09/05/2013 Politics Scotland

Parliament here at Holyrood. This morning, MSPs have been scrutinising

the bill for the independence referendum which is due next year.

There is also a report out from the audit committee, with more detail on

the business of waiting times and waiting lists in the NHS. Those

could come up in questions to the first Minister, the main substance

of this programme. Let's go to the chamber. John McGarrity was left for

eight hours in a hospital trolley in a corridor. At the time, the first

Minister said, these things happen in the NHS. His Health Secretary

said, it was not a true reflection of the NHS. First Minister tell me,

does he know the number of people left on trolleys, and if it is

getting better or worse? That is not what I said at all. I remember very

specifically saying that this government takes it seriously any

individual case where treatment is < district route. That is what we

should do, and that is what we do. I did make a point that there are

substantial indications that overall treatment in the health service is

improving, that patient satisfaction is improving, and also the point

that everyone should be proud of our national health service in

Scotland. I think he did see it, but clearly has not reflected on it. I

do not dispute, we all love the National Health Service, we did.

Pensioners like John McGarrity, waiting for eight hours on a

trolley, is a disgrace. I presumed, when I raised this with him in

February, that he investigated occurrences like this, so I will try

again - and he tell me, has the situation got better or worse?

tell Johann Lamont that the situation in terms of treatment in

the national health service overall is improving, and it is improving

despite the great treasure on all public services, and it is improving

because of the commitment and effort of our staff, nurses, doctors and

ancillary staff. I can give her a range of statistics which indicate

that. So, on individual cases, where treatment is less than satisfactory,

of course, they are looked at seriously and taken into account,

but Johann Lamont should not deflect from the case that overall,

treatment in terms of waiting times, in terms of the efficacy of

treatment and the number of people being treated, is improving in the

National Health Service. I think that is an enormous tribute to the

staff and the commitment of the National Health Service, in what are

difficult times. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the first

Minister can give me a long list of answers to questions he was not

asked. He has not answered the question I asked him. And this is

not an body running down the NHS, it is about taking our jobs seriously.

I can only assume that the reason he does not know is because he does not

care. He has not even asked. Perhaps he does not like to ask in case the

answer breaches his perfect view of his world. So, let me tell him what

is happening in the NHS. He is supposed to be running this NHS

instead of deciding what currency a fantasy Scotland will have in his

fantasy world. In the real world, the number of people languishing in

accident and emergency is increasing, and we know that thanks

to a Freedom of information request. In John McGarrity's area of

Glasgow, the number of patients who waited more than for hours to be

seen has more than trebled going up from 10,100 to 31,700 this year.

Looking across Scotland, in NHS Lanarkshire, the Health Secretary 's

own backyard, the number of patients waiting more than four hours in

accident and emergency has also more than trebled. In Grampian, the first

Minister's Kennedy backyard, there was a large increase in the numbers

waiting more than four hours. Now, the first Minister knows what is

happening, will he tell us what he is going to do about it? Is that not

exactly why the Health Secretary announced the plan for reinforcing

the staff and resources at accident and emergency units across Scotland,

so that the position could be improved? That's what the Health

Secretary has announced, because that is the correct response to the

pressures we have seen over this winter. The capacity of our accident

and emergency units has substantially increased under this

government. The number of diagnoses and treatments carried out in

accident and emergency departments is up by 6% since 2006 -07, under

this government. That has been able to be done because the resource

budget of the National Health Service in Scotland has increased

under this governance, despite the extraordinary financial pressures

imposed upon us from Westminster. We know that would not have happened

had the Labour Party being in power, because we know that they would not

commit either in 2007 or in 2011, in the run-up to the election, to

protect the budget of the National Health Service. We also know it

because the only place that Labour are in power in these islands is

where there has been a real term decline in National Health Service

funding. And that is a reality. So, let's answer the question in this

sense... When pressure comes on the National Health Service, this

government response by voting for additional resources, so that we can

treat real patients with real conditions and sustain the health

service against winter pressure. But I do not think a party which was

unable to commit itself to the health service in the election

campaign, and is unable to commit itself to the health service in

Wales now, is in any position to pose as a defender of the National

Health Service, when they wanted to spend that money elsewhere. We would

settle for the First Minister answering the question in any sense

whatsoever. Speaking about Wales, you are in power here! You have been

in power here, responsible for the NHS. Eminem you understand, you have

been in power since 2007, dealing with the National Health Service.

And on this point about winter pressures, the winter pressures this

year were less than in 2010, so that explanation simply does not stack

up. If the first Minister has ever gone out into the real world and met

a patient waiting for treatment on a trolley, we can assume that he would

reflect, as that person is lying in front of them, and say, you are more

satisfied with the NHS than ever before. The first Minister might

tell that person lying on the trolley, things are better under his

area of responsibility. He would simply not be serious. Where will he

understand that patients need medical treatment, not slogans? He

has been in charge of the NHS for six years. In that time... Well, it

is not thank goodness for the people lying on trolleys. Cash the first

Minister tells them they should be grateful for that. It is not thank

goodness at all. What does he do? Instead of cutting times, and we can

hardly believe this, he cuts the target. I have raised this issue

with him time and again, and is it not the case that the reason things

have got worse, the reason he has done nothing to improve the

situation, the reason he does not even know, is because he does not

care about the NHS patients, he only carers, and they also only care...

They also only care about SNP slogans. Well, here is a phrase

which sums up... Order. You might want to ask your own guy for an,

occasionally. Order. Then, we will really know we are in a new place.

However, one phrase which sums up this country is this, in this

country, under Alex Salmond, Scotland is lying on a trolley, and

the referendum is in intensive care. It did strike me, as I was listening

to that, that folk being treated now in Monklands accident and

emergency, in Ayr, should know that there are hospitals would not even

be there if it was left to the Labour Party. The Labour Party were

going to cut the hospitals. And perhaps what is more important than

Johann Lamont's view of the National Health Service is what the people

think about the National Health Service. 85% of Scottish in patients

reported that overall care and treatment was good or excellent on

the inpatient survey. 88% of people are very or satisfied with local

health services in 2011, up from 81 Boffey in 2007. These were the

issues which were tested at the 2011 election, which is why people

vindicated the SNP's stewardship of the National Health Service, and

left the Labour Party languishing in opposition. Johann Lamont says we

should not speak about what is happening in Wales. Why not? Because

it indicates what actually happens when the Labour party is in power.

We are now in a position of fierce cuts from Westminster affecting both

Welsh and Scottish budget. In Wales, they decided to cut the health

budget in real terms. They were under financial pressure and could

not see the commitment to maintain the health service budget of

Scotland. In Scotland, this government decided to maintain and

sustain the resource budget of the National Health Service in real

terms. So, when it comes to political commitment, not only is

the record of this government vindicated by the people in the

election of 2011, but also in the financial commitments it has made,

the National Health Service in our hands is the reason, above all, why

we are in government and the Labour Party is in opposition. I would like

to ask First Minister when he will meet the Prime Minister. No plans in

the near future. This week, a diagnosed psychopath and triple

murderer was set free. Thomas McCulloch was told that he would

spend the rest of his life in jail, but thanks to a human rights appeal,

he is once again walking our streets. I know that nothing can be

done retrospectively in this or in any other historic case, but what

has the First Minister done to make sure that in future, as in England,

when such violent and vicious people are given a life sentence, it will

actually mean life? Well, the terms for the release of prisoners is a

matter for the Scottish parole board, under legislation. If I

remember correctly, under a act from 1993, it is not for ministers to

intervene in the decision of the parole board. They make a decision

according to statute. That statute was passed, incidentally, when the

Conservative party were in power. I am glad that Ruth Davidson

acknowledges that retrospective decisions cannot be made anyway. I

am sure she is not suggesting that we should come from I is the

independence of the parole board. Or if she has a specific puzzle, then

let her come forward with it, and it will be considered by the justice

secretary. I note that he is saying that it is the parole board's Rob.

When I put the same question to him a while ago he used another example.

Last January, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on this. They

upheld the principle of whole life sentences for the most dangerous

offenders. Since then, we have seen William Keane gets 22 years for the

brutal murder of an elderly woman in Perth. Had the SNP acted in the

first term of their government, we could have been certain that Colin

Coates and Philip Wade, who tortured a woman to death, would never have

been freed. The SMP has had six years to take action. Whole life

sentences are clear and unambiguous. Yet, beware absent in a criminal

cases at last year, legislation described as a torturous system,

barely intelligible to Warriors, let alone the general public. It is

simple, life should mean life. While the First Minister give an assurance

that he will finally take action to give the public of the protection

they deserve? Will he ensure that, in the most extreme cases women the

most violent criminals are taken off the streets, they will never return.

Ruth Davidson seems to think I am inventing, or bringing the parole

board and, as a defence. I have just looked up the Mentioning to the

Act, and I was right. It was passed by a Conservative government. All

life sentences are entitled by law, including those convicted of murder,

to have their suitability for release to be considered. Scottish

ministers are required by law to accept any direction of the parole

board to release a prisoner. What I would say to Ruth Davidson is this,

the Justice Secretary and I are perfectly willing and able to

consider suggestions put forward but it does someone ill to come and

complain about the law and the relationship of the law and the

parole board to the release of prisoners when it turns out that the

exact provisions under which the parole board has acted carried into

law by a Conservative government. At some point in these questions about

the judicial system of Scotland, which ignore the extraordinary

success in having the lowest level of recorded crime for over 30

years, having the best public satisfaction, in terms of peoples

personal feelings of safety, that have had for many years. At some

point, if there are complaints about the judicial system in Scotland,

would the Conservative party the acknowledged that the things they

are complaining about the very things they enacted when in

government. Could I ask the First Minister what issues will be

discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet? Issues of importance to the

people of Scotland. The Deputy Prime Minister is in Essex today promoting

the UK Government 's expansion of nursery education to thousands of

two-year-olds. In a place like Aberdeen, the First Minister is

restricting plans to around 40 children. Under the affordable plans

that I put to 1040 would secure a nursery place in Aberdeen. Is it not

a shame that so many two-year-olds in Essex will get help but those in

Aberdeen will not. Is it not a shame that you cannot go anywhere in

Scotland and make that sort of commitment? Willie Rennie has

surprised me. It has taken him some considerable time but he has

surprised me. When I was wondering about his question, I thought the

one thing he would not ask about was child care and this is because I

heard the reports of Nick Clegg on the radio this morning. As members

will now, for sometimes I have been cautioning Willie Rennie about

telling us what is happening south of the border to stop he has said

that that is not the case. It is the thing we should aspire to and he

accused me of being the roadblock on achieving this in Scotland. It turns

out this morning that the roadblock in England is Nick Clegg. He has

said, and indicated to the Conservatives, that he will block

government reforms to adult child care. He it is said that his veto

will jeopardise that. Nick Clegg has finally paid attention to the point

I have been making to Willie Rennie over the last few weeks when I have

warned him that the delusion of ratios poses a severe danger to the

quality of provision. I am now in the position of having converted his

party leader to the point I am making. At some stage, I shall

manage to convert Willie Rennie. anticipated that the First Minister

would not think I would ask this question. Order! I wonder if there

were ever be a week in which the First Minister does not use an

excuse to do nothing, absolutely nothing, for two-year-olds. He seems

to be taking a leaf out of the Homer Simpson book. Homer Simpson said, if

something is hard to do then it is not worth doing at all. It is quite

remarkable that while the UK Government battles to improve the

life chances for two-year-olds, the First Minister does nothing. He does

nothing but raise the white flag. He has excuse after excuse for doing

absolutely nothing. It is good for two-year-olds in Essex. Why is it

not good enough for two-year-olds in Aberdeen? First Minister. This is

kamikaze. The point that Nick Clegg is making, he thinks it is not good

for two-year-olds in Essex to be lauding the quality. The UK

Government are not battling to expand childcare, they are battling

with each other. Nick Clegg has said he shall block the changes because

he is concerned, I think rightly so, that they diminish and inequality is

going to be a severe danger to the childcare system. In Scotland, I

understand that people have been campaigning on this issue and he has

paid particular attention to the view of a group of mothers. I could

claim the credit as have the mothers. Perhaps we can get through

to Willie Rennie that there is a problem in England that his party

leader has identified it. It might be wise for him to reflect on that

before he tries this particular line of argument again. Thank you. To ask

the First Minister what the locations for Scotland are of the

Queen's speech? Yesterday, I think what we were looking for from the

Queen's speech was an indication that the Westminster Government

realised the seriousness of the economic situation facing the

country, in terms of the lack of growth in the economy and indicating

that we are going to have new measures to deal with that. That was

not in the Queen's speech but there was a dropping of progressive

measures in terms of minimum pricing of alcohol. There was no legal

commitment to overseas aid, despite repeated promises. Overall, I think

that speech was indicating why this country needs good government from

this Parliament as opposed to bad Parliament government from

Westminster. I thank him for his answer. I didn't prove that

Westminster is not working for Scotland. Did the First Minister

agree that particularly in these tough economic times we need to see

a UK Government that is focused on living jobs and prosperity for

Scotland, rather than pandering in a blind panic to the threat of UKIP

after last week's elections? I think that analysis about the UK

Government 's response is widely shared among political commentators

and, indeed, politicians at Westminster. It would be unfortunate

because I think that the real issues were not contained in the Queen's

speech yesterday. The real issues are what is happening in terms of

the new Spending Review, which is currently being prepared at

Westminster. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said yesterday that

the current government's plan, Westminster that is, is for eight

successive years of tax increases and spending cuts. The choice is

based in Scotland are clear. We have heard so much from the Now

campaigners -- the No campaigners. Here is a certainty, eight

successive years of spending cuts and tax increases on the Scottish

people. Allow me to cheer up the First Minister and his backbenchers

just a little bit. The National Insurance contributions Bill was in

the Queen's speech yesterday. There's got a big thumbs up from the

Federation of small businesses who said it was a shot in the arm. What

is the first Minister's view? support measures which bring people

back into employment. The point I was making, for an economy which is

severely suffering from a clear deficiency of the manor where there

are huge and spend resources, many skilled people lying idle, then not

to address that fundamental Western seems to me a failure of leadership.

To be anticipated, given the real terms cut, as the member well

knows, of 8.2% already in the Scottish Government, to be talking

about eight successive years of tax increases and spending cuts is a

dismal prospect which I think will encourage many people to think twice

about continuing Tory rule from Westminster. We can mobilise

resources and people of this nation and build a prosperous and socially

just future. Yesterday, the UK Government drew up plans to regulate

the lobbying industry. Does the First Minister think that was a

mistake and support plans to regulate the industry in Scotland?

If the member brings forward the idea is for plans, we will see how

they are appropriate to the work of this Parliament. It should be said,

in general, that this Parliament operates with a greater degree of

transparency that Westminster, having served in both like and

seasonal. The Minister brings forward suggestions in a positive

fashion then they will be treated with a positive fashion. To ask the

First Minister whether the reported comments for the Cabinet Secretary

of health and well-being that we are still going to need the same number

of beds, hospitals, doctors and nurses just to stand still, in

relation to an ageing population, reflect Scottish Government policy?

I have the full quote year, which she has not used, was talking about

an abolition of over 75-year-old been set to double and made the

point that if we were able, through better treatment, to treat people at

home within the automatic graduation follows. Yesterday, the Cabinet

Secretary announced development of a new bed planning tool which will

draw on the expertise of NHS staff and planners to ensure that there

are the right type of specialist beds in the right places. I think

the First Minister should be advised that the Bed Planning Tool already

been named the bed cutting tool. The same promise was made of the same

number of beds, hospitals and doctors and nurses. This was just

two weeks ago. The following day, his civil servants were running

around, Porter to clarify and reinterpreted comments. Yesterday,

not one single backbencher defended his comments. Can I ask the First

Minister, did Alex Neill actually mean what he said or was he simply

expressing his view in terms of the debate? I heard an interview with

Jackie Baillie on the radio yesterday. I paid close attention to

Jackie Baillie's interviews and even in the context of the hospital

acquired superbug capital of Europe statement, her claim yesterday that

we did not need a helpline for the National Health Service confidential

and because it was not necessary under Labour was and extraordinary

statement. Under the label party, the number of beds fell every single

year when the Labour Party were in government. That happened not just

because of the inability of Jackie Baillie to remember what happened

when Labour was in power but of course, as the Health Minister Andy

jurors said in 2007, -- as the Health Minister said, there are good

reasons. Some are now routinely carried out. I see that anti-terror

has been reduced to invisibility in the Labour Party. -- I see that he

has been reduced to invisibility. Let's talk about Richard Simpson who

is still here. He pointed out that he was exceptionally pleased at the

recognition of the Cabinet Secretary that the balance of they could

result in a reduction in the number of beds. It LP holds the superbug

expert to come along and forget entirely what happened under the

Labour Party, sleep to one side the changes and balance in medical care,

ignore entirely that this party committed itself, and has delivered,

the real term increase in health funding that, because of her

inability to convince her colleagues, the Labour Party never

promised in Scotland and have certainly not delivered in Wales.

Apologies, Presiding Officer. Does the First Minister know what the

Scottish Government 's response is to the recent report on the

consequences of Scottish independence? I thought some of the

report was eminently sensible. For example, and I quote, we do not

doubt that Scotland as an independent country could play a

valuable role in Europe. However, it should be said that not everybody

was convinced by the foreign affairs committee. The Tory MP said that he

could think of lots of good reasons from this perspective why Scotland

might want to vote for a main party of the United Kingdom. The reported

today is not one of them. I am surprised that the First Minister

was a prized. I do not know what he expected from such a committee at

such a time. However, what struck me was that, far from having an

interest in Scotland, which it was meant to have, this report ended up

being absolutely fraught with anxiety about what would happen to

the reduced status of the rest of the United Kingdom when Scotland

becomes independent. There were certainly talking about -- they were

certainly talking about the reduced post independence position the UN

security council, the G8 and the European Union. I wonder if he

agrees with me that that is not anything that should influence us

when we come to vote in the referendum. Our job is not to prop

up an ailing power. It is to secure the future for our children.

makes a solid point. I should clarify that I was not surprised by

the overall negative tone of the No campaigners who wrote the report.

One would expect they would write the negative report about Scottish

independence. I thought what was interesting is that without the

overall volumes of negativity, there were 12 nuggets of common sense.

That is the bit that surprised me. Actually, she is quite right.

Menzies Campbell said on the radio that the report was written by

people whose interests was to argue against the independence of

Scotland. That is quite true, in my case. As a member of the committee,

he seems to have agreed with Margot's analysis. The other point

she makes is equally substantial. The report focused, brutally

entirely, not on the interests of Scotland but the major point it

seemed to me was what would happen to the terms of UK's in the world.

They make a fundamental mistake here. Prestige and influence in the

world is not based on size. It is not based on military intervention.

The military intervention in Iraq Tom for example, did not enhance the

UK's place in the world. The UK's place, or Scotland's place, will not

be governed by that. It will be governed on the ideas of the

strength of social sciences, the health of our economy or ability to

make a positive influence on humankind. This is what matters, not

what they foreign affairs committee concentrated on. Thank you. That

concludes First Minister 's Western town. That is a cause of coverage.

Alex Salmond disdaining the bubbles of prestige and suggesting that