Scottish Parliament, 4 March 2015

270 contributions from 50 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S4M-12525, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to the business programme for today. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 4 March 2015—

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.15 pm Decision Time—[Joe FitzPatrick].

Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item is consideration of motion S4M-12523, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a suspension of standing orders. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015 [draft], in Rule 10.6.5 of the Standing Orders, the second and third sentences are suspended.—[Joe FitzPatrick].

Motion agreed to.

South Glasgow Hospitals (Parking and Public Transport)

Annabel Goldie (West Scotland) (Con)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the petition signed by over 7,000 staff, patients and members of the public demanding adequate parking and public transport at the new south Glasgow hospitals. (S4O-04062)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

There will be 2,500 spaces available when the hospital opens, and a third multistorey car park, which is due for completion in 2016, will provide a further 1,000 spaces. In addition, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has applied for planning permission for a further 600 temporary spaces until the third multistorey opens next year. A range of travel options is being promoted, including car share, park and ride and public transport. The new hospitals will be accessible by bus, with 50 buses already serving the site on an hourly basis, and the site is five minutes by bus from the Govan subway station. The Scottish Government is also investing up to £40 million in the new fastlink scheme, which will offer direct transport from three main sites in the city centre—Buchanan bus station, Queen Street station and Central station—to the south Glasgow university hospitals campus.

Annabel Goldie

The new facility is iconic and is a beacon for Scotland in the delivery of healthcare, but serious concerns have emerged about the inadequacy of both public transport and car parking provision. Much of what the cabinet secretary refers to is still to happen, yet by June there are expected to be 10,000 staff on the site and unquantifiable numbers of visitors. Frankly, all that the Scottish Government has offered us is rosy procrastination. Why has it allowed the crisis to develop and what is it doing about it now?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with Annabel Goldie that the new hospital will be iconic and a beacon, and one of the biggest hospital sites in Europe. A lot of work has gone on between NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Glasgow City Council. The application for the 600 temporary spaces is with the city council, and we hope that the council will expedite the application so that that parking can be put in place. There is an issue with residents parking, because the residents parking scheme that the council is consulting on does not start until October, so we have asked that thought is given urgently to what happens between April and October and whether some kind of temporary residents parking scheme can be put in place. Annabel Goldie is quite right to raise the issue, and I understand the feelings of staff. We have been urging NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to enhance its communication with staff about the options, but we need to ensure that those temporary car parking spaces are put in place urgently, and I urge the council to get on and do that.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

A number of members wish to ask supplementary questions. If they are kept brief, I might be able to call everyone.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

The minister gave an impressive list of parking facilities and transport links. Does she believe that, once they are all delivered, that will solve the problem?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I declare an interest in that my wife is a nurse who will transfer to the Southern general in the next few months.

I recently met Niall McGrogan, the head of transport for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and raised with him the specific issue that nurses on shift work, who cannot car pool or car share, will lose out and be disadvantaged in the permit system. I suggest that the cabinet secretary might also wish to make such representations to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

On permit parking for locals, the cabinet secretary must be aware that Glasgow City Council was given £750,000 to introduce parking regulations. I hope that it will not charge residents £50 to park outside their own homes.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government arranged a meeting on 2 March that included representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde partnership for transport, and health and transport officials. All parties are fully supportive of the new south Glasgow hospitals project and working together to ensure that suitable travel arrangements are in place.

I have some sympathy for what Bob Doris said about residents parking. There is a need for clarity on that. I know that there is concern and that residents were at a well-attended public meeting. Reassurance must be given that something will be put in place, even as a temporary measure, before the residents parking scheme is implemented from October.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

The chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde recently asserted that all staff live within one hour’s journey of the Southern general hospital. Many of my constituents would need to take at least two buses, if not one other mode of transport, before they even got to the fastlink service. If the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is so out of touch with where his staff live and how they will travel to the new hospital, does the cabinet secretary have confidence that the plans that have been put in place will serve all members of staff and the patients who will require to use the new hospital?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We have made it clear to the chief executive and the chair that they must ensure good communication with staff on all the options. It is not just public transport; there are car-sharing options, park-and-ride options and, of course, the private car parking provision that is being made. However, I will certainly reiterate to the chief executive the point that Patricia Ferguson made, because it is important that there is adequate communication with staff on their travel options. We will make sure that that happens.

A huge amount of work has been put into the planning of transport for the new hospital, and Ken Macintosh will be aware that the focus has been on having enough private car parking spaces but also on encouraging people to use public transport options. Of course, that is a balancing act. A huge amount of planning has gone in and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Glasgow City Council are confident that what they have put in place will suffice. However, we need to ensure that the temporary spaces are in place, because they will be important before the new multistorey car park opens next year.

There is also still work to be done on the residents car parking because, human nature being what it is, if people start to park in a particular location and there are no parking restrictions in place, it can become custom and practice. Therefore, we have to make sure that the council puts something in place until the residents parking scheme starts in October.

Health Service Delivery (West of Scotland)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for health service delivery in the west of Scotland. (S4O-04063)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I expect all health boards in Scotland to plan and provide healthcare services of the highest quality, consistent with national policy, frameworks and guidelines, for the benefit of their local communities.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

There has been some discussion recently about the fabric of some of the health facilities in the Inverclyde local authority area. What capital investment projects in Inverclyde has the Scottish Government invested in over the past 12 months and what does it plan to do over the next three years?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The business case for the adult and older people’s continuing care mental health accommodation project has been in development over recent months. The £6.5 million project is due to begin construction this year and is due for completion in 2016. It will reprovide national health service continuing care beds that are currently at Ravenscraig hospital. It will deliver 30 older people’s and 12 adult continuing care beds in a purpose-built new facility. The new building will allow local flexibility and provide a platform for integrated service delivery as well as being fit for purpose in terms of patient care and experience. The project will meet the current and future needs of Inverclyde residents with significant mental health needs who have previously been in NHS continuing care wards.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that acute services are delivered south of the river at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley for residents of Dumbarton, the Vale of Leven and Helensburgh. Anyone who has any understanding of the geography knows that that is quite a challenge. The local ambition is for services, including accident and emergency, to be delivered north of the river using the Golden Jubilee hospital and the Vale of Leven hospital. Does she agree that, with the advent of the new south Glasgow hospitals, we need to think about patient flow across the whole of Greater Glasgow and Clyde? Will she meet a delegation from my area to discuss how we can begin to optimise health services in the area?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am aware that there have been previous discussions about patient flow. Patient flow is important and we have to recognise that it occurs beyond health board boundaries, which are sometimes there for historical reasons. We have to recognise that fact more. I am happy to meet Jackie Baillie and the delegation to discuss the matter further, and I will get that meeting organised as quickly as possible.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the deteriorating accident and emergency waiting times for NHS Ayrshire and Arran hospitals that were announced yesterday. One in five of my constituents now has to wait longer than four hours. How is NHS Ayrshire and Arran, with the cabinet secretary’s help, going to address that deteriorating situation?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The west of Scotland boards face a challenge around A and E performance. John Scott may have heard me say yesterday that there are very clear requirements in place. Part of the reason for the pressure on the system in the west of Scotland is the acute level of illness and the sheer number of people who have been turning up, with unprecedented levels of admission in west of Scotland hospitals.

However, those hospitals are required to have the resilience to be able to cope with surges in demand. All the boards, including NHS Ayrshire and Arran, now have an action plan that sets out the improvements that are required—not only at the front door of the hospital but at the back door—to ensure that issues such as delayed discharge are dealt with, that patient flow is enhanced, that there is better use of discharge lounges and that all the best-practice things that we would expect are in place, to ensure that patients are seen within four hours. I will keep John Scott updated about progress on that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary. My apologies to other members who wanted to ask supplementaries, but I need to make some progress, so we will move to question 3.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Referrals)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how many referrals of children and adolescents with mental health issues to specialist child and adolescent mental health services have been rejected by those services in the last quarter. (S4O-04064)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

From October to December 2014, 7,640 referrals were made to CAMHS, of which 1,425 were rejected. When a referral does not meet the criteria for CAMHS, we expect the child or young person to be signposted to the appropriate service. Further details can be found in the CAMHS waiting times publication of 24 February, which was published by ISD Scotland and covers October to December 2014.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Does the minister believe that it was appropriate for CAMHS to reject 1,400—or almost 20 per cent—of all referrals in the last quarter, which mainly came from hard-pressed general practitioners? Does he know the outcome for the children and young people who were rejected? If not, will he make a commitment to Scotland’s young people that he will commission urgent research to reassure them, their families and the Parliament that the outcomes were good and that the huge variation in the numbers of rejected referrals between health boards was for genuine and appropriate clinical reasons?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Patricia Ferguson will appreciate that I cannot second-guess the clinical judgment of the experts who are working in the field, but I observe that there could be a number of reasons for CAMHS to reject a referral, such as the referral not meeting their criteria. I also observe that the number of rejections mirrors the increase in the number of referrals and the number of children and young people who are being seen by CAMHS. It is important to place the figures in that context.

There has been a significant increase in referrals—from 4,734 in June 2012 to 7,640 in December 2014. That context is important. I reiterate that, when a referral does not meet the criteria, we expect children and young people to be signposted to the correct service.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

How can the Scottish Government ensure that early intervention and prevention work in mental health is not lost as resources become more focused on children who require substantial or urgent mental health support?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

We support a holistic approach, and it is important that we have a range of measures in place. CAMHS plays an important role, but I stress again that, when CAMHS provision is not appropriate, children and young people who have been referred there should be signposted to alternative means of support.

NHS Shetland (Funding Allocation)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the 2015-16 funding for NHS Shetland is 2 per cent below the 2015-16 NHS Scotland resource allocation committee target allocation. (S4O-04065)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Each year, ISD Scotland reviews the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee target share allocations for territorial health boards, and on 24 February it published its revision for 2015-16. For 2015-16, NHS Shetland will receive a total resource budget uplift of 3.1 per cent, which is an increase that is substantially above inflation, following an increase of 2.4 per cent in 2014-15.

I am sure that Tavish Scott will welcome that resource. It should be noted that our practice this year is no different from that in previous years. Because the shares are published in February, we have in previous years used the publication to inform the shares for the next financial year. As part of the budget-setting process for 2016-17, we will maintain our commitment to ensuring that no board is further than 1 per cent from NRAC parity. As part of that process, we will provide additional parity funding to any board that falls further behind that 1 per cent from parity.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does that mean that, in 2015-16, the cabinet secretary will find ways to improve NHS Shetland’s financial position? It appears from the figures that she has produced that the board is 2.1 per cent, rather than 1 per cent, away from NRAC parity. As she knows, that means that the funding that is coming to NHS Shetland is £900,000 less than should otherwise be the case. Will she recognise that, given the staff vacancies in a number of key areas, those additional resources would be very welcome?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I have said, the resource that NHS Shetland is getting has increased by 5.9 per cent in real terms. Tavish Scott will be aware that that record level of investment in NHS Shetland has helped to increase its staffing level by more than 20 per cent under this Government, to a record high.

I make it clear that, through the funding that was announced, all boards were brought within 1 per cent of parity. I am saying to Tavish Scott that, for 2016-17, the additional resource through the budget will maintain the position of all boards at within 1 per cent of parity. I am sure that he will welcome that.

Disability Sport (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports participation in sport by disabled people in the Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley constituency. (S4O-04066)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Government is clear that everyone should be able to participate in and enjoy sport, whoever they are and whatever their background. That is why, through sportscotland, we are investing £642,000 in this financial year in Scottish Disability Sport to improve pathways into sport for our athletes with a disability and to increase participation.

Through Scottish Disability Sport’s local branch, Ayrshire Sportsability, the area benefits from a growing number of grass-roots programmes that allow young people to take part in mainstream sport and develop local participation opportunities.

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

The minister is familiar with some of the fine work that is going on in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley to encourage people with a disability to take up sport. In addition to disabled badminton and cycling clubs, we have the Clan, members of which the minister met recently in Parliament. The Clan is a local rugby team that encourages people with disabilities to train and play alongside non-disabled players. Will the minister join me in congratulating those groups and perhaps, when diaries permit, come and see for himself the wonderful impact that such participation is having on disabled people in my community?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I agree and join Willie Coffey in acknowledging the range of programmes that are being delivered in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. I would be delighted to visit and see the provision at first hand.

I am encouraged in particular by the work that is being delivered by the Clan, which Mr Coffey mentioned. The Clan attended the Scottish Rugby Union’s recent parliamentary reception, and I was greatly impressed by the presentation that we received on the Clan’s work. It is a great concept that promotes equality, diversity and social inclusion through participation in the game, and the team is very much to be commended for its efforts.

Waiting Times (NHS Grampian)

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take in light of NHS Grampian missing the target of treating 90 per cent of patients within 18 weeks. (S4O-04067)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

NHS Grampian is receiving additional funding of £49.1 million in 2015-16, which includes £29 million of NHS Scotland resource allocation committee parity funding. That uplift of 6.3 per cent is the largest uplift for any mainland territorial board and is 4.9 per cent above inflation. In addition, the board will receive £2.8 million to tackle delayed discharge in 2015-16.

The board is utilising funding from the budget by investing £5 million of the budget uplift in delivering the waiting time guarantee and standards during 2015-16. The Scottish Government is supporting the board to improve its demand, queueing and capacity-planning process. That will help the board to put in place the necessary capacity to deliver all waiting time standards and guarantees for the people of Grampian in the future.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am extremely interested that the cabinet secretary chose to answer that question by dealing first with the funding issue. Is that a clear statement by her that she believes that the problems in NHS Grampian are a result of serious chronic underfunding? Why did it take her Government eight years in office to realise that it was not adequately funding healthcare in the north-east?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Performance issues are not just about funding; they are also about the way in which services are organised and delivered. I am impressed with the new leadership team at NHS Grampian. The chair and the chief executive are focused on the task in hand, which is already beginning to deliver impressive and sustained improvement. I hope that the member will welcome that.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Now that NHS Grampian has had its comprehensive review, and in light of the deteriorating accident and emergency waiting times in other areas, does the cabinet secretary still not concede that the Royal College of Nursing and others who have called for a whole-system review should be heeded? That would include looking at all unplanned and emergency care, including demand issues, NHS 24, general practitioner out-of-hours services, minor and major accident and emergency and the planned trauma centres, as well as acute assessment and clinical decision units. That should be done through a comprehensive mechanism, rather than through the piecemeal or what I have called whack-a-mole approach that the cabinet secretary is adopting.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It is a pity that, in all that, Richard Simpson did not see the need to thank the staff of NHS Forth Valley, who have delivered a figure of 96.2 per cent of A and E patients being seen within four hours. This would have been a good opportunity for him to thank the staff in the area that he represents for that impressive performance.

On the wider issues that the member mentions, I am clear that there are issues that the service needs to look at. They are not just at the hospital front door, although that is why, through a collaborative approach, we have six essential actions to improve how the front door operates. There are also issues to do with tackling delayed discharge, which is why I have put £100 million into the system, why we have integrated health and social care and why we are looking at out-of-hours services to ensure that they are sustainable. Richard Simpson would do well to welcome some of those initiatives, because they will improve the care of our patients.

Perinatal Mental Health Services

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the provision of perinatal mental health services. (S4O-04068)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

NHS Scotland keeps under review the range of community and specialist services that it delivers to meet the needs of women experiencing perinatal mental illness. The aim is to identify quickly those at risk and ensure access to appropriate and timely care, treatment and support.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I welcome the fact that there is a specialist perinatal community team in NHS Lothian, but is it not the case that in many parts of Scotland there is no specialist service available and women are telling us that, in many cases, they receive very little help when facing this serious mental health problem? Does the minister agree that the problem is a serious one with profound consequences for a large number of women and children in Scotland, and does he accept that there is a postcode lottery of care with perinatal mental health services?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The 2012 Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network national clinical guideline for health professionals on perinatal mood disorders provides recommendations that are based on current evidence of best practice in the management of antenatal and postnatal mood and anxiety disorders. The guideline covers prediction, detection and prevention as well as the management of primary and secondary care. The Government has published guidance on the organisation and accommodation of services for mothers who are suffering from a perinatal mental illness, and we certainly expect NHS boards to take account of that and other available guidance in the delivery of their local services.

Glasgow Centre for Integrative Care

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the future of the Glasgow centre for integrative care and its funding arrangements. (S4O-04069)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The centre for integrative care will continue to provide services to meet the needs of patients from across Scotland. Funding will continue to be provided by NHS boards that refer patients to the centre.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I highlight constituents’ concerns regarding the withdrawal of homoeopathic services in Lanarkshire and Lothian. NHS Lanarkshire will stop referring new patients at the end of the month and the current patients will be the last. Will the minister clarify whether the Scottish health council was involved in monitoring the consultation?

As the CIC offers a wide range of services, including prescribing of homoeopathic medicines and yoga, mindfulness and self-management programmes, which can be hugely beneficial to people with mental health and stress issues, is the Scottish Government in any way considering a more centralised form of funding for the centre?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

As I said, the Scottish Government, NHS boards, patients and the public already recognise the CIC as a national resource. Claudia Beamish is quite right to highlight that the CIC provides not only homoeopathy but a wide range of other services.

We are quite content that the boards that have stopped referring for homoeopathy have undertaken public consultations and carried out reviews in the proper manner. As I said, there are no plans to close the CIC, which we see as having a role for patients across Scotland.

Shingles Vaccine (70 to 79-year-olds)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what the uptake of the shingles vaccine has been by 70 to 79-year-olds since September 2013. (S4O-04070)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The shingles—herpes zoster—programme was introduced in 2013 and is being offered to those aged 70 to 79 in a phased programme over the next few years, comprising both a routine and a catch-up element each year.

In the first year of the programme, which ran from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2014, the vaccine was offered to those aged 70, routinely, and those aged 79, by catch up. Uptake rates were 59.7 per cent for 70-year-olds and 55.6 per cent for 79-year-olds. In 2014-15 the vaccine was offered to those aged 70, routinely, and those aged 78 and 79, through catch up. Uptake rates are not yet available, but provisional data suggests that up to January 2015, uptake was higher than at same time last year and still likely to rise.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I am grateful to the minister for that answer and the encouraging statistics. How can she encourage further uptake?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Those eligible for a vaccine receive a letter from a general practitioner practice, inviting them to attend for immunisation. GPs can, if they wish, offer the shingles vaccine at the same time as the seasonal flu vaccine, and a poster and leaflet are available to promote the programme and help uptake rates. As I said in my previous answer, uptake rates are rising and we are confident that the upward trend will continue.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Given that there are some 7,000 people in Scotland aged 70 and above who are affected with shingles, does the minister agree that the vaccine should be made available at the earliest opportunity for all people in the 70 to 79 age bracket? I understand that the vaccine is less effective after then.

The minister has told us a bit about the roll-out of the vaccine, with the catch-up element starting at age 79 and working downwards until it meets the routine element, which is moving upwards. How long will that take, and can it be speeded up?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I am not able to do the maths right away, but, through the routine element moving up the way and the catch-up element moving down the way, everybody in that age cohort should be covered within the next few years.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Mental Health Officers)

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to increase the training, recruitment and retention of mental health officers across child and adolescent mental health services. (S4O-04071)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Local authorities have a legal duty to appoint a sufficient number of mental health officers to discharge functions under the relevant legislation. They must decide on the number of mental health officers appointed in their area, taking into account local needs and circumstances. The Scottish Social Services Council’s latest report on mental health officers indicates a 39 per cent increase in admissions to mental health officer award programmes in 2013-14.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

In 2012, the Scottish Government removed the bursary given to each trainee in educational psychology, which resulted in a 70 per cent drop in applications for such courses. The Scottish children’s services coalition noted that that drop, coupled with the retirement of a quarter of educational psychologists in the next four years and the doubling of the number of children identified as having support needs, will leave “a major gap” in the profession. How does the Government plan to address the deficit in educational psychologists at a time when the need for them is increasing, and how will it fulfil its promises to address child and adolescent mental health services?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I think that I first might have to write to Mr Hume to draw the distinction between mental health officers and educational psychologists.

We expect to work very closely with educational institutions to make sure that we always have a steady and constant supply of the necessary health professionals across the whole range of the national health service.

NHS Fife (Additional Support)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

11. To ask the Scottish Government what additional support it has given NHS Fife to help improve its performance. (S4O-04072)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

An additional £12.43 million has been allocated to NHS Fife. From that, £2.1 million will be allocated in 2015-16 to alleviate drugs pressures, and the Fife partnership will receive £6.73 million over the next three years, which will go towards developing local community services that will help to reduce unnecessary admissions and ensure timely discharge from hospital.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Can the cabinet secretary tell me how much it costs NHS Fife per year to pay for the new public-private partnership Victoria hospital, which was built under the last Labour Government? Do the large repayment commitments seriously impact on front-line services?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The forecast unitary charge for the Victoria hospital private finance initiative contract is £21.7 million. PFI costs are a considerable burden on the system. I can tell the member that PFI contracts will cost the health service £235 million in 2015-16.

Obviously, NHS Fife, like other boards, is funded according to the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee formula. Under that formula, NHS Fife has had a significant uplift; its budget increased by £145.9 million from 2006-07 to 2015-16. Although there are always pressures on the system, we would expect NHS Fife to use that resource to improve patient care.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

12. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. (S4O-04073)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives of all NHS boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I notice that the new south Glasgow university hospitals have been mentioned a couple of times already today. Although there are issues still to be dealt with—on which my Glasgow colleagues and I have written to the health board for clarification—we have to accept the project’s being delivered before schedule and under budget is one of the great achievements of the Government.

Can the cabinet secretary give me further information on what final steps are in place to ensure the smooth opening of the hospital in a couple of months, which will benefit patients, visitors and staff?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am happy to confirm to the member that the £842 million project for the new south Glasgow hospitals remains on time and on budget. Work is now under way to equip and test the new facilities—which will provide the gold standard for co-locating state-of-the-art adult, children and maternity services—and to train staff ahead of the migration of clinical services between late April and June.

This is, of course, a massive logistical undertaking that the health board has been planning over a number of years. The board has assured me that it has robust plans and contingency measures in place to ensure the effective migration of services while it continues to deliver high-quality services for the benefit of patients. The Government has been and will remain in close touch with the board as that important work is taken forward over the next few weeks.

South Glasgow Hospitals (Parking and Transport)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

13. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed parking provision and transport links for staff and visitors at the new south Glasgow hospitals. (S4O-04074)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Further to my previous answers, the Scottish Government arranged a meeting on 2 March that was, as I said, attended by representatives of all the partners, all of whom are working closely to ensure that suitable travel and parking arrangements are in place.

The attendees agreed to pursue plans for the temporary car park to cover the period until the third multistorey car park opens, and to continue to provide strong support to staff, patients and visitors to the campus in relation to appropriate travel arrangements. Support measures that have been or will be put in place include changing staff shift patterns to make use of public transport easier, putting more bus services in place, and the upcoming provision of specific functionality in the widely used Traveline app to help users to reach key national health service locations, beginning with the new hospital campus.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply and for her previous answer regarding parking spaces.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the Western infirmary and Yorkhill hospital in my community will close, with the services moving to the new south Glasgow hospitals. It is therefore imperative that the new campus has proper transport links. With regard to the temporary spaces, if it were the case that more parking spaces were required, is there any indication that Glasgow City Council would give permission for that?

It has also come to our attention that there is a development in relation to a possible bridge to link Govan and Partick. Does the cabinet secretary agree that such a positive move would be beneficial, particularly for the people from my side of the river?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The development of a bridge would be helpful. We will keep a close eye on developments in that area, although I think that the project is in its very early stages.

The planned car parking provision at the new hospitals, of 3,500 spaces, is already in line with the maximum provision that is allowed by the planning approval for the development. More car parking would therefore have to be the subject of a planning application to Glasgow City Council. As Sandra White is aware, a planning application has been made for the 600 temporary spaces until the third multistorey car park opens next year. That application is currently being considered by the council.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Many people in the southern part of my constituency, in the Drymen and Strathendrick area, will be travelling to the new hospital. There are no useful public transport links from the area to the hospital. Could particular cognisance be given to the challenging issues that those people will face in relation to travel to the new hospital, and could the cabinet secretary ask the NHS board to consider the area in particular?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will ask the NHS board to write to Bruce Crawford to make him aware of what provisions are being put in place.

NHS Lanarkshire (Meetings)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

14. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Lanarkshire. (S4O-04075)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Will the cabinet secretary continue dialogue with NHS Lanarkshire about soft ancillary services at Hairmyres hospital? I also ask her to meet regularly and discuss issues with Unison, which has organised a petition that is aimed at bringing those services back into public service.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I thank Linda Fabiani for her on-going interest in the matter. She will be aware that the Scottish Futures Trust has carried out some work around NHS Lanarkshire’s procedures and processes in relation to the contracts to which she refers. That report has been seen by the board and will be discussed by it later this month.

On Monday, I met Unison to discuss the issue, and a number of further actions have emanated from that meeting. We have also been in touch with NHS Lanarkshire in order to ensure that Unison is very much involved in discussions, including discussions around the report and decision making on the contracts, which will take place later this month. The issues are complex; of course, the contracts would never have been issued under the arrangements that resulted from the action that this Government took in 2008 to prevent soft facilities management services from being contracted out in the future. The contracts that we are discussing are ones that we have, unfortunately, inherited.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will call question 15, but we must be very brief.

Maternity Scanning Services (Highlands and Islands)

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

15. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports the provision of locally accessible maternity scanning services in the Highlands and Islands. (S4O-04076)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Although the Scottish Government provides the policies, frameworks and resources for high quality healthcare in Scotland, it is for each national health service board to decide how best to deliver services to meet the needs of the population.

The NHS is committed to providing services as close to home as possible, but it also needs to ensure that those services are safe and are provided by an appropriately trained and skilled workforce.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly, please.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Notwithstanding NHS Highland’s welcome recent announcement that it hopes to reintroduce local maternity scanning services in Argyll and Bute from late 2016, does the minister understand the frustration and concern of my mother-to-be constituents who, since 2013, have had to make inconvenient, time-consuming and stressful journeys to hospitals in Glasgow, Greenock or Paisley for their maternity scans? As a father whose wife used the local services four times—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I must hurry you along, Mr McGrigor.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What guarantee can the minister give that funding will be available for local scans in Campbeltown, Dunoon, Islay, Lochgilphead, Oban and Rothesay?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Answer as briefly as possible, minister.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I agree with Jamie McGrigor that it is not satisfactory that mothers-to-be have to travel so far outwith the area, but like him I am pleased that NHS Highland has agreed that local services should be resumed as quickly as possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes question time.

Privacy and the State

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12491, in the name of Willie Rennie, on privacy and the state. I must advise the chamber that we are very tight for time for all of this afternoon’s debates, and I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not just now.

We may not be there yet, but we are creeping towards that destination. If SNP members have any doubt, they should vote with us.

I am grateful to the Open Rights Group and the NO2ID campaign for the advice and support that they have provided to inform the debate. They have very real concerns.

The British Medical Association has expressed concern about the relationship between the NHS database and tax collection, which it fears may drive patients away. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations wants the Government to think again. However, the submission from the United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office caused the greatest alarm. The UK information commissioner spoke of breaching European and British data protection laws, creeping towards an ID card system and the lack of reason and necessity in the Government’s plans.

Therefore, members do not have to take my word for it; they should listen to the other voices. Ignoring the advice of an independent information commissioner would be unwise for any member of any Parliament.

Very few are against cards that identify us. We need forms of identification to conduct our daily business. Our parliamentary card is an ID card, and my driving licence, bank card and Carnegie Harriers membership card—that is probably the most important of all—are all forms of identification and information. However, each one has a different number and each is stored on a different database. It is not identification that I oppose; it is the super ID database that concerns me.

Christian Allard rose—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Sorry, colleagues.

Does Willie Rennie agree that those who raised concerns about the UK identity card scheme, including SNP members and organisations that have engaged their concerns on the issue that we are discussing, did not principally raise concerns about the piece of plastic, but about the data system behind that and the ways in which it could be used? That is the point of similarity and the issue that we should be putting on the agenda today.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Patrick Harvie is absolutely right: it is about the whole system. It is not just about the bit of plastic; it is about the database behind that, because that is open to potential theft and misuse. Therefore, Patrick Harvie is right on the button. He is right to identify the whole system, not just the card.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

At the start of the debate, the member talked about the debate not being about ID cards, but we are now hearing only talk of ID cards. I have an ID card with me. ID cards will not be imposed by any Scottish Government while the SNP stays in power. We cannot say the same thing about Westminster.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can I hurry you along, please?

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Is this debate about ID cards or not?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is all I need: Christian Allard’s assurance. That gives me the greatest confidence that I could ever need to drop my motion. The reality is that he has more confidence in what the Government proposes than I do. The reality is that his Government is preparing a super ID database that is a step towards an ID card.

Members: Rubbish!

SNP members obviously do not agree with me on that, but if they have any doubts, they should listen to the protest groups. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

They should also listen to the privacy groups, the BMA and the SCVO, because they have doubts. Are their opinions no longer to count? If SNP members have any doubts, they should consider their position today.

I accept that the Government needs methods to authenticate that a person is who they say they are, because such methods prevent fraud and ensure that people get what they are entitled to. However, all that we need to do is to look south of the border, to what the Cabinet Office, working together with privacy groups has identified to create a system to—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. The member is in his last 30 seconds and we must hear him.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We must work together with privacy groups to ensure that we have a system that is diffuse, that does not involve one single database and that our information is protected. For once, the Scottish Government should look to others for their advice and support.

My message today is simple: if members support the Government’s amendment, they will be voting to limit the scrutiny that the Government’s proposals will receive; but if members have doubts, they should express them by supporting and voting for my motion. Members do not have to agree with everything that I have said. They might reject some of the arguments that privacy campaigners have made and they might not even accept all the points made by the information commissioner.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must conclude.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

However, if members have any doubts, they should vote for our motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Scottish Government’s consultation on amendments to the National Health Service Central Register (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and the concerns of privacy campaigners about those proposals; believes that these issues merit full parliamentary scrutiny, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government, if it wishes to proceed with this policy, to do so by means of primary legislation.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

At the outset I want to make two points clear on behalf of the Scottish Government. First, I reiterate this Government’s unequivocal commitment to the protection of privacy. The Scottish Government took the initiative in 2009 to set up an expert group to develop identity management and privacy principles, and the group included privacy expertise and interests from outside the public sector. Principles were established in 2010 and updated in 2014, and they guide the policies of the Scottish Government. I am determined that we continue to lead good practice and act in a manner consistent with those principles.

Secondly, I make it clear that the Government will consider carefully all of the representations made during the recent consultation, and I confirm that no decisions have been taken on any of the issues. I can also confirm that privacy impact assessments will be a necessary prerequisite of any proposals that are advanced and must satisfactorily address the issues that have been raised in the consultation process. Decisions will be taken only after there has been full parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals that we advance.

In trying to give a proper assessment of the changes that we propose and to determine whether they should be pursued, it is important to consider the purpose of the changes. Our first purpose is to ensure that in delivering public services a service provider knows that they are dealing with the right person, recognising the public’s growing expectation that they will be able to access public services online. The service user must also be sure that he or she is not being mistaken for anyone else. The consequences of not authenticating identity appropriately can be significant for individuals, who could receive the wrong service or no service at all. Those checks will help to prevent fraud and identify theft and are intended to give confidence to those who use public services online.

Our second purpose is to help to identify those taxpayers who should properly be defined as Scottish taxpayers for the purposes of the Scottish rate of income tax. That is critical because it will help to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion and will ensure that the correct amount of tax flows to the Scottish budget to support our public services.

Those are our purposes in holding the consultation.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the Deputy First Minister give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Of course.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way and I was grateful to him yesterday for meeting, alongside me, some of the campaign groups, such as the Open Rights Group, that are concerned about the matters in question. Does he acknowledge that they did not seek to ignore or circumvent the purposes that he has described? They understand those purposes but argue that there is a better way of achieving them that does not give rise to the same concerns around data security and privacy.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will come on to say a little about that in the course of my remarks.

Those are our purposes in holding the consultation. The question now becomes how we achieve those two objectives. Our consultation paper sets out that the most secure, accurate and privacy and user-friendly way to do that is by strictly controlled use of the national health service central register. I believe that that approach is preferable to contracting with private sector bodies to use a combination of their databases and public sector databases, and it is preferable to creating a new database. There is one thing that we are not doing—we are not under any circumstances creating a new database.

The register has existed since the 1950s and legislation strictly regulates its use, which is further protected by agreements that the Registrar General for Scotland puts in place. The register contains core facts about individuals who were born in Scotland, drawn from birth records, and individuals who have registered with a general practitioner. However, I stress that, despite the title of the register, it does not hold health records. The only health information that is recorded is whether a person has been treated for cancer, and that is only released for research purposes under strict anonymised controls.

Another important point is that use of the NHS register—if the proposals proceed—will not be a novel departure. Primary legislation that this Parliament passed in 2006—the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006—put the national health service central register on a statutory footing, provided for a reference number, which is now referred to as the UCRN, or unique citizen reference number, to be contained in the register and provided powers for the sharing of information. It also provided for secondary legislation to extend who could have access to information from the register. That legislation was put on the statute book by a Liberal Democrat minister, George Lyon.

For the past nine years, when an individual has sought a concessionary travel card, the register has been used to verify that individual’s identity. That has occurred under strict controls. The system has worked well, and what we now propose is that other organisations—central Government bodies that will provide online services—should also be able to check specified data. I stress the word “check”. Willie Rennie said that he accepts the need for Governments to undertake authentication work. That is precisely what is proposed in the consultation exercise.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary not recognise and agree that he is going beyond what the original legislation proposed? In essence, by introducing the CHIP—the community health index postcode—to the NHS central register, he is going from an opt-in to a compulsory system. Does he not recognise that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

No, I do not recognise that, because this is about people who are trying to access online public services opting to have their identity verified to protect their identity from identity fraud.

The final question that I want to explore is why we should consider this approach. Having read a number of the responses to the consultation and met the Open Rights Group yesterday, I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised. As we address those, there are additional important points that I believe the Parliament must consider.

Next year, the Scottish rate of income tax will be introduced, and we also have the plan for full implementation of the Smith commission proposals. Next year, as a result of the introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax, our block grant will be reduced by approximately £5 billion, and we will be responsible for raising an equivalent amount in revenue. It is vital that we get implementation of the new income tax powers right. Following the transition period, every 1 per cent error—every 1 per cent of the Scottish taxpayer base that we cannot identify—could cost this Parliament’s budget £50 million or more. That is £50 million for public services such as schools, hospitals and the police.

The responsibility for implementing and operating the Scottish rate of income tax lies with HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Government.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must conclude, please.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

They have asked us to consider the issues that are raised in the consultation, and in the interests of good government I am doing exactly that.

I pledge to the Parliament today that I will work co-operatively across the political spectrum to ensure that agreement is reached. We will subject any proposals that we bring forward to wide consultation and to the full parliamentary scrutiny that was provided for us in the LEARS act in 2006, which was put in place by the Liberal Democrats.

I move amendment S4M-12491.2, to leave out from “if it wishes” to end and insert:

“to report back to the Parliament on its response to the consultation before outlining the further steps that it intends to take on this matter, consistent with its adherence to privacy principles and the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006”.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I draw members’ attention to my declarations of interest in respect of my membership of some of the organisations that I will refer to in my speech.

From the outset, Scottish Labour wants to say that it fully understands the intention and purposes of the Government’s proposals. It also fully concurs with the need to establish a Scottish tax database in order to ensure that the tax can be fully collected in Scotland for Scotland; we accept that point. However, we believe that the issues really should have been debated in a full debate in Parliament at a much earlier stage, because some people see the matter as being the first step in establishing a national identification system, and it is that single system that is a matter of concern. Our central concern is that the registration data that is given by patients as part of a freely entered into compact with the NHS is to be used for other purposes for which consent was never given.

Before I elaborate on that, I will review some history. As the minister said, some data has been used for other purposes—for example, verification of benefit applications. However, that is an example of a positive request for information, and authentication in that situation is important. The relationship between the privacy of the individual and the needs of the state is a current issue. In an increasingly electronic age, our citizens’ privacy is daily more undermined. Too often, information about us is obtained or used without our full knowledge and appreciation. The most extreme aspect of that was represented in the “Citizenfour” documentary, which made it clear how GCHQ undertakes widespread surveillance of all our digital communications. It is the first action of a centralising state to capture as much information as it can about its citizens.

The issue of privacy was the subject of a review in 2009 called “Database State”, which I recommend to members. The review was sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and led by Professor Ross Anderson from the University of Cambridge. I request that the Government consult Professor Anderson on the issue, as he is a world leader on privacy issues. The report assessed the 46 existing databases across major Government departments and found that a quarter of all the existing public sector databases that were reviewed were almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law. More than half of them have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge.

Britain is currently out of line with other developed countries, where records and sensitive data on matters such as healthcare and social care services are held locally. In Britain, data is increasingly centralised and shared between health and social services, police, schools, local government and, now, even the tax man. The benefits that are claimed for data sharing are often illusory, and sharing can harm vulnerable people, not least by leading to discrimination and stigmatisation.

At first sight, the Scottish Government’s proposal looks innocuous. However, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners believe that although consensual registration of postcode and address to the NHS number is appropriate and will enhance health data nationally, the accessing of that and the community health index number by a tax authority is inappropriate. They also believe that accessing of those by many of the other 120 agencies is surprising, to say the least. As Willie Rennie said, Quality Meat Scotland, Architecture and Design Scotland and VisitScotland could access the data. I certainly do not want them to have my information, although I understand from what John Swinney said what he sees as being the purpose of that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The organisations that Dr Simpson has listed would not have access to the data. They would be able to check and verify with the registrar general the identity of individuals to ensure that they were able to access public services, but they would not have access to the information.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Dr Simpson, you are approaching your last minute.

I am afraid that you are over time.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I took one intervention. Can I just have two seconds more? I have one more paragraph. It is important.

In NHS Lothian, over a two-year period, there were 794 breaches of inappropriate access to electronic data. The NHS system is not fit for purpose. It does not meet the European requirements under the I v Finland case. Therefore, we have a situation in which, by using people’s unique identifier, others can maliciously access NHS data.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close, Dr Simpson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Linking one identifier with another is extremely dangerous. The topic needs a full debate.

I move amendment S4M-12491.1, to leave out from “and the concerns” to end, and insert:

As an amendment to motion S4M-12491 in the name of Willie Rennie (Privacy and the State), leave out from “and the concerns” to end and insert “; notes the concerns of the British Medical Association Scotland and the Royal College of General Practitioners that sharing personal information registered for health purposes with the government for the identification of income tax payers in particular would seriously undermine trust between doctors and patients, with the result that patients may feel reluctant to seek medical help from their doctor; notes also the concerns of privacy protection campaigners such as Liberty, Big Brother Watch and the Open Rights Group that allowing information to flow between health and tax agencies sets a dangerous precedent; believes that NHS identification should only ever be used for other purposes with express and informed consent; recognises the need for identification of all citizens who will be required to pay tax in Scotland; believes that the current proposals should be halted, alternative options should be sought and that the Scottish Government should consult further, and further believes that any future proposals should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and primary legislation.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If members go over time, it will have to come out of back-bench or closing speeches. I cannot magic up time.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Willie Rennie for bringing the issue to Parliament.

This is a wider debate about the role of the state and how far its power should extend. If we look back throughout history—it does not matter when, whether it was the age of the ancient Greeks or the disputes between people such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in British philosophical history, or whether it was people trying to rebuild our democratic traditions after two world wars—we see that this is an important issue. Indeed, it is as relevant today as ever, as Willie Rennie’s comments have shown.

The proposals relate to the possible changes to the national health service central register, which makes it a serious issue. Willie Rennie is quite right to say that it deserves the full attention of the whole Parliament. Indeed, given the very strong concerns that have been expressed by the information commissioner, the British Medical Association and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, I do not think that any party in this chamber could possibly argue otherwise. Therefore, the Scottish Conservatives will support the motion to have the matter properly debated in Parliament, and we will also support the Labour amendment.

Let us be clear that there are understandable aims behind the work: to improve the quality of data, which is an increasing part of our lives as Richard Simpson rightly said; to help to trace missing persons or vulnerable children; and to facilitate online access to data, to name but three. However, it is what goes beyond that has become so controversial, as was so ably set out by Willie Rennie.

The Open Rights Group has made it very clear that it believes that the unique citizen reference number is not a randomised number as the Scottish Government has claimed, and that the proposals to expand the right of identification of data to 120 public bodies instead of the current constraint to limit data sharing to the NHS and local authorities would, in effect, be one step closer to an ID card, even if it is not an ID card as such.

In particular, the diminished role of consent of the individual disturbs us most. John Swinney claimed this morning, and said it again this afternoon, that there would be a guarantee of privacy. He was very sincere about that. I can accept that he genuinely believes in that principle, but people are not fully convinced in practice for exactly the reasons that Patrick Harvie mentioned.

As soon as the actions of the state are directed too much in favour of compulsion and the laws lack public consent, the exercise of personal, social and moral freedom is necessarily inhibited. That should worry us all. That is why the Westminster Government, after a long and controversial debate, decided not to introduce ID cards. I have the transcripts of debates in this Parliament in 2005 when national ID cards were being considered and those from the House of Commons and House of Lords from the same time, which show why the proposals were eventually rejected. We need to be extremely careful not to do something that would involve a back-door movement towards ID cards in Scotland.

The trends in western democracies have been towards a more liberal attitude in social policy, and philosophical tensions about the role of the state have grown stronger. That is a contradiction in the SNP’s policy outlook. It is quick to tell us that it whole-heartedly espouses a liberal democratic tradition and that it will do much more to increase our personal freedoms by promoting greater equality and social justice, but over the course of its majority Government since 2011, the SNP has bordered on becoming much more paternalistic and is oriented towards the role of the state. That is another reason why I feel—

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

That is rubbish!

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That comes on the back of legislation about named persons and a whole lot of other things. [Interruption.] It is absolutely the same thing. It is a prime example of pushing the boundaries of the state too far. It is symptomatic of a Government that I think has become overly intrusive in people’s lives. That is yet another reason why the issue must be looked at extremely carefully. We fully support what Willie Rennie has proposed in his motion. The Government’s proposals must be debated and that process must involve the full scrutiny of Parliament. We are also happy to accept the Labour amendment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We come to the open debate. As I indicated at the start of the debate, we are very tight for time. Speeches should be of a maximum of four minutes, and any interventions must be taken within that time. Members know that I am not in the habit of cutting off microphones, but I am afraid that I may have to this afternoon.

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

This should be a very thoughtful debate rather than a party-political one, but I am afraid that Liz Smith’s contribution drifted into that area.

I ask myself whether the data is necessary, what its purpose is, whether it is sufficiently limited, whether the data is secure, and whether the proposals will command public support. I welcome the consultation that has just closed. I understand why the Liberal Democrats decided to have a debate on the matter, but it is early doors—there is some way to go. I notice that the Government’s view is not set in stone. I was a wee bit surprised to discover that as many as 120 organisations might have access to the data, but I expect that that may evolve.

This is new territory. I do not think that many members of the public understand that there is an NHS central register; they do not know about it. I did not know that National Records of Scotland is the public body that maintains and owns it. At the moment, only about 30 per cent of the population are on the register. I note the fact—which I think is significant—that it does not hold anyone’s records; it holds names, addresses and dates of birth so that records can be properly moved about.

I think that we all accept that we need a robust and fair database that can be brought up to date for the purposes of gathering income tax in Scotland. The collection of data is necessary, but whether we are using the right source might be open to argument. At the moment, local authorities and health boards use the NHS central register, but that arrangement is subject to individual agreement, so it is not a complete picture that is provided.

As has been mentioned, every one of us has a community health index number. Although many people do not know that, it is something that provides a link to the individual.

John Finnie (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

That is the second time Christine Grahame has mentioned low levels of public awareness. There is also the question of public perception. Does she agree that that can best be addressed by having the fullest debate further down the road, as per the Lib Dem motion?

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

I do not think that it is news to any member that members of the public do not know that they have a CHI number and do not know about the central register. That is a fact of life. People do not know that when they go online Tesco can ask them whether they want their favourite groceries and it will come up with everything that they buy every week. People hold data all over the place that we are unaware of.

I understand that the crux of the matter is the centralisation of the information that is currently held by health boards. Another issue is security in holding that information. The argument about security is a reasonable one to make, but I do not have such a problem with centralisation. Some years ago, I got a letter from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that said that my tax was to go up because I was getting the state pension. I had not even applied for it, but the Department for Work and Pensions had been in touch with HMRC. Many Government agencies know what we are up to. There is now no need to tell the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency whether you have insurance—it can tell because it is in touch with the insurers. Such interlocking arrangements are already in place.

At issue is whether the data that is collected is necessary, whether it is secure and whether, in the internet age, it enables individuals and the state or the Government to function properly.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must draw to a close.

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

Privacy is not absolute. There is a duty on the citizen to meet their tax obligations, so they will be required to surrender some privacy, as we already do for income tax and national insurance, to enable the state to function.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

We all accept that there is a variety of reasons why Government must hold certain data about its citizens. It helps us to administer pensions, benefits, the welfare system and, as Christine Grahame said, the tax system, which is after all our subscription to society. It can help to keep people safe. In the case of the NHS central register, it allows patients’ medical records to follow them as they move around the country, or in and out of the armed forces, or in a variety of circumstances.

Willie Rennie was quite right to say at the beginning of his speech that that there are plenty of valid reasons why Government should keep important and necessary data, and it is important to say that that is not being disputed today. Nor would I dispute that stored data can be, and often is, put to a greater use. The Deputy First Minister mentioned some of the medical research that flows from the central register, and we would support that.

The key point is that all that activity must be properly regulated to protect people’s privacy and civil liberties. There are a number of questions around that, including who has access and why, but the fundamental point is how much data is held on a single database and how much sits on separate systems, because that is one of the fundamental protections. The public must have confidence in the laws and regulations that govern the use, storage and sharing of their data, and we need to know that public consent to changes in the way in which their data is used exists, because we need to satisfy ourselves that changes are fair and transparent, even if they are simply for checking and verification purposes.

Emails that I have received from my constituents in Glasgow certainly suggest that there are a lot of people out there with serious concerns about the changes that are being proposed, and that level of concern warrants the issue being raised in Parliament, so I thank the Liberals for bringing the debate to the chamber today. We all experience the frustration of the short speeches that you will rightly keep us to, Presiding Officer, but I think that we need to come back to the issue and have a much fuller debate.

I hope that we can all agree on the fact that concerns about privacy and liberty, whether or not the Government agrees that they are valid, must be fully addressed before we proceed any further, so I support the amendment in Dr Simpson’s name.

The Scottish Government has been keen to stress that the changes that are proposed are limited in scope and would be for specific purposes, one of which is that the new arrangements would help the Scottish Government to identify Scottish taxpayers as the Parliament gains a new raft of tax powers. We can understand that, but we need to pay serious attention to comments such as those made by the British Medical Association, which is deeply concerned about the use of central register information to identify taxpayers and is urging the Government to consider an alternative source of data. The health profession is warning the Government not to use a health database to support tax collection, because it could deter people from registering with their GP and could damage the relationship of trust between people and their doctors. Others, such as Ken Macdonald, have commented on issues that need to be taken seriously by the Government if we are to prevent a national identity database emerging by default.

I welcome the time that we have had to discuss the issue this afternoon. I have certainly supported my constituents when they have contacted me about the issue, but I remain convinced that the changes are substantive and must be subject not only to a full debate in this Parliament but to a broader national debate in the country, and to the most rigorous possible parliamentary scrutiny. That is the message that I wish to convey to the Government front bench today. We need to come back and look at the issue in greater detail.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am delighted to participate in this debate. It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to Liberal Democrat members who want to compare the actions of the SNP Government with those of the Westminster Government. Maybe the Deputy First Minister would not be happy about it, but I would be delighted to make it a political debate, because I have political views about it.

We are now living in a modern world with a lot of services available on the internet, and we want our public services to be available on the internet. There are two ways of dealing with that modernisation. We can either do as the Westminster Government does and give everything to private companies to handle, or do as the SNP Government does and ensure that it stays in public hands and is controlled by the public sector.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Christian Allard will recognise that Atos, which is from France, supplies community health index number services to the NHS in Scotland along with a range of other private organisations. What is the difference?

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As soon as you say Atos, I cannot do other than finish off the point. Atos is a French company that your Government at Westminster used.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Speak through the chair, please.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Atos thought that what it was asked to do was so dismal that it had to renege on the contract. It bought itself out of the Government contract. It is incredible that Willie Rennie uses that example.

Let us talk about identity cards. I happen to have an identity card, as I am still a French national. I am the only one in the chamber to have an identity card and let me tell Mr Rennie that I intend to stay the only one to have an identity card. The debate is not about identity cards. The SNP Government will ensure that there are no identity cards.

Ken Macdonald, the assistant information commissioner for Scotland and Northern Ireland, wrote that the Data Protection Act 1998

“requires that all data controllers must ensure that personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. Although the”

NHS central register

“is the most authoritative record of individuals in Scotland, elements of the Register are not complete (for example, address information is only held for around 30% of the population). By adding the Community Health Index Postcode (CHIP) to the NHSCR and by matching and sharing both it and the Unique Property Reference Number, it is anticipated that the quality of the Register and the records held will be improved.”

That is the point.

We can compare the SNP Government’s proposal with what is happening down south. For example, Royal Mail has been privatised under the Liberal Democrat and Tory Government. Royal Mail, a privatised company, holds UK contact and address data—29 million business and residential postal addresses—so there is a great contrast between the Westminster Government and the SNP Scottish Government.

It is important that we protect the national health service as much as possible from globalisation. Many MSPs asked about foreign nationals who use our health service. The Government’s proposal will help to ensure that foreign nationals pay their health service bills. I remind the Liberal Democrats that they might want to pay their bills, as they have not paid their Police Scotland bill.

Our public services must be protected and I encourage members to vote for the Government amendment.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Today’s debate has been important, but its brevity means that it is in itself not a sufficient consideration of the issues that are before Parliament. The Scottish Government appears to be standing alone in its attempt to persuade us that the proposals are not worthy of the full scrutiny of the legislative process.

Willie Rennie set out the argument in speaking to his motion. The key point is that we are moving from an opt-in system to a compulsory system with no consent and no proper knowledge or understanding of what is taking place. As Richard Simpson identified, there is a crucial difference between someone opting into something and someone finding that they have been opted into something without their knowledge.

I might have doubts about what the botanic gardens could do with the information that would be of insidious danger to individual citizens, but that argument misses the point. The point is that 120 public bodies are being offered the information, and we should be proceeding only through primary legislation.

Christian Allard has tried to intervene on a number of occasions, brandishing and waving about his ID card and telling us that there is no question of any ID cards following from the proposal.

Christian Allard rose—

I have no doubt that, historically, all those Frenchmen who marched for liberté, égalité, fraternité were told the same thing—that there would be no identity card as a result—and yet Mr Allard is the living proof that the long arm of the Élysée palace reaches down to the billet-doux à la France in Mr Allard’s pocket, which he was forced to wave before us.

Mr Swinney was in his most defensive mode. In all the years that I have spent in the Parliament, I have never seen him scrambling up the ice without a pick and looking quite so rattled. When we see the Deputy First Minister being deployed in full sincerity mode rather than taking the usual belligerent ministerial approach, alarm bells ought to ring.

The expostulations from Roseanna Cunningham and the other SNP ministers on the front bench made me think of one thing: the arrogance of power. It happens to all Administrations. The longer ministers are in office, the more they believe in the centralisation of the state and in the need for them to have the information that they require to be in control.

The SNP does not appreciate the irony. After eight years in government, it is doing exactly what, in all its years in opposition, it used to rail against every other Administration for doing.

We also heard from Mrs Grahame—

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

Mrs?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Ms Grahame.

We heard that the issue must not be party political.

Christine Grahame rose—

Ms Grahame does not come naked into the chamber without form before her. Had any other Government proposed the same thing, she would have been throwing her jewellery at the ministers.

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

The member has woken me up.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Ms Grahame cited the Tesco scheme, which is a perfect example of people opting in rather than being compulsorily enrolled in the Tesco information database.

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

Will the member take an intervention, please?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Ms Grahame said that the key test should be necessity. What necessity is there for the botanic garden to have all that information?

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

Excuse me—will the member take an intervention?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Jackson Carlaw is in his last minute.

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

I commented that I wondered whether it was appropriate for 120 organisations to have access and that I did not know that I had opted in to HMRC, the DWP and Tesco.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Yes, but the member obviously feels that the botanic garden’s need for the information is so great that she is prepared to support the Government’s approach this afternoon.

When I hear the excuse that we live in the modern world, I shudder. If, in decades past, the online scenario had been before people in other countries and under other regimes, would they have favoured the Government’s approach? I rather think that they would have. It is essential that parliamentary democracy prevails, that the matters are fully debated, that light is thrown on them and that a proper discussion is held on the direction that our country is taking. That is all that the motion asks for.

We want primary legislation and proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government might have laudable intentions—as Patrick Harvie, we and others accept—but it cannot hide behind that fig leaf and argue that there is no major change. That point is no longer tenable.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

The proposals for sharing information that is held on individuals in the national health service central register with a wide range of organisations caused increasing concern as the consultation drew to a close. We have heard about submissions from the BMA, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the UK information commissioner. They are not politically biased; they have genuine concerns that we need to listen to.

As Drew Smith pointed out, the NHSCR’s current purpose is to permit the movement of medical records—for example, when a patient moves and transfers their records from one GP practice to another. Each patient has a unique citizen’s reference number, to ensure that they have only one set of medical records, which is clearly to the patient’s benefit. At present, the NHSCR does not hold postcode information, although National Records of Scotland has that information, which is provided by health boards. I think that that relates to the CHI number.

The consultation document proposes adding address postcode information to the unique property reference number that the NHSCR already holds and permitting that to be shared with local authorities and health boards. Christine Grahame made a valid point about the amount of information that Tesco manages to glean about us when we do our shopping with our loyalty cards, but I doubt that Tesco is sharing any of that information, particularly with other supermarkets. I have always found it slightly worrying that Tesco might share information with the health service, which could find out whether people are buying alcohol or sweetened drinks, but I do not think that Tesco shares any of that information.

The proposed changes to schedule 2 to the National Health Service Central Register (Scotland) Regulations 2006 would allow the sharing of all the information, including postcodes and address codes, with health boards in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Practising solicitors and charitable bodies could be advised that the information is contained on the register—they could not be given it, but they could be told that it is there—and the full name, gender, date of birth, postcode and address reference code could be provided to HMRC.

That puzzles me slightly, because I always thought that we all get a national insurance number when we get old enough to take up employment, and surely that number plus possibly the obligation to say where we live would be enough to tackle the issue of HMRC knowing who should have a Scottish tax code.

As others have said, the proposed new schedule 3 to the 2006 regulations covers 120 organisations, including the Scottish Parliament. It would allow those organisations to find out about information

“that has been provided by a body or person specified in Schedule 3 but does not match that information.”

I do not know whether that would mean that those organisations could check that the information that they have is correct or whether they could just check whether somebody else has the information.

I understand the Scottish Government’s rationale for wanting to extend myaccount—the online public services system that is used in local government and the health service. I use the equivalent UK Government system for taxes, and it is useful to be able to do that. However, the question is whether, if I do that, someone else can check all sorts of information. What does that have to do with Prestwick airport, the Forestry Commission or the national parks? If I use myaccount to book something in a national park, does that mean that somebody else has the right to know my information? I do not understand the rationale behind that.

I agree with the Government that we want to ensure that all Scottish taxpayers pay their income tax in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I regret to say that you need to close, please.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

That is important, but we do not need to make the proposed changes to achieve that. The issues that a number of organisations have raised are sufficiently serious to mean that the changes must not slip through as amendments to the 2006 regulations.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I regret to say that you have to close. Perhaps you did not hear me earlier.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

We must discuss the issue in Parliament in full so that we have the reassurance that we require on the issues.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The debate has been a useful opportunity to discuss issues on which, as I said in my opening speech, the Government has taken no final decisions. We have had about 300 responses to the consultation, which closed last week, and the Government will consider all of them and reply accordingly, as my amendment suggests.

There is some fundamental misinformation at the heart of what colleagues have shared with Parliament today, and I will address some of that now. I accept that the list of public bodies is significant and comprehensive, and there is certainly plenty of scope for us to consider whether every one of those bodies needs the ability to access the proposed identity verification, which I will consider in the consultation exercise.

However, the proposal at the consultation’s heart is to enable a range of public bodies to do exactly what local authorities do when verifying whether people wish to have the concessionary bus pass. That is what is happening. In response to Dr Elaine Murray’s point, I say that no more information is retained; there is simply a mechanism for checking whether the person is who they say they are, to enable them to do whatever they want to do online with public services.

We are not creating a new database. Willie Rennie has been putting out press releases left, right and centre about the colossal cost of all this, but all that is proposed is that, when an individual’s postcode is not on their NHSCR record, it will be added. That will be it. The postcode is all that will be added to the system, to enable higher-quality verification that an individual is who they say they are.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept the sincere way in which the Deputy First Minister has addressed the issue, but it is about more than that. There is such public concern because there is one single database.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The issue has been around since the 1950s. In 2006, under the previous Liberal-Labour Executive, Parliament put the NHSCR on a statutory footing in the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006. What did my parliamentary colleagues at the time think that they were voting for?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Not one database

.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I see Tavish Scott waving at me. If he wanted to make an intervention, it would have been nice if he had been here to hear the debate.

The postcode is what will be added to the NHSCR.

The next question is about tax collection. HMRC has asked us to consider whether this would be a practical way of proceeding. I accept the points that health service bodies have made about the questions and I do not want to put off in any way anybody registering with their GP. However, people come on to the NHSCR as a consequence of being given an NHS number when they are born in Scotland’s hospitals, and when people register with a GP, they become part of the NHSCR.

This is all about ensuring that we can properly identify who should pay the Scottish rate of income tax, because I do not want anybody who should be paying the Scottish rate avoiding it. That money is due to be paid, to support the public finances of Scotland, and it will become ever more significant in the years to come.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not want people to be able to avoid paying the Scottish rate of income tax any more than the Deputy First Minister does, but does he at least accept that the proposal to have a single unique reference number across a range of functions appears, at least on the face of it, to breach his own privacy principles, and will he ensure that the privacy assessment is conducted by the experts who drew up the principles?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask Mr Swinney to draw to a close, please.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Can I give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Yes, but the comment must be brief.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Can the cabinet secretary not see the difference between records and personal information? I drew that distinction, which he has failed to draw. That reflects poorly on him.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I know precisely what Mr Rennie is doing. He is trying to scaremonger because he has run out of road on every other issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are in your last 10 seconds, Mr Swinney.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has said that it will listen carefully to the points that have been made. I had a perfectly constructive meeting with the Open Rights Group yesterday. It has raised issues that are entirely worthy of consideration, as have the health organisations and the information commissioner.

However, the information commissioner correctly identifies to Parliament that the LEARS act was passed in 2006 to put the NHSCR on a statutory footing and that the registrar general’s ability to give access—in order to verify information—to a wider range of bodies was provided for in a regulation-making power that was presented to us by the then Liberal Democrat minister, who was the member for Argyll and Bute.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You really must draw to a close.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We are operating within the confines and the arrangements that Parliament has legislated for, but I assure members that I will come back to Parliament and we can have all the debates that we want about how to take forward an issue that has practical implications for protecting the taxpayer base of Scotland and access to our public services.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

As Liberal Democrats we are pleased to have used our time in the chamber to debate privacy and the state. We welcome whole-heartedly the support of other opposition parties and hope that the SNP will reflect on the strength of feeling expressed. Willie Rennie, Richard Simpson, Liz Smith and Patrick Harvie have clearly and coherently set out the risks and what is at stake, which is more than can be said for Christian Allard in his contribution.

Liberal Democrats will always strive to seek a fairer balance between individuals and the Government at every level. We have led the debate time and again in council chambers, at Holyrood and at Westminster. We introduced laws governing DNA retention, we stopped plans for a snooper’s charter and we abolished the intrusive ID card system.

Some members here may recall the debate on ID cards that was held in this Parliament in 2008, during which Fergus Ewing, then Minister for Community Safety, lauded the warning of the information commissioner.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The then information commissioner said:

“The more databases that are set up and the more information exchanged from one place to another, the greater the risk of things going wrong. The more you centralise data collection, the greater the risk of multiple records going missing or wrong decisions about real people being made ... Put simply, holding huge collections of personal data brings significant risks.”

Ministers ought to reflect on those previous anxieties. In 2008, the Scottish Government told us that it was

“finding ways to share personal data securely and with the strictest controls without creating a large centralised database.”

Today it is an altogether different story. Back then, the minister urged us to look to Germany, where—I quote Fergus Ewing again—

“the use of unique ID numbers and the storage of personal data on a central register are prohibited.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2008; c 12501.]

Today, the Scottish Government is advocating the wholesale use of unique identifiers, and in ignoring its own warnings, it could compromise the privacy of each and every one of us.

The Deputy First Minister referred to the fact that George Lyon introduced the 2006 act. Indeed he did; but, as Willie Rennie highlighted, the proposed repurposing of this register is fundamentally different from what could have been envisaged then, because it is shifting from an opt-in to a mandatory system and it is a unique single identifier system. In 2006, there was never any suggestion that anyone would seek to extend the scope of the NHS central register to allow access to 120 bodies.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If that was the case, why was the provision put in statute for access to be extended by regulation-making powers?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Because it was hard to envisage how things would have moved on at that time. What we are saying now is that, if civil servants are suggesting that this is a good way forward, it is time to say, “No, let’s do this by primary legislation.”

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is not giving way at this time, Mr Doris.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Colin Keir and others expressed a narrow definition of privacy but, rightly, privacy campaigners such as the SCVO, NO2ID, the British Medical Association and many more have spoken out. On Monday, the frank and deeply critical verdict of the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner was revealed, and it bluntly warned against

“the creeping use of such unique identifiers”

as the proposed UCRN, which could become the national identity number “by default”. It concluded that the proposals could breach the Data Protection Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights because they entail a shift away from the current model, which is based on consent and opting in, and move towards what is, in effect, a compulsory system. It said:

“The case has not been made as to why these organisations need our data and the required privacy impact assessments have not been carried out.”

We should be alarmed that the consultation on extending access to the central register has got this far when it was not accompanied by these assessments and did not set out alternative solutions, additional security arrangements, costs or a timescale and it lacked an analysis of the social, financial and technological implications of the scheme, which meant that people have not been able to respond properly to the consultation, which was a limited one.

The Scottish Government has done nothing today to dispel those reasoned and principled concerns.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I have no time.

As Willie Rennie pointed out last October, the Scottish Government published the Scottish Government’s principles for identity management, which quite clearly says that

“Large centralised databases should be avoided”

and that, if a public service organisation needs to link personal information from different systems and databases,

“it should avoid sharing persistent identifiers.”

Less than six months later, in pursuit of nothing more than administrative expediency, John Swinney has turned his back on those principles.

Of course we need the means to verify our identity, and the Government must be able to authenticate that in order to prevent fraud or establish entitlement. However, aggregating our personal information to the extent that is proposed, and the universal use of the unique citizen recognition number across the public sector is unprecedented.

Linking databases in that way is dangerous and illiberal because it opens up the possibility of tracking and mapping access to public services from birth. Powerful data mining and profiling would become conceivable. The aggregation of small bits of seemingly innocuous data to build a picture of an individual child or an adult while barring people from knowing what the state knows or, indeed, being able to correct errors in that data—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Interventions from a sedentary position are no more welcome today than they have ever been.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Professor Solove, an internationally known expert on privacy law points out:

“Privacy is often threatened not by a single egregious act but by the slow accretion of a series of relatively minor acts. In this respect, privacy problems resemble certain environmental harms, which occur over time through a series of small acts by different actors. Although society is more likely to respond to a major oil spill, gradual pollution by a multitude of actors often creates more problems.”

The UK Government has specifically ruled out a national database on five separate grounds, including fears of national surveillance and risks to the security of a single database. As Willie Rennie highlighted, it is pioneering alternative approaches that avoid costly and unwieldy super databases.

A string of data breaches has eroded public confidence in the ability of the state to store and handle our personal information sensitively and responsibly. Personal information is regularly lost by the NHS. It is found on memory sticks in hospital car parks; it is left on public transport; or it is sent to the wrong address. There were more than 800 such NHS incidents between 2009 and 2013. Councils lost data on 360 occasions during the same period. The Scottish Government now proposes to allow 120 public sector organisations access to our personal date via the enhanced and augmented central register. Why?

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in her last minute.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

We need to know why information should be disclosed to each body. The merits of every claim to our personal data must be interrogated and not granted on a whim.

Secondary legislation is intended to establish comparatively minor technical details, and the repurposing of this database is anything but minor. The risks are great, and this afternoon’s short debate has served only to highlight how much more patently still needs to be evidenced and explored.

The issue must be the subject of the most meticulous scrutiny, meaningful engagement and a vote of our entire Parliament. Only primary legislation can prevent the creation of a shadowy, sweeping ID database by the back door. John Swinney’s assurance this afternoon is not sufficient, and the only way in which we can ensure that the risks are properly understood is to vote for the motion today.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Liberals of all political parties and none have a healthy suspicion of Government’s voracious appetite for information on us and, indeed, every individual. Information is a powerful tool that, used in the right way, can help us; however, if misused, it can be intrusive and sometimes even dangerous. The purpose of today’s debate is to allow the Parliament to debate openly the complex issues that surround this important matter, and our hope is that this will not be the only time that this important topic is debated in the chamber and that all members of this Parliament will have opportunities in future to consider primary legislation and to ensure effective scrutiny of any changes. Unfortunately, the Government’s current intention is to restrict debate to one committee.

The motion’s simple aim is to put any such changes into primary legislation, not to determine whether the changes are acceptable or otherwise or whether they amount to an identity card system. All I am seeking support for is the suggestion that these proposals, should they advance, be put into primary legislation.

Let me explain why we are making this suggestion. The first reason is scale. The proposal has the potential to cover 120 organisations across the public sector, which matters because our current diffuse system of information storage contains an in-built protection from crime and misuse that would be lost if there were one super database that was shared across the public sector. We all know the problem with putting all our eggs in one basket or putting all our savings into one bank or business, and we should be cautious when the Government asks us to do the same now.

The second reason is the unique citizen reference number, or what is often called the persistent identifier. Yes, we have a unique number at the moment, but it is not unique across the public sector. Allowing all organisations to share one number means that we move from having a series of numbers to having a single, universal number and leaves open the possibility for information to be searched, profiled and mined. Paragraph 4.6 of the Scottish Government’s own principles of identity management, which were published by John Swinney just last October, states:

“If a public service organisation needs to link personal information from different systems and databases (internally or between organisations), it should avoid sharing persistent identifiers”.

The proposals seem to breach John Swinney’s own principles.

Thirdly, the current system operates on an opt-in basis, whereas in the new approach everyone’s address will be automatically included through the transfer of the community health index postcode into the national health service’s central registry. That means that no consent will be required for a person’s full details to appear on this universal database. By virtue of simply being born, a person’s details could be accessible by Quality Meat Scotland or even the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. We would not be in control of our own information.

I have set out three reasons why the plans are flawed: scale, unique number and consent. There are other reasons, but those three should be sufficient to cause at least some doubt in the minds of Scottish National Party members.

I am pleased that the Conservatives, Labour and the Greens agree with our concerns, and I would be interested in the opinions of the independent members. I urge those who are considering backing the Government’s amendment to reflect carefully. If there is even a scintilla of doubt in their mind about what the Government is proposing, they should vote for our motion. Voting with the Government would give it permission to proceed with limited and inadequate scrutiny. The Scottish Government disputes the claim that what is being proposed is a precursor to an ID card. The problem is that, if there is an all-encompassing single database with one single number for each individual and no consent required, it is a simple process to produce a card with that number on it, stick a picture on it and then there would be an ID card. I think that everyone would recognise that as an ID card.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not suggesting that those organisations would have access to my NHS data. I accept that they would not. However, if someone gives permission for their authentication details to be used for one purpose, I do not think that it is appropriate for those details to be used for another purpose without their consent.

Willie Rennie also mentioned Ken Macdonald, who has said that the proposals could be in breach of the European rules. That is a very serious statement for the assistant information commissioner to make. He has called for a privacy impact assessment, so I welcome John Swinney’s agreement that that assessment will be carried out. Mr Macdonald has also said that use of a national identifying number—for whatever apparently positive purpose—must be

“subject to a proper debate”,

and he has cautioned against the

“creeping use of such unique identifiers”

that should

“not just happen by default”.

The BMA feels that that would undermine patient confidence in and people’s relationship with the health service.

If the NHS electronic data was totally secure and private—I accept the point that that is not what people will apparently have access to, but they will have access to the community health index number, and the CHI number is being increasingly used in relation to access to NHS data—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful for the chance to participate in the debate and congratulate the Liberal Democrats on bringing it to the chamber. I agree with the basic argument that, if such a change is to be proposed, it should be subject to primary legislation and the full scrutiny that that implies. I also welcome Richard Simpson’s amendment.

I do not agree with every word that has been spoken in criticism of the Government’s proposals—for example, Liz Smith might not be surprised to learn that I do not fully endorse elements of her speech—but that demonstrates the breadth of different perspectives that are expressing similar concerns on the matter.

There are people who try to draw a connection—a rather tenuous one, I think—with measures such as the named person scheme, which I do not agree with. There are people who come from a traditional liberal perspective, which is a different part of the political spectrum from mine. There are people whose antistate agenda sometimes borders on paranoia.

SNP members have raised concerns about the proposals as well. There are Labour members who might have voted against their Government’s bill on ID cards in session 2, others who might have voted in favour but uncomfortably so and others who have changed their position since.

There are the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Open Rights Group and some people whose analysis comes from a frankly technical and almost geekish point of view.

Such a broad range of different perspectives is leading many people to the same concerns, which we should take seriously. From all those different perspectives, I have heard no one suggest that the Government’s policy objectives—ensuring, for example, that everyone who is due to pay the Scottish rate of income tax pays it—are not valid or not important. The objectives are important. The argument here is that there is a better way to deliver on those objectives, which does not create a single unique identifier that covers the whole breadth of Government relationships and agencies—that, in effect, creates a single point of failure. If an error is made in that single, centralised system, whole aspects of our lives could unravel as a result.

The single point of failure is one of the crucial criticisms in the Open Rights Group’s briefing. The group ends the briefing, which I commend to members who have not had a chance to read it, by asking whether there is an alternative. Yes, there is a better way to do this—an opt-in authentication service. No personal data need be stored, but it would allow the user to prove their identity to public and private bodies without having to provide their passport and utility bills. It would reduce the scope for identity theft or fraud and make life easier for users without providing that single point of failure.

I think that the Deputy First Minister was listening seriously to those concerns in our meeting yesterday and I encourage him to be open to those alternative approaches. We can learn from them and be informed by them. We do not have to replicate absolutely everything that the UK Government is doing.

I have one request to make of the Deputy First Minister. I welcome his statement that there will be a full privacy impact assessment, and I welcomed it when he set up the privacy management group, which was informed by a wide range of external experts, including people such as Jerry Fishenden, Gus Hosein and Charles Raab. I ask him to please ensure that that privacy impact assessment is conducted by that external group of experts, not by civil servants, because many of us are concerned that it is not SNP policy that has brought this proposal here; it is long-standing civil service policy that has gone through changes of Government. It is the job of the Parliament to stand up for principles when the civil service tells us, “Minister, this is the only way to do it.” It is not the only way and I hope that the Government will think again.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

I will say at the outset that I vehemently oppose the implementation of an ID card system of the type that has been proposed previously in another place. We should be proud to stand up for civil liberties without any hesitation and I would certainly not support such legislation if it was being proposed.

Since the preamble to this debate kicked off the other day in the media, I have heard some astonishing things said on the subject, including “slippery slopes”, “Big Brother is watching”, and “the end of democratic society as we know it”. Then I got sight of the motion, which—to be fair—is written in a reasonably temperate form of words, talking about concerns and debate. I see nothing unreasonable about the amendment in the name of John Swinney. As the Deputy First Minister has pointed out, if we are to have a broad use of services online, some form of information has to be shared across various public bodies and there has to be some way of identifying clearly that the subject of the ID process is the recipient of the service.

This morning, oddly enough, I was at a meeting at the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service asset resource centre at Newbridge, in my constituency. At that meeting, senior fire officers and others were discussing how the service would be run in the years ahead. Much of the work that the service will be doing will be under the preventative strategy and that, of course, crosses into, among other things, health and social care issues, such as when a pensioner is discharged back home. The risks may be obvious—possibly the pensioner is a bit wobbly on their feet, so a safety assessment could be asked for. Is there any reason why some sort of online request—from the recipient or from others—could not be made to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service? That is not easy to do at present and, of course, work has to be done if we are to preserve civil liberties while producing a modern system that works. However, whatever happens, an ID has to be made.

More and more, we are using online services and, in many cases, old methods are simply not up to the job. We are moving into areas where speed of decision making is imperative and of course there is also the idea of it being cost effective.

With the Scottish income tax, a database may be one answer to the problem of how to identify a Scottish taxpayer. I know that many of the members of the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee are concerned about how tax collection is audited, given that Audit Scotland does not have a primary role in the audit function. We could find some comfort in at least being able to identify Scottish taxpayers, which will mean that we can work out roughly whether the numbers match up with the snapshot that is produced by HM Revenue and Customs.

I find it very strange that Willie Rennie complains about the way in which the Government has dealt with the subject. It is quite clearly just seeking to add to the legislation that George Lyon introduced some time ago. Members may call me a cynic if they like, but surely even Willie Rennie can see the hypocrisy in that.

We are dealing today with a consultation introduced by the Scottish Government. Different views will be brought forward; work will be done by ministers and civil servants—yes, civil servants—and an agreement will, one hopes, be reached among the parties.

There is no new super database being proposed. It is too early, in my opinion, to make a huge song and dance about the subject before we see the proposals. I say to the Liberal Democrats that the tactic of manufacturing a crisis so that they can run a campaign against it is one that we see regularly in my constituency, and it really is a bit much. I ask Liberal Democrat members why they do not act responsibly, and debate the facts rather than a worst-case scenario that will not happen.

I support the motion in the name of the Deputy First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The privacy assessment will be carried out properly and appropriately, and I do not believe that the proposal breaches the data privacy principles that we set out.

I obviously irked Jackson Carlaw by trying to have a reasoned debate in Parliament. Maybe I should just make a hysterical contribution to Parliament—on that basis, I would compete with him for the most colourful contributions.

The reason for my approach is that I think that the public are being fundamentally misled by a lot of the things that are being said. I wanted to dispassionately provide clear information in Parliament. Mr Carlaw might shake his head and say that nobody has been misled, but I will share two things with Parliament.

Last night on television, Mr Rennie said:

“I mean, nobody has ever said that it’s about accessing ... NHS personal information.”

It is regrettable that, at 4 o’clock on Tuesday—yesterday—he put out a campaign email that said:

“The plans would mean civil servants from 120 public agencies accessing a database which includes NHS records.”

That is purely nonsense—absolute, shameful, total nonsense from him.

Willie Rennie rose—

Mental Health

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12492, in the name of Jim Hume, on mental health. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Before I call Mr Hume to speak to and move the motion—if he is ready—I advise the chamber that we are now extraordinarily tight for time and I must ask members not to exceed their allocated time. Mr Hume, you have 10 minutes.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The member says that there should be more resources for mental health. Does he have any suggestion about where they would come from? Would they be from the physical health budget?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

If we look at the Government’s record on the matter, we see that it has reduced its funding for the mental health research budget from £4 million in 2008-09 to just £860,000. Therefore, it is about prioritisation.

The ministers have to listen to the experts who are warning about problems in training, recruitment and retention of the mental health workforce. The Scottish children’s services coalition has told me that it considers that the red flag has been raised on an impending tipping point in respect of educational psychologists across Scotland. In 2012, the Government removed the funding for bursaries paid to each trainee, which resulted in a drop of 70 per cent in the applications for those courses. The number of children with additional support needs has more than doubled—the figure reached 140,542 children in 2014. That means that there is one educational psychologist for more than 356 children.

Sadly, that intense workload is being echoed across other fields in mental health services, including adult psychological treatment services, where a particularly worrisome rising trend seems to be developing.

Two fifths of general practitioners are not referring patients for psychological treatments because of the ballooning waiting times, or just a lack of provision. It is not just me who says that; the GPs themselves say it. I will quote the words of two GPs who responded to a Scottish Association for Mental Health survey. One said:

“Access to psychological therapies is extremely poor with long and unacceptable wait times. GPs feel under pressure not to refer people to already stretched services”.

The other said:

“We do not have adequate access to non-pharmaceutical treatment options. We have NO access to psychological therapies in our remote rural area. It makes me very angry”.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Mr Hume mentioned the SAMH survey of GPs. Does he recognise that, when he talks about 40 per cent of GPs not referring due to a lack of availability, that figure is actually 40 per cent of those who said that they had not referred? When we looked at the figures, it was actually 8 per cent of all the GPs responding—I confirmed that with SAMH when I discussed the matter with it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you for your brevity. I now call Jamie Hepburn. Minister, you have up to seven minutes.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I will try to respond to some of the points that Mr Hume and others raised in my closing speech, but at the outset I emphasise that I very much welcome the opportunity of a further debate on Scotland’s mental health. I believe that this is the third parliamentary debate that we have had on mental health in this calendar year. In the first debate, which I secured immediately after the Parliament returned from the Christmas recess, there was a clear consensus that we should debate the subject more often. I am very glad that we seem to be doing so. It is vital that the Scottish Parliament engages in bringing the issue to the fore.

While trying to capture the essence of the motion, my amendment also tries to place matters in a better context. I believe that Dr Simpson’s amendment also does that, to an extent. If the Government’s amendment is not agreed to, we will support Dr Simpson’s amendment.

Mental ill health is an issue that touches us all, whether we have a mental health problem, are a carer for someone who has a mental health problem or have family, friends or colleagues who have had a mental health problem. It is estimated that mental health disorders affect more than a third of the population every year. It is therefore vital that we continue to break down the stigma around mental ill health.

The see me campaign, which is hosted by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, is Scotland’s national campaign to end mental ill health stigma and discrimination. We have made enormous progress in tackling that stigma, but the Scottish social attitudes survey that was published late last year showed that the work of the see me campaign is still needed, as people still experience negative attitudes because of their mental health problems. People often self-stigmatise—they avoid events and do not want to talk about their illness. The refounded see me campaign has planned activities around, for example, equality and human rights, the workplace and settings where people experience discrimination, emphasising the role that we all—employers, communities, friends, the media and others—have in ending the stigma of mental ill health.

I know that Mr Hume referred to this in his opening speech, but I set out in my amendment that we should thank and support not only our NHS staff who work in mental health but those in the third sector who work in that area. The see me campaign is a great example of that work.

There are other ways in which we can start to end mental ill health discrimination. There has been debate around parity between mental health and physical health. Mr Hume raised that point again in his speech, and I know that it is of particular interest to him and that he has raised it in the chamber on a number of occasions.

As I have set out previously, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 already states that Scottish ministers have a duty to secure

“improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland”.

However, it does not distinguish between the two areas, nor does it place a higher importance on one over the other. Our Scottish NHS has a duty to promote the improvement of health—a duty that extends equally to the areas of physical and mental health.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sure that Mr Hume will want to acknowledge that duty.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

The minister is correct that the 1978 act, which applies to Scotland, refers to

“improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland”,

but the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which applies to England, refers to improvement

“in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”

It highlights those things separately.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Of course. I expected that Mr Hume would raise that point, and I am aware that that is what section 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 says. Presiding Officer, let me read out for you and members in the chamber what section 1 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 says:

“It shall continue to be the duty of the Secretary of State”—

it is now the duty of Scottish ministers—

“to promote in Scotland a comprehensive and integrated health service designed to secure—

(a) improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland, and,

(b) the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.

I say to Mr Hume that that covers both physical and mental illness. I am more than happy to discuss the matter with him, and if he believes or perceives that some form of legislative vehicle would be apposite, I am happy to consider the matter. However, it is fundamentally important that we recognise that there is already parity in legislation between mental and physical health.

I hope that the fact that my portfolio also includes sport and health improvement signals an understanding of how supporting the mind supports the body and how supporting the body supports the mind. I fundamentally believe that improved access to physical activity can make an important difference to a person’s sense of mental wellbeing, and I am determined to bring the influence of sport to bear on improving Scotland’s mental health.

However, I am also clear that we must improve access to mental health services, because some of us will experience mental health problems just as some of us will become physically unwell. That is why we have developed access targets for psychological therapies and child and adolescent mental health services.

We should recognise that Scotland was the first nation in the UK to introduce a target to ensure faster access to psychological therapies for all ages. The target for boards is for patients to start treatment for psychological therapies within 18 weeks of referral. That is a challenging target and we should recognise the work that boards have been undertaking to try to meet it. The latest data shows that the average adjusted waiting time for psychological therapies is eight weeks and that 81.4 per cent of people were seen within 18 weeks.

Some boards are doing better than others. We are offering boards support to tackle waiting lists, and progress has been made. I recognise, though, that that progress is not significant enough. I expect all boards to meet the target, and that is why we have embedded it in NHS Scotland’s local delivery plan guidance for 2015-16.

I turn to CAMHS.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are in your final 40 seconds.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The mental health of our children and young people has been a focus of our efforts to improve Scotland’s mental health. We have increased the specialist child and adolescent mental health services workforce by almost 24 per cent since 2009, and the latest data shows that more people are being seen within 18 weeks, with an average waiting time of seven weeks. That is an improvement, but it is still not good enough. Last week, I was in contact with those health boards that did not meet the target in the latest figures, and I have been assured that we will continue to see progress.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close, please.