First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00086)
If I may, Presiding Officer, at this last meeting of the Parliament before the summer recess, I would like to say a few words about Iain Gray. He has served his party with great distinction, as a minister and as leader of the Opposition. His approach on key issues has been constructive. Recently, he has offered support to tackle sectarianism and to deal with the problems that are associated with alcohol in our society. Relevant to today, he has joined us in expressing concern about the United Kingdom’s approach to public sector pensions. His approach has certainly been appreciated and I hope that his successor, whoever that may be, will continue in the same distinguished vein. The Parliament owes Iain Gray a debt of gratitude for his public service. [Applause.]
We have not set a date for the election of my successor yet, but nonetheless I take those remarks in the spirit in which they were made.
In the time in which we have faced each other, the First Minister and I have often talked about the national health service. The First Minister and Nicola Sturgeon have told us that they are protecting the NHS, yet this week we found out that, in the past six months, 1,600 NHS jobs have gone. Of those, 700 are nurses and midwives—the very people on the front line of patient care. The Royal College of Nursing called that “unsustainable”. Why is the First Minister not protecting the NHS as he promised he would?
As Iain Gray knows, we have guaranteed that all consequentials will go to the national health service. That was not a universal view when the issue was debated last autumn. I remember that Iain Gray himself, on “Newsnight Scotland” on 8 September 2010, said:
“We wouldn’t ring fence the health budget.”
The protection of the health budget has meant that, even in these difficult times, health employment in every single category—through medical consultants, general practitioners, dentists and nurses to allied health professionals—is substantially up today on the level that we inherited in 2007.
The First Minister needs to examine the statistics that he has given to make sure of their veracity. The fact is that there are fewer nurses and midwives in the NHS now than there were at the end of 2007-08, which was the period of the last budget of the Labour Administration that was in office up to 2007.
It was not just nurses who got big promises that the First Minister would protect them. In March, he announced:
“if the people return me as first minister, then I will secure that prize—of no compulsory redundancies”.
He said specifically that he was talking about local government, schools, colleges and the health service. Fifty staff at Edinburgh’s Telford College are facing compulsory redundancy. The chances are that some of them voted for Alex Salmond on the basis of that promise. He has his job as First Minister, but they are getting P45s. This Tuesday, Michael Russell told a parliamentary committee,
“I have no power to enforce the policy”,—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 28 June 2011; c 26.]
so why did Alex Salmond make the promise?
I want to correct Iain Gray on the health service statistics. The number of consultants, on a full-time equivalent basis, is up by 20 per cent from September 2006.
Members: 2006!
Well, that is on the basis of the term of the previous Scottish National Party Administration.
The number of general practitioners is up by 7.2 per cent, the number of nursing and midwifery staff is up by 383; the number of dentists is up by 20 per cent and the number of allied health professionals is up by 9 per cent. That is a comprehensive increase. Even under the most difficult and severe Westminster-induced budgetary cutbacks, our decision to pass on the full consequentials and to ring fence the national health service budget shows that we are maintaining and sustaining that level of investment in our staff in the national health service.
As Iain Gray well knows, the no-compulsory-redundancy pledge was made to our 30,000 central Government staff and to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the national health service in Scotland. That pledge is not available elsewhere in the United Kingdom and nor, incidentally, is that a new phenomenon. I have quotes here from 2006 when Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, said in answer to a question that it was all right, because there would be only a few hundred compulsory redundancies in the national health service in England. Do not let us believe that compulsory redundancies south of the border started as a Tory-led initiative.
We have applied the policy in the areas that we directly control. As Iain Gray well knows, the colleges, thanks to a statute passed by the Labour Party when it was in government, are independently run in Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning gives them advice. I hope that colleges throughout Scotland will take that advice.
Mike Russell was right and the promise was worthless.
As for directly employed employees, what about the 16 Caledonian MacBrayne workers who are redundant today? CalMac is a company that is wholly owned by the Scottish Government. Those workers are employed by a company that is owned by the Scottish Government and they are redundant today.
If promises to nurses and college staff were worthless, what about teachers? Paul Bisland is a newly qualified teacher who, no matter how hard he tries, cannot get a job, and 80 per cent of his colleagues are in the same boat. Mr Russell wrote personally to Paul Bisland in January and promised him that
“there will be a sufficient number of vacancies for all teachers seeking employment in 2011”,
so where are they?
Can I just correct Iain Gray? As a point of fact, there are no compulsory redundancies in Caledonian MacBrayne. I hope that he accepts that. It is not appropriate to come to the chamber and make an announcement that is absolutely not true. There are no compulsory redundancies.
There are areas in which our advice to other public bodies has prevailed. I am thinking of James Watt College, which, after some debate, accepted the policy of no compulsory redundancies. Recently, I even heard the leader of Inverclyde Council on air reversing his policy of compulsory redundancies. Iain Gray should not underrate the ability of exhortation of ministers in this Administration to persuade even the most recalcitrant Labour authority to follow such a policy. Incidentally, among the groups that we have not yet convinced of the value of our policies are some Labour-led councils in Scotland that, as we know from many previous debates, are responsible for the vast majority of the decline in teacher numbers in Scotland.
This is the pattern, is it not? The First Minister makes the promise and then blames someone else when he breaks it.
When the First Minister made his announcement of no compulsory redundancies in March, he said that he would spend every day trying to deliver the policy. Is the problem not that he has spent every day doing something else? I do not deny that he has been busy, what with non-stop constitutional bickering over his referendum, gratuitously insulting Supreme Court judges and, let us not forget, introducing a bill on sectarianism so badly drafted that his own minister could not explain it.
There has been intransigence, intemperance and incompetence, and, all the time, indifference to cuts in the number of nurses, redundancies in colleges and teachers on the scrapheap. All they get are excuses. When is he going to get off his personal agenda and start paying some attention to the promises of jobs and services that he made to the people of Scotland only six weeks ago?
I recognise that rhetoric—it is a throwback to some 50 days ago. It is what Iain Gray was arguing in the election campaign.
Let us reflect on some of the things that have happened since the election campaign. Unemployment fell by 10,000 over the quarter—the seventh consecutive reported fall in Scotland. Official statistics show that, for the fifth successive year, Scotland is in a stronger budgetary position than the United Kingdom as a whole. What about some specific announcements that I know Iain Gray is dying to welcome? Amazon has created 900 jobs in Scotland. State Street has established its European centre of excellence here. Gamesa, one of the great companies in the renewables revolution, has announced the start of its recruitment programme in Scotland. I know that, in his current position, Iain Gray is not able to welcome those signs of positive achievement under the most adverse circumstances, but I also know that when he is in a different position—when he is less committed and is able to take a judicious view of such matters—he will be the very first to welcome the positive achievements of this Administration.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
Annabel Goldie (West Scotland) (Con)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00077)
If I may, Presiding Officer, at this last meeting of the Parliament before the summer recess I would like to say a word or two about Annabel Goldie. Last month, I said that I will miss enormously the wit with which she pursues her case and her cause at First Minister’s question time, although I might not miss being on the receiving end of it so often. Under her stewardship in the previous parliamentary session, the Tories supported the Government in delivering 1,000 extra police on the streets of Scotland, the small business bonus and greater support for and co-ordination of Scotland’s drug rehabilitation programme, subjects that I know are very close indeed to Annabel’s heart. I have thoroughly enjoyed my weekly jousts with her and wish her every success in all her endeavours in the future.
I thank the First Minister for his very gracious comments. I am glad that he has enjoyed the experience of the exchanges with me at First Minister’s questions, because I am coming back in September. From his adulation, I felt a little apprehensive that he might not be. Nonetheless, I thank him for his comments.
Why, according to a recent report from the United Nations, does Scotland top the list of world cocaine use? Why are there 712 fewer nurses and midwives in Scotland than there were last year? Why is childhood obesity escalating? Why do only 7 per cent of reported rapes end in conviction? Clearly, the First Minister has taken his eye off the ball, preferring to grandstand on the Supreme Court, pick fights with Westminster and provoke constitutional tension. Why has he allowed this appalling catalogue of failure to happen right here in Scotland under his watch?
I do not accept Annabel Goldie’s strictures in that respect. However, I am delighted to find that she will be back after the recess to upbraid me more on these issues. Incidentally, I hope that she reconsiders her entire position and decides to make her comeback permanent. The Conservative Party would be well advised to compare Annabel’s talents with the available alternatives. [Laughter.]
Miss Goldie has nevertheless given me ample opportunity to talk about certain things that she will have noticed. With regard to the health service, in particular, the most recent announcement on waiting time targets, which came at the end of last month, showed that 99.9 per cent of patients are waiting 12 weeks or less for their first out-patient appointment. People with drugs problems continue to access treatment more quickly; indeed, waiting times show that 94 per cent are offered an appointment within four weeks of referral. Although many of the issues that Annabel Goldie has referred to are deeply structured in Scottish society, I know that she will be the first to welcome the positive signs of improvement.
In fairness, Miss Goldie will acknowledge that we face extraordinarily difficult times in public spending in Scotland. That might—just might—have something to do with the £1,300 million of cuts that the Westminster Government is implementing.
Time and again, the First Minister has proclaimed the virtues of free university education, with his mantra being
“the ability to learn, not the ability to pay”.
However, he never told us that his mantra comes with the small print, “Does not apply to students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland and does not plug the funding gap”. Is that not the most brazen and barefaced sell-out of his so-called political principle? It is patently divisive; hypocritical, because it would not even be possible in an independent Scotland; hugely damaging to the welcome tradition of United Kingdom students studying in Scotland; and utterly ineffective in plugging a widening funding gap of more than £200 million. Will he abandon his little Scotlander mindset and bring forward serious proposals for the long-term funding and sustainability of our Scottish universities?
Annabel Goldie knows full well that the circumstances in which we have been placed by decisions of the Conservative-Liberal Administration at Westminster mean that we cannot possibly fund the fees of students from elsewhere in these islands, no more than we can fund free personal care or prescription charges for the people of England. I do not understand why Annabel should think that we have ever argued anything other than that. The only change is that we wanted to have a £6,000 fee across the board, but we were persuaded by the university principals and Universities Scotland that the better way to go was the one that was outlined by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.
I therefore find what Annabel Goldie has said surprising. Time after time, she has upbraided me with quotes from principals from across Scotland who have not been in support of our policy—she has said. Virtually every principal in Scotland has supported Michael Russell, as has the Scottish Youth Parliament. I have with me quotes from Tim O’Shea of the University of Edinburgh, Professor Ian Diamond, the principal of the University of Aberdeen, and professors at the University of Glasgow, Robert Gordon University and the University of the West of Scotland, all supporting the announcement that the education secretary made yesterday.
I will quote from one of them—from Annabel Goldie’s very favourite principal, Anton Muscatelli. She will recall promoting the views of Professor Muscatelli as she was attacking Government policy last autumn. He said today:
“We fully support the Scottish Government moving quickly to address the issue of non-Scottish UK student fees in light of the UK coalition Government’s increase of fees south of the border ... The measures outlined by the Scottish Government play a part in ensuring Scotland’s universities maintain their world class offering.”
Why has Annabel Goldie deserted Anton Muscatelli at this crucial time? She will remember quoting him and upbraiding me about my lack of Latin only a few short months ago. I say to Annabel on what she does with regard to the future leadership of the Conservative party, carpe diem—seize the day.
We will now have constituency questions.
The First Minister will be aware of today’s announcement by Lloyds Banking Group of 15,000 job losses, focused on offices rather than branches. Many of those offices are in my constituency. I ask the First Minister to contact Lloyds urgently for reassurances and clarity for Scotland-based staff, who woke up to uncertainty this morning.
We have pursued meetings with Lloyds Banking Group, and we have been in touch with Lloyds again this morning; John Swinney will be speaking to its representatives again this afternoon. I hope that it helps the constituency member if I say that Lloyds has given us a statement saying that it expects the reductions to take place without using compulsory redundancy. Lloyds pledges to
“continue to work with the Scottish Government’s Financial Services Jobs Taskforce to ensure maximum levels of employment are retained across the wider financial services industry in Scotland.”
These are difficult times for Lloyds staff. If I can offer one element of hope, however, I have with me a set of workforce statistics for the financial sector. After the financial crisis, employment in the financial sector in Scotland fell from 107,000 right down to 92,000. According to the latest statistics, which were released just last week, the number had risen back to 106,000, thanks to many announcements from a range of financial services companies in Scotland. Some of the work that has been done, both in promoting the financial services sector in Scotland and successfully attracting jobs, and in placing people who had been released from our major clearing banks, is thanks to the Financial Services Advisory Board and the task force that was established to make that possible.
I am pleased that, in these difficult circumstances, Lloyds Banking Group has said that it will work fully with the financial services jobs task force to minimise compulsory redundancies and to maximise levels of employment in the Scottish financial sector.
Is the First Minister aware of the recent decision to withdraw preferred bidding status from St Philip’s secure unit in Plains? Is he aware that, as a consequence of the decision by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the unit will cease to operate tomorrow, resulting in its 259 staff being made compulsorily redundant, leaving many vulnerable children without the necessary support services? Is he aware that, although the staff were advised by Alex Neil that a task force was being set up, Skills Development Scotland has denied that? What support is the Government offering to the staff at this time? What transitional arrangements are in place for the children?
It is a difficult situation with regard to the secure estate. As most people who have followed the issue well understand, there has been substantial overcapacity. I assure the member that meetings are being held to establish the best way to secure the maximum employment, as well as fulfilling the primary purpose, which is to ensure that care is available for the children in the secure estate.
I have been involved in meetings about the issue, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and indeed the member, have been strongly involved in the matter. Everybody is working their best to secure the best outcome for the staff who are employed at the unit and for the children in the secure estate.
Legal Profession (Cadder Ruling)
3. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the legal profession regarding the attendance of solicitors during interviews following the Cadder ruling. (S4F-00084)
The Scottish Government has had regular discussions with the Law Society of Scotland regarding the provision of police station advice following the Cadder ruling. Once we have seen the results of Lord Carloway’s review of the law and practice of detaining and questioning suspects in criminal investigations, the society will continue to be fully involved in discussions on longer-term changes that might need to be made.
I welcome the continuing discussions with the Law Society of Scotland and recognise that Scotland’s legal system is clearly capable of adapting quickly to the demands that are placed on it, but does the First Minister agree that, at the very least, Scottish courts must be given parity of referral, under certification, to the United Kingdom Supreme Court as soon as is practicable?
Yes, I do. I place on record my thanks to Lord McCluskey and his expert team for producing such a thorough and well-considered report in such a short timescale, in order to inform today’s parliamentary debate on the subject, the debate that will take place over the summer and the definitive report, which will be produced in the autumn.
As Christine Grahame correctly identifies, a key recommendation of the report is that Scotland’s highest court of criminal appeal, the High Court of Justiciary, must be placed on a level footing with other courts across the UK when it comes to appeals before the UK Supreme Court. I welcome that recommendation and the recommendation that amendments be made to the Scotland Bill to limit the role of the UK Supreme Court by ensuring that referrals from the High Court of Justiciary can be made only on the same basis as referrals from courts south of the border. That anomaly must be addressed, and the appropriate amendments to the Scotland Bill should be made after Lord McCluskey’s group publishes its final report this autumn.
I bring the First Minister back to the original question’s reference to the attendance of solicitors during interviews. He will be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has estimated that the proposed Scottish Legal Aid Board helpline will cost twice as much as the amount that is currently spent on police station advice. In addition, it has advised that solicitors are voting with their feet, by moving away from the new process. In the interests of achieving value for money, will the First Minister agree to investigate the matter? Will he resist the development of any system that can be shown to be more costly and less effective?
That is precisely why Lord Carloway has been asked to review the law and practice of detaining and questioning suspects in criminal investigations. I am sorry that Johann Lamont does not understand, or does not want to understand, why these matters are relevant. She should look at Lord McCluskey’s report, which says that many aspects of Scottish criminal proceedings have unexpectedly come before the UK Supreme Court on a basis that the report describes as “seriously flawed”. That, says the report, has created “real problems”.
That is where the problems came from. We hope that the solution will lie in implementation of the McCluskey recommendations when the final report comes before us, and in Lord Carloway’s review. That is precisely the way in which to deal with such matters. I know that Johann Lamont really supports the actions that we are taking; she is just finding it a wee bit difficult to say so.
Borrowing Powers
Derek Mackay (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
4. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government on the issue of borrowing powers. (S4F-00091)
On 20 June, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, presented proposals to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on borrowing powers in the Scotland Bill. Those proposals reflect the consensus across the Scottish Parliament for a robust, substantial and sustainable borrowing framework for Scotland.
I look forward to those proposals being considered by the UK Government.
It is clear that there is now consensus in the Parliament for the urgent transfer of borrowing powers. Does the First Minister share my belief that Scotland must have access to more economic levers to boost economic activity and support jobs? Does he welcome the comments by Lord Foulkes that the time has now come for Scotland to have full fiscal responsibility?
It is extraordinary that, in four years in this Parliament, Lord Foulkes hardly ever mentioned a sensible idea but, as soon as he went back to the House of Lords full time, he came up with a cracker. I have it here:
“I think that the time has now come when we must seriously consider a more radical change in funding devolved Governments. It is described by some as full fiscal autonomy; I would describe it more appropriately as full fiscal responsibility; so that the responsibility for raising money as well as spending it goes to the Scottish and other Governments.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2011; Vol 728, c 857.]
Out of the mouths of babes and innocents and Lord Foulkes comes a declaration that the Labour Party in Scotland would do well to follow.
On the Forth road bridge, does the First Minister welcome the United Kingdom Government’s allowing of prepayment, which will, of course, allow other infrastructure projects in Scotland to go ahead?
We welcome initiatives, but I remind the member that prepayment will amount to the ability to advance borrow perhaps £100 million or £200 million. That money is not a gift; it must be paid back. The Forth crossing, even under the rigorous financial control that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth is exerting, which has resulted in substantial savings to the Scottish purse, will cost more in the order of £1.5 billion. However, any contribution and sign of flexibility is welcome. I know that, with his long-standing support not only for fiscal responsibility but for fiscal federalism even, the member well understands why prepayment is no substitute for real financial and economic powers.
Care Homes (Inspections)
5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take in response to figures showing that one in 10 care homes have been assessed by Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland as weak or unsatisfactory in at least one area of inspection. (S4F-00087)
As Jackie Baillie knows, the Government has already taken action. It was this Government that introduced the grading system to which she refers. That system showed that, in 2008-09, 10 per cent of care homes for older people were unsatisfactory or weak under one of the five new quality measures. The figure for 2010-11 has fallen by nearly a quarter. That is good progress, which I am sure Jackie Baillie will be the first to welcome. There is still room for improvement, of course, and we will strive to make further progress.
If a significant proportion of our care homes are being assessed as weak or unsatisfactory, that is still a matter of concern, as we all want the best standards and the best possible quality of care for our older people.
The new care inspectorate has a key role to play, of course. A couple of weeks ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy was adamant that the cut in that inspectorate’s budget was 1 per cent and that I was wrong to say that it was 25 per cent. This week, the inspectorate’s corporate plan for 2011-14 shows a 25 per cent cut in its budget, and let us not forget the 20 per cent reduction in staff. Who should we believe—the cabinet secretary or the care inspectorate? Will the First Minister now act, reinstate the budget and stop the staff cuts, so that we can protect the quality of care for Scotland’s older people?
Who should we believe on these matters? Certainly not Jackie Baillie. The care regulator’s budget for 2011-12 is £35.444 million, which is a reduction of 1 per cent in the combined budget of the three predecessor organisations for 2010-11. Jackie Baillie well knows, as the Labour Party has consistently demanded details on this, that budgets for future years are looked at as part of the spending review and against a framework that considers the risk and inspection regime. The crucial point that Jackie Baillie has chosen not to inform members about is that the new inspections are unannounced and risk based. That is a much better framework, and we should have some satisfaction that the new regime has resulted in a fall in the number of unsatisfactory homes. Jackie Baillie will find that her fears are again misplaced, I am afraid, as future budgets are announced. The 1 per cent figure is detailed and verified.
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)
The Health and Sport Committee has just announced that it will conduct an inquiry into how care for the elderly is regulated, which is a serious attempt to play its part in improving that care, as opposed to engaging in the cheap point scoring that we have just heard. Will the First Minister encourage all those who have concerns to submit evidence to that inquiry and, more important, will the Scottish Government take into account any conclusions that are drawn from it to inform policy and reform?
The debate on care for the elderly is hugely serious. The Parliament, the Government and every single one of us owe an obligation to older people. It is not helpful to deliberately quote a figure from 2008-09—10 per cent—for the number of care homes for older people that are unsatisfactory and not acknowledge that the 2010-11 figure showed substantial improvement. That was acknowledged not in Jackie Baillie’s question, but after I had pointed it out.
That level of debate does not do this subject proper justice. The Government, the Parliament and the parliamentary committees owe it to the older people of Scotland to increase in every possible way and sustain the inspection regime to ensure that performance throughout the care home sector is satisfactory. That is a joint obligation and undertaking. I look forward to the parliamentary committee investigating the matter, because it will see that that commitment is held by all the parties represented in this chamber.
Ambulance and Fire Service Crews (Attacks)
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the number of attacks on ambulance and fire service crews. (S4F-00096)
Any attacks on emergency service staff are deplorable and we condemn them in the strongest possible terms. As Murdo Fraser knows, we have provided significant financial support for initiatives aimed at protecting emergency workers. For example, the Scottish Government has provided £37 million for a new firelink system that allows fire service staff to utilise a priority call function requesting urgent police assistance if they come under attack and, in 2010, we provided £350,000 to health boards to fund projects to counter violence and aggression in the workplace, which of course, will extend to ambulance workers.
I agree that everyone must condemn these attacks. However, figures published earlier this week show that ambulance crews in Tayside and Fife have been assaulted more than 50 times in the past three years and such incidents are increasing. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the laws protecting those to whom we owe so much are rigorously enforced and that those who carry out such attacks are severely punished?
One of the reasons why we have such full statistics is the special status that emergency workers received through legal changes under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which was passed under the Labour-Liberal Administration, and the 2008 provisions extending that protection to cover a range of other emergency and support staff. Taking into account our agreement that any verbal or physical abuse of our emergency service workers is totally unacceptable, I know that Murdo Fraser would not like to give the impression that the trend is rising. I note, for example, that in 2006-07 there were 283 of these deplorable attacks in Scotland; the most recent figures, which are for 2010-11, show that there were 265. However, no matter whether the figure is 283 or 265, it is still far too many. I hope that Murdo Fraser will acknowledge the welcome for the firelink initiative from the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland and the Fire Brigades Union, indicating that they appreciate that it is an extra tool for the necessary protection of our emergency workers.
That ends First Minister’s question time.