First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01153)
Later today I will be meeting the managing director of Microsoft UK to discuss the company’s plans for its apprenticeship programme. As the chamber will know, this week we have had some fantastic analysis showing that 92 per cent of the youngsters in the greatly expanded modern apprenticeships programme are in work six months after completing their modern apprenticeship. A great deal of interest has been stimulated among companies and the commitment that Microsoft UK will make today is that, in the run-up to 2016, it and its partners, suppliers and stakeholders will guarantee a minimum of 2,016 new young modern apprenticeships.
We must obviously welcome any opportunities for our young people. We would only hope that the Government had more of a focus on the issues of youth unemployment and the challenges that young people face. Some of the figures on young people being in jobs after an apprenticeship are because they were in those jobs before they got the apprenticeships.
The process of the referendum is almost agreed, bar the date. Now we can get down to the substance of the debate, but how will the First Minister conduct that debate? The people of Scotland have made it clear that they want clear, honest information. When we have said that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union and that those negotiations could take time, we have been accused by the First Minister of scaremongering. When the Irish Minister for European Affairs says that an independent Scotland would have to apply to the EU and that the negotiations could be lengthy and complex, what is she guilty of?
I am glad that there is so much agreement now on the processes of the referendum. I am glad that Johann Lamont and I can go forward on that basis and I look forward to the debate.
I recommend that Johann Lamont reads the information from the Irish European affairs minister. What the minister said, of course, looking at the Scottish National Party timetable for negotiating our position from within the European Union, from a yes vote in the referendum to the independence election in 2016, was that she regarded that position as entirely satisfactory. Coming from the minister of a country that has presidency of the European Council at the moment, that seems to me to be a strong endorsement of the SNP position.
Johann Lamont asked how we would conduct the debate in Scotland. We will conduct our debate for an independent Scotland in a positive manner. I wonder if the bitter together campaign of Labour and the Tories can match that commitment.
I am not sure how positive it is to misrepresent what people say when they raise legitimate concerns and express a view on what the Scottish Government claims to be the case, because the Irish European affairs minister’s comments fall well short of Nicola Sturgeon’s definitive claim that Scotland’s membership of the EU would be “automatic”. In her clarification, Lucinda Creighton says:
“I think it is clear that a newly independent state would have to ... negotiate the terms of membership.”
She adds that those terms
“would undoubtedly be somewhat different to the existing terms”.
What part of that does the First Minister disagree with?
We have always said that there would be negotiations. The crucial point is that those negotiations will take place from within the European Union. The Irish European affairs minister, Lucinda Creighton, says that the SNP position of, between 2014 to 2016, negotiating our position within the European Union,
“sums up the situation ... well.”
That is an exact quote.
I do not know the terminology that Johann Lamont uses, but it seems to me that that is something of an endorsement of the position that the SNP has been putting forward.
Johann Lamont will have to catch up with how the terms of the European debate have changed. Her unionist partners in the better together campaign want negotiations perhaps to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union altogether. Is it not entirely possible that negotiating for Scotland and Scotland’s interests from within the European Union—wanting to stay part of the European Union—will be rather more successful than an in-out referendum, as postulated by her allies in the Conservative Party?
Anyone would think, to listen to the First Minister, that Nicola Sturgeon had never said that our membership of the EU would be—I quote—“automatic”. The problem with the First Minister is that he lives in a world in which we are never supposed to remember what he said yesterday and we are never supposed to expect that tomorrow will match what he says today. The people deserve better. If the independence debate is to be conducted in what he describes as positive terms, heaven help us all.
When the BBC reported Lucinda Creighton’s comments, it was accused by the SNP of misconstruing what she said. Scandalously, one SNP member suggested that the report had been “heavily spliced”, yet what she said, and what was reported, is backed by the comments of the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the Czech foreign minister, the Spanish Europe minister and anyone who understands the European Union. What was it that was misconstrued and provoked such a hysterical response from the SNP? Why could not the SNP just admit the truth?
I ask Johann Lamont to cast her mind back to First Minister’s question time a year ago. Patricia Ferguson congratulated the Government on publishing its consultation document, which said that there would be negotiations with the European Union. I replied:
“I say that it has never been our position that there would not be negotiations; the point is that negotiations would be held from within the context of the EU.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; c 5613-14.]
Maybe it takes a year to clarify the position between Patricia Ferguson and Johann Lamont. Perhaps if Ms Lamont sorts out her internal communications within the Labour Party, it will be easier to challenge.
Johann Lamont gets very upset about any suggestion that the BBC might be misconstruing the remarks of the Irish Minister for European Affairs. I quote exactly the Irish European affairs minister, who said:
“I am concerned that an interview which I conducted with the BBC is being misconstrued”.
She went on to endorse the SNP position in the way that I have just outlined. In fairness to the BBC, it should be said that she said that the BBC position is being misconstrued. When it comes to finding misconstruers in Scottish society, the best place to look is the better together campaign of Labour and the Conservatives.
This is the man who went to court to cover up the fact that he did not have legal advice. He has never been able to explain what he understands by the term, “terms of the debate.” We do not need a lecture from the First Minister about clarity; what we need from him is a degree of honesty.
Everyone agrees that the people of Scotland have the right to the best, most accurate information in the run-up to the referendum, but how can they have faith—[Interruption.]
I know that members are doing their job, which is to make a racket. It is the only internal communication that the First Minister requires from them.
How can the people of Scotland have faith in the information supplied by the Scottish Government when so often—remember—it has been forced to admit that it is wrong and when those giving accurate facts are ridiculed, bombarded with complaints and pilloried by the cybernats?
What does it say about Scotland when the minister of a foreign country is bombarded with abuse for telling the truth and news organisations from The Scotsman to The Herald to the BBC are traduced for reporting facts that turn out to be true?
People want information so that they can make a judgment on what an independent Scotland would look like. So far, is it not the case that all we know is that it will be a land where no one is allowed to disagree with Alex Salmond?
I know that Johann Lamont would not want to descend into the language that was used by some of her colleagues in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago, when some actually questioned the democratic credentials of this proportional Parliament and upheld the legitimacy of the House of Commons as a model of modern democracy.
I have quoted the exact words of the Irish minister, Lucinda Creighton. It was she who said that she thought that the BBC’s coverage of her remarks was being misconstrued. That is a reasonable thing for Ireland’s Minister for European Affairs to say, and I think that it is important to note that she found that the SNP’s position was entirely sensible and endorsed it. Hopefully, that sort of confidence in Scotland’s European future will translate itself to the unionist parties in this Parliament, which cannot seriously doubt that energy-rich, oil-rich, renewables-rich, fishing-rich Scotland would be anything other than—as the Irish minister indicated—welcome in the ranks of the European Union.
I was intrigued by the reference to cyberspace, because I have been looking at a bit of cyberspace myself. The Facebook site of Labour for Scotland has been tweeted all over the place. I was particularly interested in the comments on the page by Robert McNeill, who is the chair of East Lothian constituency Labour Party and a better together campaign co-ordinator. He wrote:
“the labour party in scotland, in my opinion have a long way to go before we will once again become a party which is electable to the scottish people. however until the party recognise what the problems are then i am afraid it may take much longer”.
That is one of Johann Lamont’s own constituency chairmen and a co-ordinator of the better together campaign. I think that Johann Lamont better get a grip of him. He is probably listening to the Tories who he is campaigning with in East Lothian.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01150)
I have no plans to do so in the near future.
Now that the Electoral Commission’s report has been widely accepted by all sides of the chamber, we know the spending limits and the question for the referendum. However, as mentioned, a piece of the jigsaw is missing. Therefore, can the First Minister tell the people of Scotland the exact date on which the referendum will take place?
That will be introduced to Parliament with the bill that comes to Parliament in March. I am sure that that is what Ruth Davidson would fully expect to happen.
I am amazed by the First Minister’s coy reticence, particularly since he is no stranger to making grandstanding announcements in this chamber at First Minister’s question time.
Why is the First Minister trying to keep his poker hand hidden from the room? If the referendum is the property of the people of Scotland, why can he not be straight with them? Why were members of his Government briefing national newspapers a year ago?
We have known for more than a year the date of the 2014 Ryder cup at Gleneagles and we have known for more than five years the date of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. Important though those things are, they do not impact on the course of this nation’s history in the same way as a referendum. [Interruption.]
Order.
The people deserve to know the date now. Why will the First Minister not tell them?
Ruth Davidson has just said that she knows the date and has done for a year. If she knows the date, why is she asking me? It is entirely reasonable to introduce the date to Parliament with the bill. Surely that is what Parliament would expect.
I am delighted by Ruth Davidson’s agreement on the question of the process for the referendum. I remember that she described the Scottish National Party Government’s question as “fair and decisive” in her reaction just a year ago. Of course, she subsequently changed her mind, after some processes that I will not go into.
Ruth Davidson said that all parties accept the Electoral Commission’s report. That is excellent news. Will she now communicate that to the Prime Minister and follow up the Deputy First Minister’s request for serious discussions on the areas of practicality that the Electoral Commission rightly identified? So far, we have had a no in terms of Europe and a no in terms of Trident. At what stage will the Conservative Government start to follow the Electoral Commission’s recommendations?
Jenny Marra has a constituency supplementary.
Can the First Minister confirm that two inspectors resigned after Healthcare Improvement Scotland failed to publish a September inspection of Ninewells hospital? Can he confirm that the health secretary, Alex Neil, was alerted to the issue by the minister, Roseanna Cunningham? Why has the Government not made the original report public, when it contained serious reports of 20 elderly people lying on trolleys in corridors? Will the First Minister ask Healthcare Improvement Scotland to publish the original report, because failure to do so only raises suspicion that there has been a cover-up? Why the whitewash, First Minister?
I remind Jenny Marra that the process of Healthcare Improvement Scotland inspecting the care of older people in acute hospitals was initiated by this Government. Before that, there was no process for the Healthcare Improvement Scotland reports. Thus far, 12 hospitals have been inspected out of the 23 acute hospitals that will be inspected by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. In, I think, three of those examples, there has been a follow-up report, which is an unannounced inspection. I think that it is a thoroughly good thing to have an unannounced inspection after an announced inspection. In two cases—the case that Jenny Marra cites and, I think, the case in Wishaw—the reports have been published as one, which seems to be part of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland process.
However, the clue to this is in the title. The purpose of the reports is to bring about improvement in the standards of care in the health service, so that we can avoid the situation that has happened elsewhere, where dramatic and very difficult findings have been made in England’s health service without a process of inspection.
In fairness, Jenny Marra will see that the report states on page 6:
“Following our unannounced inspection, we feel assured that progress is being made to address the issues we identified in the acute medical assessment unit.”
That seems to me exactly the purpose of the process of inspection, which was initiated by this Government.
It is important that the whole Parliament accepts that the process of inspection from Healthcare Improvement Scotland is exactly the process that is a good thing in the health service, which is prepared to see inspectors go into our hospitals so that, when deficiencies are found, improvements can be made. That seems to me very much in the interests of the care of the patients in our hospitals.
Claire Baker has another constituency supplementary.
The First Minister will be aware of the decision by the board of the Byre theatre of St Andrews that the theatre is to go into liquidation; the theatre has already closed its doors. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with Creative Scotland over the closure? Can the First Minister give an assurance that ministers will do all that they can to support discussions between Fife Council and Creative Scotland in attempts to secure a future for the Byre?
I can certainly give that assurance. If the member would like to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs on the issue, I am sure that that can be arranged. I am sure that members from across the chamber hope that a good future can be found for the Byre theatre, and we admire the work that it has done in the past. The answer to the question is yes. I hope that the member takes up the offer of a meeting with the culture secretary.
European Union Member States’ Foreign Ministries (Contact)
3. To ask the First Minister for what purpose the Scottish Government has recently contacted the foreign ministries of European Union member states. (S4F-01158)
The Deputy First Minister wrote to all 26 European Union foreign ministers to reiterate the Scottish Government’s position that we wish Scotland to remain a constructive member of the European Union. That was partly in response to the messages coming from the Westminster Government that many members of the Conservative Party are looking towards an exit door for the United Kingdom as far as the European Union is concerned.
I thank the First Minister for his reply, but let me probe him on the issue. In her letter, the Deputy First Minister says that his Government considers there to be
“a case for reform of certain aspects of the EU”
and that
“we are supportive of the on-going process of institutional reform”.
Does that support of institutional reform mean support for the creation, as the Commission has made quite clear, of a sovereign united states of Europe based on fiscal and political union?
No, it does not—and the opposition to that idea is shared by many states across the European Union.
The comment in the letter points to our belief that there are within European Union structures a number of policies that could do with fundamental and democratic reform. Not least among them is the common fisheries policy, which I was surprised to see the Prime Minister cite as a success in his negotiations, as if all the problems were solved. That is hardly surprising, of course, as it was a Tory Government under which the Scottish fishing industry was once described as—I quote—“expendable” in terms of Britain’s wider European interests. That is exactly why this nation of Scotland should represent its own interests in the wider Europe.
Nursing and Midwifery Staff (Numbers)
4. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to protect the number of nursing and midwifery staff. (S4F-01160)
Nurses play a vital role in maintaining the health of the nation. Like all NHS Scotland staff, they have the security of our no compulsory redundancies guarantee.
From September 2006 to December 2012, we have seen an increase of 423 whole-time equivalent qualified nurses, from 41,026 to 41,449. It is also worth noting that we have more qualified nurses working in our national health service today than in any year under the previous Labour-Liberal Executive.
Nurses are perhaps the clearest embodiment of the NHS and the public service values for which it stands. Can the First Minister provide an assurance that in the application of workforce planning NHS boards will listen to nurses on the front line—[Interruption.]—such as those at the Royal hospital for sick children and the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh, so that their valuable experience can shape the future of our nursing workforce and deliver the high-quality person-centred care that the people of Scotland rightly expect and deserve?
I can. The nursing workforce planning draws on a huge evidence base of nursing in practice. The tools have been developed in partnership with unions such as the Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Midwives. Boards work in partnership with nurses so that the planning tools are rolled out successfully across the country.
I know that members in the chamber—particularly those on the Labour benches—would not want their natural anxiety to attack the Government, at any opportunity and in any way, to be confused with a lack of support for the efforts and quality of our national health service staff.
It is breathtaking that the First Minister is accusing members on the Labour benches of not supporting staff in the NHS when his Government has cut almost 2,500 nurses in the past two years. The First Minister often cites England as being worse than us, but England has cut only 7,000 nurses over the same period. That means that his Government has, proportionally, cut more than three times as many nurses. At the same time, his Government has cut the student intake by 20 per cent, thereby denying 600 aspiring students a career. That comes on top of paediatric services being in disarray because of lack of staff.
Is it not the case that, in reality, the SNP’s workforce planning is not the guff the First Minister has just spoken, but a total shambles?
With Richard Simpson’s background, he is, I presume, aware that we have a higher quotient of nurses in the Scottish national health service per head of population. I just quoted the figures for whole-time equivalent qualified nursing and midwifery staff, and there are more qualified staff in the health service now than there were when we took office. Furthermore, as Richard Simpson should also be aware, there are more people working in the national health service in Scotland now than when the Scottish National Party took office.
I think that the approach ill-behoves a political party—of which Richard Simpson was a part when it established its manifesto and platform—that refused in 2007 to guarantee increased funding for the national health service. As Lord McConnell said at the time, it would have to cut its cloth accordingly. Again, under the leadership of Iain Gray, Labour refused to confirm the SNP commitment to ensure that, in revenue terms, the national health service would receive all the Barnett consequentials. Given that the Labour Party was not willing to commit during the election campaign to supporting our national health service, what audacity its members have to come here and tell us that they support the public national health service of Scotland.
Police Staff Redundancies
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has approved plans for staff redundancies suggested by the Scottish police authority. (S4F-01165)
The SPA has committed to the Scottish Government’s no compulsory redundancy policy. Any reductions in current police support staff are anticipated to be delivered through not replacing people leaving the service, retirements, and voluntary exit schemes.
Police officer numbers remain significantly higher than they were before May 2007. There were 17,454 police officers in Scotland on 30 September 2012 and an increase of 7.5 per cent, or 1,220 officers, between March 2007 and September 2012.
Let us just assume that that answer to my question was actually a “Yes”, because as far as I can interpret it, that is what the First Minister said. If, indeed, his answer is to imply that he has approved the plans, will he confirm that we are talking about 1,400 police staff being made redundant or being offered early retirement? Will he confirm a cost of £61.3 million for that? Will he tell us how those redundancies and retirements are to be funded and at what cost to the police service in the forthcoming financial year?
No, I cannot confirm those things. I can confirm that we have a no compulsory redundancies policy, in contrast not only to the Conservative-Liberal Government at Westminster but to the Labour Party when it was in power at Westminster.
As Lewis Macdonald is fully aware—given that his party supported it—the move to a single national police service in Scotland obviously means that areas of duplication across the current police forces will no longer be required when we move to a single national police service. That was one of the arguments for, and one of the points of, having a single police service in Scotland.
The no compulsory redundancies policy is a huge assurance to staff throughout Scotland—not only in the police service, but in the national health service and across the public sector. I see Labour members shaking their heads. Do they not think that a no compulsory redundancies policy in Scotland’s public services is a good thing? Do they not think that it would have been good if the Labour Party had introduced such a policy when it was in government? Are they seriously questioning the commitment that the Scottish National Party Government has introduced?
The key thing to which Lewis Macdonald did not point is that this Government’s policing policies, implemented by our police support staff and police officers, have now resulted in recorded crime in Scotland being at a 37-year low.
What does the First Minister think of the Westminster Government’s proposal—which is, incidentally, shared by the Labour Opposition at Westminster—that senior police officers need not have any policing experience?
The consultation on direct entry to the police in England and Wales comes from a recommendation in the Winsor review. The Scottish Government did not commission the Winsor review, which relates to policing in England and Wales, and will not be implementing the Winsor package in Scotland.
Public confidence in the police is at an historic high in Scotland. By contrast, police confidence in the Westminster Government is at an historic low south of the border. It is my firm recollection that the Labour Party in Westminster is not complaining about the principle of police redundancies south of the border, but is just complaining about the number. That contrasts with the expanding situation of front-line officers in Scotland delivering the 37-year low in recorded crime.
Given the First Minister’s response to Lewis Macdonald about civilian staff and the escalating numbers of police officers who are being placed on restricted duties, how will there be room for all those people in the back offices of police stations the length and breadth of Scotland?
The Government’s commitment to the police service in Scotland over the past six years is basically beyond argument, given the success in implementing our commitment on the numbers of police officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland, and the result in terms of the fall in recorded crime. It seems to me that recorded crime being at a 37-year low and police numbers in Scotland being at a record high are not only related but indicate the success of this Government’s criminal justice policy.
Non-profit-distributing Model Projects
6. To ask the First Minister what projects, and at what value, have been delivered through the non-profit distributing model pipeline in 2012-13. (S4F-01163)
The £2.5 billion NPD project pipeline is one of the largest programmes of its kind in Europe. Gavin Brown will be delighted to know that the value of the NPD projects that have entered procurement through the hub programme and other means in 2012-13 is to date approximately £900 million.
The First Minister said earlier that he liked to spend time in cyberspace. I think that cyberspace is where he got that answer. My question was specifically on what has been delivered in 2012-13. Will he now answer that question?
As Gavin Brown well knows, the NPD programme is a project-based finance programme. The issue of entering procurement is rather important, because the projects concerned are now being bid for by construction companies across Scotland.
The member wants some detail, so let me give him some detail: Brechin high school, Wick high school, James Gillespie’s high school, the NHS Lanarkshire bundle, Woodside health centre, Eastwood health centre, Gorbals health centre, Maryhill health centre, the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh—which is in the area that is meant to be represented by Gavin Brown—[Interruption.]
Order!
There is also Lochgilphead mental health; Forres, Tain and Woodside, which is a £14 million project; Kilmarnock College, which is a £15 million project that was entered in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 April 2012; the NHS Lothian Royal hospital for sick children, which is a £155 million project that was entered in the journal on 5 December 2012; the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, which is a £36 million project that was entered in the journal on 10 December 2012; NHS Ayrshire and Arran acute mental health, which was entered in the journal on 14 January 2013; and, most recently, a project that will be of great pleasure to the members from the north-east of Scotland—[Interruption.]
Enough! Order!
—the Aberdeen western peripheral route and Balmedie to Tipperty bundle, which is a £472 million project that was entered in the journal on 18 January this year.
Members: More!
Order. Can we have a bit of calm, please?
Ken Macintosh will ask a brief supplementary.
I had a serious question about digging holes, but the First Minister seems to be the only person who is digging a hole around here.
The First Minister—or, at least, his Government—has confirmed slippage in the programme of at least £300 million this year and at least £300 million next year under the general headings education and health. Will the First Minister promise to tell us specifically in which projects there has been slippage? I understand that they include half the projects on the list that he read out, including Wick high school and James Gillespie’s high school.
The information was presented to the relevant parliamentary committee, but I am glad that that supplementary has been asked, because the Labour Party seemed to be suggesting that, with project-based finance, it is possible to shift the project-based finance that is dedicated to some projects over to other projects. That is not how project and revenue-based finance works. It has to be based on these projects.
Let us remember why we are introducing the £2.5 billion NPD programme. One of the reasons why we are doing so is that there have been dramatic cutbacks in direct capital spending. Direct capital spending has the advantage that it is possible to implement it very quickly, as John Swinney has demonstrated through the shovel-ready projects that he has announced over the past few months. [Interruption.] He has announced a substantial number of shovel-ready projects in the past few weeks. Has the Labour Party been sleeping?
Why has that been necessary? It has been necessary because Alistair Darling, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, postulated a cut of 36 per cent in the direct capital investment budget for Scotland. The Conservative Party has reduced that cut to 26 per cent, which it claims is an increase. I think that the NPD programme, as illustrated by the commitments that are under procurement, is going to deliver substantial benefits for the people of Scotland, and that members of the Labour Party should hang their heads in shame that Alistair Darling created the situation that we face.