26/06/2014 Politics Scotland

parliament at Holyrood. It's the final day of the session, the final

session of questions to the First Minister. But they are coming back

in August, because the term is rumbled up because of that small

matter of a referendum on September the 18th on independence. I guess

that is the underpinning to this session of questions, but there will

also be questions on the health service. Let's find out by crossing

to the chamber and my colleague, Glen Campbell.

Ministers dealing with the question on homophobic hate crimes at the

moment. They've also been discussing the housing supply in Scotland and

evening heading sanctions against the Faroe Islands. All ahead of

First Minister's question Time, with opposition leaders challenging the

First Minister on the topics of their choice. That is the main event

of the week here at Holyrood, about to get under way. We also know that

during the half-hour session, the First Minister will face questions

on the handling of emergency patients, on Police Scotland

management of information and on fixed odds betting. It welcome from

the presiding officer to VIP guests. Members will also wish to welcome

the delegation from the network of Parliamentary committees on economy,

finance and European integration of the Western Balkans.

We now move to First Minister's Questions. Johann Lamont. To ask the

First Minister what engagement he has planned for the rest of the day.

Thy to take forward the government's programme for Scotland.

On Tuesday, Health Secretary Alec Neil said, satisfaction with our NHS

has increased by 20% over the last seven years and nearly two thirds of

people in Scotland claimed to be satisfied with our health service.

On the same day, the outgoing head of BMA Scotland, Doctor Brian

Keighley said, I quote, what I have seen over the past five years is a

continuing crisis management of the longest car crash in my memory. It

is time for our politicians to face up to some very hard questions. I

agree with Brian Keighley. He speaks for NHS staff all over the country.

Could the First Minister tell the people of Scotland by the leader of

Scotland's's doctors is wrong? Let's deal with the question of

satisfaction of the public and the National Health Service. That wasn't

an opinion poll or a snap survey, that was the Social Attitudes Survey

for Scotland, the most detailed assessment of social attitudes in

the country. What that demonstrated is that satisfaction with the

National Health Service has risen to 61%. By way of comparison, when

Johann Lamont was a minister it was 45%, in 2006. So when she starts by

saying it is a claim of Alex Neil, it is the Social Attitudes Survey

for Scotland, the most detailed assessment of public attitudes. That

compares directly to satisfaction with her national health service

today and the National -- satisfaction which was when Labour

was in power. It's been a strongly rising trend. As far as Doctor Brian

Keighley is concerned, he wants more funds for the NHS. He makes an

entirely reasonable point that despite the fact the NHS has had its

budget protected in real terms, it is under sustained pressure because

of the rising demand for health services. How do I know that?

Because Brian Kidd be said on the 24th of June, I accept the SNP has

done as much within the Barnett formula and resources that are

available to them. So when Johann Lamont says that Brian Keighley says

the NHS is under pressure, as indeed he did, let's remember he also said

and accepted that we are doing everything we can within the

resources that are available to us to provide these resources for our

National Health Service. That may be one reason why satisfaction the

national health services on a rising trend, and the other reason would be

that the people of Scotland understand the work and performance

of our people in the NHS who are delivering such an excellent result,

even under circumstances of pressure. Dr Brian Keighley is a

member of staff in the health service. You ought to listen to what

he is saying. Not pick one thing he has said but reflect on everything

he has said. With accident and emergency targets missed, with

cancer target missed, with care for the elderly in crisis, the man who

represents Scotland's doctors, Brian Keighley, said, I quote, the current

service is teetering on the edge of collapse. The leader of Scotland's

doctors said, my main regret is that I've not been able to do more than

act as a deputy attendant on the good ship NHS Titanic. Could the

First Minister tell the people of Scotland by the leader of

Scotland's doctors is wrong and he is right? Can I offer another quote

from Brian Keighley? Again, in the same interview. Johann Lamont

doesn't want to accept it. He says, clearly my target is not the current

Cabinet sector, it is the classes in Scotland. The point he is making is

that health resources are under pressure because of rising demand.

He accepted the point that we've done everything we can under the

constraints of the Barnett formula. Would that have been done if the

Labour Party had been in power over these last seven years? We know it

wouldn't have been done in 2007 because Jack McConnell said the NHS

would just have to cut its cloth and wouldn't have access to the

consequential is. We doubt it would have been done in 2011, because the

Labour Party refused to commit to the resources in real terms. And we

want evidence of the Labour Party in power, just look to Wales, suffering

the same stresses under the Barnett formula as Scotland. And on every

measurement turning in a worse health performance. Does Johann

Lamont not accept the connection between the resources available to

us under the Barnett formula and the ability to fund the NHS to a degree

that Brian Keighley and all of us would want? And isn't that an

argument for having access to Scotland's resources, so we can do

is -- deliver that desirable outcome? We would have less money to

spend on public services with prescriptions for Scotland. While

his French on the backbenches applaud that oft heard script, he

should reflect that that script he trots out every time on the NHS

sounds very much like complacency. And patients who live in the real

world and are dealing with these problems daily. Because we have been

warning the First Minister about the amount of problems in our NHS for

the last two years, and every time we get the same old script. He can't

keep ignoring the reality. Brian Keighley, the leader of Scotland's

doctors, said, we have a crisis of out of hours health provision that

sees huge and unacceptable queues at A departments. We see reports of

geriatric provision coming under increased criticism through

inadequate care packages and increasing bed blocking. And, at the

same time, GPs coping with a 20% increase in workload. He then

continued. We see vital cancer treatment is delayed because of

unsustainable cost and we see cracks emerging in hospital food,

cleanliness, staff shortages and vacancies within both the consultant

body and GP trainees. He finished, how is the Scottish Government

responding? It talks of seven-day provision at a time when we have an

inadequate five-day service. First Minister, those are the problems

that our NHS staff are facing everyday. So can I ask him, what is

the First Minister's plan for the NHS? Our plan is to continue to fund

the NHS in Scotland to the maximum degree, something that low Labour

Party neither in Scotland nor Wales would commit to. Our plan is to have

access to the resources of Scotland, so we can move beyond austerity and

have a proper, responsible, reasonable increasing public

spending, as John Swinney outlined. We know that Brian Keighley accepts

we're doing everything can within the formula. That is a reason to

break free of the formula and have access to the resources of Scotland.

But I don't accept Johann Lamont's prescription about the accident and

emergency and the cancer waiting lists. We are acting to improve

performance in accident and emergency, but acting to improve

meeting our cancer targets, we are particularly concerned that we moved

below the 62 day target. But the Labour Party never wants achieved

that target, not once in office did the Labour Party achieve the 62 day

cancer target. Yes, we believe that 93% of people being seen within four

hours in accident and emergency isn't good enough. But the Labour

Party in power, when Johann Lamont was a minister, claimed that 87% was

an excellent performance. So given as the Social Attitudes Survey

demonstrates that public satisfaction with the National

health service is rising, given that we committed, which Labour would do,

to protect the NHS budget in real terms, and given that our

performance, under pressure though the NHS and given that our

performance, under pressure though the NHS Labour Party were in power,

what possible credibility as a minister in the last government

complaining about the situation with public finances being under pressure

when they couldn't run Scotland went public finances were plentiful? The

problem with the First Minister is the First Minister wants to make

this a cheap political debate between himself and myself. That's

not a problem. Order! Settle down. Miss Graham. We can do that, but we

let the people of Scotland down every time we settle for that. Every

time. On the big issues when we settle for that, or saying that the

only solution is independence. When not I race these questions but the

head of the BMA raises it, patients race, people in the constituencies

who every day are being let down by a government not interested in the

NHS, not interested in anything but the obsession that took them into

politics in the first place. Every time, on behalf of the people

of Scotland, but I have asked the First Minister about blanket

shortages, unacceptable waiting times in A, a lack of access to

cancer drugs, cancer waiting times, elderly people left on trolleys for

hours, older people getting 15 minute care visits, Doctor

shortages, anything about the NHS, and we've seen it again today, the

First Minister has told me that people are happy with our health

service. It's getting privatised in England and it would be worse if we

were Welsh. Inadequate answers to serious questions. The First

Minister has told us this is a really serious issue for people of

Scotland and it deserves better than that. The First Minister has told us

he has Plan A, B, C, ghee, E and F for the currency in an independent

Scotland. Does he not realise that what Scotland wants, what our

hard-working doctors and nurses demand from him, is any kind of plan

for the NHS today. I see that Johann Lamont doesn't think it is important

that the NHS in Scotland is being kept in public hands and not

subjected to the disintegration. Very interesting. Dr Keighley in his

speech to BMA Scotland this week didn't say that. What he said is,

quote, what is totally clear is that the NHS we have in Scotland is

fundamentally different from that to England in terms of philosophy and

organisation. North of the border we have been spared the spectacle of a

huge organisation being thrown in the air with the only speculation as

a guide to where the pieces might land. We have avoided wholesale

reorganisation. The NHS manager games of musical chairs and the

worst successes of the use A as a party political football and for

that we must be thankful. Brian Keighley thinks that's important.

Given that Johann Lamont cited him, why doesn't the Labour Party think

it's important? Is it perhaps because Andy Burnham was talking

about having a common health service across the UK and leave the health

service in Scotland to the tender mercies of the privatisation agenda

being pursued at Westminster? Johann Lamont doesn't want to talk about

what the public think about the National Health Service because the

increase in National Health Service performance in terms of accident and

emergency and in cancer care is reflected in the 21% increase in

public satisfaction, 85% of Scottish inpatients say overall care and

treatment was good or excellent. 87% rated the performance of their GP

surgery as good or excellent. 84% of social cake users rated their

overall care and support as good or excellent. They are real people in

the real-world understanding the commitment and strength of people in

the NHS, supported by a government which has funded the health service

in real terms and which would be able to do a great deal more in

independent Scotland. Question two, Ruth Davidson. To ask

the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for

Scotland. No plans in the near future. We end this Parliamentary

session in a familiar place. We have the SNP blind to the very real risks

involved with leaving the UK. And we have independent expert analysis

pointing those risks out. To take an example just from this morning, a

new report from the Scotland Institute, which has examined the

blunt financial troops that would face a separate Scotland. We may not

like to hear it but having interviewed the main credit rating

agencies, they say an independent Scotland

There is a real cost to separation. Of Better Together is the strongest

suit, given the triple a rating and given the speculation on rising

interest rates being as much about the present situation. Even

excluding North Sea oil output, only looking at onshore income, Scotland

would qualify for our highest economic assessment. Scoring for the

economic strength of an independent Scotland would like to fall

somewhere in the high range. We know the volatility of growth, the is

limited range of outcomes for GDP per capita but of all possible

outcomes Scotland would be among the richest nations in the world. Do

even people in the ratings agencies, not known for their sunny optimism,

if the say this about Scotland and point out Scotland is one of the

wealthiest countries in the world, cannot be Scottish Conservatives

realise the potential of this economy and have confidence in our

ability to capture the natural resources, combined with the

strengths of the people and come up with a different assessment together

with the assessment ratings? These views are being misrepresented. It

sounds to me like the first minister thinks the Scotland Institute from

that answer is wrong which means they join a long list. Since January

he has stood up here and told as the former director-general of the EU

Council is wrong, the governor of the Bank of England is wrong, the

First Minister of Wales, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the

Shadow Chancellor, the Confederation of British industry is wrong. The

Barclays chief executive is wrong and the Chief Executive of London

life, the Chief Executive of The Royal Bank of Scotland, BP and Asda

are wrong. He said the Scottish Government's own oil figures were

wrong, the Chief Executive of the Wear group was wrong, Scottish

financial enterprise was wrong, Scottish engineering was wrong. He

said the ISS, the Centre for Public policy, the Citigroup were wrong and

finally he said the much celebrated Professor who is the government's

own economic adviser was wrong, wrong, wrong. How does it feel to be

so misunderstood? In fairness to the independent governor of the Bank of

England, I have never said any such thing and I defended his beach. Mark

Carney had to correct Tory MPs in the House of Commons who were

similarly trying to misrepresent him as Bruce Davidson has. Perhaps the

Labour Party with its strong connections historically... Order! I

do accept that I have eight? About the ER. Right from the start I

believed the Tories used OBR not just as part of the government but

as part of the Conservative Party. I am quoting directly from Alistair

Carling in the Financial Times in July 2010. The leader of the Better

Together campaign until Murdo Fraser takes over, if that leader believes

the OBR is an instrument of the Conservative Party, then am I not

entitled to question why it gets all its forecasts wrong? Can the

Conservative Party not realise some of the analysis of Mr Fraser? The

analysis says because you lack confidence in the people of Scotland

and the future of Scotland then the people of Scotland lack confidence

in the Conservative Party. Murdo Fraser was to make a speech today

calling for a federal UK if independence is rejected. Please do

not use nicknames. The appearance of a young man from Aberdeenshire in a

Isis video has shocked our community. The views of one person

does not represent a whole community, will he join me in

calling for solidarity? I leave and agree with that. One of the purposes

of extremism is to seek to divide communities. It is something we have

to be constantly vigilant about. Please Scotland have been active in

engaging with and building strong communities. We should not and must

not be seen as reflecting in any way mainstream opinion in any community

in Scotland. We know how to reactions can be. The reaction to

the airport attack in 2007 showed Scotland at its very best. We hope

they will support our zero tolerance approach to hate crime against the

Muslim community or any other minority group in Scotland. Can I

ask what his response is to the report transitioning to a new

Scottish state? I could not help but notice in Ruth Davidson's long list

of people I disagree with, Fester Dunne levy miraculously disappeared

banks to his important contribution to the referendum debate. It

vindicates the Scottish Government's possession on moving

towards an independent Scotland as outlined in our white paper. Neither

Danny Alexander nor the Prime Minister nor Ruth Davidson have been

able to get any satisfactory explanation. Sir Nicholas MacPherson

has been described as a missed briefing of key DAT. I think it is

about time we find out why this briefing was allowed to happen. The

Professor came to his conclusions because of the government neglecting

to arrive at a decision. Some of the misleading figures have been

described as spectacularly inaccurate. The Prime Minister

should come to Scotland and openly debate these issues, does he agree?

I have to say, quoting from Professor Dunleavy's report,

Whitehall has been forbidden to discuss issues with Scottish

officials in case the conclusions suggest independence would not cause

major problems. That is the analysis of the distinguished professor from

the London School of economics. The Better Together campaign, since they

were fighting Professor Dunne levy, the figure of 7.8 million was meant

to be his figure, he has demolished it and accused the Treasury of

exaggerating his work by a figure of 12. That is very generous. At what

stage will any of the Unionist party leaders or any person in the Better

Together campaign have seek to accept and admit they missed

briefing of Professor Dunleavy's work? Perhaps Murdo Fraser when he

addresses the speech tonight will address that very point. We await

with bated breath! The cost was estimated at ?200 million if the

defence forces was sheared with the UK until 2020, can he confirm if

that is public policy? The member will find the full exposition of the

defence costs and budget in chapter six of the White Paper. Just as it

seemed to be unfortunate that his colleague did not seem to have read

part on representation, I find it doubly disappointing that the same

chapter has not been read apparently by anyone in the Lib Dems. Do some

reading, some home work, and I will see you after the recess will stop I

wonder what the First Minister's responses to Professor Dunleavy's

colleague who put the cost at 1.25 million. Does the First Minister not

understand that they feel you're his government have had to produce

robust information leaves the people of Scotland to believe that the SNP

would support independence regardless of the cost. I like rock

I believe that the Labour Party wanted to sue this issue we would

have heard from Joanne Lamb and earlier today. -- Johann Lamont. I

would be interested to know how the Barnett formula is sheared across

the Better Together parties. Professor Dunleavy has already

responded and suggested why Ian McShane has been led astray. Given

the obvious evidence that Professor Dunleavy's work, cited by the Better

Together campaign and Danny Alexander, has been comprehensively

demolished by Professor Dunleavy himself. Given that the source of

the figure has set himself the figure was exaggerated by a factor

of 12, at what stage will any of these parties admit they got it

wrong? Do we have it. We are coming to the close of our coverage of

First Minister's Questions. As expected, the was the granny about

independence and funding. -- a rammy. The cheeky remark from the

First Minister saying go and do your own work but we know what he means.

From me for now, goodbye. and the truthfulness

of establishments. Albatross?

There it is. The albatross. The albatross is going to need

a hair-styling.