.
We have also been in discussions with councils on protecting teacher numbers—an issue that we think is vital to school attainment. We have pledged funding of £51 million for councils that maintain teacher numbers. I am happy to be able to announce to the Parliament today that all 32 of Scotland’s local authorities have now accepted our offer and teacher numbers will be protected in 2015-16.
Given the role that headteachers have as school leaders in driving up standards and reducing the attainment gap, how will the Scottish Government learn and apply in Scotland the lessons of international good practice? On what basis will schools be able to directly access the £100 million that is available through the Scottish attainment challenge fund to ensure that there are improvements in the areas of greatest deprivation and greatest need so that every child in Scotland has a decent start in life?
Headteachers do a fantastic job and we should value highly the contribution that they make. Strong leadership and the best teachers are fundamental parts of improving attainment and achievement, which is why, on Monday, I announced that a masters qualification in headship will be introduced this year and will become mandatory for all new headteachers from 2018-19.
In our approach, we will continue to be led by lessons from the very best of practice elsewhere. Key education bodies such as Education Scotland, the Scottish College for Educational Leadership and the General Teaching Council for Scotland already play a significant role in seeking out and sharing good practice with practitioners across the country and will work in partnership with the local authorities that are initially involved in the Scottish attainment challenge to develop an improvement plan for their particular context, and then to identify the necessary resources that are required to support that plan.
We welcome the Scottish attainment challenge, although we would like it to go further. On sharing best practice, it has at its heart attainment advisers. In November, the First Minister told the Parliament:
“In the next year, Education Scotland will appoint in every local authority an attainment adviser who will support local action to improve attainment.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2014; c 25.]
That would be a good idea if it was true. Yesterday, in a written reply, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning told me that there will be 12 attainment advisers and they will be appointed by May 2016. That is 18 months to deliver around a third of that welcome promise. If this is a flagship policy, is its flag not down at half-mast barely before it has been launched?
As Iain Gray has just demonstrated, work is under way to meet that commitment to ensure that all local authorities have access to the attainment advisers that will help them to raise attainment.
I would have hoped that this was an area in which we could try to achieve some consensus. [Interruption.]
Order.
I have heard comments from members of the Labour Party that I agree with, on the importance of this agenda and some of the practical actions that we have to take to meet it. I know that we are opponents and that we have vigorous and robust debates about the things that we disagree on, but—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr Gray.
On this subject—the chances in life for our most vulnerable young people—can we not for goodness’ sake join together and work together to achieve? I am up for that. The test will be: is Labour?
How will the First Minister ensure that the £100 million for attainment will be effective—we all want that—when Audit Scotland states that there is no evaluation of council spend on education and improvements in attainment?
We will work to know that, because the allocation of the £100 million will follow the improvement plans that we agree with each local authority that is part of the attainment challenge. The ways in which we measure progress will be built into those improvement plans.
When we are setting out to tackle attainment and close the attainment gap, it is important that we have ways of assessing that what we are doing is working—or not, so that if what we are doing is not working we can stop doing it and do something else. We should not have bureaucracy for its own sake in our schools, but we should be able to measure progress, and that will be at the heart of the attainment challenge.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that children and adolescents receive the mental health services that they need as quickly as possible. (S4F-02626)
We have introduced the waiting times target that no one will wait longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment for access to child and adolescent mental health services. However, when a child or young person is assessed as needing to access a service more urgently, they will be seen more quickly, sometimes on the same day. Since 2009, we have invested nearly £17 million and the specialist child and adolescent mental health services workforce has increased by 24 per cent. Of course, that is in the context of an increase of over 60 per cent in the number of children and young people seen over the past two years.
The figures released on Tuesday do not reflect those waiting time ambitions whatsoever. In my home health board of NHS Tayside, 42 per cent of children and young people referred to mental health services must wait more than six months to be seen. This week, the Scottish children’s services coalition said:
“We are at a crisis point and high level strategic management is required in order to get a grip on the situation.”
Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish children’s services coalition?
I will answer the question about NHS Tayside first, then perhaps make some more general comments.
At NHS Tayside, very long waits have been experienced. They are totally unacceptable, which is why in January NHS Tayside recruited nine additional nursing and medical staff. They have taken up their posts and the CAMHS team is now making an impact on those waiting times.
On the general position, as I indicated in my opening answer, we have reduced the maximum wait target from 26 weeks down to 18 weeks. We have introduced a tougher target in order to drive progress faster. Half of all health boards are meeting that tougher target. Seven health boards—the other half—are not yet meeting the CAMHS waiting times target, but they all have action plans in place. This week the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health spoke to all the board chairs in those seven health boards.
We are right to drive progress and we are right to set an even tougher target, to ensure that we can accelerate that progress. We are right to have put in the resources and we will continue to do the work to ensure that all young people who need the services get them within the time that they should expect to get them.
The First Minister mentioned action plans, but actions would be even better. General practitioners recently stated that they are not referring people to therapy, because the therapies are not there to refer to. What is the First Minister’s view on that?
I agree with the member that it is action that counts, which is why we are taking the actions. I will be corrected if I am wrong on this, but I think that we are the only country in the world that has set a target as tough as the one that we have in place. Frankly, the answer that I have just given on NHS Tayside, which in January recruited nine additional nurses and medical staff, is an example of taking action to improve the position on waiting times. It stands to reason that we need the therapies to which to refer patients, and health boards are taking action on that.
This goes back to the answer that I gave Kezia Dugdale earlier: I will never, ever stand here and say that there is not more work to do in the health service, but I will not allow anybody to deny the progress that not this Government but the hardworking staff across our national health service are making month in, month out; week in, week out; and day in, day out. We should all celebrate that and support them to do even more.
Communications (Monitoring and Interception)
To ask the First Minister, in light of the recent report of three Muslim girls being encouraged to travel to Syria following apparent contact with Aqsa Mahmood, what action the Scottish Government can take to monitor and intercept communications aimed at encouraging Scottish Muslim girls to travel to Syria. (S4F-02617)
First, I am sure that I speak for everyone in the chamber when I say that my thoughts are with the families of these young women and I very much hope that they return safely and soon.
In relation to Christine Grahame’s question, the interception of communications is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Any interception on the grounds of national security is reserved and a matter for the security services and the relevant secretary of state.
Of course, the personal grief of the families must be unbearable. However, parents will know that teenage children are almost by definition secretive and rebellious and how difficult it is not to cross the line into unnecessary intrusion. That said, what specific assistance and advice are being given to the Muslim communities, given that their children might be targeted and seduced by terrorist organisations presenting their cause as glamorous, exciting and just?
Tackling terrorism and violent extremism requires us all to stand together, and we are taking a collaborative approach with communities, partners and organisations. We work closely with a range of organisations on developing initiatives aimed at getting messages, support and advice direct to individuals and communities, and that includes distributing advice to parents on protecting young people from online radicalisation. Police Scotland will also offer support to any person or family who raises concerns about someone who they fear might travel or has already travelled to a conflict zone such as Syria. However, at this time, the most important message is that, in our wonderful, diverse Scotland, the most important thing that we can do is to pull together and stand together.
Previous
General Question Time