Engagements
Let me offer another quotation from Brian Keighley, from the same “GMS” interview. Johann Lamont does not want to accept this, but he said:
“Clearly my target is not the current Cabinet Secretary, my target is the political classes in Scotland.”
The point that he was making was that health resources are under pressure because of rising demand. He accepted that we have done everything that we can, under the constraints of the Barnett formula, to protect the national health service.
I think that we are entitled to ask whether that would have been done if the Labour Party had been in power over the past seven years. We know that it would not have been done in 2007, because Jack McConnell said that the NHS would just have to cut its coat to suit its cloth and would not have access to the Barnett consequentials. We doubt that it would have been done in 2011, either, because the Labour Party refused to commit to the resources in real terms.
If we want evidence of the Labour Party in power, we should just look to Wales, which is suffering the same stresses as Scotland under the Barnett formula but is, on every measurement, turning in a worse health performance.
Does Johann Lamont accept the connection between the resources that are available to us under the Barnett formula and the ability to fund the national health service to the degree that Brian Keighley and all of us would want? Is not that an argument for our having access to Scotland’s resources, so that we can deliver that desirable outcome? [Applause.]
The problem for the First Minister is that he wants to make this a cheap political debate between him and me. I can deal with that—that is not a problem. [Interruption.]
Of course, under the First Minister’s prescription for Scotland we would have less money to spend on public services. While his friends on the back benches applaud his oft-heard script, he should reflect on the fact that that script, which he trots out every time the NHS is mentioned, sounds very much like complacency to staff and patients who live in the real world and who deal with the problems daily.
We have been warning the First Minister about the mounting problems in our NHS for the past two years, but every time we do so we get the same old script. The First Minister cannot keep ignoring the reality. Brian Keighley, the leader of Scotland’s doctors, said:
“We have a crisis of out-of-hours health provision that sees huge and unacceptable queues at A&E Departments. We see reports of geriatric provision coming under increasing criticism through inadequate care packages and increasing bed blocking, and at the same time GPs coping with a 20 per cent increase in workload.”
He continued:
“We see vital cancer treatments delayed because of unsustainable cost and we see cracks emerging in hospital food, cleanliness, staff shortages and vacancies within both the consultant body and GP trainees.”
He finished by asking:
“And how has Scottish Government responded? It talks of 7-day provision at a time when we have an inadequate 5-day service.”
Those are the problems that our NHS staff face every day. What is the First Minister’s plan for the NHS?
Order!
That is not a problem. [Interruption.]
Our plan is to continue to fund the NHS in Scotland to the maximum degree, which is something that the Labour Party—neither in Scotland nor in Wales—would not commit to doing. Our plan is to get access to the resources of Scotland so that we can move beyond austerity and have a proper, responsible and reasonable increase in public spending, as John Swinney has outlined.
We know that Brian Keighley accepts that we are doing everything that we can within the Barnett formula. That is a reason to break free of the Barnett formula and to have access to the resources of Scotland.
I do not accept Johann Lamont’s description of accident and emergency and cancer waiting lists. We are acting to improve performance in accident and emergency and, as Alex Neil announced this week, we are acting to improve performance on our cancer targets. We are particularly concerned that we have moved below the 62-day target. However, the Labour Party never—not once—achieved the 62-day cancer target when it was in office.
Yes—we believe that 93 per cent of people being seen within four hours in accident and emergency is not good enough, but when the Labour Party was in power and Johann Lamont was a minister, Labour claimed that 87 per cent represented excellent performance.
Given that public satisfaction with the national health service is rising, as the social attitudes survey demonstrates; given that we committed to protecting the national health service budget in real terms, which Labour would not do; and given that our performance, under pressure though the NHS undoubtedly is, is better than when the Labour Party was in power, what possible credibility does a minister from a previous Government have in complaining about the situation when public finances are under pressure, when that party could not run Scotland when public money was plentiful?
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02209)
Order. Settle down! [Interruption.] Ms Grahame!
I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
That is not a problem. We can do that, but we let the people of Scotland down every time we settle for that on the big issues, or say that the only solution is independence. It is not just me raising the questions; they are being raised by the head of the BMA, nurses, patients and people in our constituencies who every day are being let down by a Government whose members are not interested in the NHS or in anything but the obsession that took them into politics in the first place.
Every time that I, on behalf of the people of Scotland, have asked the First Minister about blanket shortages, unacceptable waiting times in accident and emergency units, lack of access to cancer drugs, cancer waiting times, elderly people left on trolleys for hours, older people getting 15-minute care visits, doctor shortages and anything else about the NHS, the First Minister has told me—we have heard it again today—that people are happy with our health service, that it is getting privatised in England, and that it would be worse if we were Welsh. Those are inadequate answers to serious questions. The First Minister has told us that this is a really serious issue for the people of Scotland, so it deserves better than that.
The First Minister has told us that he has a plan A, B, C, D, E and F for a currency in an independent Scotland. Does he not realise that what Scotland wants and what our hard-working doctors and nurses are demanding from him is any kind of plan for the NHS today?
Thank you. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, said that
“Satisfaction with our NHS has increased by 20 per cent over the last seven years”
and that
“nearly two thirds of people in Scotland claim to be satisfied with our health service”.
On the same day, the outgoing head of the British Medical Association Scotland, Dr Brian Keighley, said:
“What I have seen over the past five years is the continuing crisis management of the longest car crash in my memory—and it is time for our politicians to face up to some very hard questions.”
I agree with Brian Keighley, who speaks for national health service staff all over the country. Can the First Minister tell the people of Scotland why the leader of Scotland’s doctors is wrong?
I see that Johann Lamont does not think it important that the NHS in Scotland is being kept in public hands and is not being subjected to disintegration. That is very interesting, because Brian Keighley did not say that in his speech this week to BMA Scotland. He said:
“What is totally clear is that the NHS that we have in Scotland is fundamentally different from that in England in terms of philosophy and organisation. North of the border we have been spared the spectacle of a huge organisation being thrown in the air, with only speculation as a guide to where the pieces might land. We have avoided wholesale reorganisation, NHS managers’ games of musical chairs and the worst excesses of the use of the NHS as a party political football. And for that we must be thankful.”
If Brian Keighley, whom Johann Lamont has cited, thinks that that is important, why does the Labour Party not think it important? Is it perhaps because Andy Burnham has talked about having a common health service across the UK and about leaving the health service in Scotland to the tender mercies of the privatisation agenda that is being pursued at Westminster?
Johann Lamont does not want to talk about what the public thinks of the national health service. The increase in national health service performance in terms of accident and emergency and cancer care is reflected in the 21 per cent increase in public satisfaction. Eighty-five per cent of Scottish in-patients have said that overall care and treatment was good or excellent; 87 per cent rated the performance of their general practitioner surgery as good or excellent; and 84 per cent of social care users rated their overall care and support as good or excellent. Those are real people in the real world, who understand the commitment and strength of the people in the national health service, and who understand that those people are supported by a Government that has funded the service in real terms and which would be able to do a great deal more in an independent Scotland.
I will deal first with the question of the public’s satisfaction with the national health service. That information was not from an opinion poll or some snap survey, but from the social attitudes survey for Scotland, which is the most detailed assessment of social attitudes in the country. It demonstrated that satisfaction with the national health service has risen to 61 per cent. By way of comparison, when Johann Lamont was a minister in 2006 it was at 45 per cent. Johann Lamont started by saying that that was a claim by Alex Neil, but it is actually from that survey, which is the most detailed assessment of public attitudes. We can compare directly the level of satisfaction with our national health service today with the level of satisfaction that existed when Labour was in power, and there is now a strongly rising trend.
Brian Keighley wants more funds for the national health service, and he makes the entirely reasonable point that, despite the fact that the national health service has had its budget protected in real terms, it is under sustained pressure because of the rising demand for health services. How do I know that? I know because Brian Keighley said on “Good Morning Scotland” on 24 June:
“I accept that the SNP has done as much with the Barnett Formula and resources that are available to them”.
When Johann Lamont says that Brian Keighley says that the NHS is under pressure, as indeed he did, we must remember that he also said—and accepted—that we are doing everything that we can within the resources that are available to us to provide for our national health service. That may be one reason why satisfaction with the national health service is on a rising trend.
The other reason, of course, will be that the people of Scotland understand the work and performance of our people in the national health service who are delivering such an excellent result, even under pressure.
Dr Brian Keighley is a member of staff in the health service, so the First Minister ought to listen to what he is saying. He should not pick only one thing that Brian Keighley has said, but should reflect on everything that he says.
With accident and emergency targets missed, cancer targets missed and care for the elderly in crisis, the man who represents Scotland’s doctors—Brian Keighley—said:
“The current service is teetering on the edge of collapse.”
The leader of Scotland’s doctors also said:
“My main regret is that I have not been able to do more than act as a deckchair attendant on the good ship NHS Titanic.”
Can the First Minister tell the people of Scotland why the leader of Scotland’s doctors is wrong and he is right?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
We end this parliamentary term in a familiar place, with the Scottish National Party blind to the very real risks involved in leaving the United Kingdom and with expert analysis that points out those risks.
To take one example, this morning there was a new report from the Scotland Institute, examining the blunt financial truths that would face a separate Scotland. We may not like to hear it but, having interviewed the main credit rating agencies, the institute says that an independent Scotland is
“likely to end up with a much lower credit rating and significantly higher borrowing costs than it currently enjoys within the union”.
Does the First Minister agree with the report that there is a real pounds and pence cost to separation?
I accept that for me, there is a question mark around the OBR.
“Right from the start the Tories used the OBR not just as part of the government but as part of the Conservative Party.”
I am quoting directly from Alistair Darling in the Financial Times of 9 July 2010.
I say to Ruth Davidson that, if the leader of the better together campaign—until Murdo Fraser takes over—believes that the OBR is an instrument of the Conservative Party, am I not entitled to question the OBR when it gets all its forecasts wrong?
Fundamentally, does the Conservative Party not recognise some of the analysis of Federal Fraser? The analysis is that, because the party lacks confidence in the people and the economy of Scotland, the people of Scotland lack confidence in the party. As long as the party pursues this doom-laden nonsense, it will stay rock bottom of the Scottish opinion polls.
I do not think that credit rating is the better together campaign’s strongest suit, given that famous leaflet about the AAA rating, which was published only weeks before the AAA rating disappeared, and given the speculation on rising interest rates that is much about at present. However, let us talk about the credit rating agencies directly.
“Even excluding North Sea output and calculating per capita GDP only by looking at onshore income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment.”
That is from Standard and Poor’s report on 27 February 2014.
Moody’s said on page 15 of its report that scoring for the economic strength of an independent Scotland would be likely to fall somewhere in the high range. We know the growth rate of Scotland and the volatility of growth. Moody’s said:
“There is a limited range of outcomes for GDP per capita, but all possible outcomes point to Scotland being among the wealthiest sovereigns in the world”.
If even people in the rating agencies, who are not known for their sunny optimism about the prospects of any country, say that about Scotland and point out that Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, can the Scottish Conservatives, in any of their manifestations, not realise the potential of this economy and have confidence in our ability to marshal those natural resources, combine them with the talents of the people and live up to the excellence of the assessments from even the credit rating agencies?
I say to the First Minister that members should use full names and not nicknames.
The appearance in an Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant—ISIS—recruitment video of a young man who was raised in Aberdeen has shocked our Muslim community and all the people of the city. Does the First Minister agree that one individual’s actions should not reflect on an entire community? Will he join me in calling on all Aberdonians to continue to live together as good neighbours, in peace and solidarity?
As the First Minister well knows, Standard and Poor’s did not give an independent Scotland its highest credit rating: an economic assessment is only one of the measures that it uses. To say that it did is misrepresenting its views.
It sounds to me from that answer as though the First Minister thinks that the Scotland Institute is wrong, which means that it joins a long list. Just since January, the First Minister has stood in the chamber and told us that the former director general of the legal service of the European Union Council is wrong; that the governor of the Bank of England is wrong; and that the First Minister of Wales, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the shadow chancellor, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry are wrong. He has told us that the Barclays chief executive is wrong—[Interruption.]
Order.
I whole-heartedly agree, as I believe and hope that the whole chamber does. One purpose of extremism is to seek to divide communities. We have been and continue to be constantly vigilant about radicalisation. Police Scotland has been active in monitoring that but also in engaging with and building strong relationships with the Muslim community.
As Kevin Stewart said, the actions of any individual should not and must not be seen as reflecting in any way mainstream opinion in any community of Scotland. We know from experience how well the country can react to such challenges. The integrated community response to the attack on Glasgow airport in 2007 showed Scotland at its very best. I believe that all fair-minded people in Aberdeen and across the country will support our zero-tolerance approach to any attempt to demonise or encourage hate crime against the Muslim community or any other minority group in Scotland.
He has told us that the chief executives of Standard Life, the Royal Bank of Scotland, BP and Asda are wrong. He has stood up in the chamber and said that the Scottish Government’s own oil figures were wrong and that the Office of Budget Responsibility was wrong. He has said that Keith Cochrane, the chief executive of the Weir Group, was wrong; that Scottish Financial Enterprise was wrong; and that Scottish Engineering was wrong. He has said that the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions and Citigroup were wrong. Finally, he said that the much celebrated Professor Hughes Hallett, the Scottish Government’s own economic adviser, was wrong, wrong, wrong.
First Minister, how does it feel to be so misunderstood?
In fairness to the independent governor of the Bank of England, I have never said any such thing. Indeed, I have defended his speech. Mark Carney had to correct Tory members of Parliament in the House of Commons who were similarly trying to misrepresent him, as Ruth Davidson has.
Also, I am not quite certain—is the CBI in or out of the better together campaign at present? [Interruption.] Perhaps the Labour Party, with its strong connections historically, can update us on the latest information—[Interruption.]
Order.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02208)
I have no plans in the near future.
“Transitioning to a new Scottish state”
Professor Dunleavy estimates the cost at £200 million if, among other things, command and control of defence forces is shared with the UK until 2020. Will the First Minister confirm whether that is now Scottish Government policy?
First, that is not what Professor Dunleavy argued. Secondly, Liam McArthur will find a full exposition of defence costs and budget over the period in chapter 6 of the white paper.
It seemed to me unfortunate, at First Minister’s question time last week, that Liam McArthur’s colleague did not seem to have read the section on foreign and overseas representation in chapter 6 of the white paper. I find it doubly disappointing that that same chapter has apparently not been read by anyone in the Liberal Democrats. Do some reading, do some homework, and I will see you after the recess.
I wonder what the First Minister’s response is to Professor Dunleavy’s colleague, Iain McLean, who puts the set-up costs at £1.5 billion to £2 billion. He may want to check Professor Dunleavy’s blog entry from this morning.
Does the First Minister not understand that his Government’s failure to produce robust and comprehensive information about the cost estimates leaves the people of Scotland with the impression that the Scottish National Party would support independence regardless of the cost?
If the Labour Party had truly wanted to pursue this issue—the sticky wicket on which it is now batting—we would have heard something about it from Johann Lamont earlier today.
I do not have to respond to Professor Iain McLean. Incidentally, he believes in the scrapping of the Barnett formula—I would be interested to know whether that view is shared across the better together parties. I do not have to respond because Professor Dunleavy has already done it. He has looked at Iain McLean’s work and suggested why Iain McLean has been led astray.
Given the obvious evidence that Professor Dunleavy’s work, as cited by the better together campaign and Danny Alexander, has been comprehensively demolished by Professor Dunleavy himself—in other words, given that the source of the figure has said that the figure was exaggerated by a factor of 12—at what stage will any of the better together parties accept that they got it wrong and that they owe a fundamental apology to the people of Scotland?
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to Professor Dunleavy’s report, “Transitioning to a new Scottish state”. (S4F-02217)
I could not help but notice that, in Ruth Davidson’s long list of people whom I disagree with, Professor Dunleavy had miraculously disappeared, thanks to his report. The report is an important contribution to the referendum debate that vindicates the Scottish Government’s position on the transition to a fully independent Scotland, as set out in our white paper.
Professor Dunleavy’s report blows out of the water the Treasury figure of £2.7 billion, which was widely briefed to the media. Neither Danny Alexander, nor the Prime Minister, nor Ruth Davidson has been able to give a satisfactory explanation for that. However, the permanent secretary to the Treasury has stepped into the void. Sir Nicholas Macpherson has described the figure as a “misbriefing” of key data. It is about time that we found out exactly how that misbriefing was allowed to happen.
On page 3 of his report, Professor Dunleavy says that the main uncertainties that relate to the set-up and transition costs following a yes vote
“arise from the London government’s apparent reluctance to do any planning for, or to make clear to Scottish voters, how a transition to independence would be handled at their end.”
Does the First Minister agree that the United Kingdom Government should immediately desist from issuing misleading figures and misinformation, some of which Professor Dunleavy has described as “bizarrely inaccurate” and “spectacularly wrong”? Does the First Minister agree that the Prime Minister should come to Scotland to debate the issues openly?
Professor Dunleavy’s report says:
“Whitehall has been forbidden to discuss issues with Scottish officials and to do any contingency planning for independence, in case the conclusions suggest independence would not cause major problems.”
That is the analysis of the distinguished professor from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The better together campaign quoted and cited Professor Dunleavy. The £2.7 billion figure was meant to be his, but he has demolished it and accused the Treasury of exaggerating his work by a factor of 12, which was generous of him—the Treasury’s exaggerations are usually even greater than that.
Professor Dunleavy has demolished the Treasury’s analysis and published his report. At what stage will any of the unionist party leaders or any person in the better together campaign have the decency to accept and admit the “misbriefing” of Professor Dunleavy’s work? When Murdo Fraser makes his speech tonight, perhaps he will address that point. We wait with bated breath.
Fixed-odds Betting Terminals and Payday Lenders
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government can take to tackle the proliferation of fixed-odds betting terminals and payday lenders on the country’s high streets. (S4F-02210)
Direct action on those areas is reserved, but within our powers we are taking what action we can. Scottish ministers held a summit on 23 April on payday lending and gambling, and the Minister for Local Government and Planning will shortly publish the action plan that followed the summit.
As a first step, the new Scottish planning policy, which was put in place this week, acknowledged concerns about the proliferation of payday lenders and fixed-odds betting terminals on some high streets. Local authorities, through their town centre strategies, can develop policies to restrict such uses to protect the amenity of centres and, of course, the wellbeing of communities.
However, in terms of direct action, this is one area in which we need the powers of this Parliament to extend over key aspects that are affecting the social life of Scotland.
I welcomed the publication of the document earlier this week. I have met former gamblers and the campaign for fairer gambling, and tonight I will be a guest at a Gamblers Anonymous meeting in Renfrewshire. Those groups are firmly of the opinion that the only way to combat the issue of fixed-odds betting terminals is with a reduction of the maximum stake on those machines to £2, which I support. Does the First Minister agree that the United Kingdom Government must act now to tackle the problem of those machines in our communities and will he commit to raise the matter directly with the UK Government?
We have made representations to the UK Government over a substantial period, expressing our concerns over developments such as the growth of fixed-odds betting terminals. Most recently, a letter was sent on 29 May that highlighted the risks to public health and called for a more preventative approach to be taken.
We will continue to press for action, but page 116 of the white paper lays out what we intend to do on this and the other matters that Stuart McMillan raised, once we have control of regulation. It also lays out our approach to tougher regulation of payday lenders in an independent Scotland. I hope that that reassures Stuart McMillan that we are doing what we can with the powers that we have, and that we would seek to do more when this Parliament has the powers of an independent Parliament.
“Management Information Year End 2013/14”
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Police Scotland report, “Management Information Year End 2013/14”. (S4F-02211)
As Graeme Pearson knows, Police Scotland’s management information gives a snapshot of the strong progress that it has made in its first year, with all parts of Scotland now enjoying the benefits of a single service.
Our “Recorded Crime in Scotland 2012-13” national statistics bulletin shows that recorded crime has decreased by 35 per cent since 2006-07, and that crime is at its lowest level for 39 years. I think that that drop is supported by the 1,000 additional police officers—in comparison with 2007—that we have delivered.
Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are working together to safeguard local policing and enhance access to the specialist resources. They are doing that against the backcloth of continuing Westminster austerity.
I commend police officers and the remaining police staff for the work that they do on our behalf.
Given the recent controversy over stop and search statistics, the First Minister might wish to know that, for almost six months, I have asked for the notes of guidance for crime recording, along with a briefing to understand the impacts of widening the use of the subsuming of crimes and fixed-penalty tickets on the reporting of figures. I still await the briefing—it appears inordinately difficult to achieve—after long delays.
Will the First Minister enable a briefing at the earliest opportunity, recognising the need for public confidence in those figures?
I do not accept that people do not have confidence in the recorded crime figures in the Scottish national statistics. They are kite-marked figures from national statistics. I do not think that Graeme Pearson should question them. After all, they are on the same basis as the figures that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats used when they were in power. I see no reason for questioning the basis of the figures now.
If Graeme Pearson writes to me, detailing the areas that he has raised with the Police Authority and Police Scotland, I will write to him to say what further information can be provided.
In acknowledging the contribution of police officers, and the additional 1,000 police officers who have made a substantial contribution to the fact that we have the lowest crime levels in Scotland for 39 years—
Across the world.
We hear that it is across the world. We need only glance south of the border to see that, in the past three years, England and Wales have lost as many officers as the total complement of the Scottish police force. I believe that the decline in crime figures in Scotland is due to the hard work of the extra police officers that we have on the streets and in the communities of Scotland. Everybody knows that they would not be there if the Labour Party had been maintained in power.
Emergency Patients (Movement)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to remarks made by the chief executive of the national health service regarding the movement of emergency patients. (S4F-02222)
We agree with them, which is not that surprising, given that Paul Gray is not only the chief executive of NHS Scotland but the Scottish Government’s director general of health and social care.
I think that I asked the First Minister what his response was, but I’m not sure that I heard one.
Given that a large influx of visitors to Scotland is expected for the Commonwealth games, how confident is the First Minister that the already strained national health service will be able to cope with the additional demand? What extra resources are being made available to help to avoid even greater delays at accident and emergency departments than we currently have?
I have already pointed out that we are working to improve the 93 per cent figure in accident and emergency, but I have also pointed out that that is rather greater than the 87 per cent figure that was hailed as a success in 2006.
The planning for the Commonwealth games that Murdo Fraser refers to is very much part of the Commonwealth games structure. We are absolutely confident that we can cope with any contingency in terms of the performance of the national health service in Scotland. I know that Murdo Fraser will want to acknowledge that, with regard to the Clutha tragedy, the national health service responded exceptionally well. That is part of the planning for the Commonwealth games.
I know that Murdo Fraser will be the first to understand the point that was made by Brian Keighley that, within the constraints of the Barnett formula, even when we resource health in real terms, there is a constraint. That is presumably why Murdo Fraser is trying to break out of that straitjacket with his enunciation of a federal solution. Of course, there is a difficulty. When Murdo Fraser was in favour of more devolution, Ruth Davidson had a line in the sand. Now that Ruth Davidson is in favour of more devolution, Murdo Fraser has moved to federalism. No doubt, when Ruth Davidson moves to federalism, Murdo Fraser will move towards supporting independence. However, I am confident that the independence campaign will survive that endorsement and go on to victory on 18 September.
Previous
General Question Time