Scottish Parliament, 21 May 2014

244 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Business Motion

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S4M-10095, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to the business programme for today.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 21 May 2014—

delete

3.30 pm Stage 1 Debate: Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill

and insert

3.30 pm Debate on a Motion of No Confidence

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill

delete

5.30 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.45 pm Decision Time—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Pensioners Parliament

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

1. To ask the Scottish Government on what basis it considers a Scottish pensioners parliament could be established. (S4O-03236)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government does not have any current proposals to establish a pensioners parliament.

Instead, we are supporting the Scottish older people’s assembly with funding of more than £100,000 for the period 2012-15. The Scottish older people’s assembly enables older people to have their voices heard and to influence policy and practice on the wide range of issues that affect them.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. Does the cabinet secretary believe that a pensioners parliament—or, indeed, assembly—would be an excellent forum in which to discuss many issues that are of importance to older people, such as the retirement age, the level of the state pension and perhaps even an independent Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish older people’s assembly has discussed the retirement age, the state pension and many other issues since its establishment. This year’s assembly is due to be held on 31 October, within this Parliament. The assembly will consider a number of issues and I am sure that pensions will be one of them, in addition to—in particular—the community empowerment (Scotland) bill.

It is important to note that the older people’s assembly has done a lot to reach out to older people throughout Scotland. It is made up from older people’s groups across the country and it also has representation from across the various equality communities. It is a good organisation, which represents older people and gives them a voice. I was happy to meet it last month, on 24 April, when we had a constructive discussion on a number of issues.

Pensioners’ Rights (Proposals)

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what further information it plans to publish on proposals for pensioners’ rights in an independent Scotland before the referendum. (S4O-03237)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government paper “Pensions in an Independent Scotland” has already set out detailed proposals on pensions. Following a vote for independence, the best of the existing state pensions system would be retained, with genuine improvements being introduced where necessary; private pension saving would be supported; the legislative and regulatory framework would provide strong protection for individuals’ private pension savings; and a public service pensions system would be delivered that is affordable, sustainable and fair.

The paper also shows how successive United Kingdom Governments have failed to protect the pensions system and pensioners over recent decades. That has led to a crisis with, according to the latest Department for Work and Pensions statistics, 13.2 million people in the UK undersaving for their retirement.

This Government believes that an independent Scotland can do better, and we will continue to make those arguments in the coming months.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland report “Scotland’s Pensions Future: Have our questions been answered?” concludes that, without changes to European Union rules on the funding of defined benefit pension schemes, employers would need to make good any deficits held by new cross-border schemes. Given that we now know that EU rules are not going to change, what evidence can the minister produce to demonstrate that the most basic right of pensioners—the right to their pension—will be any safer with independence than with the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

“Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland” sets out our proposals for an affordable, fair and efficient pensions system in an independent Scotland. We considered in detail the impact of EU rules on defined benefit pension schemes that currently operate in Scotland and, of course, in the rest of the UK and set out our view, informed by practice in Ireland under the current regime, that if they continue to operate, on independence, on a cross-border basis, they should be allowed to implement their existing recovery plan in accordance with the period originally set rather than having to achieve full funding over a much shorter timescale.

That remains the case regardless of the commission’s decision to defer plans to encourage the growth of cross-border schemes by relaxing the funding regime. It is yet another issue, however, that we are keen to talk to the UK Government about in advance of the yes vote in September. It is a pity that the UK Government is not willing to do so.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Pensioners should know what their rights are, so does the cabinet secretary agree that Labour must now come clean, publish its cuts commission report and tell pensioners whether, under Labour, they will still have the right to free prescriptions, concessionary travel and free personal and nursing care? It certainly looks as if Labour will axe the lot.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree that we should hear from Labour what is in store with its cuts commission. Many important policies that protect pensioners and other vulnerable people within our society are held dear, and Parliament should be proud of having passed them into law. I just hope that we see what the cuts commission has in store soon so that people can consider it as they make up their mind about how to vote on 18 September.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Many thanks. I should have reminded members that short questions and answers would be appreciated.

Education for Children and Young People with Dyslexia (Equalities)

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what the position is of the cabinet secretary with responsibility for equalities on the implications for equalities of the findings of the Education Scotland report, “Making Sense: Education for Children and Young People with Dyslexia in Scotland”. (S4O-03238)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government’s equality outcomes report stated that we will identify areas for improvement when children and young people with protected characteristics are not gaining awards in school education, and identify when children and young people with protected characteristics have high levels of success in gaining awards in school education.

A number of the findings of the report have implications for equality, such as the inequity in qualifications attained by young people with dyslexia compared with their peers. The report was carried out with the engagement of parents and children and young people with dyslexia. The Scottish Government will make a formal response to the report within four to six weeks, outlining the steps that will be taken to address its recommendations.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for highlighting the relationship with protected characteristics, which is obviously important. Taking into account the geographical discrepancies highlighted in the new report on dyslexia, will the Scottish Government consider publishing guidelines to ensure more consistency across local authorities—some do not even have a definition of dyslexia—and encourage support for the toolkit in schools?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am glad that the member mentioned the toolkit because I understand that it has been well received. It helps teachers to address the needs of pupils with dyslexia. The Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages launched that toolkit in September 2012. The member makes a good point about guidance and geography and I will be happy to suggest to the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages that he takes that point forward. I am sure that he will be in touch with the member with more detail about that.

Pensioners’ Rights (Protection)

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how pensioners’ rights would be protected in an independent Scotland. (S4O-03239)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

“Pensions in an Independent Scotland” sets out that, if elected as the first Government of an independent Scotland, this Government would retain the best of the existing pensions system while introducing a range of key improvements to protect and enhance pensioners’ interests. Those improvements include uprating the state pension by the triple lock for at least the period of the first session of the independent Parliament, thus providing protection for the value of pensions over time; introducing in 2016 the single-tier pension at a starting level of £160 per week—the United Kingdom parties have currently failed to say what the level will be; and retaining the savings credit element of pension credit, thereby benefiting approximately 9,000 pensioners on low incomes. It is worth adding that we already have a strong record in protecting older citizens through, for example, the provision of concessionary travel and the freezing of council tax for pensioners. With the full powers of independence, we would be able to develop that support still further.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the proposal put forward by the UK Government to raise the age of retirement is leading to concerns that a number of people in Scotland will not live long enough to receive a pension due to their lower life expectancy? Furthermore, does she also agree that it is only with independence that a pension system that is suited to the interests and lives of the people of this country can be created?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We have set out that an independent expert commission will look at the appropriate state pension age in Scotland, taking into account the issues of fairness, equality and affordability. It is worth noting that the Scottish public believe very clearly that it ought to be the Scottish Parliament that makes the decisions for Scotland about the state pension. It speaks volumes that, in the most recent Scottish social attitudes survey, 65 per cent of respondents said that this Parliament should make those decisions and only 33 per cent said that Westminster should do so.

Commonwealth Games (Tickets)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the number of tickets made available for the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games to people who live in Scotland. (S4O-03240)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

With the Presiding Officer’s indulgence, I will briefly comment on the fact that tickets have gone back on sale this morning. I am pleased to say that enthusiasm for the games remains as great as ever. The performance of the ticketing website and hotline has been steady and thousands of individuals and families have today secured tickets for what I believe will be the greatest games ever.

To answer the member’s question, the Commonwealth Games Federation’s co-ordination commission’s final inspection in March concluded that the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games are shaping up to be the best ever. I am delighted with the fantastic response from the public for tickets. Over 94 per cent of available tickets were sold in the initial phases. Fifty-seven per cent of those were bought in Scotland, which ensures that there will be fantastic home support as team Scotland goes for gold this summer.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is certainly good news that today went without any hitches. At what stage will the Scottish Government be able to provide a full breakdown of ticket sales that shows how many have been purchased by people living in Scotland, by those in the rest of the UK and by those from abroad?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I can tell Liz Smith now that 57 per cent of the tickets that have been sold so far were bought in Scotland. Obviously, when the final tickets have been sold we will be able to look at whether that percentage has changed. The short answer to the member is that, once all the tickets have been sold and we are in a position to reflect on the analysis of who bought tickets from where, I will ensure that Parliament is furnished with that information at the appropriate stage.

State Pension (Life Expectancy)

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what further research it plans to carry out on the relationship between the state pension and life expectancy. (S4O-03241)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

“Pensions in an Independent Scotland” sets out that, following a vote for independence, this Government would reserve judgment on the rapid increase in the state pension age to 67. The analysis that was published last week provided new evidence as to why our position makes sense. On average, over a lifetime, men in Scotland receive £10,000 less in state pension, and women in Scotland £11,000 less, than the United Kingdom average. For men and women in Glasgow, compared with people in the areas of the UK with the highest life expectancy, the pension gap is £50,000 and £46,000 respectively. Increasing the state pension age to 67 so quickly, based on UK rather than Scottish levels of life expectancy, compounds that unfairness.

As the pensions paper set out, detailed considerations of whether the state pension age should increase to 67 for Scotland would fall to an independent commission. It is that body that would be responsible for conducting further research on life expectancy and pensions, taking affordability and fairness into account in drafting its recommendations. The commission would report to an independent Scottish Parliament within its first two years, enabling Parliament to make a fully informed decision on what is fair and affordable for Scotland.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Given what the cabinet secretary said about the current gap, why does she support the increase to 66 by 2020?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We have looked at the affordability of the current position. Obviously, we have to ensure that our pensions position in an independent Scotland is affordable, which is why we have accepted the increase of the state pension age to 66. However, given the lead-in time, we believe that there is an opportunity to look closely at whether the state pension age should rise to 67. That rise would compound an already unfair position in Scotland. We must take seriously the position not least of women, who will be particularly affected, and people who live in our poorest communities, whose life expectancy is lower. Life expectancy in Scotland is improving, but it is improving less quickly than in the rest of the UK.

We are cautious about compounding the position by raising the state pension age to 67. That is why the expert commission will look at fairness and affordability in reaching its conclusions. I hope that members across the chamber can support that.

Pride House (Glasgow)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the opening of pride house in Glasgow will have on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. (S4O-03242)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government hopes that pride house will have a significant impact on LGBT people in Scotland and beyond, by recognising and celebrating the advances that have been made towards equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and the contribution that that diverse community makes to society. Pride house will promote the visibility, inclusion and participation of LGBT people in sport and in society more generally.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As one of the recently announced patrons of pride house, I commend the cabinet secretary—who is another of the recently announced patrons—for her answer. My constituency has a great number of LGBT-oriented sports clubs, such as the Caledonian Thebans, the wonderfully named HotScots and the Edinburgh Frontrunners but, broadly, homophobia in sport is still a major obstacle that has been identified. There is a concern that it would be easy to say, “Job done,” now that equal marriage has been legislated for. What action does the cabinet secretary expect to be taken to tackle homophobia in sport in the coming months and years? More broadly, what will the Scottish Government do on that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I say to Marco Biagi that I am pleased to be a patron of pride house. Pride house will be a fantastic element of the Commonwealth games, providing a great atmosphere and important messages about equality.

I refer the member to the recommendations in “Out for Sport” from the Equality Network. We very much welcome that report, which we are using as a basis to explore the effectiveness of our current approach. I am aware of the work that has been done to develop a Scottish LGBT sports charter, which will contribute positively to increased inclusion, participation and involvement of LGBT people in sport.

Sportscotland has worked closely with governing bodies and clubs to ensure that barriers are removed for everyone who wants to take part in sport. I hope that that will be yet another legacy of this summer’s Commonwealth games.

Pensions (Retirement Age)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

8. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of recent comments by the cabinet secretary with responsibility for pensioners’ rights, what the retirement age for pension eligibility would be if Scotland separates from the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4O-03243)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said, the Government reserves judgment on the rapid increase in the state pension age to 67 as planned by the UK Government. That is why we will establish an independent commission to consider the matter and in particular what is affordable and fair for Scotland.

We believe that Scotland should have the full powers to develop a system that is in line with Scottish needs and circumstances. As the recent analysis on life expectancy showed, those circumstances differ from those in the UK as a whole, on which current UK pension age plans are based.

We are not alone in our belief that the varying levels of life expectancy demand a rethink of the plans. For example, a Trades Union Congress report that was published in August last year said:

“Increasing state pension age is unjust because of the persistence of inequalities in life expectancy between different groups.”

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

In the light of that response and her earlier response to Gil Paterson, will the cabinet secretary guarantee that, if Scotland separates from the UK, the pension age will not increase beyond 66? If she cannot guarantee that, will she tell us that that means that the pension age might well rise beyond 66?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

That is a curious question from the member given that, in its 2010 election manifesto, Labour proposed an increase to 67 in 2036. I am surprised that Hugh Henry is now toeing the Tory line by accelerating that change to 2026.

I made it clear in my original answer that we will set up an independent commission to consider what is affordable and fair for Scotland. That commission will report to the Parliament—[Interruption.]

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

All members will be able to make a decision on what is best, affordable and fair for Scotland. I cannot see any reasonable person disagreeing with that.

Women’s Employment

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how many women with children under the age of five are seeking employment. (S4O-03246)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The monthly unemployment figures do not break down to that level of detail. However, we know from a range of international evidence, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2011 report “Doing Better for Families”, that childcare is a key factor in helping women into work.

We also know that the number of women in work has risen by 38,000 over the past year—a 1.7 percentage point increase. That is real progress and, with the massive expansion of childcare that will commence this August, we hope that even more progress will be made as a result of the Government’s commitment to getting more women the jobs that they need.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The Scottish National Party’s white paper childcare policies have been completely discredited by the Scottish Parliament information centre’s analysis, which shows that tens of thousands of missing mums with young children would be needed for the policies to be self-funding.

If the cabinet secretary disputes that, will she confirm that economic modelling has been done specifically on the childcare policies, and that the Government has refused to publish it under freedom of information legislation? In the interests of an informed debate, will she publish that economic modelling?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The real issue is that Mr Bibby either does not understand, or deliberately misunderstands, the transformational nature of the childcare policies that the Government proposes because—as has been acknowledged even in the SPICe paper—we are talking not only about parents who currently have children under the age of five. We all know that there are 55,000 births a year in Scotland—another fact that has been agreed by SPICe—so our policies will not impact only on those who currently have very small children, but will have a year-on-year impact.

It is also important to acknowledge that the gender gap in employment continues even for those with children at school; even for parents with children between the ages of 12 and 18, there is an 8 per cent employment gap. We want to address that. Women are lost to the labour market—[Interruption.]

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We want those women to be given real opportunity and real choice.

As members are well aware, the Government is well within its rights to commission all sorts of advice when it pursues and develops policies.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the fact that 38,000 more women are in employment than were in employment a year ago. Despite what Neil Bibby says, does the cabinet secretary agree that the childcare proposals that are outlined in “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland” will help many more women back into work?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes—indeed, I do. The labour market statistics for women are encouraging: women in Scotland outperform women elsewhere in the United Kingdom—we have lower female unemployment, higher female employment and lower female inactivity.

However, the Government acknowledges that there is much more to do and that we must always search beneath the headline statistics to get the real story because, although the headline employment indicators for women are improving, there are many real issues for women the length and breadth of Scotland in terms of the type of work that they obtain, which is reflected in pay levels.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

If the cabinet secretary is so committed to that very important issue, will she publish the economic analysis for which Mr Bibby asked and on which her policy is predicated?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

With respect, I answered Mr Bibby’s question straightly and fairly and said that Governments—all Governments: this one and previous Administrations—are well within their rights in gathering information in the course of developing policies and future plans. I believe that a freedom of information request has been submitted. The appropriate people will consider that request in the appropriate manner.

Long-term Unemployment (Women)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what role early intervention has in tackling the long-term unemployment of women. (S4O-03247)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Scottish ministers believe that early intervention is key to preventing long-term unemployment, which is why we have detailed in “Scotland’s Future” our plan for employment services in an independent Scotland to be built on the principle of early intervention, in order to seek to prevent individuals from becoming long-term unemployed. An early assessment of need can provide support when it is required, rather than after nine or 10 months, as happens under the current system.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

We all know that there is a skills gap in science and engineering, particularly among women. Bearing that in mind, does the cabinet secretary agree that the East Kilbride & District Engineering Group Training Association’s initiative to have a girls into engineering open day, which it held yesterday, provides a way of offering early intervention, because it can help schoolgirls to choose the subjects that will enable them to move into modern apprenticeships and careers in engineering? Would the Government consider adopting such an initiative?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes. I am open to hearing about a range of initiatives and proposals—in particular with a view to increasing the proportion of girls who pursue training or careers in science, technology, engineering and maths.

It is very good to hear of the specific initiative of having a targeted open day to encourage young girls to pursue engineering careers. It reminds me of the point that we should never fail to make: addressing inequality in the labour market is not just the right thing to do, but is actually the smart thing to do, because it helps us tap into all the talents of the entire population and helps business to address issues such as the skills gap.

It is also important to acknowledge that this week is Scottish apprenticeship week.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Since 2011, the number of males not in education, employment or training has fallen by 4,000, which is very welcome. However, the number of females in the same category, between the ages of 16 and 19, has risen by 1,000. Can the cabinet secretary explain why?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The figures on people not in education, employment or training are always very interesting. It is important to recognise that over the past year those figures have decreased by 4,000 or 5,000 overall. For the first time in quite a few years, the number of people who are not in education, employment or training is below 30,000.

It is not unusual to see a fluctuation by about 1,000 in either gender. What is interesting is that for the first time we are seeing a levelling of the statistics between the sexes; the norm is usually that young men outnumber young women. We have to have a proper look at that. We may be having some success with boys in that age group, but we do not want that to result in the number of girls in exclusion creeping up.

Company Boards (Female Participation)

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has set a target of 40 per cent of women on the boards of companies in the event of independence. (S4O-03248)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Women’s representation in all areas of Scottish life is a priority for the Government and we are leading by example, with 40 per cent of the Cabinet now being women. A consultation on 40 per cent minimum targets for gender quotas on public boards is under way. The Government also believes that increased diversity is good for business, and will give due consideration to the position in respect of company boards by working with businesses, once we have control of all the required powers, post-independence.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the 40 per cent target should not be adopted or accepted as a norm, and does she accept that we should provide appropriate support facilities and create a level playing field for women and, indeed, minorities, so that all appointments to boards are based only on ability and merit?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I do not see increasing the proportion of women on boards and making appointments on merit as being mutually exclusive. The Government’s position is that women’s board representation should be at least 40 per cent. That is very important.

There are very good business reasons for wanting more women on boards. We are concerned that, at United Kingdom level, we may not meet the 2015 target of 25 per cent of boards’ being women; progress seems to have stalled. There is important research that shows that boards with women outperform boards that do not have a gender balance, which means that addressing issues of inequality and promoting quality is not only right, but is good for business.

Massive Open Online Courses

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the role of massive open online courses in improving the employment prospects of women and young people. (S4O-03249)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government recognises the contribution that massive open online courses—or MOOCs—can make to the development of knowledge and skills, and to improving the employability of a wide range of people. MOOCs may benefit women and young people in particular—for example, where working patterns, caring responsibilities or financial constraints make travel to a college or university campus a barrier to learning.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I agree that it can be a real benefit for an individual to be able access free or nearly free educational content at a time of their choosing. However, there is clear and growing evidence that MOOCs have the greatest benefit, in terms of throughput to formal education or greater employment prospects, when actual course credit is available and when there is some degree of real-world connection between students. That could be provided at a community level; it does not have to come through educational institutions.

Perhaps the Government could look further at that and talk to the various agencies that could provide that support to women, young people and others who could gain greater benefit from the ability to access online educational content.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I agree with Mr Harvie’s comments. MOOCs are an important part of the overall journey, but it is important to recognise opportunities to accredit learning where they exist. MOOCs do not necessarily replace more formalised learning, but they can enhance it.

Mr Harvie may be interested to note that the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council will invest £1.3 million over three years to look at best practice in that area, and in particular to develop better peer support and raise awareness. I am sure that we can feed in his comments about accreditation as part of that work.

Engineering (Modern Apprenticeships)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what importance it places on modern apprenticeships in engineering. (S4O-03250)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Engineering is an important sector for Scotland and has the potential to make a significant contribution to economic growth. The latest Office for National Statistics survey shows that more than 56,000 people are working directly in Scotland’s engineering and allied industries sector.

As such, it is critical that we develop the necessary skills for our future engineering workforce. One way in which we can achieve that is through the modern apprenticeship programme. Between April and December 2013, there were 1,665 modern apprenticeship starts, with 5,522 modern apprentices currently in training on engineering-related frameworks.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The Angus Training Group in my constituency has just confirmed that it will have a full complement of 75 engineering apprentices for the year commencing August 2014. Indeed, if space at the Arbroath premises allowed, it could have taken on another 15 young people.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that that demonstrates not only that youngsters are keen to get into the field, but that, given that 54 of the trainees are involved with oil and gas companies, the doom and gloom that is spread by the better together campaign about the future of Scotland’s offshore energy industry could not be more wide of the mark?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

There are jobs in oil and gas, of course—that is a very important message for young people, by which I mean young women and young men the length and breadth of Scotland, not just in Angus. There are 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil and gas in our sea.

Given that this is Scottish apprenticeship week, I am particularly glad to hear of the success of the Angus Training Group. I hope that it can resolve its accommodation issues and get up to 90 apprenticeship starts, which would be particularly welcome.

Employment (Gender Segregation)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to reduce the level of gender segregation in certain industries. (S4O-03251)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government is working to address gender segregation through its strategic approach and through allocation of funding of £1.5 million for 2012 to 2015 to Equate Scotland, the close the gap project and the Careerwise initiative. The occupational segregation cross-directorate working group is driving the work forward and reports to the strategic group on women and work, which I chair. Reducing gender segregation requires a life-stage approach that breaks down barriers throughout education and training. For example, the group recently discussed work to improve the gender balance in modern apprenticeships and in other programmes that feed into the most segregated industries.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern at the figures that have been received through a freedom of information request by my colleague Jackie Baillie, which show that, of 1,209 hairdressing students in training places in 2013, only 7 per cent were men, despite the fact that some of the most famous hairdressers in the world are men?

Is the cabinet secretary as alarmed as I am that the engineering industry training programme is dominated by one gender, with only 3 per cent of the 3,671 training places taken up by females and that, furthermore, in plumbing, which is one of the worst industries for female participation, the female participation rate was less than 2 per cent in 2013?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, I share Mr Simpson’s concerns, although with one small caveat, which is that it is important that, as well as encouraging more women into science, technology, engineering and mathematics, we are careful to ensure that we continue to value the work that women are traditionally attracted to. The Government is on record—and I certainly am—as wanting to do more to get women into STEM and to get more men into childcare, which is important in relation to our children’s development needs.

There is no easy or quick answer. Occupational segregation is reflected in the wider labour market, but nonetheless we wish to challenge it and change it. That needs to start from the work that we do with children in the early years and in our schools and continue all the way through our education and training system and, crucially, the work that we do with employers. I anticipate that the forthcoming final report of the Wood commission, which will be published in the next few weeks, will have important recommendations.

Modern Apprenticeships (Assessment of Benefits)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will develop appropriate outcome-based measures to assess the long-term benefits of modern apprenticeships, as recommended by Audit Scotland. (S4O-03252)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

A key achievement of our modern apprenticeship programme in Scotland is that 100 per cent of apprentices are, and always have been, employed. While undertaking an apprenticeship, the individual obtains training and qualifications that will not only support them in their current role but benefit them in their future career. Research from Skills Development Scotland shows that, of those who complete apprenticeships, 92 per cent are in work six months later and 79 per cent are in full-time employment.

We appreciate, however, that we can improve how we monitor the programme’s long-term outcomes. We will consider how best to do that, as we implement the recommendations from the recent Audit Scotland report on the programme and the forthcoming Wood commission report, and through Skills Development Scotland’s on-going evaluation activity.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary said, this is Scottish apprenticeship week. I know that she has welcomed the Audit Scotland report on the programme. According to that report, the last time that the Scottish Government published an explicit statement of its overall aim for modern apprenticeships was back in 2007. Since then, the economy has been through the recession and a rebalancing of its structure. To reflect that and to better understand the long-term benefits of modern apprenticeships, as the cabinet secretary discussed, does she believe that the time is right to go beyond the annual ministerial guidance letter to Skills Development Scotland and develop a revised strategy that puts the qualitative before the quantitative?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The objectives of the 2007 skills strategy still stand in relation to the apprenticeship programme, which is about developing skills in work, particularly for young people. It is important to recognise that the Government is about continuous improvement and that the Audit Scotland report acknowledged the tremendous successes of the apprenticeship programme during a difficult time.

However, as we have learned from other European countries that have developed long-term outcomes-based research in this area, it is important that we get a better grasp of the improved career opportunities for young people who take on apprenticeships, the improved impact on businesses and the impact on young people’s individual earnings. We can certainly learn a lot from our nearest friends and neighbours in Europe about how we get a more holistic understanding of the long-term impacts of our very successful Scottish apprenticeship programme.

Finally, according to recent statistics, people with a modern apprenticeship qualification have an employment rate of 91.4 per cent.

Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (Private Finance Initiative Contract)

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what updates it receives from NHS Lothian regarding the operation of the key terms of the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh’s private finance initiative contract. (S4O-03256)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The management and monitoring of the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh PFI contract are NHS Lothian’s responsibility. Scottish Government officials regularly meet NHS Lothian representatives to discuss capital planning, property and asset management issues, and any significant issues relating to the contract are raised through that route.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

The performance review committee established under the PFI contract with Consort Healthcare is responsible for the oversight of the assessment of key performance indicators and service delivery. Given the catalogue of serious performance errors at the hospital that have been highlighted by the Edinburgh Evening News and which include repeated power cuts and serious breaches of hygiene standards, how can the people of Edinburgh and Lothian have any confidence in the performance review committee’s ability to hold Consort Healthcare to account?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The management and monitoring of the Edinburgh Royal infirmary contract is the responsibility of NHS Lothian, and I am sure that the board plays a very active role in managing it. It has employed its own management team complete with auditors who carry out random checks on the facilities, with approximately 80 audits carried out every month. It has also instigated two further forums to discuss performance and to ensure that the providers meet the specification, and those meetings are facilitated at a senior level board to board and through scorecard review.

The Scottish Government is making every effort to improve contract management of existing PFI contracts. An NHS Scotland group that includes all boards with PFI contracts, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust has been working to improve management and deliver savings on the contracts, and a new national team will be established to support NHS boards in finding other improvements. The work has already achieved £1.3 million of annual savings, which will save £20 million over the remaining life of the contracts. By the end of 2014-15, savings over the remaining life of the contracts will rise to £26 million, and those savings will be reinvested in services provided by the national health service.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 2 in the name of Tavish Scott has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation.

Electricity Grid Failure (Wind Turbines)

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has undertaken any further investigation into whether an overreliance on wind turbines as a source of electricity played a role in the grid failure on 16 April 2014. (S4O-03258)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On 22 April, I set out the reasons for the power outage of 16 April and submitted to the Scottish Parliament information centre a comprehensive note outlining the contributing factors.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On 22 April, the cabinet secretary told me that Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution had identified a faulty electronic relay as the cause of the problem. However, engineering opinion that in many cases has been volunteered to me has suggested that, far from failing, the relay did exactly what it was supposed to do and that the cause of the trip has yet to be identified. Will the cabinet secretary undertake to make SSE’s engineering incident report available to allow independent opinion to be sought?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On 22 April, I relayed to the Parliament the information supplied to me by SSE that a fault in the electronic relay at the Knocknagael substation near Inverness was the root cause of the outage. In addition, SSE has advised me that it is engaging closely with technical experts at Siemens, which is the manufacturer of the relay, to ensure that that fault will not occur on SSE’s network in the future.

SSE’s position that the reason for the power outage was the reason that I gave to Parliament back in April could not be clearer. I hope that that gives Mr Johnstone the reassurance that he is looking for that the examination by those who are responsible for operating the grid identified that as the particular problem that led to the circumstances in April this year.

Inward Investment (Jobs)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how many jobs have been created in Scotland in the last 10 years as a result of inward investment. (S4O-03259)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Between April 2003 and March 2013, Scottish Development International recorded 39,527 planned new jobs as a direct result of inward investment. In addition to those new jobs, we have been able to safeguard 24,639 jobs for Scotland through Scottish Development International’s efforts.

The 2013 Ernst & Young international attractiveness survey shows that, outside London, Scotland is the most attractive place in the United Kingdom for inward investment. That reflects the strength of the Scottish economic proposition in terms of the quality of our people, the excellence of our built and natural assets, and our world-class universities and research base.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his comprehensive answer. Is it not the case that many of those jobs would be threatened if the anti-European Union parties, such as the UK Independence Party, got their way and took us out of the EU single market?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Undoubtedly being a participant in the European Union assists in the economic proposition that we put forward on Scotland’s behalf, and it is clear that the Scottish Government takes a number of other measures to ensure that we have skills, investment and capability in the economy and an economic development network that is focused on boosting the Scottish economy and working at all times on Scotland’s behalf. If parties such as UKIP were to get their way and we were to be withdrawn from the European Union, that would undoubtedly have negative economic consequences for Scotland. The Scottish Government is determined to sustain Scotland’s active membership of the European Union.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Given the revelation that Amazon paid only £4.2 million-worth of tax on a £4.3 billion turnover last year and the Scottish Government’s welcome decision not to recognise for procurement purposes in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill companies that do not recognise trade unions, will the cabinet secretary revisit the Government’s decision to give grants to that supposed inward investor?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government takes a series of decisions that are based on a range of factors, one of which is the identification of economic opportunities that can lead to increased employment in Scotland. Those judgments are made carefully from looking at the investment proposals that particular companies offer. Obviously, we secure from those particular commitments—this is an essential part of regional selective assistance—commitments to levels of employment in the Scottish economy. The Government will continue to apply those approaches and implement those rules in an effective and comprehensive fashion to encourage employment in Scotland.

Care of Older Patients (Lothian)

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to improve the care of older patients in the Lothian region. (S4O-03260)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am aware of the recent media coverage about the care of older people in NHS Lothian, and I welcome its commitment to address the issues that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland raised in relation to care at the Royal Edinburgh hospital. It is recognised that the Royal Edinburgh hospital would benefit from development, and the Scottish Government has approved the business case for a £48.9 million upgrade to the facility.

We will also work with health boards, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and service providers to develop a strategy for the long-term transformation of residential care, supported housing and intermediate care across Scotland to help to ensure that people are cared for at home or in a homely setting for as long as possible.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Patients’ families have raised concerns about the resources that are available to deliver dementia care in the Royal Edinburgh hospital. They had to submit a freedom of information request in relation to an inspection report from the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. The report detailed concerns over delays in discharging patients because of the severe lack of nursing home places in Edinburgh and a related lack of activities for patients who end up in hospital for a prolonged period.

I do not want to criticise staff—clearly, there are issues around the lack of staff.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Yes.

There are reports of excellent care, too. Clearly we will have to wait for the upgrade, so I would appreciate information on what will happen in the meantime. Can the minister also explain why families have to use FOI legislation to obtain the reports? Will he make them readily available? What steps will he take to ensure that recommendations are implemented?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are monitoring the situation very closely, and we will make absolutely sure that the recommendations of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland are implemented in that particular hospital, because clearly the findings were totally unacceptable.

NHS Lothian is currently consulting on its 2014 to 2024 strategic plan for future care, called “Our Health, Our Care, Our Future”, which describes what NHS Lothian proposes to do over the coming decade to address the challenges and to provide a high-quality and sustainable healthcare system for the people of Lothian.

NHS Lothian also has an Alzheimer Scotland nurse consultant and 38 trained dementia champions across its acute hospitals. I would hope that we will see short-term improvements while the long-term strategy is being developed.

Flooding (Support for Householders and Businesses)

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to support householders and businesses whose properties were damaged by flooding in January 2014. (S4O-03261)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

In response to the December and January floods, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth triggered the Bellwin scheme on 31 December. As a result, Scottish Borders, Orkney Islands and South Lanarkshire councils all notified the Scottish Government of potential claims for revenue funding under the scheme. Having considered the additional costs resulting from the flooding incident, all three councils confirmed that their costs did not breach their Bellwin threshold, which otherwise would have allowed them to submit a claim.

However, Dumfries and Galloway Council requested additional financial support outwith the Bellwin scheme to make repairs to river banks, sea walls and coastal paths damaged as a direct result of the severe flooding. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth reviewed the request and, reflecting the exceptional circumstances, agreed to make available an offer of match funding of £500,000 of capital grant to allow the council to carry out the necessary repairs.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I thank the minister for that response, and he is indeed correct that the Scottish Government has made funding available to the council. However, the fact that the council had to appeal to the Scottish Government for help underlines the fact that it has no available finance to help local businesses and householders repair the very extensive damage that they have suffered.

Will the minister encourage the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to meet NFU Scotland representatives to discuss what can be done to help meet the crippling cost of coastal defence repairs, particularly on the west bank of the Nith, as was requested in a recent letter from NFUS into which the minister was copied? Will he undertake to attend any such meetings to explore what his Government can do to help mitigate the worst effects of what was a truly extreme weather event?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I have already met NFUS to discuss the impacts on Dumfries and Galloway—the region which Mr Fergusson represents—and to look at what assistance we can provide. That meeting was attended by the Scottish Government sponsor team and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. We gave some practical advice about what action could be taken to repair the damage to the defences in the region.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary has heard Mr Fergusson’s points, which I will discuss with him later. Mr Fergusson can be assured that we are serious about trying to help farmers, businesses and householders who have been affected. We invest significant amounts of money annually—£42 million a year through the general capital grant—to support environmental protection of communities across Scotland. However, I take the points that Mr Fergusson has made, and I will look at what else we can do.

Independence (Overseas Students)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it would attract overseas students to study in an independent Scotland. (S4O-03262)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scotland is already a highly attractive destination for students, with international students accounting for 22 per cent of enrolments at Scottish higher education institutions in 2012-13 but just 18 per cent at HEIs in the United Kingdom as a whole. The numbers have grown significantly in recent years, with international student enrolments in Scotland increasing by 107 per cent in the past decade.

Students come to Scotland because of the reputation of our world-class institutions—their research, breadth of learning and focus on graduate employability—and the overall learning experience for international students, which is better than that of the rest of the UK and, indeed, the rest of the world.

Independence will provide us with the levers that we need to further enhance Scotland’s attractiveness to international students and allow us to move away from the negative rhetoric of the UK Government and its restrictive immigration policies. We will ensure that the immigration policies that we introduce, including the post-study work visa, will allow Scotland to attract and retain world-class talent, contributing to our education system and the Scottish economy.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

Professor Anton Muscatelli has said of Scottish higher education that the UK Government is

“trying its best to destroy a global brand”

by reducing net migration, and Professor Robert Wright has described the way that the UK treats international students as a “disaster”. That contrasts with the recent ChinaGirlsAbroad survey, which concludes that independence will make Scotland less attractive to Chinese students. Can the cabinet secretary comment on those potentially contrasting views?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The evidence that comes from the principal and the vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow is particularly telling and was strongly expressed in the Sunday Post this weekend.

According to Robert Wright, if the continuing immigration policy of the UK Government were to bear down even more on students coming to Scottish universities, it would be a disaster. As a result, the global brand of Scottish higher education, which is already well respected worldwide, could only be enhanced by independence. In these circumstances, it is extremely important to listen to the academics who are saying that.

Motorway Network (Central Scotland)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on improvements to the motorway network in Central Scotland. (S4O-03263)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The non-profit-distributing contract for the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements was awarded in February 2014, and construction work is already well under way.

Together with the M74 and M80 improvements that have been successfully delivered in the last three years, those improvements, when completed in spring 2017, will close the last remaining gaps in central Scotland’s motorway network.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Transport Scotland has also confirmed that it will reopen the junction on the M80 at Castlecary, in my constituency. Residents of Castlecary have long had concerns about traffic through their village. Does the minister join me in welcoming not only the reopening of the junction but the fact that Transport Scotland has committed to a range of traffic-calming measures through Castlecary?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I confirm to the member that officials from Transport Scotland have had a number of successful public consultation events to discuss the reopening of the northbound Castlecary slip road. We are now taking forward the publication of the orders to allow the reopening of the slip road to all traffic. The publication of those orders will enable the public to make any comment or representations prior to implementation. As the member says, as part of that work, we are discussing traffic management measures in Castlecary village with North Lanarkshire Council.

Creative Scotland Funding (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what funding support Creative Scotland has provided to organisations in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley in the last year. (S4O-03264)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Creative Scotland, the public body that supports Scotland’s arts, screen and creative industries, provided more than £215,000 to organisations in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley in 2013-14.

That supported young people to engage in music in schools through the Scottish Government’s youth music initiative and to engage at the Dick Institute with the generation 2014 project, which is a landmark series of exhibitions that traces the development of contemporary art in Scotland over the last 25 years and is part of the Glasgow 2014 cultural programme. It also provided support for a debut album from a band of young local musicians and for an e-book in the Scots language for young people, which is published by Giglets, a digital publishing company.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the level of detail in the answer. However, despite that answer, there appears to be a dearth of successful applications coming from the constituency, especially when we consider that the total amount of grant in aid that is disbursed by the agency comes to £46 million. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet me to discuss the matter further and to see how best we can help more local organisations to improve their chances of making successful applications to the agency?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to meet to discuss individual applications, but it would be appropriate for Creative Scotland to meet the member to discuss the wealth of talent that exists in Kilmarnock, which, of course, won the creative place award for 2013.

I have been impressed with a number of activities in the area, particularly those of Centrestage Music Theatre, and I know that Creative Scotland has already engaged with that company with regard to one of its unsuccessful applications, to see what it can do for the young people of Scotland. I will encourage Creative Scotland to engage with the member.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02110)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

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

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Last week, when he sprang to the defence of his health secretary, the First Minister revealed something that a lot of us had suspected for some time. He said:

“I am in on everything”.—[Official Report, 15 May 2014; c 31065.]

If he really is in on everything, will the First Minister tell us why Alex Neil reversed the decision that had been taken by Nicola Sturgeon on mental health services in Lanarkshire? If Alex Neil was acting in the best interests of patients in Lanarkshire, can the First Minister explain what Nicola Sturgeon was doing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Every health secretary has the right, when taking office, to review a whole range of decisions. Johann Lamont is right, in that this is about health provision in Lanarkshire, which affects 500,000 people. The health secretary was well within his rights to look at health provision in Lanarkshire and the proposals that were coming forward and to make his views known.

He made his view known that there should be provision in Monklands district general hospital, Wishaw general hospital and Hairmyres hospital, the three hospitals concerned. That is what he said in the memo on 26 September. I think that a health secretary is well within his rights to do that. He discharged his responsibilities and he was acting in the best interests of the health service of Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We are in the unusual situation in which both Alex Neil and Alex Salmond agree that Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong. Who else does the First Minister think got it wrong? Ian Ross, the chief executive of NHS Lanarkshire, on the very morning when he was instructed by Alex Neil’s office to reverse his plan, was still insisting that the original proposals would mean

“improved quality of service to patients”.

Ian Ross said:

“There is no alternative option which can deliver the same benefits”.

Catriona Borland, a senior official in the Government’s health team, said that retaining beds at Monklands would result in a “less than optimal service”.

Can the First Minister explain why health professionals wasted two years trying to redesign a service, if it was not in the interests of patients?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am not sure whether Johann Lamont is aware that in the proposals of 2006, which were approved by the health team when she was a member of the Government, it was proposed that there be an acute ward in Monklands hospital. I could equally ask her why the Government of which she was a member approved that formulation, if she is now criticising the health secretary for agreeing with her. I find it quite extraordinary that that lapse of memory has crept into Johann Lamont’s articulation.

Other considerations have to be borne in mind—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Mr McNeil.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont is quite right. There is a letter—which I know is known to Johann Lamont because it was released under freedom of information. For understandable reasons, it is a confidential letter. The letter was written to me by a patient. I found it then, and I find it now, a very moving account of why that patient did not agree that the ward should be closed. The patient said:

“These nurses in the wards know us personally over many years, as long as 20; that’s a very long time. We as patients have bonded with our nurses in such a way that we trust them with our lives. ... Many mentally ill patients can’t read or write, but we do know we need these wards to stay open. Families are much concerned at the best of times; they visit us when they finish work and work long hours, too. Ask yourself this, if one of your own family was ill, after working 12-hour shifts then to have to travel at least 15 miles or so at hours without public transport being available, could you do it? ... You should keep it open for the mentally ill.” [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that that is a moving letter, which should be listened to with respect by members in this chamber—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The letter was written in September 2012 by one of the patients who was particularly concerned by rumours about the ward closing—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that it is entirely reasonable for the Government to take those opinions into account and entirely reasonable for a health secretary to discharge his responsibility in the way that Alex Neil did.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

For the absence of doubt, the First Minister believes that Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong. He believes that Scotland’s most senior health officials got it wrong.

Of course we should listen to patients and users. What does the First Minister say about Francis Fallon? Mr Fallon is the chair of Lanarkshire Links, which advocates on behalf of 800 mental health service users and carers. Mr Fallon has said:

“The members of Lanarkshire Links were totally shocked, bewildered and very upset about this decision, taken in a spur of the moment, knee jerk reaction by Mr Neil, without any discussion or consideration of those hundreds of service users and their carers.”

Mr Fallon was a mental health nurse for 30 years. He was given an MBE for his work on mental health. He and his colleagues spent two years working on the proposal, only to be ignored. What does the First Minister have to say to him and the members of Lanarkshire Links who have been let down by Alex Neil?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have read out a moving letter from a patient who was frightened about being affected by the proposals as they were. That was one of the interests that were taken into account—quite rightly—by the health secretary. What the health secretary sent back, through his officials, to the board was a proposal to look at the provision across Lanarkshire and three of the hospitals.

Many of us believe that matters of local provision are really important, both in mental health services and across the range of health services. The board is confident that the configuration that NHS Lanarkshire has now will offer excellent provision for the people of Lanarkshire. That involves acute facilities at Hairmyres, Wishaw and Monklands hospitals. It also involves an expansion of services in the community. That seems to me to be a good position for the people of Lanarkshire.

Those things are, quite properly, taken into account, as they were taken into account in other hospital situations in Lanarkshire. That is what health secretaries are elected to do. A health secretary discharges responsibilities for all the patients of Lanarkshire. [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There is a great deal of opinion that the formulation and the circumstance that we have come out with is an excellent provision as far as mental health services are concerned. It is really important—the point was made in the letter—that when these patients, who are not always the patients with the strongest voices, make their opinions heard, their voices are listened to with respect. That is what the health secretary did, and he should be proud of his actions in that respect.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not know what is more depressing—that the First Minister makes that case or that he thinks that it is a credible case to make. It is desperate stuff. For two years, his cabinet secretary Nicola Sturgeon, the board, the patients, the staff, people who cared for folk with mental health issues and people who used the service themselves came to one conclusion and Alex Neil came to a different one.

One week into this, we have still to hear a credible explanation for Alex Neil’s behaviour. Let us look at what I believe is his charge sheet. Putting his political interests before patients—guilty; undermining the integrity of health professionals—guilty; misleading the Parliament and the people of Scotland—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

In my view—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As I said, in my view—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I ask other people to judge an email in the morning that directs the health board to do one thing and, in the afternoon, the health secretary’s claim that he has stepped back. Is the First Minister really prepared to debase his own office and the Parliament even further to save the skin of the health secretary?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is, of course, perfectly reasonable for Johann Lamont to disagree with the decision—the evaluation—that the health secretary made. It is perfectly reasonable for her to point out that different people have different opinions, although I have heard nothing about why the Government of which she was a member in 2006 considered that there should be acute facilities in Monklands hospital. I presume that all the expertise and advice was available in 2006, when a different proposal and conclusion came forward. When we get to the debate in a few minutes time I will read extensively from a document that demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that that fact and all other facts were volunteered by the Government—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Perhaps I should read from the document now. The document, which is dated 1 December 2012, was released to John Pentland on 5 March 2013. Every iota of that information was available to Johann Lamont’s MSPs last March. [Interruption.] I just heard Richard Simpson say, “Oh no, it was not.” I hope that he stays for the debate because yes, it was.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Oh, I will be.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I say this to the Labour leader. This is a time when people are rightly concerned that the Labour Party may be planning to remove free prescriptions from the national health service, a time when people are concerned about the Labour Party’s open questioning of free personal care, and a time when people are concerned that the Labour Party will reintroduce tuition fees. The Labour Party chooses to have a spurious motion of no confidence at a time when people are debating and looking at the great issues that face the country. [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There will not be judgment on Alex Neil; there will be a judgment on this pathetic Opposition.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02109)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No plans, near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Scottish National Party’s case for independence as contained in its white paper relies heavily on oil income, but the figures that are quoted in it are massively out of date and need to be refreshed. John Swinney promised 14 months ago, in the Government’s oil analysis, regular updates on oil projections. He has not delivered. He promised my colleague Gavin Brown in the chamber, eight weeks ago, today a fresh analysis of Scotland’s oil production and income “within weeks”. Nearly two months on, we still have silence from the Government.

Last year, the difference between the SNP’s projected oil income and what was collected was nearly £3 billion. The SNP has a duty to tell people how it would balance the books in an independent Scotland. Instead, all that we have had is promises of updates month after month, week after week. If the Government has not done a fresh analysis, why not? If it has done that analysis, why will it not publish it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The analysis will be released, as Mr Swinney committed himself to doing. Ruth Davidson should be very careful what she wishes for in such matters. When that analysis is released, it will examine the United Kingdom Government’s track record on forecasting oil revenues—not just over the past few years, but over the past 30 to 40 years. If we believed the Conservative Party on the subject of Scotland’s oil, it would all have been finished more than 10 years ago. That was the forecast of the Conservative spokesperson.

When the forecast comes out, it will look at the credibility of an Office for Budgetary Responsibility that suggests that oil prices will be less than $100 a barrel, when the price is currently $110 a barrel. It will look at the credibility of an oil-price forecast from the OBR that says that prices will be under $100 a barrel, when the Department of Energy and Climate Change says that the price is pushing towards $130 a barrel. It will look at the huge surge of investment of £13 billion sterling in the North Sea, which is, of course, taken off current oil revenues because of the allowance against capital investment, but is there to increase future oil production and, therefore, revenues. It will recognise that, over the next 40 to 50 years, there are massive quantities of oil and gas to come from the Scottish sector of the North Sea. However, there is a fundamental question: Will it go where it has gone for the last 40 years, and disappear into the maw of the London Treasury or will it be invested in the economy and future life chances of the people of Scotland?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

We hear more blithe assurances after eight weeks of similar. It is not just me who is asking. The Scottish Parliament’s information centre asked the Government for answers two weeks ago and was told, “Soon.” Then it asked last week, and was told, “Soon.” In better times, when the SNP was keen to shine a light on oil figures, it pulled in civil servants over the weekend to publish a report. Now that the news is not so good, it seems to be dragging its feet.

The OBR has changed its figures and the oil and gas industry has revised its production estimates downwards, but the Scottish Government continues to deny reality. People want clarity, but the First Minister has stalled on giving it, because if he did it would blow yet another hole in his independence white paper.

Is not the reason why John Swinney is refusing to honour his months-long commitment to give promised updates on those oil figures that they wreck the SNP’s key case for independence?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No, it is not. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to keep up with the changes in the OBR figures, since they change more often than the weather, where oil forecasts are concerned. In my first answer, I pointed out some of the substantial difficulties with the OBR figures and how they are incompatible with other figures that have been produced by the UK Government on forecasts of oil prices.

However, the most important underlying point is the massive investment that is currently taking place in the waters around Scotland. Of course, it could be that all those huge international and domestic oil companies are investing because they do not believe that there is any more oil and gas left in the North Sea and they believe the OBR, which says that production will be absolutely flat and will not increase at all, thanks to that investment. They could be investing all those funds for no return whatsoever—or, we could conclude that if oil companies are investing £13 billion in the waters around Scotland, it is probably in the expectation that oil production is going to rise. As oil production rises, guess what: the revenues rise.

Of course, we then come back to the question: where are those revenues going to go? Are they going to disappear into George Osborne’s coffers for election campaigns, or are they going to be used to benefit the people of Scotland? I say that the people of Scotland should have our turn after 40 years of the London Treasury having its turn.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware of today’s announcement that the all-energy conference—the biggest renewable energy conference on these islands—is set to leave Aberdeen after 13 years of success and 13 years of year-on-year growth, which will bring £4 million to the local economy this year. Can the First Minister tell us when he first became aware of the plan and what he did to prevent it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Our officials have discussions all the time. I have had the great honour of participating in the all-energy conference on many occasions. It is really important that we do everything possible to foster renewables conferences wherever and whenever, but of course that means carrying through on the commitment that this Government has made—with, I hope, support from Lewis Macdonald—on the importance of investment in offshore renewables. That is because—interestingly enough—as this Government’s commitment to renewables has been declared and applauded time and again, we have not always had the same consistency of approach from his party, and there has been even less from the Conservative Party.

We will work to retain conferences in Aberdeen, which I believe should be seen not just as the oil capital of Europe but as the energy capital of Europe. Of course, as Lewis Macdonald well knows, in an independent Scotland administration and regulation of the energy industry would be committed from Aberdeen.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02108)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There has been much concern that, since this Government came to power, the use of police stop and search has increased fourfold. The response from Kenny MacAskill has been, “Don’t look at me, I’m only the justice secretary.” Now, there is a big increase in the number of police officers permanently carrying guns, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice says, “Who cares? Ask someone else.” The tearing apart of the long-cherished character of Scottish policing is being met by casual indifference. Does the First Minister care?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not accept the depiction of the response of the justice secretary that I read in the record this very morning. I mean the record of Parliament, not the Daily Record, although I am sure that the Daily Record reported him more accurately than the depiction by the Liberal Democrats.

I was struck by another article that appeared, and I ask Willie Rennie to consider it. It was by Hugh Reilly, who is obviously a journalist, but speaks with some authority as a former police officer. He said in The Scotsman of 19 May:

“A minority of Scottish officers bear firearms while on routine business, but this is hardly the scare story some are making it out to be … Instead of sniping, politicians and others should put things into perspective. There are more than 17,000 police officers, of whom less than 3 per cent are armed, hardly the stuff of a ‘police state’. Unfortunately, the operational decision made by the head of Police Scotland, Sir Stephen House, to prevent any unnecessary hold-ups in armed officers arriving at a firearms incident has been turned into a political football.”

Those are not my words but those of a respected Scotsman journalist. Willie Rennie and others would do well to bear them in mind as they address this important issue.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister needs to recognise that the policy has changed. Police Scotland has admitted that more armed police officers are ready and armed at all times, even on normal duties. So we now have more police carrying guns at road-traffic accidents, more police carrying guns controlling crowds outside nightclubs, and more police carrying guns when stopping and searching children. [Interruption.]

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

SNP members do not know what is happening on their watch. They need to take this issue much more seriously than they are. The relationship between the police and the public is at risk, but the justice secretary says that it is nothing to do with him. Police officers carrying guns was supposed to be exceptional, but now it is being normalised. If the First Minister will not act, will he at least appoint an independent reviewer to look at the use of guns by the police?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Willie Rennie should pay attention to the response to his question that came from around the chamber. There are 275 officers who have standing authority to carry firearms on patrol. That is out of a total number of police officers in Scotland—thanks to this Government—of more than 17,000. That sense of perspective should be placed in the realm of Willie Rennie.

The alternative to having the efficient operation that the chief constable has proposed would be delay in those officers being properly equipped to respond to serious incidents. That would not be desirable. The alternative, if any of those 275 officers were not available for other duties—let us remember that that is the total and, on any one shift, the figure would be a fraction of that 275—would be officers having, because they were armed, to drive past incidents to which they happened to be first responders. That would be impractical and undesirable.

On the question of operational response, every single police board in England bar one uses exactly the same operational response as the chief constable. I can hear Willie Rennie saying that that is not our responsibility, but it is an interesting fact. I would like to know whether, given that his party is in Government in England at the present moment, he has expressed that concern or those fears to his colleagues in Government at Westminster, or does he just reserve his hyperbole for coming along to this Parliament to express unnecessary fears and to put things in a way that is not at all reasonable?

This is a serious subject. We should be proud of how our Scottish Police Service defends the interests of our communities. We should have confidence in their operational decisions and we should regard as a triumph the huge decline in recorded crime and the massive decline in violent crime—and, indeed, in the carrying of firearms. Just for once, maybe Willie Rennie will come to the chamber and give our police their due for their success in keeping us safe from harm.

House Building

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister how many houses have been built in the private and public sectors in each of the last three years. (S4F-02117)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The latest available figures for the completion of private sector homes are 10,150 in 2011, 9,990 in 2012, and 9,938 in 2013. The affordable homes figures include all homes that counted towards the Government target of 30,000 affordable homes by March 2016; the latest figures are 6,296 in 2011, 6,385 in 2012, and 7,189 in 2013. Those figures show that we are well on our way to meeting the 30,000 affordable homes target, which will be welcomed across the chamber, although I should point out that the 2013 figure is higher than anything achieved in any year by the Labour-Liberal Administration.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said at the weekend that not enough houses are being built in the United Kingdom. Can the First Minister indicate how the record on house building in Scotland compares with that in the rest of the UK and what action is being taken to boost house building in the private sector?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The governor of the Bank of England was absolutely right to focus attention on supply in the housing market. In direct answer to the question, the rate of home completions per 100,000 population for the year to end September 2013 was much higher in Scotland, at 268, than it was in England, at 202, and in Wales, at 180. That has been the case throughout the period from 2007-08 to 2012-13. The difference is particularly marked in social housing, as the new-build completion rate in that sector was 80.9 per 100,000 population in Scotland compared with 41 in England, 25 in Wales and 70 in Northern Ireland.

One of the reasons why we are experiencing less pressure on housing and less of a housing bubble in Scotland in general is that our housing supply statistics are better, but they are not good enough. I therefore think that, given the initiative from the Bank of England and its governor, it would be particularly instructive to have a joint look at what we can do with the finances of housing associations, in particular, to allow them to increase the excellent work that they are already doing.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Will any further reviews of housing association grants be carried out to increase the number of new developments by registered social landlords?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, we are having on-going discussions with the housing associations. As Mary Fee has just heard, that is one of the keys to avoiding some of the great difficulties that we currently see in some parts of England. I think that she would acknowledge, as a fair-minded colleague in the chamber, that the figures for affordable homes are impressive in the circumstances that we have experienced over the past few years. Given that those circumstances—the straitened economic times and the cutbacks from Westminster—are far more severe than anything experienced by the Labour-Liberal Administration, it seems particularly impressive that the figures are higher than anything that the Labour Party achieved when in office.

Racial Intolerance and Hate Crime

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle racial intolerance and hate crime. (S4F-02120)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Racist incidents are decreasing. In 2012-13, 4,628 such incidents were recorded, which is 13 per cent fewer than there were in 2006-07. The clear-up rate, which is crucial, is also improving—it is up 3 per cent.

However, there is much more to be done. In February, we launched the speak up against hate crime awareness campaign to help victims of and witnesses to hate crime report all incidents to Police Scotland. We have provided £60 million of funding for a range of equality projects between 2012 and 2015, which is more than double the £28 million that the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition provided between 2004 and 2007. The funding includes more than £8 million that we are using to support 40 local and national organisations in their work to break down barriers to racial equality.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

In that context, can the First Minister explain why the Scottish Government is cutting by more than two thirds the funding to the only national charity focused on anti-racism? The Show Racism the Red Card charity received funding of £70,000 in 2012-13, but the figure fell to £40,000 last year and the intention is that it will be £20,000 this year.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Perhaps that is not what Graeme Pearson meant to say, because I have a list here of 40 local and national organisations across Scotland that benefit from the budgets that I have just outlined, which are substantially more than the budgets that were allocated when his party was in office.

If the member would like, I will start reading them out. They include Access Apna Ghar, Amina, Article 12 in Scotland, BEMIS, the Bridges Programmes, Bridging the Gap, the Red Cross and the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights. I could go on right through the alphabet—[Interruption.] Graeme Pearson suggested, and it may have been a mistake, that only one national organisation was active in this field. Many, many organisations are being supported by the Scottish Government.

A funding package was signed up to and agreed with the particular organisation that Graeme Pearson mentioned. The other 40 all do valuable work across Scotland. Nothing should be said—even if it was a mistake or a misapprehension—that diminishes the work that is being done by those vital organisations.

It is vital that we acknowledge that work because, although we have made progress on the issues, a huge amount has still to be done. As Graeme Pearson and I both know, there are people in society who seek to take advantage of racial divisions. They must be combated in every possible sense in the chamber and at the ballot box.

Modern Apprenticeships

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

6. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to promote the value of modern apprenticeships to employers and young people. (S4F-02116)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I was delighted to announce on Sunday that, in the past year, we have again surpassed the target of delivering 25,000 new modern apprenticeships. We intend to build on the programme’s success by guaranteeing 30,000 opportunities every year by 2020. Through the make young people your business campaign, we will continue to encourage employers and, in particular, small businesses to realise the benefits that a modern apprenticeship can bring.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

In setting out the Scottish Government’s vision for apprenticeships in Scotland, does the First Minister agree that all young people deserve the best possible start in life and that a modern apprenticeship provides the ideal opportunity for a young person to gain valuable skills, hands-on work experience and—crucially—a job on completion?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes—I do. There are some key figures to get across. We know that 92 per cent of modern apprentices are in employment six months after completing their apprenticeship. That is a highly important figure to get across in recruiting young people to the modern apprenticeship programme.

We should articulate the fact that modern apprenticeships are for both genders. In 2013-14, 10,445 women started a modern apprenticeship, which represents 41 per cent of all modern apprenticeship starts. That compares with 2,857 women a few years ago, which represented only 27 per cent of starts.

The message that modern apprenticeships are for men and women is vital, as is the message that getting a modern apprenticeship is a passport to a lifetime’s employment.

Motion of No Confidence

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10088, in the name of Neil Findlay, on a motion of no confidence.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

As the Scottish Government’s mental health strategy states, mental illness is one of the greatest health challenges that we face. However, with appropriate and good-quality treatment and support, people can cope, learn to manage their condition and make a full recovery. Government policy is—rightly—geared towards shifting the balance of care from institutional settings to more community-based provision, where treatment is delivered at home or in the community. All the major stakeholders are signed up to that policy—or at least we thought that they were.

In the past week, following a freedom of information request that my colleague John Pentland submitted 18 months ago and a ruling by the Scottish Information Commissioner that ordered the release of the papers involved, we have established that one of the key players who is supposed to be driving the policy is not signed up to it at all—or at least he was not signed up to it when he thought that it would have an impact on his constituency. That player is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing—the man in charge of the policy.

As far back as 2006, NHS Lanarkshire identified a need to change how it delivers mental health services. Years of consultation, planning and work with clinicians, staff, patients and voluntary organisations followed, and a consensus emerged that a two-site plan—with acute beds located at Hairmyres hospital and a much-needed intensive psychiatric care unit at Wishaw general hospital, complemented by community-based provision—was the best way forward to deliver much-improved services.

That plan was to help waiting time targets to be achieved, reduce admissions of young people to non-age-specific in-patient beds, extend child and adolescent mental health services provision beyond the age of 16, address the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland’s critique of NHS Lanarkshire being the only mainland board without a dedicated intensive psychiatric care unit and provide a safer and more sustainable medical rota to deliver care. That was approved by the then cabinet secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, and by Lanarkshire Links—the leading mental health organisation in the area—and its members.

Following the Cabinet reshuffle on 5 September 2012, Alex Neil replaced Nicola Sturgeon as the cabinet secretary. He acted immediately and, on 15 September, he advised civil servants that he was reviewing the NHS Lanarkshire proposals and that a final decision would be taken soon.

On 18 September, the then head of NHS Scotland, Derek Feeley, advised Catriona Borland, director for health and workforce planning, that Alex Neil was

“minded to review the decision on Lanarkshire’s mental health proposal.”

On 26 September at 9.43 am, Alex Neil’s private secretary advised civil servants:

“Mr Neil is clear in his view that acute mental health facilities should be retained in both Wishaw and Monklands. The Cabinet Secretary has asked that you seek agreement from NHS Lanarkshire to reconfigure their plans accordingly.”

In other words, he scrapped the proposals that had been endorsed by the stakeholders and his predecessor Nicola Sturgeon.

Later that day, in a reply to Richard Lyle MSP in the chamber, the cabinet secretary said:

“I believe that”

NHS Lanarkshire

“is revising its original proposal for the mental health unit at Monklands with a view to retaining an acute mental health facility at the hospital.”—[Official Report, 26 September 2012; c 11895.]

Of course he believed that the board was reviewing its proposal, because he had instructed it to do so.

However, the plot thickens. It has now been revealed that, at 9.44 that day, several hours before the cabinet secretary answered Richard Lyle’s question, Ian Ross, the chief executive of NHS Lanarkshire, advised him:

“there is no alternative option which can deliver the same benefits within the funding. Any changes to this plan would need to be explained to the key stakeholders including service users and carers who are fully supportive of the proposed developments.”

Only later that day, after all that involvement, did the cabinet secretary decide to take a step back because, as he said,

“there could be a perception of a conflict of interest.”

There was not a perception of a conflict of interest: there was a conflict of interest. Alex Neil had already made a decision that ran contrary to the policy that he was in charge of promoting.

Let us review the evidence and charges against the cabinet secretary. When Nicola Sturgeon was in post, he initially asked her to delay any decision until after the council elections and then until after his holiday, thus putting the needs of mental health patients behind his party and personal interests.

He reversed the decision that Nicola Sturgeon had endorsed to go with the consensus on how to improve services—a decision that NHS Lanarkshire’s chief executive said would result in a

“less than optimal service for patients who might be cared for there.”

He ordered the retention of facilities known to be riddled with asbestos. He worked against the interests of the people of Lanarkshire by pretending to be their saviour when, all along, the clinical evidence was clear that the proposed changes were in the best interest of patients.

He actively opposed his own Government’s policy of shifting the balance of care—the very policy that he was in charge of. He breached the ministerial code by failing to recognise the conflict of interest between his ministerial role of promoting Government policy and his constituency interest and stood back only after he had decided to reverse his predecessor’s decision.

Crucially for members, he misled Parliament by stating that he “believed” that NHS Lanarkshire was reviewing a decision when, as we now know, he had already taken the decision.

I take no pleasure in moving the motion. We have been forced into this position by the cabinet secretary and the First Minister who, in the last week, have singularly failed to come up with—or even try to come up with—a credible answer to the charges that are laid before them.

I say to the other parties that this Parliament has a duty to demand integrity in our political system. The dogs in the street know what Alex Neil has been up to. He has been caught holding the smoking gun, and the First Minister and his deputy know it. We believe that he has misled his constituents and we believe that he has misled this Parliament. For those reasons, we have proposed a vote of no confidence in Alex Neil.

I move,

That the Parliament has no confidence in the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing as a result of his failure to disclose his involvement in the decision to reverse the planned closure of mental health services at Monklands Hospital.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Some facts would be helpful for this debate.

Upon his appointment as health secretary on 5 September 2012, Alex Neil examined a number of key areas in his portfolio—something that is entirely reasonable. On the morning of 26 September 2012, having reviewed proposals for NHS Lanarkshire’s mental health services, the cabinet secretary informed officials of his reservations about the health board’s plans. That afternoon, he answered a supplementary parliamentary question, in which the future of mental health services at Monklands hospital was raised. He made clear that the health board was reconsidering its plans.

On 5 November 2012, Alex Neil replied to a letter from Labour MP Pamela Nash about the future of mental health services. He informed her that he had shared his reservations with the health board.

On 14 November 2012, Siobhan McMahon asked Alex Neil an oral question about mental health services at Monklands. She stated in her question:

“the cabinet secretary has recently intervened in provision of mental health services by NHS Lanarkshire.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13407.]

The Evening Times reported the facts on 24 January 2013, when it quoted in full a Scottish Government spokesperson, who laid out all the details. The spokesperson said:

“On September 26, Mr Neil asked officials to make his long-standing concerns about the proposed reconfiguration of mental health services across Lanarkshire known to the NHS board. His view was that acute mental health facilities would be best retained at Wishaw General and Monklands hospitals, and with a unit at Hairmyres. On September 26, after answering an oral question, Mr Neil was concerned that as Monklands was in his constituency, there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. To address this he agreed, that day that all matters related to Monklands should be dealt with by Public Health Minister Michael Matheson.”

The facts were laid out yet again on 17 February 2013, when the First Minister responded to a complaint under the ministerial code, and yet again on 5 March 2013, in an extensive release of FOI material to Labour MSP John Pentland.

Throughout this process, the facts have been clear for all to see and a matter of public record. Alex Neil intervened and made his views known. The health board then had to come forward with a revised plan not just for Monklands, but for the whole of NHS Lanarkshire. In an answer to a question on 14 November 2012, Alex Neil made it clear that the plan required ministerial approval and that decisions would be made by me, in order to avoid any perception of a conflict of interests.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Mr Matheson was the deputy when Ms Sturgeon made her decision, then the deputy when Mr Neil made his decision. What was his view on each of those occasions?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

If we deal with the facts Mr Findlay, we might make some progress on this matter—[Interruption.]

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

—rather than just inventing things for the purpose of getting a few headlines. Those are the facts, and they are a matter of public record.

The reality is that in other cases Alex Neil, as health secretary, will take decisions that are about health services that affect NHS Lanarkshire and its provision. On 17 December last year, Alex Neil established the expert governance and improvement support team to help the health board to make improvements in patient safety and quality of care. That decision included Monklands hospital, in his constituency. If we follow Labour’s bizarre logic, there should have been calls for a vote of no confidence when he made that decision. These decisions are about the whole of NHS Lanarkshire, and they affect half a million people—almost one in 10 of the entire Scottish population.

As you know, Presiding Officer, it is important that ministers avoid not only actual conflicts of interest but the perception of any such conflict. That is why, after Alex Neil was asked a supplementary question in the chamber on 26 September 2012 that was specifically about mental health services at Monklands general hospital, he chose to take advice from his officials. He then followed that advice and removed himself from the process to ensure that there was no suggestion of a conflict of interest. That was entirely appropriate, and he reported it to Parliament on both 14 November 2012 and 19 December 2012.

That does not change the fact at the very heart of the issue. There was no conflict of interest because the issue was about more than just Alex Neil’s constituency. It was about what was best for the people and for the patients of NHS Lanarkshire.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

If the minister wants to move on to that issue, can he tell us on what basis, when Nicola Sturgeon signed off the option appraisal that showed option 1 as the best option, he and Alex Neil chose option 4—the worst option—as the best option for the people of Lanarkshire?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Michael McMahon might be interested to know the view of NHS Lanarkshire on the proposed option, which it stated would enable

“the most contemporary provision of acute inpatient care in a custom designed environment as well as freeing up resources”

to be put into the community. That is the option that the cabinet secretary chose.

As part of the mental health services plan, the ward in question—ward 24—has been undergoing a refurbishment to improve the facilities for patients. That includes the removal of asbestos from ward 24 earlier this year. I emphasise that the issue of asbestos is not unique to Monklands; it is a legacy from decades ago.

Very strict regulations are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive to control asbestos. The HSE makes clear that:

“asbestos is only dangerous when disturbed. If it is safely managed and contained, it doesn’t present a health hazard.”

That is exactly the approach that NHS Lanarkshire took.

The wellbeing of patients in Lanarkshire was at the heart of Alex Neil’s actions on the matter. It is instructive to look at what the patients themselves said about the proposed closure. A letter that was written to the Scottish Government in September 2012 when the closure proposals were being considered, from a patient who was treated for mental issues at Monklands, stated:

“We felt our voice should be recognised. The closure of these wards could cause many mentally ill patients to take our own lives”.

That heartfelt plea sat alongside the views of doctors, NHS management and others. It was by balancing all those opinions that Alex Neil made his intervention.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I need to make progress.

Members can disagree with what I have said and argue that they would have come to a different conclusion, and it is their right to do so.

Indeed, we know that Labour came to a different conclusion on previous NHS Lanarkshire closure proposals. If Labour had won the 2007 election, it would have closed the accident and emergency department at Monklands. Labour told us that there was no alternative. Since July 2007, when this Government saved Monklands A and E, there have been 437,000 attendees, and 67,000 in 2013 alone. Attendance has reached almost 500,000, which proves that there was an alternative to Labour’s NHS closure plan.

The facts are straightforward. Alex Neil made his views known, and weighed up all the options and opinions—[Interruption.]

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

He did so without fear or favour. If Labour members wish to argue against that decision, that is their right, but that is not what they are doing. They are throwing everything they can at the man. Their objective is not about the quality of services that are being provided, but about getting at the health secretary.

This might be the third motion of no confidence in the Parliament’s short history, but it is the first time that I can think of when a health secretary has been attacked for not closing a hospital ward and for saving part of our NHS—but, then, no scare story is too silly and no smear is too low for the Labour Party, and no accusation is too base for it to use against the Scottish National Party Government. That is what we have seen today, so I urge members to reject the motion. [Applause.]

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

A motion of no confidence is a very serious matter and not one that the Scottish Conservatives take lightly. After careful consideration, we will be supporting calls for Alex Neil to resign, for the simple reason that we believe that it cannot be acceptable for a minister to come to the chamber and allow Parliament to be misled.

We have all seen the evidence, but it is worth going over once again. On 26 September 2012, Alex Neil told Parliament that he believed that NHS Lanarkshire was revising its plans on mental health services at Monklands. A few hours later, he announced that he would be removing himself from the formal decision-making process surrounding the plan, because of his constituency interests.

That was all accepted in good faith but, thanks to a freedom of information request, we now know that, five hours before addressing Parliament, Alex Neil’s private secretary had emailed a civil servant in the health department. That email could not have been clearer. Sent to health officials in the Scottish Government, it declared that Mr Neil was clear that the mental health facilities should be retained. It concluded:

“The Cabinet Secretary has asked that you seek agreement from NHS Lanarkshire to reconfigure their plans accordingly.”

Astonishingly, even Michael Matheson was copied into the email. So, in the morning, he was made aware that the decision to retain Monklands had already been made by his superior yet, that very afternoon, he was told that the decision over Monklands was being delegated to him.

It is of course the right of every member of the Parliament, be they a minister or not, to oppose decisions that affect their constituents, and we do not disagree that, as a newly appointed minister, Mr Neil was within his rights to reconsider decisions that his predecessor had taken. However, the issue here is not about the rights and wrongs of closing medical facilities at Monklands, and nor is it about Mr Neil’s competence in his job. The issue at hand is a cabinet secretary who ordered his officials to do one thing in the morning and then decided consciously not to reveal that fact to Parliament in the afternoon.

I suggest that this is a sad instance of a minister deliberately allowing an untruth to gain credence in order to avoid difficult questions about his position. Mr Neil should have told Parliament that afternoon that he had just told NHS Lanarkshire to “reconfigure their plans”. That he did not do so was not just a dereliction of duty; it now looks suspiciously like a tacit admission that he knew that he was doing something underhand and wrong—it is as simple as that.

The fact is that the investigation that the First Minister carried out into the case failed utterly to address that point. The First Minister said that the health secretary acted “perfectly properly”. His defence of Mr Neil goes on to note that Mr Neil was concerned over a conflict of interest, but nowhere in the First Minister’s letter exonerating Mr Neil is the key point raised—that, by the time that Mr Neil raised his concerns about a conflict of interest, his wishes had already been made clear to NHS Lanarkshire. Nowhere is there acknowledgement of the fact that Mr Neil made the decision and then tried to wash his hands of it. Now, by refusing to sack his health secretary, the First Minister is putting politics above the Parliament.

The whole episode is symptomatic of the SNP’s disregard for the Parliament, particularly in the run-up to the independence referendum. It gives us in the Conservatives no pleasure to conclude that, in this instance, the cabinet secretary deliberately ensured that Parliament was misled. As he clearly did so, we can no longer have confidence in him in carrying out his duties, so we support the motion of no confidence.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Integrity applies to every member in this chamber, including our Opposition members. I feel that they have not passed that test this afternoon.

We are being asked to make a judgment on the appropriateness of Alex Neil staying as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. Let me tell the chamber about the Alex Neil I know as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing—[Interruption.]

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

He is the man who has worked in partnership with the Parliament’s Health and Sport Committee to develop a vastly improved system of access to new medicines in Scotland for end-of-life and orphan and ultra-orphan conditions. He values people and has meaningfully changed the lives of constituents right across Scotland.

Let me tell the chamber more about the Alex Neil I know. He has introduced a workforce planning tool that is leading to an increase in nursing numbers right across Scotland and which ensures that they are in the right place and the right job—[Interruption.] I hear heckling, but I have to say that the constituents whom I represent prefer a quality NHS to the bluff and bluster of the Labour benches.

Let me tell the chamber why I think that this is just bluff, bluster and political opportunism. On 24 January 2013, an article in the Evening Times reported:

“On September 26, Mr Neil asked officials to make his long-standing concerns about the proposed reconfiguration of mental health services across Lanarkshire known to the NHS board. His view was that acute mental health facilities would be best retained at Wishaw General and Monklands hospitals, and with a unit at Hairmyres.”

The exact same content that was in the email is now apparently a smoking gun. There is nothing new in any of this.

With this information available, I have to say that Alex Neil was perfectly fit for purpose 15 months ago. He was fit for purpose as a health secretary 10 months ago, and he was fit for purpose as a good-quality health secretary five months ago. The only thing that has happened in the past week is the Labour Party grandstanding for cheap party-political points.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, thanks. Let me tell the chamber something I know about health boards—[Interruption.]

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Just the other day, as deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee, I took part in a robust evidence session with health boards about their budgets. Health boards are not shrinking violets; they say what they think, and they make what they think clear. No decision was taken by Mr Neil. His position was well known; it was publicly known 15 months ago that he sought agreement with NHS Lanarkshire. However, if there was no agreement to be sought, the decision would have been taken by Michael Matheson, our Minister for Public Health. There was no conflict of interest.

I want to tell the chamber one final thing. Labour members might have a view of Government that it simply goes into robotic mode and rubberstamps things; they do not take the view that they can think for themselves. I expect—[Interruption.]

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Someone must have held up a sign saying, “Clap!” there. Labour members were certainly not thinking for themselves.

I expect a cabinet secretary for health to take a strategic view of mental health services across Lanarkshire, for the 500,000 patients in Lanarkshire. Alex Neil did so, and he made his views known. [Interruption.]

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As I said to Lewis Macdonald in a previous debate, the louder the Labour Party speaks, the more it realises that it is on shaky ground and that there is nothing true in what it says.

Because time is short, I will simply say that the people of Scotland value Alex Neil as health secretary. Week in, week out, he is improving Scotland’s national health service. However, the party opposite, in conjunction with its better together friends in the Conservative Party, would rather make patients across Scotland suffer for a cheap party-political stunt. Make no mistake—that is precisely what this motion of no confidence is.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Lanarkshire’s mental health plan was about far more than the two wards at Monklands, but they were Alex Neil’s main focus, even as cabinet secretary. The plan was years in the making and was for the whole of Lanarkshire. It was backed by service users, carers, clinicians, NHS managers, council partners, voluntary organisations and on several occasions by the health secretary at the time, Nicola Sturgeon, who saw the improvements that that robust plan would bring across the board, including to Monklands. They saw the bigger picture.

The plan would have funded a new intensive psychiatric care unit for NHS Lanarkshire, which was the only mainland board without one. It would also have supported the development of intensive home treatment and young people’s services, greatly expanded community mental health, and provided a safer and more sustainable medical rota. There was

“no alternative option”

that could

“deliver the same benefits”.

Those are not my words—that is what the chief executive of NHS Lanarkshire, Ian Ross, wrote in an email at 9.45 on 26 September 2012.

Alex Neil chose to ignore that advice and vetoed the plan, with no reason given. When he was asked a question that afternoon on mental health services at Monklands, he did not even tell Parliament that he had rejected it. He said that NHS Lanarkshire was reconsidering. It was not; it was reconfiguring its plans on Alex Neil’s instruction. We know that because, in an email that morning, Alex Neil told it to pick the worst of four options. It took us 18 months to extract that email from the Scottish Government. Now we know why it fought so hard to keep it a secret.

However, there is much more. The pretence and manipulation was not an isolated incident. We have an email that says that Alex Neil was signing off lines in October, and we have a letter that he wrote in November. More important, his diktat of 26 September was not rescinded. One email even stated that the strategy was ready to go

“but due to concerns raised by Alex Neil ... Derek Feeley asked Tim to defer taking it to the Board till after the local authority elections at which point it would be approved.”

We could have had the best plan before May 2012, but over a year later we got a poor substitute.

Since the original plan was kicked into touch by the cabinet secretary, I have heard that problems include a patchwork community service, staffing problems, difficulties with junior doctors’ training and unused capacity at Wishaw. What about the recurrent costs instead of money being freed up to address those issues? Most important, that worst option does not provide the service that the people of Lanarkshire have a right to expect.

We have strong evidence and we believe that Alex Neil has misled Parliament. He has also betrayed the public and health professionals with a scandalous political fix. He should resign, or else the First Minister, rather than trying to defend him, should sack him.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I want to take us into three areas of the debate.

The first is the question of transparency, on which I will spend some time, because I want to be able to establish to the chamber that what Richard Simpson disagreed with me about at First Minister question time was, in fact, erroneous on his part.

We can remove the question of transparency and then get to the issue of principle as to when a Government minister is able and is not able to intervene and take action on a matter that affects their constituency.

Thirdly, let us look at the rights and wrongs of the issue. Let us look at the patients in Lanarkshire.

Finally, let us also look at the competence of the health secretary.

The reason why I disagreed with Richard Simpson was because I can establish beyond any doubt that the whole detail of this area of decision making was in the public domain. I have here the press lines issued to the Sunday Herald on the weekend of 1 December 2012, which were reported in the Evening Times of 24 January 2013. I will have them put into the record so that every member in this chamber can see them. They go into great detail about what happened on the day of 26 September 2012:

“The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, is not currently looking at proposals from NHS Lanarkshire on the provision of Mental Health Services.

Previously, on 26 September, Alex Neil, as Cabinet Secretary for Health, had made his concerns about the proposed reconfiguration of mental health services across Lanarkshire known to the NHS board through Scottish Government officials.

With over 500,000”—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the First Minister take an intervention?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will read the quotation, and then of course I will give way to Johann Lamont.

“With over 500,000 people resident in NHS Lanarkshire’s area, Mr Neil addressed his concerns on the service change to the region as a whole. He was clear in his view that acute mental health facilities would be best retained at Wishaw General Hospital, Monklands Hospital, and with a unit at Hairmyres Hospital.

On the 26 September Mr Neil also answered an oral question ... where in the supplementary he was asked specifically about mental health services in Monklands Hospital. After answering the question Mr Neil was concerned that despite Monklands Hospital serving people across Lanarkshire, as it was located in his constituency, there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. To address this he arranged, that day, with the Director General of the Health portfolio, Derek Feeley, that all matters related to Monklands Hospital should be dealt with by the Minister for Public Health Michael Matheson.”

Before Johann Lamont intervenes, let me say that that totally disproves the Labour Party assertion that all of those details were not in the public domain. Just in case Johann Lamont did not happen to buy a copy of the Evening Times on 24 January, all of what I quoted is contained in the FOI response to John Pentland of 5 March 2013—all of it. Therefore, all of that information was available in the public domain, which puts a very severe question mark over Labour allegations of a lack of transparency and the fact that, in this week in particular, this issue is suddenly presented as if it was a contemporary issue.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Of course, we have been waiting for 18 months to get the freedom of information response that the First Minister’s Government has resisted giving. This is not about Alex Neil expressing a view. When the First Minister cleared his minister of any wrongdoing, was he aware of Alex Neil’s email of the morning of 26 September directing the Lanarkshire health board to reconfigure its plans?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Of course I was, and Johann Lamont—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont has just told us that the Labour Party waited for this information, but I repeat that the information was in the public domain and in the FOI response not of the past couple of weeks but of 5 March 2013—all of the information was contained in that. If John Pentland did not reveal to Johann Lamont the detail of that, perhaps she should address communications within the Labour Party as opposed to making spurious attacks on the health secretary.

I point out that the Scottish Information Commissioner himself conceded that the Scottish Government information and documents go

“a substantial way towards fulfilling the public interest in understanding issues relating to”

the ministerial code;

“it goes a long way in detailing the chain of events following Mr Neil’s appointment”.

The information commissioner obviously looked at the documents that were revealed, even if the Labour Party did not manage to do so.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Is the First Minister aware that, after the information that was given in February and March 2013, further information came from the commissioner identifying quite clearly that Mr Neil had instructed Lanarkshire health board to reconfigure the plans for mental health services in Lanarkshire?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will give the member the benefit of the doubt because his colleagues prevented him from hearing what I said. What I have just read out contains the paragraph:

“With over 500,000 people resident in NHS Lanarkshire’s area, Mr Neil addressed his concerns on the service change to the region as a whole. He was clear in his view that acute mental health facilities would be best retained at Wishaw General Hospital, Monklands Hospital, and with a unit at Hairmyres Hospital.”

You had the information; you just did not have the confidence to bring it to the chamber.

Given that John Lamont actually tried to address those questions of process, I hope that hearing that information now will have satisfied at least some of his reservations. I could also go through the other instances that make it quite clear that the information has been in the public domain for some time.

I will now address the issue of principle in terms of the ministerial code, because that is what I have to look at—not the issues of policy, which are hugely important to the people, but the issue in the ministerial code of when a constituency interest is valid.

It is not the case that a minister cannot take decisions that affect his constituents. I raise the point because I have here a transcript of words spoken by Neil Findlay on the radio this morning. He said:

“Any minister who is in the position where they have a constituency interest and are acting as a minister has to make that position known as early as possible and withdraw from it.”

That is not the case, Mr Findlay. I am First Minister of Scotland. If I withdrew from every decision that affected my constituents, I would not be making many decisions as First Minister of Scotland. For example, the Aberdeen western peripheral route is an issue that has a massive effect on my constituency. As an MSP and as a First Minister, I have campaigned in favour of that route. It is a huge public investment, and I rejoice in the fact that it is going forward. I cannot withdraw or resile from making a decision about it because it happens to go across my constituency. It affects people throughout the whole of the north-east of Scotland, just as the mental health facilities in Lanarkshire affect the people throughout the whole of Lanarkshire.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will gladly do so. I have been perhaps too generous with the Labour Party. That is one of my weaknesses, Presiding Officer.

The information was transparent and was in the public domain. Unfortunately, through a communications failure, Labour Party members did not manage to tell each other that they had the information. That is the best possible reflection that we can put on the situation.

It is not the case that ministers cannot make decisions that affect their constituents. Mr Neil went through the correct processes. When a specific question was raised about Monklands hospital, he asked the advice of his officials.

Finally, I repeat the point that was made by Michael Matheson. When was the last time that a minister was attacked and had a motion of no confidence moved against him because he had saved a hospital facility that is vital to the people of Lanarkshire? The provision of mental health services in Lanarkshire is excellent. We know the views of the patients, and we also know the views of the Labour Party, because the last thing that was in the mind of the Labour Party when bringing this issue to the chamber was the welfare of the people of Lanarkshire. Uppermost in the minds of Labour members was the proximity of the elections. It is not the confidence in Mr Neil but the confidence in the Scottish people that this Administration will invest in.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I rise to sum up this debate on the motion of no confidence in Alex Neil, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, with a measure of sadness, but also a measure of anger. Sadness, because I believe that, if the cabinet secretary had admitted his error in wrongly using his new position as cabinet secretary to instruct a health board, against its wishes, the wishes of its stakeholders, the wishes of the previous cabinet secretary and the wishes of the Minister for Public Health, but in the interests of his own opinion as a constituency MSP, and if he had apologised and withdrawn his instructions—I stress the word instructions—to NHS Lanarkshire, this motion would probably not be necessary.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was refused by every speaker I asked to give way. No one took an intervention from me, but I will take one from the First Minister.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I want to make this intervention because of the spirit in which Dr Simpson has started his remarks. He disagreed with me when I said at First Minister’s questions that this information was in the public domain. I have now read out that information, including the sentence in which the cabinet secretary said that he was clear in his view that it would be best if the service could be retained in the three hospitals. Now that Dr Simpson knows that that was in the public domain—he must know, and I have put it on record—will he withdraw that accusation and, therefore, go ahead on a reasonable basis?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. If that is the sort of intervention I am going to get, I do not think that I will take any more.

The First Minister and Bob Doris asked why the motion of no confidence has been lodged now, rather than at the time of the offence or when the initial emails were available. The reason is that it took us 15 months and a Scottish Information Commissioner decision against the Government to get information released. It was the additional information that led us to take this action.

What were the actions that the Government fought so long and so hard to conceal? First, Lanarkshire NHS Board undertook a robust, inclusive, exhaustive consultation. If the Government was not satisfied with the consultation, why did it approve the results? The decision was about modernising mental health services. The board scored four options for change, and the best-scoring and highest-ranked option, which was supported by the patient groups, the clinicians and management, was approved by Nicola Sturgeon, when she was cabinet secretary.

The announcement from the board should have occurred at the August board meeting, but it was delayed until September, to enable Alex Neil, the local MSP, to return from holiday and comment on it, and so that a number of additional new services that would come to Monklands could be announced at the same time as the closure of the substandard, asbestos-ridden wards was announced.

That was not to be, because on 5 September Mr Neil was appointed cabinet secretary. He did not immediately recuse himself from the issue, which necessarily involved his constituency directly. That in itself is not an offence. Alex Neil was perfectly entitled, as the new cabinet secretary, to call anything in for review. However, at 9.43 am on 26 September, an email was sent to Lanarkshire NHS Board, which was keen to confirm the previously agreed decision on the mental health service. The email said:

“Mr Neil has seen and noted both and is clear in his view that the acute mental health facilities should be retained in both Wishaw and Monklands (with a unit also at Hairmyres to serve south Lanarkshire). The cabinet secretary has asked that you seek agreement from NHS Lanarkshire to reconfigure their plans accordingly”.

That was not a request for a review or a consultation. It was not a calling-in. It was an instruction from the cabinet secretary to keep the units open. Moreover, that instruction raised the fourth and worst option. That was a disservice to the people of Lanarkshire as a whole.

We believe that the cabinet secretary misled Parliament in his response to a parliamentary question from Richard Lyle, given on the same afternoon, because having issued that instruction in the morning, he said:

“I believe that”

the board

“is revising its original proposal”.—[Official Report, 26 September 2012; c 11895.]

What did he mean by saying, “I believe”? He knew, because he had instructed the board to do so that morning.

The cabinet secretary then recused himself, appropriately—but not when he should have done. However, he had already copied Michael Matheson into his instructions. A deputy minister tends to follow his boss’s suggestions; when there is an instruction, the deputy minister certainly follows it.

If Alex Neil had apologised for issuing the instruction privately in the morning and for saying something that we believe misled Parliament in the afternoon, and if he had withdrawn his instruction, I am fairly certain that the Parliament would have been generous. However, even after recusing himself, the cabinet secretary continued to be copied into emails on the issue and to write to the local member of Parliament, Pamela Nash, on the issue. Indeed, in an email from a civil servant, he was referred to as having to sign off on the issue. Therefore, there was continued involvement of the cabinet secretary, even after he had recused himself.

I said that I was both sad and angry, and I have explained why I am sad. I share the anger of the stakeholders, who were appalled at the outcome of the cavalier decision that the cabinet secretary dictated. I quote from comments that Lanarkshire Links received from some of the 800 members of the organisation who were involved in the consultation.

“That we are not important and it doesn’t matter what we say we are not listened to”.

“Very Angry”.

“I feel my time and effort is as valuable as Mr. Neil’s. We have put a lot of input into this consultation only to be let down again.”

“Angry and hurt”.

“After 2 years of consultation and hard work, it has all been turned around and back to square one, so it has been all this work for nothing. Why should you change things that people have already decided on”?

This is not about the cabinet secretary’s performance, as Bob Doris would have people believe that we are suggesting. We have actually worked well with the cabinet secretary since his appointment. This is about a bad decision that was badly made in what was a clear failure to separate personal interest as a constituency MSP from his role as a minister. It was, I regret to say, an abuse of power that was compounded by his misinforming the Parliament, his continued involvement and his then preventing the release of the emails—it required the information commissioner to release them. The cabinet secretary must, therefore, see that his position is untenable. He should do the decent thing now and resign.

MSPs, irrespective of their party, have a duty and responsibility to uphold the integrity of the Parliament. I hope that, when it comes to the vote at 5.45 tonight, members will reflect on that.

Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10090, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. I will allow a few moments for people to change their seats.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I call Kenny MacAskill to speak to and move the motion in the name of Roseanna Cunningham. Cabinet secretary, you have a maximum of 10 minutes but less would be better, if that is possible.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. I record my thanks to the Justice Committee for its consideration of the bill and my thanks to the many stakeholders who have contributed to the process.

It was back in 2007 when my predecessor, Cathy Jamieson, asked Lord Gill to undertake a review of civil justice. Lord Gill and his review team undertook an extremely comprehensive and thorough review over a period of two years, receiving more than 200 consultation responses. The review reported in 2009, making more than 200 recommendations to improve what it described as the “slow, inefficient and expensive” Scottish civil justice system. The bill takes on the majority of Lord Gill’s recommendations and will put in place reforms that he recently described as being “50 years overdue”.

The main principles of the bill are that the right cases should be heard in the right courts, that unnecessary delays and disproportionate costs to users should be minimised and that the efficiency of the courts should be increased. I am pleased that the committee welcomed the general principles of the bill and broadly agrees with many of the proposals, including those on the creation of summary sheriffs, simple procedure and increased specialisation, and that the exclusive competence of the sheriff court should be increased significantly in order to deliver the reforms.

The vision is that personal injury cases, for example, will be dealt with in a new national specialist personal injury court by specialist sheriffs, with procedures that facilitate swift and appropriate settlement at a more proportionate cost to litigants. Personal injury litigants will continue to be able to raise their claims in their local sheriff court if that meets their needs. There will also be a renewed focus on specialists at the shrieval level, and the Lord President will be able to designate areas such as family law, commercial law and personal injury cases as specialisms.

I turn to the exclusive competence of the sheriff court, in relation to which there have been calls for a lower threshold than £150,000. We will consider all views, although we believe that £150,000, which was the figure set by Lord Gill in his review, is the appropriate level. That is why we consulted on that figure and included it in the bill.

It is important to ensure that any new level that is set for cases raised in the sheriff court reflects the fact that, at present, too many low-value cases are being raised unnecessarily in the Court of Session. That results in increased costs for all parties involved and deters other types of litigation from being raised there. It is also important to ensure that the exclusive competence level allows a suitable amount of business to transfer to the new specialist personal injury court. On the attempts to lower the exclusive competence, the lower the level, the less chance we have of delivering more proportionate costs to litigants.

Lord Gill’s review chose the figure of £150,000 on the basis that, on average, the sum sued for at the beginning of a case is three times higher than the settlement figure at the end of a case. Those who advocate a lower limit of £20,000 to £50,000 base those figures on the sum settled, but that would be unworkable as the sum settled is not known at the beginning of a case, when a decision needs to be taken on which court it is to be raised in. Sheriff Principal Taylor stated to the Justice Committee that a limit of £50,000 would mean that cases of a value of around £17,000, on average, would continue to be heard in the Court of Session.

There are those who say that we will see a deluge of cases descending on sheriff courts, but that will simply not be the case. The personal injury court will be up and running to coincide with the increase in exclusive competence. Lord Gill told the Justice Committee:

“I am absolutely certain that the capacity exists in the sheriff courts to absorb all of the business, even with the closure of the outlying courts.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 April 2014; c 4541.]

Figures provided by the Scottish Court Service suggest that approximately 2,700 cases will transfer from the Court of Session. We should compare those figures with the caseload of 72,510 civil cases in the sheriff court in 2012-13, which is a decrease of around 10 per cent since 2011-12 and a decrease of 43 per cent—or more than 50,000 cases—since 2008-09. Despite that fall in cases in the sheriff court, the Court of Session caseload has remained relatively stable, with personal injury cases making up almost 80 per cent of all cases in the general department.

The vast majority of personal injury cases settle before they come to a court hearing. On personal injury cases, Lord Gill said:

“only a tiny fraction of the cases that are in the Court of Session ever get to proof. They are settled and dealt with administratively, and that is it ... If that is the situation, they can be dealt with equally well administratively in the sheriff court at much lower cost and where the infrastructure is also in place.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 April 2014; c 4536.]

We have heard some concerns that litigants would no longer be guaranteed automatic sanction for counsel in cases that are to be raised in the new personal injury court. Under the bill, complex cases can be remitted to the Court of Session, where sanction for counsel is automatic. In my experience, asbestos cases are often very complex, so we would expect those cases to be remitted to the Court of Session. However, as Sheriff Principal Taylor said to the committee, even if those cases were not remitted to the Court of Session, they would almost certainly merit sanction for counsel.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The cabinet secretary mentioned asbestos cases. Over the years, he and others in the Parliament have done a lot of work for asbestos victims and their families. What extra measures will he take to ensure that their interests are not diminished in the face of the power of the insurance industry and the money that it will spend to defend cases?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

That is a fair point. It is important to put on record that the whole purpose of Lord Gill’s review is to ensure that we get access to justice because the system is “slow, inefficient and expensive”. I have narrated that, but it also important to mention Sheriff Principal Taylor’s additional point, because it is not simply about complex cases, such as asbestos cases, going to the Court of Session. Sheriff Principal Taylor made it quite clear—and we will respond to this point in due course—that sanction for counsel applies on the basis of not just the length of a case or its complexity, but equality of arms.

If an insurance company or another party to the action turns up with Queen’s counsel or an advocate, parity will be important—indeed, in fairness, equality of arms indicates that there should be parity. That means, I think, that Sheriff Principal Taylor is looking at an extension—not simply the length and complexity of a case but equality of arms. I hope that those points reassure Mr McNeil, who makes a valuable point that is echoed by Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which, as everyone in the chamber knows, does an outstanding job.

I expect to announce the Scottish Government’s response to Sheriff Principal Taylor’s review before stage 2 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. I have commented on this already, but the review recommends that the sheriff should be able to ensure that no party gains an undue advantage by virtue of the resources that are available to them. Sheriff Principal Taylor also told the Justice Committee that it is very rare for sanction for counsel to be refused in the sheriff court.

In addition, we have agreed to lodge amendments to the bill to ensure that the test for remitting cases from the sheriff court to the Court of Session—where sanction for counsel is automatic—is not too strict.

In relation to workplace injuries, under section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013—a reserved piece of legislation—the strict liability of employers for workplace accidents is removed. The Scottish Trades Union Congress argues that that will make it harder to bring workplace injury cases. I have had discussions with the STUC and we are considering what, if anything, we can do to mitigate the effects of that change, which has been brought about by the Government in Westminster.

We have taken stakeholders’ views and we are actively considering the Justice Committee’s report. I am happy to continue engaging in discussions with Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the STUC and others and to reflect on views as the bill progresses. However, we cannot undermine the fundamental principle of the bill, which is to deliver efficient and affordable civil justice, as Lord Gill intended.

Lord Gill has stated that the system is ready; that litigants will benefit from the reforms; and that the reforms are long overdue. The bill will ensure that our civil justice system becomes more accessible, affordable and efficient.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee on this significant and complex bill, which, thankfully, has been without huge controversy.

As the cabinet secretary said, the bill broadly implements recommendations from Lord Gill’s Scottish civil courts review. I thank those who provided written and oral evidence to the committee on the bill. We received 71 written responses and six supplementary submissions, and heard evidence over five meetings. I also thank the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their reports, and finally I thank team Justice Committee, because of all that we have been through together. To be frank, with the prospect of stage 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and the bill that we are discussing today, we would have been on our knees. We even got out yesterday—for a change—to visit the High Court and the Court of Session, which made tangible some of the proposals in the bill. It was a very interesting day, but I do not think that we will have many more visits.

The committee welcomes the general principles of the bill. From the evidence that we heard, there is no doubt that court reform is long overdue. However, in certain areas we remain to be convinced that some of the measures will achieve what they set out to achieve. That is us doing our job, in my book. I will highlight—if I have time—four key areas of the bill about which the committee has specific comments to make.

The first area is the privative jurisdiction of the sheriff court. The bill proposes to increase the sheriff court monetary threshold from £5,000 to £150,000, following the Gill review. Much of the evidence that we heard supported the principle of raising the threshold, but many witnesses said that £150,000 is a bit too high. The committee noted that the courts in Northern Ireland hear cases with values of up to £30,000, while in England and Wales cases cannot be raised in the High Court unless they have a value of £25,000 or more. In evidence, some witnesses argued for a staged increase, with figures of £30,000 and £50,000 being suggested. However, Lord Gill made clear to the committee his view that £150,000 is an appropriate limit.

The committee supports the proposal to increase the privative jurisdiction of the sheriff court but considers that the leap to £150,000 may be too great. We do not support staged increases, but we have recommended that the Scottish Government considers introducing a lower limit.

We also heard evidence on the impact of a higher monetary threshold on access to counsel. The Faculty of Advocates expressed concern—we would expect that—about the impact that that would have on the bar. Some junior members of the faculty highlighted that the work that would be transferred out of the Court of Session would be work that has traditionally been undertaken by junior members of the bar. The concern was that they might then decide to look for other work, thereby draining the profession of talent—they were speaking up for their profession, quite rightly.

Sheriff Principal Taylor recommended that the existing test for sanction, which the cabinet secretary referred to, should be expanded to include a general test of reasonableness and the need to have regard to the resources deployed by the other party to the case, which is the issue that Duncan McNeil raised and which is known as the equality of arms factor. The committee thought that the recommendation made sense, so we recommended that the Government should lodge an amendment at stage 2 to introduce that new test.

We certainly agree with the remit of cases between courts. There was general support for the proposal in the bill to ensure that cases are heard at the appropriate level.

The bill introduces a new test—that of exceptional circumstances—for allowing the Court of Session to take into account its business and operational needs before a case is remitted. We heard concerns from witnesses about that. For example, the Faculty of Advocates suggested that the test was “far too restrictive”, and the Forum of Insurance Lawyers argued that

“discriminating between cases on the grounds of ‘operational needs’ may not achieve the stated aim of justice”

as that could lead

“to lack of consistency in the way in which similar cases are dealt with.”

Significantly, Lord Gill raised concerns about the appropriateness of a court refusing a remitted case because of

“business and other operational needs”.

He suggested that that test might breach the European convention on human rights. The minister subsequently advised that she had reflected on those concerns and would consider the level of the test, with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 2. We welcome that.

In general, the committee considered that a test for the remitting of cases is a necessary safeguard to ensure that the most complex and serious of cases can be heard in the most appropriate court with the most appropriate level of legal representation.

To reduce the pressure on sheriff courts, the Gill review recommended the creation of a specialist personal injury court that would be based at Edinburgh sheriff court. The review

“expected that personal injury claimants would still have the right to sue in any sheriff court with jurisdiction.”

The bill makes provision for Scottish ministers to give effect to that recommendation through secondary legislation. It allows for

“the establishment of a specialist personal injury court in Edinburgh and/or other locations, and for other types of specialist court to be created”,

such as a commercial court. The policy memorandum envisages that two specialist sheriffs would be required to staff the new court, and in evidence there was widespread support for the creation of a personal injury court. However, concerns were raised about the capacity of the new court by the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, among others.

Having noted the concerns of witnesses, we recommended that the court be established before the new level of privative jurisdiction is introduced so that it is fully equipped with electronic and administrative systems to ensure that it can work effectively from day 1.

I move quickly on to appeals, on which the committee made an important point. The bill provides for a nationwide sheriff appeal court to sit as a bench of one. It also allows appeals to be heard either by sheriffs principal or by sheriffs of five years’ standing, who would sit as appeal sheriffs. Their judgments would be binding across Scotland.

Those provisions differ slightly from those in the Gill review, which considered that the sheriff appeal court should sit as a bench of three, with at least one being a sheriff principal. In evidence, Lord Gill accepted that the Scottish Government had reached a different view. When pressed, he confirmed that his personal view would be to have at least one sheriff principal sitting, even when the court considered procedural matters. The committee welcomed the establishment of the sheriff appeal court, with decisions that would be binding on sheriffs and justices of the peace across Scotland. However, we considered that all appeals should be heard by sheriffs principal rather than sheriffs.

Yesterday, when the committee had the opportunity to get a breath of fresh air by going to visit the Court of Session and the High Court, we visited the Judicial Institute for Scotland’s learning suite, where judges go through continual training. We found the visit useful in considering whether we will have specialist sheriffs in future. Incredible as it might be for members to believe, I found that I have lost touch—in courts nowadays, a great deal is made of electronic devices, with screens showing appeals coming in from elsewhere. All that will ease pressure on the courts, which brings my point within the context of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill—I had to get our wee visit in. The committee supports the general principles of the bill.