Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, October 30, 2014

Official Report 813KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

We now move to First Minister’s questions. I call Jackie Baillie to ask question 1.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. With your permission, I would like first to pay tribute to Johann Lamont.

I know that members right across this chamber recognise Johann’s passion and commitment to making Scotland a better place. Indeed, all her life she has been motivated by the desire to achieve social justice and tackle inequality, and I know that she will continue to work towards that goal with her many friends and colleagues across the chamber. I also thank her for her notable achievements as Labour leader. Among them is one of my personal highlights, which was securing the control of Glasgow City Council against expectations—and, of course, the most recent is the very successful referendum campaign result. I wish her well for the future. [Applause.]

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02338)

Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

As this is my first parliamentary opportunity to do so, I would like to pay tribute to Johann Lamont following her stepping down as leader of the Labour Party at the weekend.

I have always found Johann Lamont to be a spirited opponent in the Scottish Parliament, strongly dedicated to her party but in particular to championing key issues such as the eradication of child poverty and providing support for carers. I have absolutely no doubt that she will continue to play an active role in Scottish public life and I wish her well for the future. [Applause.]

I thank the First Minister for his kind comments.

We all care passionately about our national health service and we value the work that our NHS staff do every single day, so today’s Audit Scotland report makes grim reading: progress has been slow; significant change is needed; there is little planning in evidence; services are at risk; targets are being missed; and budgets are being squeezed. Does the First Minister have a plan—any plan at all—to deal with the growing crisis in the NHS?

We should start by looking at the Audit Scotland report, and at where it identified substantial progress

“in a number of areas, including improving outcomes for people with cancer or heart disease and reducing healthcare-associated infections.”

It continues:

“Patient satisfaction with hospital inpatient services has ... increased since 2012 ... Waiting time targets have reduced over the past ten years and the length of time that people wait has decreased considerably ... Between 2003 and 2012, the death rate for all forms of heart disease fell by 38 per cent”,

and on the report goes to identify where the national health service has made substantial progress.

Of course it is true that Audit Scotland, quite rightly, draws attention to the fact that despite the success of our NHS in terms of managing its finances—success that has not been replicated elsewhere in either England or Wales—the Scottish national health service faces challenges for the future. How could it be otherwise in the current situation?

Perhaps Jackie Baillie should have paid close attention to page 32 of the Audit Scotland report, which states:

“Reductions in spending at a UK level will affect the level of funding available in Scotland. The Scottish Government will need to plan for health spending within an overall reducing budget.”

The very heart of the financial challenge facing our national health service is the retrenchment and austerity at the United Kingdom level and the financial pressures that that imposes on our national health service in Scotland.

The First Minister is consistent in his fondness for selective quoting, but I say to him that the report overall makes extremely grim reading. We know that the answer that we have just received is not the answer of a First Minister in control; it is the answer of a First Minister in absolute denial. Anybody watching who works in the NHS knows the pressures on the health service. They will not be convinced by his bluff and bluster.

Let us look at the reality of the NHS under the Scottish National Party: almost half a million hospital days lost to delayed discharge; one in four patients in hospital does not need to be there; 325 consultant vacancies—a figure that has gone up 60 per cent in the last year alone; and the Scottish Ambulance Service facing cuts equivalent to 433 paramedics just not being there when we need them or 70 ambulances being taken off the road. Yet the First Minister comes to the chamber today and claims that everything is fine with the NHS. Whether we are talking about his own patch or across Scotland, why is he in denial about the growing crisis in the NHS?

Every statement that I read out earlier to Jackie Baillie was from the Audit Scotland report. For that matter, I can quote Caroline Gardner from Audit Scotland, who said in a very reasonable and considered interview on Radio Scotland this morning:

“I think it’s important to say that the times that the patients are waiting on average now are much shorter than they have been in the past ... The Government has managed to protect the”

national health service

“budget, certainly the revenue budget, in real terms up until the current budget period.”

We know, of course, what happened in the current budget period. To pass on the consequentials from Westminster, the national health service would have required an additional £202 million in its revenue budget. I agree that Mr Swinney did not do that—he put forward £288 million. That means that, in the current year, we are exceeding in terms of passing on the consequentials.

All the facts that I have stated are from the Audit Scotland report, and that guarantee of an increase in real-terms funding for the national health service has helped it withstand the financial pressures that are undoubtedly there. No such guarantee was in place from the Labour Party in 2007, and no such guarantee was in place from Iain Gray in the run-up to the 2007 election.

Jackie Baillie should really try to consider this. Yes, there are, of course, pressures on our national health service. How could it be otherwise? We are in the maw of financial control from Westminster. How much greater would the pressures have been if we had had the disaster of a continuation of a Labour Administration in Scotland? We might even have had a national health service in Scotland facing the same almighty pressures that are prevalent in Wales under Labour control.

It is evident that the First Minister has read neither the rest of the Audit Scotland report nor Labour’s manifesto, which very clearly talked about

“protecting the NHS budget in Scotland and passing on all Barnett consequentials for health.”

After that answer, it is clear that the First Minister is, indeed, in denial. In his world, everything is wonderful and rosy. However, while we wait on answers, people in Scotland’s hospitals are waiting on trolleys, waiting for an ambulance to turn up and waiting for an NHS that Scotland needs and which people deserve.

Let us look at what the experts say. Last year, the British Medical Association warned that the situation was not sustainable. Today, the Royal College of Nursing said:

“When patient care suffers because health boards are trying to make ends meet, it’s obvious something is ... wrong.”

Moreover, this week, a paramedic said:

“We can’t keep ... up. It’s just a matter of time before something goes seriously wrong.”

Why does the First Minister think that the people who work in the NHS every single day are wrong about the cuts that are facing our health service and that only he is right?

Jackie Baillie mentioned that delayed discharges were increasing in the national health service, but they are much less than they were when the SNP came to power. She also said that there were vacancies among consultants, but the number of consultants is much greater than it was when the SNP came to power, as indeed is the number of nurses and doctors. The number of NHS staff has increased by 6.9 per cent since the SNP came to power. Those things have been achieved against the austerity from the Westminster Government.

I repeat that quote from the Audit Scotland report:

“Reductions in spending at a UK level will affect the level of funding available in Scotland. The Scottish Government will need to plan for health spending within an overall reducing budget.”

Is that not exactly the kernel of the debate that we had in the recent referendum campaign, in which Jackie Baillie and the Labour Party were in denial about the impact of Westminster funding cuts on the Scottish national health service? If we take the Audit Scotland report as a very considered and objective analysis, will Jackie Baillie accept Audit Scotland’s pointing out the reality that a 7 per cent decline in revenue budgets in Scotland will have a severe impact across the public sector? That makes it all the more laudable that the SNP in government has managed to protect our national health service.

As far as the Labour Party is concerned, it goes without argument that, in 2007, Jack McConnell said that the NHS would have to “cut its cloth” and would get no additional consequentials. As for Iain Gray, on 8 September 2010, he said on “Newsnight Scotland”:

“We wouldn’t ring fence the health budget.”

Only when Labour was on the run during the election campaign did it start to change its tune.

I would appreciate a brief question and a brief answer. We have a lot to get through today.

I remind the First Minister, who still remains in denial, that, from 2007 to 2010, the Labour Government at the United Kingdom level gave the Scottish Government more money for the health service than he actually applied to the health service.

We detect a pattern. Audit Scotland is wrong. The ambulance drivers are wrong. Doctors are wrong. Nurses are wrong. Everybody is wrong apart from Alex Salmond. However, the facts are clear.

The NHS is completely devolved. We make all the decisions about it in Scotland, and the SNP has been in charge for more than seven years. In that time, bed numbers have been slashed, budgets have been cut, staffing has been cut, waiting times have grown and delayed discharge has been on the rise.

Does the First Minister recognise that the people of Scotland want a long-term plan for their health service, not sticking-plaster solutions? They want a focus on the NHS, not endless discussions about the constitution. Will he deliver, or is he simply in denial?

NHS staff have increased by 6.9 per cent. That is an increase of 8,818 between September 2006 and June 2014. As we pledged to do, the Scottish National Party has protected the national health service revenue budget in real terms and has added to that this year.

Yes, of course there are pressures on our national health service. How could it be otherwise, given that we are imprisoned in UK Government austerity? However, with regard to being in denial, I point out that I quoted exactly from the Audit Scotland report about the financial pressures that are bearing down on the health service.

That was exactly the argument that took place in the referendum campaign. I took a screengrab of a picture on the BBC website that showed Jackie Baillie against a background of signs saying “SNP NHS LIES”. The caption under the picture reads:

“MSP Baillie denies Labour disunity—A Holyrood politician denies there are rifts between Labour MSPs and MPs and insists they are ‘joined at the hip’”.

Any politician with the gall to make that argument cannot be trusted on the Labour Party or, indeed, the finances of the national health service.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Johann Lamont and I come from different political backgrounds, but I recognise her as a woman of principle and substance, and she has always put her commitment to serve above public ambition. For me, she is the sort of public servant that we need more of in Scottish politics. I have great cause to be grateful to her for the leadership role that she took in the better together campaign.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02336)

No plans in the near future.

Last year, the Scottish Government won plaudits when it stepped in to bring Prestwick airport into public ownership. It bought it for £1 and has since pledged £25 million to keep it afloat.

However, there has since then been a string of broken promises in outlining Prestwick’s commercial future. First, in February, a French consultant was brought in, on a three-month contract, to map out where the Government should go, and we were promised that there would be a report in the summer. In June, Nicola Sturgeon appeared before a parliamentary committee and said that a business plan would be published

“in the next couple of months.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 18 June 2014; c 3272.]

Then, a couple of months later, when the plan should have been published, Transport Scotland said that a strategic vision document outlining the future of the airport would

“be published in October.”

October has one day left. Will we finally hear that plan tomorrow? Can the First Minister tell us how the plan will provide a clear path back to private ownership?

That strategic vision will be published within the next few days. I promise Ruth Davidson that it will be published within my remaining term of office, which means that there is an extremely urgent and immediate commitment on that.

This issue is about the future of a substantial part of the Scottish economy, as well as the Ayrshire economy. I ask Ruth Davidson to think about this as—apart from anything else—one of the local members who has been most adamant about, and supportive of, the Government’s intervention regarding Prestwick airport.

The alternative course was closure of the airport—I hope that Ruth Davidson understands that—and the Government stepped in because the last private sector bidder was unable to move forward. The significant thing that broke the deal and that made that private sector bidder unable to go forward was the impact of air passenger duty on flights from Prestwick. [Interruption.] Ruth Davidson looks perplexed, but I know that she has studied the issue. APD was identified by that bidder as the straw that broke the camel’s back in the takeover of Prestwick airport.

Let us not underrate the challenges in building a strategic vision to keep Prestwick airport as an important part of the Scottish economy. Nevertheless, I reassure Ruth Davidson that that vision will be published in the next few days. It will set out an exciting future for Prestwick airport that would be considerably assisted if Prestwick airport did not have its hands tied behind its back by the imposition of the outrageous air passenger duty and its impact on the carriers at Prestwick airport.

I am glad to hear that the report will finally be published. I point out to the First Minister that we have long backed a plan to return the airport to private ownership, and that my colleague John Scott has rightly been working with people on the ground to make that happen. What we need from the report, which we are told will be published in the next few days, is a proper route map so that workers at Prestwick airport and the people who rely on it see that it has a proper future. We will not get that from a fudge that, once again, sees the Government kicking the can down the road.

After more than a year of uncertainty, we need the matter to be sorted now, for the long term. In his short remaining term of office—in his final weeks in post—will the First Minister ensure that he and his deputy, who is also the cabinet secretary responsible for infrastructure, come back to Parliament with clear and unambiguous plans?

I thought that Ruth Davidson would have known that the Deputy First Minister will appear before a parliamentary committee on the 12th of next month to talk about exactly this issue. That is an important consideration.

I do not understand Ruth Davidson’s attitude. If there had not been a private market failure, and we had not been unable to secure a private sector bid, the airport would have closed, thousands of people would have been out of work and the highly successful aerospace industry around Prestwick would have been placed in substantial jeopardy.

I had a conversation with Howard Davies, the Tory appointee who is considering whether to spend £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion on another runway for Heathrow or Gatwick, or on building Boris’s airport somewhere in the River Thames. I put it to him that if the UK Government were to reduce air passenger duty for the north of England or give the Scottish Parliament the power to do something about it in order to increase competition for direct international flights, that would immediately relieve some of the pressure on the London airports. Howard Davies looked at me and said that that would be a distortion of competition. Unfortunately, Ruth Davidson and her party live in a world where spending £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion on infrastructure in the south of England is not a distortion of competition, but allowing airports such as Prestwick to survive and prosper by having a competitive rate of air passenger duty somehow is. That is the topsy-turvy world of London bias that the Conservative Party has imposed on Scotland. [Applause.]

Order. I have a number of constituency questions that are very important to the members. I ask that questions and answers be brief in order to allow me to get through as many as possible.

As the First Minister may be aware, John M Henderson & Co, the long-established Arbroath-based engineering company, has gone into administration with the immediate loss of 89 jobs. What action is the Scottish Government taking in response to that major blow to the economy and the affected employees? In particular, how might it help the tremendous efforts that are being made by Angus Training Group to assist apprentices who are caught up in the situation to find alternative opportunities to pursue their planned careers?

I share Graeme Dey’s concern regarding the developments at John M Henderson and the impact that they will have on the affected employees, their families and the surrounding economy. Through the partnership action for continuing employment initiative, we have been liaising closely with the administrators. A redundancy support event was held yesterday, which provided an opportunity for employees to speak with local agencies. The event was attended by 67 employees and 17 modern apprentices. I am pleased to report that three of the MAs have found jobs following their discussions at the event.

I assure Graeme Dey that Scottish Enterprise and the industry secretary will be fully engaged, as will PACE, to try to ensure that as many as possible of the highly skilled workforce follow the three apprentices into secure employment as quickly as possible.

The water supply to more than 50 homes in the Tummel Bridge area of Perthshire has been found to be contaminated with E coli and Salmonella, which presents clear health risks to the local population. Will the First Minister undertake to speak to Scottish Water and ask it to take urgent action to ensure that the long-awaited replacement water supply can be put in place without further delay, so that my constituents no longer have to rely on bottled water for drinking and cooking?

I will, today, secure from Scottish Water a further update on its efforts to secure the water supply in Murdo Fraser’s area. I will communicate that update to him as quickly as possible.

I associate the Green and independent group of MSPs with colleagues’ comments on Johann Lamont’s important contribution to public life.

I am sure that the First Minister will share my serious concern about the loss of up to 45 jobs from The Scotsman newspaper titles, which is a huge loss to Scottish journalism and to this city. What reassurance can the First Minister provide that the Government places a high value on a thriving journalism sector, and what support can the Government provide to local titles such as the Evening News and to the people who look likely to lose their jobs?

Government officials yesterday met Paul Holleran from the National Union of Journalists in the context of meeting the Scottish Trades Union Congress and media-based trade unions on possible submissions to the Smith commission. That provided us with the opportunity to discuss the redundancies at Johnston Press.

Each and every one of us, as public servants, has a substantial interest in there being a vibrant and successful written press. We hope that the redundancies that have been announced can be mitigated, and we hope and believe that those talented journalists will find secure employment elsewhere, if that is not possible.

On the position of the Scottish press and the pressure that it is under, I hope that the owners and titles understand that there is only so far a journalistic complement can be reduced while maintaining quality and the ability of journalists to reflect Scotland’s vibrant political life.

The First Minister will be as upset as I am to hear that Henderson Travel in my constituency ceased trading without warning to its customers or its 150 staff. With potential job losses and no trade union representation at the company, what action will the Scottish Government take to support the staff and the customers of that important company?

The Scottish Government will implement the PACE initiative as quickly as possible. I assure Christian McKelvie that I am happy and willing to arrange a meeting with the relevant minister to discuss how her constituency can be protected from that unfortunate development.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I, too, pay tribute to Johann Lamont. There is no doubting her commitment to social justice, and she can be proud of her many achievements. I wish her well.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02337)

A range of issues to carry forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Last week, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland raised concerns about the rise in the emergency detention of young people. It also highlighted the problems caused by the admission of children to general hospital wards. The Scottish Government has a policy to reduce the number of children sent to hospital wards that do not specialise in the care that they need, so why did the number of children needing mental health care who were admitted to non-specialist wards rise last year to more than 200?

The member raises an important point. I had a meeting yesterday that touched on that exact issue. Perhaps I can arrange a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, so that the member can develop the point and see what the plans and the vision are for the national health service to get back on track in reducing the number of children with mental health problems admitted to general wards.

There are growing calls for mental health to be given the same priority as physical health. When people are taken into emergency detention, the action is supposed to be signed off by a mental health officer. Last week, however, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland expressed concern that that does not always happen. That means that we cannot be sure that children are taken into emergency detention only with that safeguard in place.

I do not know whether the First Minister will leave a note for his successor. If he does, will he ensure that mental health services for young people are on the list of things to put right?

Happily, I do not have to leave a note. My successor is sitting alongside me, and her compassion, interest in and commitment to the national health service are well known and well established.

The member has raised a serious issue, and it should be taken and developed in that fashion. I will arrange the meeting that I have discussed so that it can be pursued in all its detail to ensure that there is an adequate reply that satisfies Alison McInnes on the future direction of that highly important matter.

---

Road Accidents and Casualties

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce road accidents and casualties. (S4F-02345)

One life lost on Scotland’s roads is one too many. The effects of drink driving can be shattering to families and communities, which is why we are introducing legislation to Parliament to reduce Scotland’s drink-driving alcohol limit from 80mg to 50mg for every 100ml of blood to bring Scotland into line with most other European countries.

Although the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit has been widely welcomed, does the First Minister agree that Scotland now has the opportunity to lead the way across the United Kingdom not just in reducing the drink-driving limit but through additional measures, such as lower limits for newly qualified and professional drivers, and that in order for that to happen the Parliament must have the further powers that are necessary so that we can save even more lives and prevent even more injuries in Scotland?

The member makes a serious and important point. We welcome the fact that we now have the power, which we propose to use, for the Parliament to make Scotland’s roads safer through a lower alcohol limit. However, that was a very limited transfer of powers. There are major other aspects that could be part of a package of measures to bear down on the matter—for example, differential drink-driving limits, which the member mentioned, and deciding whether it would be appropriate to give the police the power to undertake the random breath testing of drivers.

I was quite interested in the reaction to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s initiative earlier this week. I think that the public mood is ripe and ready for a further initiative to bear down on an aspect of conduct in society that is still disastrous in its impact on victims, communities and, indeed, perpetrators and their families. Therefore, I hope that members will support the cabinet secretary’s initiatives and that we will have a considered debate and discussion about the further area of powers that could be secured in order to go further on that highly important matter.

---

Scottish Qualifications Authority Exam Marking Reviews (Charging)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on concerns regarding the impact that charging for Scottish Qualifications Authority exam marking reviews could have on students. (S4F-02351)

Neil Bibby will be aware that SQA charges, including for the results services, are not paid by pupils or parents in state schools; they are quite properly paid by the local council. The new system is fairer than the old appeals process, as it allows a wider range of evidence to be considered for candidates who have missed an exam through illness or other exceptional circumstances. In both independent and public sector schools, a request should be made only if there is a legitimate query about a pupil’s result based on the professional judgment of the teacher.

The First Minister will be aware that charges introduced this year mean that pupils from private schools can pay up to £39.75 to appeal any exam result. However, in the state sector, there is not only variation from council to council in whether the school or local authority will pay for such appeals; there is concern from parents and anecdotal evidence that those charges are acting as a disincentive to appealing for our pupils.

This week, the Educational Institute of Scotland said:

“pupils from private schools have an unfair advantage and that is not something that should be allowed.”

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council has said that it is an “uncomfortable situation”.

Given those concerns, will the First Minister agree to contact the SQA and ask for an investigation and review of the fairness and the charges that relate to the new system?

I am sorry, but Neil Bibby should understand that the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland made it clear in a statement on 10 February 2014 that

“Local authorities finance the costs of SQA entries.”

In state schools, the payment of SQA fees is met by the local authority. It would be entirely wrong to pass on that charge to hard-pressed families. That is the position, and it should remain the position under the new system, which in many aspects has a substantial advantage over the previous one.

---

Service Personnel (Afghanistan Conflict)

To ask the First Minister what resources the Scottish Government has in place to assist service personnel and their families who have been affected by the conflict in Afghanistan. (S4F-02343)

Responsibility for supporting service personnel lies with the Ministry of Defence. Despite that, the Scottish Government—as has been acknowledged by military and veterans organisations—has a record of delivering first-class initiatives for veterans, including those who have served in Afghanistan. That includes the recent appointment of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, which is the first appointment of its kind in the UK, and the now well-established Scottish veterans fund, delivered with our partners in Veterans Scotland, which has provided more than £600,000 of funding to veterans organisations since 2008.

Reports this week state that the UK Government is failing to abide by its pledge in its armed forces covenant to give injured British soldiers priority for medical treatment in the years after their service. That comes at a time when Help for Heroes has estimated that 75,000 service personnel could suffer mentally and physically as a result of operations in Afghanistan. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that our veterans receive the best possible care from our national health service?

It is right and proper that the armed forces and veterans receive world-class service through the NHS. We have a strong record of delivering high-quality care to the armed forces and veterans, as has been detailed in our commitments paper. Significant advances have been made in Scotland for our veterans. A wide range of specialist services are already available—for example, there is a dedicated pathway and the national state-of-the-art prosthetics service, which this year has been provided with funding of £1.5 million, as well as priority treatment for a number of service-related conditions.

In addition, the national mental health strategy is delivering a range of commitments that will benefit veterans, including faster access to psychological therapies and the continued provision, in partnership with NHS Scotland and Combat Stress, of £1.2 million of funding per year for specialist mental health services for veterans.

I saw an answer in the House of Commons yesterday when some doubt was expressed about the identification of veterans in the armed forces. I hope and believe that that is not a significant problem in Scotland, but we will check to make sure that that is the case, because all members of the Parliament want to share a joint pride in the redemption of our obligation and commitment to the veterans. I hope that the whole Parliament is proud of our track record in supporting veterans and veterans organisations.