Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 30, 2010

Official Report 914KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2598)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

It was one of those clear autumn mornings this morning when we feel like we can see for miles. Where should we look for the First Minister’s arc of prosperity today: Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Iceland or Ireland?

I think that we should take a variety of international examples in following best practice in Scotland. As Iain Gray knows, I recently visited Norway and made a number of announcements about renewable energy and collaboration in Scotland. One thing that particularly impressed me as I visited Norway was the £200 billion oil fund that that country has accumulated by having access to its own natural resources. Would that Scotland had been in the same position over the past 30 years.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that Norway’s oil fund has been built up because Norway—

Members: Is independent.

Order.

It is because the Norwegian state still owns its oil and gas industry. If the First Minister is proposing to nationalise the oil and gas industry, he should probably tell us. [Interruption.]

Order.

It is no surprise that when the First Minister is asked about Ireland nowadays, he talks about Norway. The First Minister once said:

“I am sure that most of Europe’s Finance Ministers would give at least one limb—possibly more—to have Ireland’s problems”.

Today, the cost for Ireland of bailing out the Anglo Irish Bank reached €34 billion. The finance minister warned that its failure would destroy Ireland’s economy.

Which limb would the First Minister give to have that problem?

Iain Gray will forgive me if I correct him on his understanding of the Norwegian oil fund. The Norwegian oil fund was built up from revenues from oil—not just from Statoil, the Norwegian state oil company, but from all the major oil companies exploiting oil in the Norwegian sector. It is unbelievable! I thought hitherto that Iain Gray opposed the concept of Scotland benefiting from its own natural resources because he wanted Westminster to have them. I now realise that it is because he did not even understand the proposition. I will send Iain Gray a paper on the Norwegian oil fund. Given that so much is changing in Labour and given that new Labour is buried, despite Iain Gray’s attachment to it, if all the policies are changing, who knows, maybe Labour will be in favour of an oil fund before long.

I point out two things to Iain Gray. First, on direct capital investment in the Scottish banks, currently the Treasury is making a profit, given the current share price of Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland. [Interruption.] That is a fact nonetheless. Secondly, Ireland, like many countries, has substantial economic problems at present, but I note that its wealth per head is actually higher than that of the United Kingdom.

It was an Irishman who said that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Ireland is teetering on the edge of collapse, and Scotland’s banking sector is 10 times the size of Ireland’s. The Royal Bank of Scotland alone had a balance sheet 15 times the size of the Scottish economy. The investment in saving those banks was £470 billion. Will the First Minister admit that, in an independent Scotland, RBS and HBOS would have collapsed and the Scottish economy would have collapsed with them?

Just as Iain Gray confused Statoil with the Norwegian oil fund, he is confusing capital injections into banks with general support for the financial and monetary system. The capital injection into the Scottish banks is now making a paper profit for the UK Treasury.

Iain Gray says that the Irish economy is on the brink of collapse. Judging from Labour’s conference, I thought that it was the UK economy that was on the brink of collapse. The Labour Party has argued, with some justification, that the UK Government is risking a double-dip recession because of an approach to an austerity programme that goes too far and too fast in its cuts in public spending. I agree with that proposition on the basis of the evidence from Ireland. If that is the argument that Iain Gray is putting forward—that, unless an alternative policy programme is agreed, the UK risks moving into a double-dip recession—does that not support the argument that we should look to European countries such as Norway, which have avoided that by mobilising their natural resources to power their economy forward? I would that we could do the same in Scotland.

Support for the Scottish banks was £470 billion—£70 billion capital injection, £100 billion special liquidity scheme, £100 billion credit guarantee, £200 billion asset protection scheme and £10 billion in fees. The Government may get some of that back, but if it had not had it at the time when it was needed, we would have suffered the consequences. Everyone in Scotland knows that, in a separate Scotland, our two biggest banks would have gone and, with them, all the jobs, savings, pensions, mortgages and salaries. Everyone in Scotland knows that we would have tipped over the edge on which Ireland teeters today. Is Alex Salmond the last man in Scotland who does not realise that his personal obsession with independence is daft, deluded, deranged and downright dangerous for this country?

Alex Salmond realises that it is only with economic powers for this Parliament and this Government—the economic powers that would be delivered by independence—that we will have an alternative to 10 years of despair and public spending cutbacks in the United Kingdom.

As they also say in Ireland, if I was going there, I would not start from here. That applies to Iain Gray’s questions. He has confused the capital injection into the banking sector that is taking place in Ireland at the moment with general financial support for a monetary system. The two things are entirely different. It is not me who claims that there is a profit to be gained from the capital injection into Lloyds and RBS; that is in the Treasury documents—not just the Treasury documents of the new coalition, but the Treasury documents that were produced by Iain Gray’s old boss, Alistair Darling.

Ed Miliband evoked a new atmosphere of consensus at the Labour conference when he said that he would not attack policies to restrict short-term sentences and say that people were being soft on crime. As Ed Miliband moves in a sensible political direction and supports the SNP Government’s policy on crime, which has been so successful, will not Iain Gray eventually realise, in that changing atmosphere, the obvious, inarguable point that only in our having economic powers and growing the Scottish economy is there any alternative to being at the mercy of coalition cutbacks, two thirds of which were started by his own party?

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2599)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

This morning, we received an independent report on health services at Stracathro hospital, which the Scottish Government commissioned. That report contains the disturbing comment that the option of the continued use of the independent sector could not be looked at because

“this is not reflective of current Scottish Government policy”.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has said to the British Medical Association:

“NHS Scotland is, and in my view always should be, a service that is publicly owned and delivered.”

For the record, can the First Minister confirm that, under his Scottish National Party Government, the independent sector is banned from delivering national health service health care in Scotland?

I will come to SNP policy in a moment.

I am not certain from Annabel Goldie’s question that she is aware that the private operator at Stracathro hospital made it clear that it did not want to continue the contract. It is true, as she indicates, that our position is that the Scottish national health service should be a public service, and that we think, as the report indicates, that delivery within the health service is every bit as good as delivery from elsewhere. That position holds substantial merit.

As Annabel Goldie will have seen, the latest surveys of health service users—the consumers—show that, for the first time since the surveys started, more people in Scotland are satisfied with the national health service than otherwise. Surely the test of how a national health service is operating is public satisfaction with it, and public satisfaction with a national health service is a tribute to the staff who work in it. Public satisfaction with the national health service in Scotland is at an all-time high.

The First Minister has either inadvertently or wilfully missed the point that I am making. His position, as just articulated, is incoherent, incomprehensible and ludicrous. He bans the independent sector from one part of the NHS and completely ignores its vital role in other parts of it. It is a dog’s breakfast of dogma. The First Minister must either allow the independent sector to bid for contracts such as the Stracathro contract, or he must nationalise our dentists, pharmacists and opticians. Even Alex Salmond cannot have it both ways, so which is it to be?

I do not know what is incomprehensible about saying that the independent provider that Annabel Goldie is talking about did not want to bid for a renewal of the contract. That seems to me to be an uncomfortable fact for her.

Annabel Goldie should cast her mind back to when the Labour-Liberal coalition introduced the independent contractor into Stracathro hospital. The aim was to reduce the waiting lists in the health service. That is a laudable aim, but Annabel Goldie must now accept that the reduction in waiting lists has been the most successful in Scottish history. We now have waiting lists that are at an all-time low, and that has been delivered by a public national health service in Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2600)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland recently, and I expect to see him tomorrow, along with Tavish Scott, at a meeting in London. I have no other plans to meet him in the near future.

The First Minister lost hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on the gathering, which was the flagship for homecoming 2009. More than 100 private businesses are in court trying to get their money back. Today, we find that one financial disaster was not enough for him. He was, and is, actively canvassing for a second event, using even more taxpayers’ money. What reason is there for him to refuse to appear in front of Parliament’s Public Audit Committee to answer questions about his role in the gathering and the shabby way in which he has treated those Scottish businesses?

I take an old-fashioned view of these things. As First Minister, I am here every Thursday to answer whatever questions members want to fling at me. I have answered four questions on the gathering. Perhaps I could bring Tavish Scott up to date. The Scottish Parliament rules of engagement for committees are quite clear: the Government will put forward ministers. I had thought that the Public Audit Committee wanted to inquire into the circumstances of the loan of cash flow that was offered to ensure that the gathering took place. The Auditor General for Scotland’s view was that making the offer was a “not unreasonable” thing to do, as Tavish Scott might remember. That was the responsibility of Mr Russell, and it was a decision that I fully supported.

I understand that people perhaps now want to talk about attempts to rescue the event and secure it for the future. I was involved in such attempts, as has been known since June, because that is specified in a timetable in the Auditor General’s report. I have made it clear to the committee this morning that if, after meeting Mr Russell and asking him questions on the first issue into which it wants to inquire, the committee wants to inquire with me as to why I wanted to save the event for the future, I will be delighted to turn up at the committee and say why we wanted to secure an event that generated £10 million for the Scottish economy.

I think that that meant that the First Minister is going to appear before the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee. If that is the case, all members will welcome that. The first gathering event took a £180,000 loan from the Government and lost it, losing the money of 102 businesses; now we find that the First Minister wants to start a second gathering event with another £380,000 of taxpayers’ money, before he has cleared up the mess from the first.

When I asked the First Minister about the mess in June, he asked me:

“how on earth could we have known ... that the company would become insolvent?”—[Official Report, 24 June 2010; c 27719.]

He knows now, but he is still offering money for a repeat event. Now that he is prepared to meet the Public Audit Committee, will he also agree to meet the small businesses who have lost money and answer to them?

Tavish Scott might regret that line of questioning, because I am now able to do as I will do with the committee and go exactly into the circumstances whereby an indication was made of future support for a future event. That is, that the City of Edinburgh Council held to the agreement that it had announced, whereby it would take over the private sector liabilities of the gathering and the Scottish Government would roll up the public sector liabilities of the gathering, which would enable every one of the creditors whom Tavish Scott is talking about to be paid.

I thought that that was an excellent proposal from the council, because it would have secured an event again for Edinburgh that would have generated £8 million for the local economy and £10 million for the national economy. It is of great regret that the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, Jenny Geddes—

Members: No!

Order.

I had an image of Jenny Gilmour flinging a stool across the city chambers. Jenny Gilmour decided not to—[Interruption.]

He is losing the plot.

Order. I think that the message is getting through.

I have great pleasure in revealing that I have finally got the name of the leader of City of Edinburgh Council, Jenny Dawe. [Laughter.]

It is of great regret that Jenny did not decide to proceed with that particular proposition. Before Tavish Scott starts weeping crocodile tears for the people who supplied to the gathering, he should ask his party colleague why they did not go forward with what I thought was a sensible arrangement to secure the creditors and the future of an important event for Edinburgh and Scotland.

I will not talk about the detail of what the Public Audit Committee will consider if and when the First Minister comes, but I will comment on the process. In my role as convener of the committee, I have written to the First Minister—[Interruption.]

Order.

I will come to the question, if members will please allow me to frame it. I have written to the First Minister to indicate that it will be for the committee to decide when witnesses appear and to remind him of the powers that are available to the committee to compel witnesses. Does the First Minister accept that the committee has the right to make its own decisions?

Of course I accept that the committee has the right to make its own decisions—I am puzzled as to why the committee’s convener seems to be deciding before the committee has had a chance to do so.

As the convener of the Public Audit Committee well knows, the arrangement between the Government and committees has been that the Government decides which minister will go before a committee. I understood that the Public Audit Committee wanted to inquire into the circumstances of the loan that was authorised by Mr Russell and most certainly approved by me.

This morning, I wrote to the convener of the Public Audit Committee to inform him that, if the committee wants to inquire into the circumstances of the attempts to save the event for the future—which I was most certainly involved in—I would be delighted to appear before it, because I think that it is right and proper that the First Minister should try to save an event for the future that generated so much income and so many jobs for Edinburgh and for Scotland. I would be delighted to come before his committee and say why this Government is involved in attempts to save jobs and, incidentally, help the creditors about whom Tavish Scott says he is so worried.

I hope to see the convener of the Public Audit Committee—and its members, if this time the convener chooses to consult them on the way forward.

Next week, the European Parliament is expected to vote on a moratorium on deep water oil drilling following the appalling events in the Gulf of Mexico. However, the UK Government seems set—perhaps as early as today—to make a decision to back deep water drilling off Shetland. Does the First Minister agree that that environmentally and economically reckless action would commit us to another generation of oil addiction? Will he call on the European Parliament to back the moratorium?

I will not do that. There are significant differences between the safety regime that applies in the waters around Scotland and that which applies in the Gulf of Mexico. There are important lessons to be learned from the events in the Gulf of Mexico, and they should be identified and scrutinised. However, at the present moment, I do not think that it is justifiable for the member to call for a moratorium without saying why he believes that, given all the experience that we have had in the waters around Scotland, deep water drilling is dangerous.

We should learn the lessons from the Gulf of Mexico, but we should recognise the excellence of the record of drilling around the coast of Scotland, and go forward on that basis.

---

Obesity

4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to combat obesity in the adult population. (S3F-2616)

I welcome the Scottish health survey results that were published earlier this week. The number of people who have an unhealthy body mass index has reduced for the first time since the survey began. However, although the results are very encouraging, there is still more work to do to combat obesity in Scotland.

I share the First Minister’s enthusiasm for the statistics, which are slightly surprisingly good. Does the First Minister agree that prevention is better than cure? If I compare the population’s understanding of the effects of being overweight with its understanding of the effects of smoking, it seems to me that, by and large, the population does not yet understand the former fully. Is the Government doing enough to educate the Scottish people so that our society can make the kind of progress that we need it to?

I agree that a small change in lifestyle can make a big difference. We have been promoting that message through the take life on campaign and other activities. As the Scottish health survey suggests, that message is getting through.

In addition, we have invested more than £3 million to deliver the counterweight programme in health boards in Scotland. That is an evidence-based approach in primary care that lets obese patients achieve a healthier lifestyle.

It was particularly satisfying that the Scottish health survey shows that the most significant progress in those statistics has been made by the younger people in Scotland. That is a matter of some satisfaction, but no complacency.

The Press Association established through a freedom of information request that NHS Scotland has spent more than £154,000 on buying bariatric beds, with yet more money being spent on hiring such beds. The beds are capable of taking weights of up to 60 or 70 stone. That is an indicator that the Government’s public health messages are not at an all-time high. For what reasons are the Government’s obesity programmes failing so spectacularly, and what does the First Minister propose to do about it?

There are some subjects that we should be capable of tackling as a Parliament. We have to deal with situations as we find them. The beds that were acquired were for patients whose problems in that regard rather predated this particular Government. I am not saying anything other than that there is a significant problem in Scotland. For the first time, we have seen statistics that indicate a change in trend, particularly among young people. I am not saying that that is due only to the initiatives that have been launched—other lifestyle issues might be prevailing, too. However, for goodness’ sake, on an issue such as this, can we not just say that we want to tackle the problem that we all recognise exists and that the initiatives that are being taken deserve cross-party support in this Parliament?

The health service has a bounded duty to treat patients as it finds them. That is the duty of the health service, just as it is the duty of Parliament and the Government to try to change the circumstances of the people.

Given that the authors of the health survey describe the adult obesity figures as showing no significant change and the trend in children’s BMI as “unusual”, is the First Minister concerned that, with 30 per cent of children having an unhealthy BMI, Scotland still faces a major, long-term problem with obesity?

Yes, we face a major, long-term problem, but Ross Finnie should acknowledge that the survey shows a change in trend for the population as a whole. There is not nearly enough improvement, but these things will take a substantial time. However, there is a change in trend. It may well be that the statistics for young people were described as “unusual”, but the “unusual” actually meant that there was a sharp drop in the position of young people. That is a subject for satisfaction.

Obviously, the survey will continue and we will have other information that comes in. The member asks whether I acknowledge that there is a continuing problem. Of course there is a continuing problem, but I hope that Ross Finnie has the grace to acknowledge that there is some cause for hope in the figures that have been published.

---

Hospitals (Cleanliness)

5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to improve the cleanliness of hospitals in view of the findings of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland’s health care environment inspectorate. (S3F-2608)

Hospital cleanliness is a top priority in tackling health care associated infection. The latest quarterly figures, which were published by Health Facilities Scotland on 13 September, show that all national health service boards continue to achieve high cleaning standards, with national compliance for the period April to June 2010 standing at 95.6 per cent. This year, just over £20 million is being invested in tackling health care associated infections. The Scottish Government has provided more than £5 million for additional domestic staff across the NHS on top of the additional funding of £3.5 million for cleaners last year.

The First Minister will be aware that the report highlighted specific problems with cleanliness, overcrowding of wards and insufficient staffing levels, all of which risk the development of infection. What action will he take to tackle the problem? Does he believe that the SNP’s current approach, cutting 1,500 nurses from the NHS and cutting cleaning hours in some health boards, puts patient care at risk and will do nothing to improve the situation?

Jackie Baillie should acknowledge that we set up the inspectorate that is giving us this valuable information. If we had not done that, we would not even be able to identify the extent of problems. In the same respect, let us acknowledge that it is perhaps something to do with the actions that have been taken by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing that we see a decline in hospital-acquired infections in Scotland. Cases of C difficile are down by 44 per cent on the same period last year, and cases of MRSA are down by 31 per cent. That still means that there is a significant number of cases, but again, the statistics show that things are moving in the right direction. Even Jackie Baillie might find it in her heart to say that that might have something to do with the initiatives that have been taken by the health secretary.

In light of the success of the electronic bed management system that was secured by the Scottish Conservatives and which has been piloted in NHS Grampian as a means of reducing the incidence of hospital-acquired infections, can the First Minister give me up-to-date information on how the roll-out of the system across Scotland is progressing and what impact it is having?

I am delighted to say that we intend to roll out the initiative across Scotland. Indeed, Nanette Milne’s colleague Murdo Fraser was at the launch event for the roll-out. I am sure that a consultation with him on that aspect will confirm that that is the intention. It is an excellent initiative that has proved its worth. Let us hope that the roll-out across Scotland has similar results to what has been achieved in Grampian.

---

Commonwealth Games 2014

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government remains confident that the cost to the public purse of the 2014 Commonwealth games will be within budget. (S3F-2605)

I am sure that everyone in the chamber is delighted that the games in Delhi are set to go ahead and that they will showcase the excellence of athletes and the good will of people across the Commonwealth. In four years’ time, Glasgow will host the games and that looks set to be a triumph—as we intend it to be—for the city and for Scottish hospitality. It will be the largest sporting event ever hosted in our country.

Seventy per cent of the games venues are already in place and the capital risk is much lower than for any comparable event. The fact that the budget was comprehensively reviewed last autumn to the satisfaction of all parties will ensure that the contribution to the cost of the games from the public purse is well managed. We all support the games in Glasgow, not just for the spectacle, but for the lasting legacy of investment and facilities in the city.

I am grateful for that response, and I certainly concur with the First Minister that the games are being looked forward to with a considerable sense of anticipation. They must not give rise to a situation that leaves Glasgow with a significant financial deficit, and I am pleased to accept his assurance on that.

However, in the circumstances, is it not somewhat strange that Glasgow City Council—which, out of necessity, is having to compulsorily purchase properties—should have offered Mrs Margaret Jaconelli, a resident in Dalmarnock, compensation of £30,000 for a flat that was valued at £95,000?

The compulsory purchase powers for the games were agreed to unanimously by this Parliament. It is up to the council to invoke them, if necessary and if all else fails, as it has done.

As Bill Aitken knows, compulsory purchase throws up many difficult cases, and I note that the Public Petitions Committee recently congratulated the Government on our initiative to see whether the compulsory purchase order process can be improved. Given that compulsory purchase includes independent valuation, I do not think that Bill Aitken should give the impression that Glasgow City Council has moved outside the proper process, as I see no evidence of that.

12:32 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—