First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01012)
For the rest of the day, I suspect that, like many members, I will be reading the Leveson report with great interest.
Indeed. I look forward to reading the report myself.
As the First Minister mentioned, Lord Leveson will publish his report on the regulation of the press in the next hour and a half. After the excesses of phone hacking, including into the phone of Milly Dowler, there has to be change. However, as we try to restore the public’s confidence in the press, we also need to protect press freedom, and we need to know that those who implement the Leveson recommendations will do so in the interests of the whole nation, not just themselves.
In that context, when did the First Minister last personally complain to a newspaper about its coverage?
I will check the record and see whether I can help Johann Lamont with that.
On the substance of the Leveson report—which is a hugely important matter—as Johann Lamont will realise we cannot pre-empt the recommendations of a report that we have not yet seen, but we can assume that it will take a serious and considered view of the regulation of the press and of other, related matters that are devolved to Scotland, such as criminal prosecution, defamation and the functions of the police service.
I have made it clear that, personally, I favour not the state regulation of the press but a strengthened press council that has the support of the print media industry and—more importantly—the confidence of the wider public, who have rightly been angered by recent episodes concerning phone hacking, blagging and potential illegal activity. Such a system needs to ensure redress for people with no great resources, and a link to statute is also possible, as in the model that has been pursued in Ireland.
It is entirely possible that Lord Leveson may propose a more thoroughgoing statutory underpinning of regulation. It is therefore important that we in the Parliament have a proper process for considering how we will take forward the Leveson report in the Scottish context. I would like to set out a proposed process that the Parliament may wish to follow.
First, as I have already indicated, members of the Scottish Parliament will rightly have the opportunity to debate the Leveson report in further detail next week.
Secondly, I will invite all the other political parties in the Parliament to meet me to seek their views on the report. It is important to achieve cross-party agreement in Scotland on the best way forward.
Finally—and if agreed to—I propose the establishment of an independent implementation group that is chaired by a current or recent Court of Session judge with five non-politician members. The purpose of the group would be to consider how best to implement the Leveson proposals in the context of Scots law and the devolved responsibilities of the Parliament. That will allow the process and any proposed changes to go through the normal parliamentary procedures.
There was a great deal in that, and I wonder whether it might have been more beneficial if, post Leveson reporting, we had had a full statement from the First Minister in that regard. I also note that the First Minister did not answer my question.
Politicians and press owners having an unhealthily close relationship is a big issue. I have no doubt that the First Minister will be able to give us a list of examples of various people in my party and others who have attended events that have been hosted by the Murdochs. We know that there was an unhealthily close relationship, but we also know that the First Minister is the only leader of a mainstream political party to host Rupert Murdoch since the stomach-turning revelations that one of his newspapers hacked Milly Dowler’s phone. Does the First Minister understand that his relationship with Murdoch undermines any confidence that we can have in him to set up a regulatory system for a free press?
I had hoped that Johann Lamont would rise to the occasion and the issues that are before us.
We know the frequency of meetings with various political leaders. We could debate the issue in terms of Gordon Brown’s 17 meetings with Rupert Murdoch over three years when he was Prime Minister, against my five meetings in five years. We could talk about going in the back door of Downing Street, rather than releasing a press statement immediately after a meeting. We could do all that, but is it not rather better to address the big issue facing the country and the Parliament?
The question is whether we in this Parliament can find a process to deal with the issue. Incidentally, that looks unlikely to happen at Westminster as my understanding is that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will make conflicting statements in response to Leveson, but might it be possible in this Parliament, given all that has happened and given our responsibilities, to actually find a way forward?
Johann Lamont said that there is a lot in what I said, and I welcome that, but could we at least have a response on all-party talks and on finding a process to take forward Leveson’s recommendations and to look at them in a Scottish context? We might actually find a solution. Because of the importance of the issue, and in deference to the victims of the illegal and potentially illegal activities, might we just rise to the occasion and point a way forward?
Perhaps in deference to the victims of all those horrific activities and in an attempt to rise to the occasion, the First Minister might have apologised for being the only mainstream politician to meet Murdoch after the revelations came to a head.
The First Minister says that he does not want to pre-empt Leveson, but he then does exactly that by saying that he wants Scotland to have a separate regulatory system with a separate Scottish ombudsman. Considering that he would ultimately be responsible for their appointment, and given his track record, can he understand why the rest of us might fear that he sees Leveson as a chance for him to exercise control over the Scottish press on an unprecedented scale?
Let us see what Lord Leveson has to say. I just point out that one reason why I referred to the Irish system is that ministers in the Irish Government do not appoint the ombudsman. Some elementary checking of the system that I alluded to—which I certainly feel has some currency, considering the evidence to the Leveson inquiry—would perhaps have reassured Johann Lamont on that matter. Furthermore, in what I said earlier, I invited not just Johann Lamont but the other party leaders in the Parliament to a discussion about the issue to see whether we can find a way forward.
I have another point that is important to reassuring people in Scotland. The first occasion on which the police and prosecution authorities in Scotland had the information about Scottish victims was when they requested it from the Metropolitan Police in July last year. The Metropolitan Police had held that information since at least 2006. On receiving the information, Strathclyde Police immediately informed the potential victims of phone hacking and set up operation Rubicon. Since that was set up, as has been well publicised, three people have been detained on allegations of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice, and another four people have been questioned in relation to breaches of data protection law.
Those are responsibilities of the Scottish police and prosecution authorities. It should be reassuring for the Parliament to know that, as soon as the authorities in Scotland had information that pointed to abuses of Scottish citizens, the authorities took action. On that basis, we should have no doubt about the firmness of intent to uphold the criminal law in Scotland.
I am keen to urge the First Minister to recognise that, in considering any regulatory system, he should not imply that, somehow, the problems in Scotland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom and that there cannot be a United Kingdom-wide solution.
The First Minister alludes to the Irish system. We need rigorous scrutiny of that option and any other options. As he knows, and as we agree, the Leveson process has been an attempt not just to regulate the press better but to restore the public’s faith in the press, which has been severely dented after the horrors that the Dowler family, the families of the Hillsborough victims and countless others went through.
I am sure that we can agree that this cannot be a debate in which politicians just talk about our relationship with the press and that there must be an understanding of the deep anger and concern that ordinary citizens feel, right across the United Kingdom.
It is important that we get this right, not just for this Parliament but for Parliaments to come. The First Minister has invited us to all-party talks. Will he commit himself, first, to building consensus throughout the country on how we regulate the press and, secondly, to being bound by the conclusions of the all-party talks?
I would not be inviting Johann Lamont and the other party leaders to all-party talks if I did not want and see the importance of getting a consensus on the issue.
What are the terms of what requires to be done? First and foremost—and my reason for mentioning the position of the police and the prosecution authorities—the law must be upheld and people must have confidence that criminal law will be upheld. I do not think that we have any reason, given what happened, to criticise the prosecution authorities and the police of Scotland for a lack of action as soon as they had the information on which to act.
Secondly, freedom of the press is hugely important within that context of law, as is the behaviour of the press. Thirdly, individuals—or groups, for that matter—who have no resources must have access to redress if they are wronged by the press. That is why the idea of an ombudsman is significant and attractive.
In terms of what we do, surely the key thing that has come out of the controversy, for all parties, is the publication and transparency of meetings with editors and newspaper proprietors. That is good.
Lastly, we have to point to a solution. We have to get beyond who did what to whom and when, and point to a solution that gives redress to victims of malpractice and illegality. That is why I hope that all parties in the Parliament will rise to the occasion and try to build all-party agreement.
I cannot promise all-party agreement, because I am not certain that that agreement exists, but if there is good will on all sides, surely the Parliament can devise a particularly Scottish suggestion and solution that meets our responsibilities, which include the prosecution authorities, the civil law of defamation, the criminal law of contempt of court, and press regulation. Those responsibilities are devolved to this Parliament. Other things are not devolved, such as broadcasting, the internet and the protection of information, but the matters that I set out are our responsibilities. For goodness’ sake, let us rise to the occasion, try to meet the circumstances and find a solution for the Scottish people.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. I welcome the First Minister’s offer to me to meet him and other party leaders when we have all had the opportunity to read and digest Lord Leveson’s report. I look forward to taking that forward at the earliest opportunity.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01022)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
This week’s official national health service figures have confirmed what members already knew: there are 2,000 fewer nurses in Scotland now than there were when this man came to power. Can the First Minister tell us how much the Scottish Government has been spending on agency and bank nurses to cover for all the posts that he has cut?
I will have the precise figures sent to Ruth Davidson, but I know that there has been a reduction in spending in those areas. I also know, because we have the staff figures—Ruth Davidson will want to acknowledge this, as other members have not done—that there has been an increase in staff in the national health service since the Scottish National Party took office.
I know that Ruth Davidson will want to do two other things: she will want to acknowledge the defence of real-terms spending and revenue spending for health boards across Scotland as part of the Government’s programme and, finally, she will, I am sure, want to congratulate all workers in the national health service—ancillary staff, nurses, doctors and consultants—on the extraordinary performance that we see in the health service annual report and the magnificent responses in terms of waiting times and the reduction in hospital-acquired infections. We can be extremely proud of our national health service. That is something else that should be shared across Parliament.
I thought that I heard the First Minister say that there had been a reduction in the figures. In fact, we spent £94.5 million on agency and bank nursing this year. That is up £4 million—or about eight Ryder cup visits—from last year, and is more than 160,000 extra agency and bank nursing hours this year alone, compared with last year. That cost is far in excess of the staff equivalent.
I see the former health secretary whispering to the First Minister, whom he moved to fight his referendum for him. Perhaps he might want to speak to his current Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.
That is happening at a time when nursing vacancies in Scotland are at a three-year high. There are currently 1,400 posts for nurses lying empty in hospitals and health centres across this country. Why are nursing vacancies at a three-year high? Why is this Government seemingly unable to recruit nurses? Why is it spending over the odds on bank and agency staff, thereby diverting valuable resources away from improving front-line priority care? Those are more NHS failings from a Government that seems rapidly to be losing its grip.
Ruth Davidson should not mix up and confuse agency and bank nurses. It is actually a good thing that the NHS has a bank of available nurses to meet patient demand.
I will reiterate two things to Ruth Davidson. I say first that, in the face of the extraordinary pressures on spending that have been dictated by her colleagues at Westminster, the fact that we have more than 4,000 more people working in the national health service in Scotland than was the case when we took office some five years ago is a very substantial achievement.
There is an even greater achievement, though. Did Ruth Davidson actually look at the annual report of Scotland’s national health service? Does she not think that the progress on waiting times, the progress on cancer detection and the progress on reducing hospital-acquired infection are fantastic achievements? Does she have a scintilla of confidence, given what is being said by virtually every independent commentator about the destruction of the national health service south of the border? The other thing that the SNP unites behind—as well as support for our national health service—is our having a national health service that serves the people of Scotland.
The First Minister is aware of the situation that is faced by workers at the Remploy factory in Springburn in my constituency, who have been told this week that they will be made redundant. He may also be aware of the flawed process that has been pursued by Remploy and overseen by the Department for Work and Pensions, and which we will no doubt discuss and debate this afternoon. I ask the First Minister whether, even at this late date, his Government might consider adopting a support scheme for workers, similar to that which is available in Wales, or might, indeed, consider taking in-house to the NHS that manufacturer of NHS wheelchairs at a time when the waiting times for NHS wheelchairs are still far too long.
As Patricia Ferguson knows, Fergus Ewing has been extremely active on the issue and is extremely sympathetic to the plight of the Remploy workers. I fully support what she said about the process that is being followed and I fully support the calls that have been made for an investigation.
The debate that will, I believe, take place later today, will give a further opportunity for Parliament to explore a range of ideas about how it can help the workers in their extremity. I look forward to that debate and I am sure that Fergus Ewing, as minister, will approach it with a very open mind.
In June, the First Minister advised me that the temporary closure of the children’s ward at St John’s hospital in Livingston was “unsatisfactory” and that steps were being taken to ensure that it did not happen again. Guess what, Presiding Officer: less than five months later, the 24/7 status of the ward is again under threat and there is genuine fear for its long-term future. Can we today get a cast-iron commitment that the First Minister will instruct the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to step in if there is a further downgrade?
The Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing have already made it clear to NHS Lothian, NHS Fife and NHS Borders that we expect them to engage fully with the public and other stakeholders to ensure that children and babies get the best services across the south-east of Scotland. Neil Findlay can be extremely confident that the health secretary is extremely active on the matter.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. A fuller statement on the Leveson report later today would have been appropriate, but I will engage constructively in what the First Minister plans.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01016)
The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to people in Scotland.
I point out as gently as I possibly can to Willie Rennie that the Government asked for the same sight of the Leveson report as the United Kingdom Government. That request was denied by his colleagues—in combination—at Westminster. We asked to see the report yesterday; if we had seen the report yesterday, we could have given Willie Rennie, as leader of a party in opposition, the same access to the report as the Opposition at Westminster is getting and we could have made a statement this afternoon.
I find it difficult to understand how Willie Rennie believes that we could have made a statement while we are reading the report and when he would not have seen the report at all. Perhaps he should have a word with the Deputy Prime Minister, who may or may not be at one with the Prime Minister on the matter. I do not know whether we could have matched the two statements at Westminster, but if we had been given proper access to the report, Willie Rennie could certainly have had his statement this afternoon.
As it happens, there might well be advantages in having the debate next week, because that enables everybody to have a proper look at what is a lengthy and, I am sure, considered report, and to come to a considered way forward.
I was trying to be constructive.
On Tuesday, we saw the new chief constable and the police board chair sitting side by side, but facing in opposite directions and in direct conflict on the running of the new police service. Did the First Minister envisage that sort of disarray when he planned the new Scottish police force? Is the problem the people whom he has put in charge, or is it his legislation?
I think that I would describe the situation as they did themselves—as “creative tension” which we want and which will be fully resolved in good time for the establishment of the police service. Willie Rennie’s opposition to the police service of Scotland—the national police service—is well known and has been well ventilated. At some point—given that just about everybody else in the chamber recognises the huge benefits that will come from having a national police service—Willie Rennie and his party will have to explain how they would have achieved the savings that will be made, and the more effective policing of the communities and public of Scotland that will be effected, had they stuck to the existing system with all its inherent inefficiencies.
I am glad that the First Minister can joke about this, because it is barely 100 days since royal assent was granted to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 and already the plans are in turmoil. Currently 6,000 people work for the police service in civilian support roles—everything from scene of crime officers to headquarters administration staff. We know that hundreds of those people will have to change jobs, move jobs or take redundancy. Does not the First Minister think that those people deserve to know who is taking the decisions about their future and with whom they should try to negotiate? This is his law and it is his people. What is he going to do about it?
I was not joking to Willie Rennie: I was pointing out that both parties told the Justice Committee on Tuesday that they fully expect to resolve any differences in good time to progress. Sections 17 and 21 of the act are clear in terms of the chief constable’s direction and control of the police service, and I fully expect that any remaining differences will be ironed out and solved in good time for effective implementation—as, indeed, both parties said to the committee. In that light, I regard Willie Rennie’s description as being somewhat overblown, which is a departure from his normal calm and reflective way of asking questions.
Local Government (Structure)
4. To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to change the structure of local government. (S4F-01018)
We have no plans to merge local authorities or to change the structure of local government.
I am delighted to hear that and I thank the First Minister for his comments. The Christie commission encouraged the Government to look at better integration of services. Can the First Minister confirm that that is how the Government proposes to continue its reform process?
Yes, I can. The necessary reform of local government does not necessarily mean changing boundaries, on which I have stated the Government’s position. It also involves the integration of services, better co-ordination and some of the significant changes that are being made to Scotland’s public services. All those things are being done, which is fully in line with the calls from various commissioners to find a more effective way forward. Nigel Don is exactly right to point to the significant changes that are being made in the co-ordination of vital services for the people of Scotland.
Did the Cabinet Secretary for Justice not let the cat out of the bag on the sustainability of local government services, given the thousands of jobs that have been lost over the past few years, and given that the Scottish Government’s funding regime is not delivering sustainable public services in Scotland?
Sarah Boyack may want to look properly at the local government funding settlement. She will then recognise—I do not know Labour’s current position on this—that, if we allow for the real-terms increase in the revenue funding of the health service, which presumably Labour now supports, despite not supporting it at the previous election, local government has a significant rising share of the rest of the available public spending in Scotland. When Labour gets down to acknowledging that, perhaps it will agree with a number of local government leaders, including—most famously—the former president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, who is a member of the Labour Party and who was neverending in pointing out that the settlements that this Government and this finance minister are arriving at are significantly better than what local government faced under previous, less enlightened Administrations.
National Health Service (Serious Incidents)
5. To ask the First Minister what lessons the Scottish Government has learned from the serious incidents in the NHS reported in the BBC Scotland “How Safe is Your Hospital?” investigation. (S4F-01021)
My sympathies—and, I know, the sympathies of other members—go to the patients and families who have experienced care that fell short of the standards that we all expect. On our instruction, Healthcare Improvement Scotland has begun a systematic review of adverse events management across the NHS boards. Once those reviews are completed, HIS will outline a national approach to reporting, measurement and learning from adverse events next year.
I can confirm that we will pilot a confidential alert line for national health service staff who wish to raise concerns about practices in NHS Scotland. That telephone line will support and enhance existing procedures. We will continue to support and accelerate the Scottish patient safety programme, which is a world leader in delivering the safer care that has helped to reduce the hospital standardised mortality ratio by 11.4 per cent in the past four and a half years.
The First Minister has touched on one of the issues that the programme raised, which is the appalling treatment of staff who report serious incidents. That was the experience of Robert Wilson, a staff nurse at NHS Ayrshire and Arran. He called for a whistleblowing helpline, as did we in December, February and May. I am delighted that the First Minister has now come to the chamber to announce that there will be a helpline. Why was there a delay? Will he ensure that the whistleblowing helpline is independent of the NHS? How will we monitor the follow-up from the helpline?
First I say, as I have before, that Rab Wilson is a personal friend of mine; I should put that on the record in relation to anything that is said about him. The helpline will be independent, and I am delighted that Jackie Baillie is delighted that we are taking that initiative.
In terms of the serious matters that I communicated to Jackie Baillie, I know that she will welcome those initiatives. I hope that she and other members will want to view these matters in context. The protection of people who want to reveal bad practice in the national health service must happen, and it must be a confident part of a confident national health service. Of course, we must drive to reduce the number of adverse incidents in every way that we can.
One aspect of the BBC programme looked at the international experience. It is relevant that we remember that the highly respected and independent Commonwealth Fund carried out an international sample survey last year—it was only a sample, of course—called the “International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults”. That survey showed that Scotland had the lowest number of medical errors in comparison with all the other countries in the sample: our rate was 3 per cent, in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom at 9 per cent and the United States of America at 20 per cent.
Although all of us should drive for perfection, because one adverse incident is one too many, we should balance that by looking at how our health service is performing, as indicated by what is admittedly a sample survey but which nonetheless comes from a respected organisation. It is something of a corrective to the suggestion, which I know that Jackie Baillie would not make, that somehow our national health service suffers unduly from adverse incidents, the number of which we would like to reduce, if we could, to absolute zero.
Oil Industry (Role in Economy)
6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the Scottish economy is overreliant on the oil industry. (S4F-01026)
No. The oil and gas sector is a major Scottish success story that we should all be proud of. The industry supports almost 200,000 jobs in Scotland and, of course, increasingly sells its expertise around the globe. North Sea oil and gas exports contribute £40,000 million sterling to the United Kingdom balance of payments, and international sales from the supply chain reached £7.5 billion in 2010-11. With more than half of North Sea reserves by value still to be extracted, we can have every confidence that the industry will make a major contribution to the Scottish economy for decades to come.
Sir Ian Wood said recently in an interview that the oil and gas industry still has many years ahead of it but that, for the north-east to remain as an energy hub of Europe, it is important that we encourage new oil-related industries to locate and stay in the north-east. Does the First Minister agree that this Parliament must have economic levers at its disposal to ensure that we encourage investment in our vital industry so that Scotland remains a world leader in this field for many decades to come?
This gives us an excellent opportunity as a chamber to pay tribute to Sir Ian Wood, who of course recently retired as chairman of the Aberdeen-based oil services firm the Wood Group. It has been a fantastic success story, built on an exceptional leadership team and talented and committed people. Sir Ian deserves huge credit for the manner in which he has led the company over the past 30 years or so.
I heard Sir Ian saying two things on the radio, one of which was a call for young people to join the oil and gas industry and its tremendous future. It was a rallying call for entrants to the oil industry, which I think is a significant and welcome thing for him to do. Secondly, he pointed out in the same interview, with a rapid calculation, the enormous wealth, running into trillions of pounds sterling, that remains to be extracted from the waters around Scotland.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. Before we move to the next item of business, I will allow a short pause to allow members who are not participating in the next debate to leave the chamber quickly and quietly. I urge those leaving the public gallery to leave quickly and quietly as well to allow the next debate to proceed.