Scottish Parliament, 25 June 2015

258 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

East Ayrshire Council (Meetings)

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

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met East Ayrshire Council and what matters were discussed. (S4O-04508)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of all Scottish local authorities, including East Ayrshire Council, to discuss a wide range of issues as part of our commitment to working in partnership with local government to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland.

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

I thank the minister for that answer. In light of the Scottish Government’s commitment to undertake an inquiry into historical child abuse, does the minister welcome the progress that has been made on implementing the standards for residential childcare, recognising the clear link between a qualified workforce, safe care and better outcomes for looked-after children in East Ayrshire and elsewhere in Scotland?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I welcome the progress that has been made so far to implement the residential childcare level 9 qualification, which was introduced by Aileen Campbell in 2014. The qualification will be phased in from 2016, with an expectation that all existing workers will be qualified to that level within 10 years.

We are working actively with the centre for excellence for looked after children in Scotland, and the Scottish Social Services Council is working actively with the sector, to make that happen. There is broad support for the initiative, which recognises the very positive impact that a qualified workforce will have on outcomes for our looked-after children.

Neurological Alliance of Scotland (Meetings)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what the outcome was of the recent ministerial meeting with member organisations of the Neurological Alliance of Scotland. (S4O-04509)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I met representatives of the Neurological Alliance of Scotland on 18 June 2015. At that meeting, I reiterated that I welcome proposals from the Neurological Alliance as to how it can be involved in improving services for people with a neurological condition. I have asked officials to follow up that offer with the Neurological Alliance.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank the minister for that response. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport said this morning that she wanted to put the voluntary sector centre stage, so why is the minister ignoring the views of every single neurological voluntary organisation in Scotland, including MND Scotland—which I know the cabinet secretary and the First Minister respect very much—and the Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Centre Lothian in my constituency, of which I am patron? Indeed, it is not just those organisations that he is ignoring. Will he listen to the Scottish Neurosciences Council and to the managed service network for neurosurgery, which has praised the neurological voices group that the Neurological Alliance established?

Why will the minister not use a mere £35,000 of the £210,000 that I am sure he will mention in his next answer to maintain the Neurological Alliance? Does he want Scotland to be the only country in the United Kingdom that does not have a neurological alliance?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Let me be clear. I do not want Scotland to be the only country in the United Kingdom that does not have a neurological alliance. The Scottish Government has not withdrawn funding from the Neurological Alliance; the funding that had been agreed has ended. I accept that that may be a moot point—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The important point is that such funding is for a specific time period, and that time period has ended.

However, as Malcolm Chisholm pointed out, £210,000 has been set aside to support work that will improve outcomes for people with a neurological condition. That is a significant increase on funding for similar purposes from last year, and I would presume that members across the chamber would welcome that. However, I did not hear Malcolm Chisholm welcome that significant increase in funding, which is in addition to the range of other funding that we have.

The Scottish Government is in regular conversation with members of the neurological community to ensure that any funding is spent to best effect. The money is available for project support to improve outcomes for people with a neurological condition. The Neurological Alliance could benefit from that, and that is exactly what I committed to my officials discussing with the alliance in due course.

Police Scotland (Professional Standards)

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed Police Scotland’s professional standards with the chief constable. (S4O-04510)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I meet regularly with the chief constable to discuss a range of issues regarding Police Scotland. Professional standards are a matter for the designated deputy chief constable.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. Following reports that the chief constable of Police Scotland has criticised the ruling of a sheriff relating to the trial of a police officer last year, does the cabinet secretary agree that the chief constable should respect the independent role of Scotland’s judiciary?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Any complaint about the chief constable would have to be investigated by the Scottish Police Authority’s complaint and conduct sub-committee. That would be the appropriate body to investigate any concerns that have been raised about the chief constable’s conduct in the matter.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the low morale in Police Scotland at this time. Has he discussed that with the chief constable? How does he propose that that should be addressed, given the importance of a highly motivated police force to the people of Scotland?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I discussed morale with the chief constable in the past half hour. Police Scotland is taking forward a survey of its staff’s view of how Police Scotland is performing and the areas in which performance can be improved. Once Police Scotland has the results of that survey, it will look at how it can improve and address some of the issues and concerns that the staff raise.

I am sure that the member will recognise that any major organisation that goes through a period of significant restructuring will see an impact on staff morale. Police Scotland and the chief constable have been clear with me that they are determined to address the issue. The first survey of its type in relation to Police Scotland will be published later this year and will help to take that work forward.

Food Poverty (Mid Scotland and Fife)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address food poverty in Mid Scotland and Fife. (S4O-04511)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Scottish Government is doing what it can with the resources and powers that it has to tackle poverty and food poverty. From 2013-14 to 2015-16, we are investing around £296 million in anti-poverty measures to mitigate the impact of welfare reform, which the Trussell Trust has suggested is a contributory factor in the increasing demand for food banks. That funding includes our £1 million emergency food action plan to help to combat food poverty in Scotland. The funding also supports 26 projects across 17 local authority areas, including in Mid Scotland and Fife.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Today’s “Poverty in Scotland” statistics show that 22 per cent of children—210,000 children—in Scotland remain in relative poverty after housing costs, and many of their families seek support from food banks. It is a year since the Scottish Government launched its emergency food fund. The minister mentioned Mid Scotland and Fife. How much support went to organisations in Fife? How much money will be available to the fund in the coming year?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I am aware of two projects in Fife and Clackmannanshire that receive money from the fund. The East Neuk Recovery Group Initiative receives funding, and funding was awarded to The Gate.

We want to address the issues that cause food poverty. The report from the Trussell Trust recommends that the actions that we require to take to reduce poverty include increasing people’s benefits and income. That is what we propose to do and is why we have launched the consultation on the new social security power. The fairer Scotland consultation is a nationwide consultation to look at how we can address the issue because we cannot just mitigate, mitigate, mitigate.

Gypsy Traveller Community (National Halting and Permanent Site Network)

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to establish a national network of halting and permanent sites for the Gypsy Traveller community. (S4O-04512)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Local authorities are responsible for taking decisions about the provision of Gypsy Traveller sites in their areas, based on their assessment of local accommodation needs. We therefore have no plans for the Scottish Government to establish a national network of sites.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The minister will understand that councils find it difficult to establish sites because few places are in public ownership. Councillors are naturally reluctant to support approved sites as Travellers are always perceived as bad neighbours, even though we know that many of them cause little trouble. Could the Government use its national planning powers—or at least consider doing so—to provide a national network of halting and permanent sites, because that might enable such a network to happen?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Government’s position is that decisions about the provision of Gypsy Traveller sites are best made by those who have local knowledge and accountability. A decision on whether to provide a Gypsy Traveller site is therefore one for the relevant local authority. Local authorities could choose to work together to create a national network of sites.

We funded Planning Aid for Scotland to carry out a project on planning and the Gypsy Traveller community. It has now produced guides for councillors and council officials on Gypsy Travellers and the planning system. Those are useful documents that have information on the Gypsy Traveller community and local authorities’ legal duties.

Vandalism (Fife)

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action Police Scotland is taking in light of reported increases of vandalism in Fife. (S4O-04513)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

We take any reported increases in vandalism very seriously, and any reports of that nature would be a source of concern. However, according to Police Scotland, real progress is being made in Fife. The latest figures show that crimes of vandalism in Fife in 2014-15 have reduced by 11 per cent over the previous year. Although I am aware of local reports of vandalism in Fife, for example at Craigtoun country park and in Burntisland, I can say that over the first 80 days of this year vandalism charges in Fife fell by 4.5 per cent.

As in other areas in the country, Police Scotland has developed a partnership approach with local community groups to develop a range of interventions to reduce the impact caused by antisocial behaviour and vandalism in communities. Police Scotland is using proactive intelligence to tackle vandalism in Fife and high-visibility patrols in identified hotspots, deploying mobile closed-circuit television and dome-hawk cameras and reacting as quickly as possible to reports of vandalism or antisocial behaviour.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There is concern in Fife among police officers about the balance of their redistribution across community functions, local response teams and national specialist teams. That is coupled with the fact that recent figures reported to the Scottish Police Authority show that police controllers are taking up to three minutes to answer 999 calls and up to 11 minutes to answer more routine calls.

Does the Scottish Government recognise that local control over resources is essential for quick and effective responses to crimes such as vandalism?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The effect of vandalism is felt locally in communities across Scotland where it occurs. The importance of having good, local, ward-level plans for policing operations is recognised by Police Scotland. In Fife, the development of local ward plans is well advanced.

On the calls issue that Jayne Baxter raises, we should not lose sight of the fact that 90 per cent of 999 calls are answered within 10 seconds, with the majority of 101 calls being answered within 40 seconds. We recognise that there have been challenges in delivering the 101 service—I know that Jayne Baxter, Alex Rowley and other members are conscious of that. We are doing what we can to tackle the challenges; Police Scotland takes the issue very seriously.

I would be happy to engage with Jayne Baxter if there are particular issues in Fife that she wants me to take forward.

Council Tax Reduction Scheme (Glasgow)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the council tax reduction scheme has had in helping people in Glasgow on low incomes. (S4O-04514)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Scottish Government’s latest council tax reduction statistical publication shows that there were more than 97,000 council tax reduction recipients in Glasgow in March 2015.

Our commitment, in partnership with local government, to mitigate the 10 per cent cut in funding from the United Kingdom Government to council tax benefit successor arrangements has meant that over 35 per cent of all chargeable dwellings in Glasgow received a reduction in their council tax liability through the council tax reduction scheme in March 2015.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

In light of the deeper cuts coming from the heartless Tory Government, how will the Scottish Government continue to ensure that those people who suffer most from increasing austerity—including many of my constituents—are supported and protected from further cuts to their income?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The member is right to highlight the further cuts that are still to come. Suggested additional cuts to the welfare budget include: freezing working-age benefits, tax credits and child benefit for two years; lowering the benefit cap; and removing automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds. That would account for only a fraction of the £12 billion reduction of welfare spend that the UK Government has said that it will introduce. That will make it much more difficult for the Scottish Government to tackle poverty.

We are committed to creating a fairer Scotland, ensuring that people are provided with the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty through fairly paid work. We will continue to mitigate the worst aspects of welfare reform, but there is a genuine limit to what we can do in the face of such severe cuts.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (NHS Grampian)

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to NHS Grampian for children and adolescents who need to access mental health services. (S4O-04515)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I have spoken to the chief executive of NHS Grampian to obtain assurances that the health board is doing all that it can to achieve the target. As a result of that discussion I have written to the board asking for a detailed recovery plan by 3 July.

NHS Grampian has done significant work in service redesign to increase its capacity to meet the child and adolescent mental health services target on a sustainable basis. As a result of redesign, NHS Grampian has already identified where it needs to increase capacity.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Given that the Lowit unit in Aberdeen was providing important services for young people with mental health needs, concerns have been expressed to me about its closure. Can the minister assure me that young people who are affected by the closure of the unit will be asked for their views on whether the service redesign is working? Will the redesign be affected by the reduction nationally in the number of beds that are available for young people who require mental health treatment?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Taking the last point first, I point out that we are actually increasing the number of beds in the specialist estate. On Richard Baker’s specific point, I generally agree: it is important that we hear the voice of service users. I will undertake to raise the point directly with NHS Grampian and come back to Richard Baker on that.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that workforce levels in mental health services are at record levels in Scotland, with the child and adolescent mental health services workforce having risen by 45 per cent since 2008? Does he agree that the Scottish Government commitment to invest £100 million of funding to improve mental health services in the next five years is very welcome in the north-east and throughout Scotland?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I can confirm that the CAMHS workforce has increased from 645.3 whole-time equivalents in September 2008 to 980.6 whole-time equivalents in March 2015. That is an increase of 51 per cent and up from the December figure of 942.4 whole-time equivalents. I certainly agree that the additional £100 million that we have invested in mental health services for the next five years is very welcome.

Potential Oil Reserves (Exploration)

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the exploration for potential oil reserves in the Clyde, off the west coast and in the Atlantic basin. (S4O-04516)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Exploration for oil and gas is a reserved matter. The primary levers for promoting exploration of oil reserves are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. However, we welcome the work that is being led by the University of Aberdeen to explore the potential for commercial oil production west of Scotland, which is involving a range of international energy companies including OMV, DONG Energy, JX Nippon Oil & Energy, and Statoil. I discussed that work at a recent Natural Environment Research Council conference in Edinburgh.

The Scottish Government has argued strongly that the UK’s new fiscal regime should incentivise exploration, and we will continue to work with industry and with the UK Government to achieve that goal.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The minister will know that, after years of investigation, I hold a copy of an outline BP production licence—PL262—for drilling south of Arran that was issued in 1983. I also hold a copy of last year’s statement from Michael Heseltine, who was Secretary of State for Defence at the time, in which he said that he had stopped the drilling for special defence circumstances.

Will the minister seek to ensure that the full report of the team that is currently analysing the opportunities for oil in the Clyde and in the Atlantic basin does not suffer the same fate of denial as happened to the McCrone report in the 1970s?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

For my part, the answer is yes. I am aware that Mr Brodie is known for doing his own exploration work, as it were.

Of course, when people first said that there was oil in the North Sea, everybody scoffed, particularly down in the London Government. They said that there was not any oil, and then they said that it would run out. They said that it would run out in the 1990s; then, that it would run out in the noughties; and then, that it would run out in the current decade, but it did not.

If they are wrong as they have been so many times before, and I include the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimate that oil would be $102 a barrel right now, then I believe—to answer the question—

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Thank you, minister—I would like to get to question 10.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We need to explore every opportunity.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

10. To ask the Scottish Government when it will next meet the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde board and what matters will be discussed. (S4O-04517)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

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

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the accident and emergency department at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As George Adam will be aware, when the RAH A and E department was not recovering as quickly as possible from the pressures of winter, we deployed an expert support team from 16 February for a two-week period.

The support team agreed a number of interventions, which have borne fruit for the hospital. The team continues to liaise with local staff and to monitor progress.

The most recent published data for the week ending 14 June shows that the RAH A and E department has seen 91.2 per cent of people within the four-hour target. That reflects the hard work of all staff in the hospital. The challenge now is to sustain and improve that performance even further.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Before we move to the next item of business, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency Dr Martin Eichtinger, the ambassador of the Federal Republic of Austria. [Applause.]

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02894)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

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

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is the end of term, when we sometimes reach for a little levity—and I am famous for levity. I was tempted to ask the First Minister what she is doing to save the macaroni pie, but I would never get four bites out of that. There are also the oil and gas reports, which were slipped out half an hour ago on the last day of term, but there is nothing funny about the figures contained in them.

It is also the end of the school term, and all over Scotland careful childcare arrangements made by families are coming to a crashing halt. I think that in a modern, 21st century country such as Scotland, parents should expect affordable, accessible, high-quality childcare all year round for children of all ages. Will the First Minister explain why we do not have that?

The First Minister

That is a clutch of issues to be getting on with. First, let me deal with the important matter of the macaroni pie, as that cannot be left on the sidelines today. I confess that I am not a lover of the macaroni pie, but my father is, and last night he gave me a stern talking to on the telephone and told me that he expected me to join the campaign to save the macaroni pie. I have always been an obedient and loyal daughter, and this occasion is no different.

The oil and gas bulletin was actually published two hours ago—perhaps Iain Gray is a slow reader; I do not know, but he has certainly not done much for his reputation for levity today.

Iain Gray raised a serious and important issue, and I warmly welcome the report that has been published today by the commission for childcare reform. The Government will study that report carefully, and if it contains ideas or suggestions that we think are worth taking forward, we will certainly do so. As Iain Gray is aware, the Government has already increased by almost half the hours of free early learning and childcare that are available for three and four-year-olds, and we have plans in the next session of Parliament to double that provision again, from 16 to 30 hours a week. I accept that there are issues of flexibility and wraparound care, and that is why our recent legislation put the onus on local authorities to consult parents about those issues. We will continue to work hard to improve the provision of childcare. Why will we do that? Because it is right for children and for parents who want to work.

Finally, the Government’s commitment to increase childcare to 30 hours a week over the next session of Parliament, if we are re-elected, is way in excess of what both Labour and the Tories promised at the United Kingdom election. We will continue to lead not just by example but by practice and by getting on with the job.

I suggest to Iain Gray, just by way of an introductory comment to my answer, that, before he criticises this Government’s commitment to childcare provision, he should reflect on the fact that what we are providing today is double what we inherited from the last Labour Administration. I do not suggest that there is not work to do, and we are committed to doing it, but it is far in advance of anything that the last Labour Government managed to introduce. In the spirit of honesty and self-reflection, which shone through that BBC documentary “The Fall of Labour” the other night, its members should reflect on their own record.

I know that the matter raised is an issue for parents. I have spoken to parents in my constituency, and I have spoken to the fair funding for our kids group. I suggest to Iain Gray that he familiarise himself with the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has done two things in particular that are relevant to this question: it has placed on local authorities the obligation to consult parents about flexibility, and also the obligation to consult parents on early learning and childcare beyond the mandatory hours and on out-of-school care, so that that can be better integrated with mandatory early learning and childcare.

We will continue to take forward this important programme of work. Labour members might want to support us, instead of throwing brickbats from the sidelines, as has become their wont.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I understand that the Scottish Government has asked local government to consult parents, but the childcare commission has spent 15 months consulting parents and providers, and parents are not going to say anything different.

Let me try to explain. After 16 years, the Parliament is full of grandparents, including you, Presiding Officer, and me. In Scotland, more grandparents have to fill childcare gaps for free than anywhere else in the UK. Today is the very day when grannies and grandpas are mobilised to fill the school holiday hole in childcare provision right across the country—plus friends, neighbours, juggling family holidays, flexible hours for those who are allowed them and holiday clubs for those who can afford them. No amount of free pre-school hours helps with that. The commission’s report says that that focus is squeezing other wraparound care out.

The only thing that will help is to have modern, flexible, all-year-round, all-age, affordable childcare, so will the First Minister change her childcare focus and deliver what parents need, not what her Government has decided they should get?

The First Minister

In everything that I have said I have recognised the challenges that parents face, and that is why we are working to improve the provision of childcare. We are doing so by extending the number of hours—during term time, I accept—while also considering how we integrate that provision better with more wraparound care. The obligation that is now on local authorities to look at flexibility and integration is resulting in authorities starting to consider different ways of providing childcare. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking to a local authority nursery headteacher who is actively considering how to extend provision longer into the holiday period. Those issues are actively being taken forward.

Iain Gray wants to make comparisons with the rest of the UK. I point out that—albeit that childcare is expensive, which we understand—Scotland has lower costs for almost all types of childcare than the rest of the UK. Costs are rising more slowly here. However, there is no doubt that childcare is expensive, and that is why we will get on with the job of improving it.

Labour should reflect on why, if it had all the answers, it did not implement some of those answers when it was in government. Secondly, why—[Interruption.]

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We did.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Mr Simpson.

The First Minister

Why, just a month or so ago, during the UK general election campaign, did Labour not propose any of those ideas that Iain Gray is now putting forward? I will leave Labour to moan on the sidelines. As First Minister of this Government, I can say that we will get on with the job of improving childcare for children and parents across the country.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister dismisses the costs of childcare in a sentence. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The truth is that we have some of the highest childcare costs in the world. Childcare is not working for families. but it is failing low-income families in particular. For them, this is not an inconvenience; it is a year-round insurmountable barrier to getting into work and out of hardship. They know what they need: after-school clubs, holiday childcare and full-time nursery places that are available, accessible and affordable. They need to know that childcare will not cost them more than 10 per cent of their income—that is Scottish Labour’s commitment as well that in the childcare commission report—and that childcare will not disappear on 1 July once their child is five.

I know that the First Minister cannot deliver that by tomorrow, but she can commit to it today. After eight years of Scottish National Party Government, is that really too much for parents to ask?

The First Minister

I think that one of the problems for Iain Gray here is that he might not want to listen to the answers that I am giving, because they get in the way of his pre-prepared script for the questions, but I assume that people out there—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

—will be listening to the answers that I am giving. First, I did not dismiss concerns about the cost of childcare; I said explicitly that childcare is too expensive. I simply corrected a point that Iain Gray made about UK comparisons. Secondly, I have said that this issue is a work in progress for the Scottish Government. We are increasing the provision of free childcare so that it does not cost any percentage of a family’s budget and they get the same hours of childcare free of charge as primary school children spend in primary school. We are also working to deal with the issue of integration and wraparound care. This is a job that we are getting on with doing, because I know how much it matters to parents, to grandparents and, perhaps most important of all, to children across the country.

Yet again we have the divide in this chamber: the Opposition just raises the moans and the whinges and the problems; this Government gets on with finding the solutions and doing the hard work of fixing things.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

When it comes to levity I know that I am a stand-in, but we should probably both admit that neither of us are stand-ups; that is for sure.

The trouble with free nursery hours is that thousands of parents cannot access their childcare entitlement. The First Minister knows that; she has met the fair funding for our kids campaign twice, but she has done nothing to fix the problem.

There is a bigger problem. The commission for childcare reform, which reports today, says that there has been a

“Focus on early learning for pre-school children at the expense of broader childcare provision”.

Indeed, the head of the Childcare Alliance says:

“In Scotland in 2015 far too many families are finding that, instead of working for them, the childcare settlement is making their lives more difficult and less secure.”

The First Minister may welcome the commission’s report but, in many ways, it is damning of her childcare policy. Is she listening? More important, will she act?

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02896)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have no plans in the near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

This week, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that one of every three of its members worries that they cannot recruit enough skilled staff to grow their business. That is one of their biggest concerns and now outweighs tax, utility costs and access to finance for them. We know that this Government has decimated Scotland’s colleges, which are the bedrocks of skills training. The excuse has always been that the Government would make up for the cuts to part-time places with an increase in full-time places. In the past five years, how many part-time places has the First Minister cut and how many full-time replacements have there been?

The First Minister

If Ruth Davidson is serious about ensuring that our small businesses—indeed, our businesses of any size—have access to the skilled labour that they need, she would be supporting the college reform programme because it is precisely about making sure that young people, or people of any age, going through the college system are coming out with the skills, training and qualifications that better equip them for the jobs market.

The issue of skills is important, and the Scottish Government—through Angela Constance, as the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning; Roseanna Cunningham, as the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training; and the Deputy First Minister, as Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy—works closely with businesses and business organisations to ensure that we can deal with skills shortages where they exist.

However, any issue of skills shortages arises from the fact that we have rising employment in Scotland and falling rates of economic inactivity. Yes, skills shortages are challenges that we must address, but they are challenges from a recovering economy. I will continue to make sure that this Government, through our education system, is equipping young people for the jobs that are out there for them. If Ruth Davidson was serious about this, she would get behind that.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

It was not a hard question. I asked for only two numbers, but I am not surprised that those numbers are ones that the First Minister did not want to give. In the five years to 2013-14, the Government cut 150,000 part-time places and replaced them with just 9,000 full-time places. That is a ratio of 15:1. Part-time courses help carers, single mothers, those who are returning from maternity leave and part-time workers. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

However, it is worse than that. For the first time, we now know what those cuts mean for individual communities. Yesterday, MSPs were told that there has been a cut of more than 18,000 college places in Fife, a cut of nearly 20,000 across Aberdeenshire and a drop of nearly 16,000 here in Edinburgh. Most shamefully of all, in the First Minister’s own backyard, there are now more than 30,000 fewer college places for the young people of Glasgow than there were when the SNP Government came to office.

We already knew that the numbers had been cut, but we now know the communities that have been hit hardest by those cuts. We also know that our small businesses are increasingly worried about a skills gap opening up. The SNP’s approach to colleges is failing students and failing Scotland’s businesses.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I need a question, Ms Davidson.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

What will the First Minister do to turn the situation round?

The First Minister

If everything was as disastrous as Ruth Davidson makes out, Scotland would not, right now, have the lowest level of youth unemployment that we have seen in six years and the highest level of female employment that we have ever seen. That is the reality of the reform.

I remind Ruth Davidson of some facts that she may find inconvenient. The Government promised that we would maintain 116,000 full-time college places. As I accepted a couple of weeks ago, when questioned by Kezia Dugdale, we did not quite deliver on that commitment—instead, we have delivered 119,636 full-time college places. The number of women who are studying on full-time courses has increased by 15 per cent, more recognised qualifications are being achieved and 14,000 more students are successfully completing full-time courses leading to recognised qualifications than was the case in 2009.

Here is the view of somebody whom we all respect—somebody whom the Opposition parties are usually keen to quote when his words suit their purposes. Sir Ian Wood says:

“Colleges have come on immensely ... They are re-energised and are re-inventing themselves as larger units with ... greater potential”.

He says that they are

“recognising their opportunity ... to enhance the focus on employability of the students.”

Where part-time courses are still appropriate, we support them. That is why we have invested an additional £6.6 million in 2014-15 for part-time places, which are often favoured by women. Ruth Davidson will not like that either.

We are getting on with the job of making sure that we have a young population that is equipped to take up the jobs that are being created in our economy. It is the kind of thing that the Tories used to support, but they seem to have completely lost their way.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Stewart Stevenson has a constituency question.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The First Minister will be aware of the loss by Young’s Seafood of probably the biggest fish-processing contract in the United Kingdom, which is affecting jobs in Fraserburgh and in Grimsby. Aberdeenshire Council has indicated that it will work to mitigate the effects of that, and the chief executive has indicated to me that he will give every support to Government initiatives. It would be very welcome if the First Minister could indicate that the Government will support every effort to mitigate the effects of job losses in Fraserburgh.

The First Minister

I share the member’s concern about recent developments in respect of Young’s Seafood and the potential impact on employees, their families and the surrounding areas. I can confirm that the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment have offered and will continue to offer immediate support to the company. Scottish Enterprise is also in contact with the company to support the business and to discuss what can be done to minimise any negative impact on jobs.

In the unfortunate event of job losses, we have already made the offer of support through our partnership action for continuing employment initiative, which helps in redundancy situations and assists those who are affected by redundancy. I reassure the member that the Government will do everything within our power to help the company through this difficult time.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The First Minister will be aware of the deportation of the City of Glasgow College student, Majid Ali, to Pakistan. His whereabouts are unknown and he has not been heard from since. Does the First Minister share my concerns over his safety? Will the Scottish Government endeavour to find out exactly what has happened to Majid Ali?

The First Minister

I certainly share the concern of the member and of Mr Ali’s friends about his safety since his removal from the United Kingdom. It is very worrying that no one has heard from him in the two weeks since he left the UK. On 10 June, the Minister for Europe and International Development wrote to the Home Secretary seeking urgent clarification of Mr Ali’s situation and assurances about his safety. To date, no reply has been received and I now intend to write to the Prime Minister.

Although asylum is a reserved matter, the Scottish Government is clear that all claims for asylum must be thoroughly and fairly assessed, and that people must be returned to their country of origin only if their safety can be guaranteed.

Police Scotland (Stop and Search)

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the finding by the Scottish centre for crime and justice research that in 2014-15 Police Scotland’s use of stop and search remained “unduly high”. (S4F-02897)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, it is important to set the report in context. It says that

“At the national level, the trends seem encouraging”

and notes that the overall number of recorded searches fell by 34 per cent in 2014-15.

Alison McInnes will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has set up an independent advisory group, chaired by John Scott QC, to examine the use of stop and search in Scotland. The group, which has met twice already, will make its recommendations by August. The cabinet secretary looks forward to working constructively with members to take forward the group’s recommendations.

In addition, Police Scotland is implementing a detailed improvement plan on stop and search, which will result in better training, data recording and governance.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Search numbers might be down, but they are still far too high. People in Glasgow are five times more likely to be stopped and searched than people in London are. Searches fall disproportionately on young people. Last year, the number of searches on 16-year-olds in Glasgow was greater than the total number of 16-year-olds in that city.

I know that the First Minister wants to wait for the findings of her advisory group, but the independent review of the Fife pilot by an academic says that consensual stop and search should end now. Will she back that academic’s recommendation and call on Police Scotland today to end this discredited practice?

The First Minister

As the member will be aware, there is already a presumption against consensual stop and search, and there is no consensual stop and search for young people. It is important to wait for the outcome of the advisory group; otherwise, there would be little point in establishing it.

I pay tribute to Alison McInnes, as she has a consistent record on these issues, and I respect her views. I am sure that she will recognise the trends that the centre’s report sets out. In the first two full years of Police Scotland, the number of searches fell by almost 38 per cent, and by 34 per cent in the most recent year; the number of consensual searches fell by 40 per cent; and the number of searches on 16-year-olds fell by 39 per cent. Further, as I said, there is already an end to consensual stop and search for under-12s and a presumption against it for everyone else.

The right things have been done. There is a determination to learn the right lessons. It is important to allow the advisory group the opportunity to do its job, then all of us, collectively, can take forward its recommendations.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

Is the First Minister aware of figures from Police Scotland, which were given to me last week, that reveal that there were 7,500 stop and searches—more than 20 every day—in East Renfrewshire last year? I ask the question because one young man was stopped several times in his car and once recently while out walking, all without foundation.

Does the First Minister believe that all of those 7,500 searches in the most law-abiding area in Scotland were intelligence led? Does she share my concern that the situation could damage relations between the police and our young people?

The First Minister

I believe—as I think that I have made clear—that the relationship between the police and our young people is vital. The approach to stop and search is one of the factors that ensure that that relationship is good.

I know from experience in my constituency that people want to see the police visibly tackling crime and disorder in their communities. There is always an important balance to be struck.

As I said to Alison McInnes, the trends on stop and search are clear, and they are all downward. The statistics that I read out to her are important, and they show significant drops in the use of stop and search. Further, as I said, there is now an end to consensual stop and search for under-12s and a presumption against stop and search for everyone else.

The presumption is that only when there are statutory grounds will stop and search happen. If the advisory group recommends further changes to policy, as I expect that it will, we will take those recommendations forward.

Welfare Reductions (Impact on Food Bank Use)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister what analysis the Scottish Government will make of the impact on food bank usage as a result of Scotland’s share of the further £12 billion in welfare reductions announced by the United Kingdom Government. (S4F-02895)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We continue to be very concerned about the rising demand for food banks. The Scottish Government has invested nearly £300 million from 2013-14 to this year to mitigate the worst impacts of the UK Government’s welfare cuts. That includes £1 million specifically for our emergency food action plan to help combat food poverty in Scotland.

There is no doubt in my mind that the UK Government’s welfare cuts have led to the dramatic increase that we have seen in food bank use. We have yet to hear the details of where and on whom the Conservatives’ £12 billion welfare axe will fall in the future. However, we have seen from experience that Tory benefit cuts tend to fall on the most vulnerable and disproportionately on disabled people and on women. The Scottish Government will continue to do everything that it can to mitigate that impact.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Information that was published this morning highlights the high level of child poverty that there is now, even before the additional £12 billion of welfare cuts come from Westminster. Does the First Minister agree with me that the extra cuts will only push more children and their families into poverty, which the Conservative Government will be responsible for? Does she agree that the pressures that are placed on food banks and food share organisations will only increase, at a time when the level of emergency food aid that is provided by Trussell Trust food banks in Scotland is the second highest in the entire UK?

The First Minister

I agree with that. Figures that have been published this morning show that poverty in Scotland—particularly child poverty—remains far too high. We know that there has been an eightfold increase—I repeat: an eightfold increase—in emergency food aid given to families over a three-year period. That suggests that there is a real pressure on family incomes because of welfare cuts and benefit changes.

The Prime Minister seemed to indicate on Monday that tax credits would form a key element of the UK Government’s proposed £12 billion of further cuts to the welfare budget. Tax credits are a vital support for many low-income families, and particularly families with children. Cuts of that magnitude will have a significant impact on families and poverty levels in this country, and they will push more people into relying on services such as food banks. That, along with many other things, powerfully illustrates why the powers over social security should be in the hands of the Scottish Parliament and not in the hands of a Tory Government at Westminster.

Local Authorities (Budget Reductions)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the concerns expressed by trade unions and others regarding the budget reductions that local authorities are facing. (S4F-02902)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The outcome of the 2011 spending review and the budget review of 2013 confirmed that local government’s revenue funding and capital share would be maintained on a like-for-like basis, with extra money being made available for new duties. Despite the significant cuts that Westminster has imposed on this Parliament’s budget, the total share of the Scottish Government’s budget that is allocated to local government, excluding health spending, has risen on a like-for-like basis since we took office in 2007.

The impact of the 2015 United Kingdom spending review on the Scottish budget, as well as the financial settlement that the Scottish Government in turn reaches with local government, will determine future budgets.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Since the Government came to power, 50,000 people have lost their jobs in councils across Scotland. That is the equivalent of the entire engineering sector. The poorest communities are suffering the greatest loss of services. Libraries have closed, home care has been privatised, education services have been cut and the cost of burials is up.

If those job losses had occurred in the whisky or bioscience sectors, there would rightly be a national outcry. There would be calls for action and a task force set up in response. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Let the member ask his question.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Why does the employment crisis in local government not merit a similar—or indeed any—response from the First Minister?

The First Minister

Not for the first time, Neil Findlay seems to live in a parallel universe. I cannot help thinking that, if only UK Labour had had the guts to stand up against Tory austerity, we might not have another Tory Government looking to impose more austerity. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

Instead, we have the pitiful sight—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

I know that Labour members do not like it. Instead, we have the pitiful sight of a UK Labour leadership contest being dominated by the question whether Labour is going to admit to spending too much during the good years.

We will continue to stand up against Tory austerity and to do everything that we can to protect our vital public services, such as the national health service and—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

While Scottish Labour still takes the view that it is better to allow our finances to be run by a Tory Government at Westminster than to be run by this Government here in Scotland, it will have absolutely zero credibility on these issues.

Taxis (Regulation and Licensing)

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government’s approach to regulation and licensing of the taxi market is focused on what is in the best interests of consumers. (S4F-02900)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The principal reason for licensing taxis and private hire cars is to ensure the safety of passengers, which is why through the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill we are seeking to tighten up regulation and enforcement, as well as to bring data consistency to the taxi and private hire regimes. We have undertaken a thorough process of consultation and engagement in order to arrive at a balanced package of measures, which include allowing local licensing authorities to test private hire car drivers and to limit private hire car numbers where there is overprovision. The bill also creates the role of the civic licensing standards officer, which will provide support and reassurance to the public and be an invaluable addition to the existing enforcement arrangements.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the First Minister consider that consumer protection for passengers of private hire vehicles can be achieved through customer awareness, as well as through background checks for drivers? Preference for local knowledge or satellite navigation should be left for consumers to decide for themselves.

The First Minister

Our proposals to strengthen enforcement and change the licensing regime are important and right. However, I agree with Cameron Buchanan that there is a role for customer awareness as well. In this area, as in any other area, we want customers to be as educated and aware as possible, so that they can make informed decisions about the services that they use. I agree with that, but the legislative provisions that we are proposing are the right ones.

Points of Order

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Members: Ooh!

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order! I will take Dr Simpson first.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. In answer to a question from Richard Baker, Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health, said that the number of places for children and adolescents in mental health services has increased. However, last year, in answer to a question from me, the Government said that there would be 48 beds in 2015. Following the transfer from Yorkhill hospital to the Southern general hospital, the number of beds has been cut and there are now only 42 beds in Scotland, compared with the 56 beds that Labour planned in 2006. Will the Presiding Officer allow the minister to correct the record at an early opportunity?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As Dr Simpson well knows, the Presiding Officers are not responsible for answers that are given.

Mr Kelly?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I wish to raise a point of order in relation to the “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin”. For months, members across the chamber have been asking for the bulletin—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Let me hear Mr Kelly.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

It has now been released on the last day of the parliamentary term. The bulletin has profound implications for the Scottish economy, with North Sea oil taxes projected to be £40 billion less than the figure in the white paper. [Interruption.] I note that the First Minister said that publication was two hours ago. It is no coincidence that the bulletin has been published after the deadline for the lodging of emergency questions.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Thank you, Mr Kelly. [Interruption.] Order! Order! I get the point, Mr Kelly.

The timing of the oil and gas report’s publication is not a matter for the Presiding Officer; it is a matter for the Government.

The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon) rose—

Do you wish to say something, First Minister?

The First Minister

I wish to respond to the point of order, Presiding Officer. The “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin”—

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

It is not for the First Minister to respond to points of order; it is for me. That ends First Minister’s question time.

Family Nurse Partnership Programme (NHS Lothian)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-13494, in the name of Jim Eadie, on the fifth anniversary of the family nurse partnership programme in NHS Lothian. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates Edinburgh on becoming what it believes is the first city in the world to offer the Family Nurse Partnership programme to all eligible women in its fifth anniversary year; understands that the pilot programme, which was launched in NHS Lothian in 2010, has provided support and advice to 660 mothers in Lothian; welcomes confirmation that the resources and staffing are now in place for every eligible young mother in Edinburgh to be offered a place on the programme; further understands that the programme is an intensive, preventive, one-to-one home visiting programme for young, first-time mothers from early pregnancy until their child reaches the age of two and was developed in the United States by Professor David Olds; supports its main aims of improving pregnancy outcomes, child health and development and the economic self-sufficiency of the family; considers that the scheme has been such a success that it now operates across seven NHS board areas, Lothian, Tayside, Fife, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Forth Valley and Lanarkshire and benefits over 2,000 mothers across Scotland; welcomes plans for expansion into Borders and Grampian NHS board areas later in 2015, and commends what it sees as the valuable work undertaken by Family Nurse Partnerships in Lothian and across Scotland.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

It is a real privilege for me to be able to bring this debate to the chamber. I am most grateful to all the members who have supported the motion in my name.

The debate is an opportunity to recognise the innovative work that has been undertaken by family nurse partnerships across Scotland. As an Edinburgh MSP, I am particularly pleased to recognise the fact that Edinburgh has become the first city in the world to offer on a sustained basis the family nurse partnership programme to all eligible women. That means that every first-time mum in our capital city who is aged 19 or under will benefit from the programme. In total, more than 2,000 mothers have already benefited from it—more than 600 of them here in Lothian.

The service began as a pilot project in January 2010 and has made a real and lasting impact—so much so that it is now being rolled out across the whole of Scotland. Teams are already in place in the Lothian, Tayside, Fife, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Forth Valley and Lanarkshire health board areas, and there are plans to extend coverage to the Borders and Grampian later this year.

I thank the Scottish Government—the Minister for Public health as well as the current and previous First Ministers—for the political leadership that it has shown. Sometimes leadership is required to say to the sceptical voices in the civil service and the vested interests, “This is the direction in which we are going to go and this is what needs to happen.”

I also thank NHS Lothian—in particular, its director of nursing, Melanie Johnson—for the clinical leadership and commitment that it has shown in the pilot project, which has proved to be so successful. Most of all, I pay tribute to the nurses, the highly skilled and empathetic healthcare professionals and the young mums who have made the programme work.

The family nurse partnership programme is an intensive preventative one-to-one home-visiting programme for young first-time mothers from early pregnancy until their child reaches the age of two. Mums are visited by a specially trained nurse every week or two weeks during pregnancy and throughout the first two years of their baby’s life.

The programme was first developed in the United States by Professor David Olds, who is a professor of paediatrics at the University of Colorado. It is delivered in this country under licence, and it has three main aims: to improve pregnancy outcomes; to improve child health and development; and to promote the economic self-sufficiency of the family. It aims to introduce a new approach to nursing that involves working with the parent to help them to build up their own skills and resources to parent their child well, and to think about their own aspirations for the future. The programme is intended to offer targeted intervention in addition to Scotland’s universal health visiting services.

It is important to put the family nurse partnership programme into its wider strategic and policy context. It is part of a wider approach that recognises the importance of targeted interventions—in particular, in the early years of life. In the United States, there has been the development of the concept of the social womb—the environment that a baby experiences after birth. J Ronald Lally, who is co-director of the centre for child and family studies at WestEd in the USA, has stated:

“Be it at home or in childcare what happens during infancy is too eventful to leave to chance.”

That wider approach also requires paid parental leave so that parents can spend critical bonding time with their baby, and it requires the provision of high-quality and affordable childcare. It sits alongside and complements well-resourced universal provision of health visitors, to which the Government is committed.

However, we should not lose sight of the unique and innovative contribution that family nurse partnerships can make. The Scottish Government’s own data clearly show that women aged under 20 living in the most deprived areas—the target client group for the partnership—are about 10 times more likely to have a child than women of the same age who live in the least deprived areas.

We also know that other problems that impact negatively on the wellbeing of mums and babies are more prevalent in areas of multiple deprivation. For example, nearly 31 per cent of women in the most deprived areas self-report as smokers at the time of their first antenatal visit, compared to just 6 per cent of women in the least deprived areas. That is a stark reminder of why the approach that is embodied in the family nurse partnership programme is necessary in order to target vulnerable mums and babies and offer them the intensive support that they need.

When we take the time to examine the benefits of the programme, it becomes clear why the Scottish Government and health boards are right to make that investment. Nurses support mums to make positive choices in areas such as child development, preventative health measures, parenting skills and breastfeeding, and offer better diet information and practical support on education and employment opportunities. All that leads to improved pregnancy outcomes and improved child health and development.

I refer to an article that appeared in The Observer in March of this year. It will not be possible for me to quote it extensively, but I point out that the journalist spent three months in Manchester and Portsmouth observing the impact of family nurse partnerships on the women and babies who participated. She concluded that she witnessed

“how this extraordinary intervention achieves little short of miracles.”

The personal story in the article that stands out is that of a young woman, Sarah—not her real name—whose father had hanged himself when she was nine and whose mother had died of an AIDS-related disease when she was 13. She had been in and out of care, had a badly scarred face from a dog bite and her boyfriend—a user of drugs—was in prison. Her nurse said that as a result of the programme:

“She had twin girls; she breastfed. She dumped the boyfriend. She had her scars fixed, so her self-esteem has risen, she is at college and has a part-time job and her own tenancy. Her two little girls are doing so well. We tell our girls again and again: ‘You can be different if you choose to be.’”

As well as considering those anecdotal personal testimonies, it is important to observe that the programme is underpinned and supported by extensive research. That includes the findings of the three US-based randomised controlled trials, drawing on the experience of the programme over 30 years. Here in Scotland there have been four detailed evaluation reports that explored the experience of delivering the family nurse partnership in the first Scottish test site in NHS Lothian.

In addition, it will be important to understand in a United Kingdom context what added value family nurse partnerships deliver over and above universal service provision, where the national health service already offers midwifery and health visiting support. The randomised controlled trial—the building blocks trial—which is evaluating the family nurse partnership programme in England, will be instructive in that regard.

There is growing evidence from the United States and England of the real benefits of the programme. There is evidence from an evaluation that was carried out in England by the University of Nottingham of the benefits of early intervention for fathers who are involved in a home-visit service that is delivered by the family nurse partnership. The evaluation states:

“The ‘early’ nature of the help was crucial to its success because of how it so effectively tapped into the men’s redefinition of themselves as caring fathers during pregnancy and following the birth.”

We should celebrate family nurse partnerships—we should invest in them, we should continue to evaluate their impact and we should roll them out across the country. This is an investment like no other. It is one that is not only changing lives but is transforming the lives of young mums and babies for this and future generations, and is giving vulnerable children in some of our most deprived communities the best start in life and the greatest chance to succeed as they grow and develop as adults. What better legacy could there be for our society?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I congratulate Jim Eadie on securing the debate. I also congratulate NHS Lothian because Edinburgh is, I think, the first city in the world to offer the family nurse partnership programme to all eligible mothers—in this case, teenage mothers.

The programme started five years ago. It was, in a sense, part of a wider movement towards focusing on investment in the early years as part of the preventative spend agenda. The idea is that, by investing a lot of money in the early years, some of the problems that children face growing up and later in life will be avoided.

As Jim Eadie said, the family nurse partnership programme is based on a programme from America, which is well-evidenced by randomised controlled trials. We know from Professor Olds and the evaluation in America that the programme’s outcomes include better pregnancies, improved child health and development, and improved parental life course. Of course, that does not automatically mean that the outcomes in Scotland would be the same. For a start, we have a national health service: clearly, there is nothing like that in America. Therefore, it is important that we do separate evaluations in Scotland. I have read NHS Lothian’s latest evaluation, and I will obviously draw on that in my speech.

Like Jim Eadie, I am very enthusiastic about the programme. However, others have been more sceptical. For example, I am told that a recent parliamentary question suggested that breastfeeding rates for mothers on the programme were 5 per cent only. We should not be so starry-eyed that we do not focus on areas where the outcomes are perhaps not so outstanding. However, in general, I am positive about the programme.

The programme appears to be tightly controlled and prescribed—everyone must follow the procedures and protocols that were laid out by the programme’s founders. However, in reading the evaluation, I see that, in a sense, part of the prescription is to be flexible; there is flexibility to meet individual clients’ needs.

The training of the nurses is important. I was struck and impressed by mothers being involved in the selection of the nurses. The key issue seems to be the quality of the relationship between the nurse and the mother, and the consistency of that relationship over a significant period, with regular visits. It seems to be a non-judgmental approach. The nurse can say to the mother, “Take this on board if you want to.” In addition, the small attrition rates suggest that the programme is valued highly by the mothers who receive it.

The basic idea is to give mothers the support that they need, to help children to get the best possible start in life and to prevent the problems that might otherwise arise. We should not just look at the programme from a public expenditure point of view, because the programme is quite expensive in the short run. However, the belief in America and the evidence from there are that it saves money down the line, because some of the children do not have the problems in later life that they might otherwise have had.

The whole programme is underpinned by attachment theory and recognition of the mothers’ strengths, which is a part of the assets-based approach that we sometimes hear about.

The evidence is that the programme is a good one. The Scottish Government has been doing some worth while and innovative work on the early years. Alongside the family nurse partnership, we could look at the early years collaborative. Sometimes, those are set against each other as alternative ways of pursuing a preventative spend agenda. I prefer to see them as complementary initiatives. Indeed, I certainly do not see any contradiction between them.

I welcome what has happened here in my city, and I am glad that the programme has been extended throughout Scotland. Clearly, we must keep on evaluating the programme. If there are weaknesses in the outcomes, we must address those. I commend all the work that has been done here in Edinburgh and I commend the Scottish Government for supporting the programme.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Jim Eadie for securing a debate on this important subject. The topic is highly important in its own right but, in many ways, it is symbolic of the whole area of preventative spend, which I will concentrate on.

I must say that, as a Glasgow MSP, I do not always support motions that start with the words:

“That the Parliament congratulates Edinburgh”.

However, I will make an exception today.

We can come at the subject from different angles and take, say, a health or Edinburgh focus on it. I will take a finance angle, not least because the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about preventative spending. Whenever we discuss the subject, we find that family nurse partnerships are one of the most common examples that are given. Indeed, this was the major topic at a recent round-table event at the University of Edinburgh in which the committee took part.

If we as a Parliament and as a country are serious about spending money in the earlier years to save it later, family nurse partnerships are exactly the kind of thing that we need to be doing. As the preceding two speakers made clear, if a child gets a better start in life, they will not be so far behind when they start school, they are less likely to be in trouble in their teenage years and they are more likely to do well in later life. I think that we are all signed up to the concept; I certainly sense a lot of agreement on the issue when we MSPs are in smaller groups at committee meetings and are, perhaps, behaving more sensibly.

As I understand it, the FNP programme has tightly defined rules—albeit that, as we have heard, it has a certain flexibility. It deals with a specific group of young mothers and has been well analysed, especially in the United States.

One of the challenges that we face is whether we can move more resources into the early years—whether that means FNPs or other programmes—because that means moving resources away from more reactive forms of expenditure. For example, in the health field, we might think of moving resources away from hospitals and into community and preventative programmes. That is where it becomes more difficult to gain consensus, especially when we get together in the combative atmosphere of the chamber. Are we really happy for some hospitals to be closed to free up resources for young families in the community? Are we happy to let accident and emergency waiting times rise to let general practitioners spend more time with their patients?

I thank the Royal College of Nursing for its briefing for today’s debate, in which it, too, highlights the tension on where resources should go and refers in particular to resources, staffing and the professional back-up that is required for the FNP programme. The RCN is particularly concerned that the wider health visiting service is stretched and competing for the same resources. The question that it raises is valid. In the final paragraph of its briefing, it says:

“So that no children fall through the gaps, the RCN believes that the Scottish Government should ensure Scotland has adequate health visitors, in addition to FNP nurses.”

As a result, we should be putting more emphasis on FNP nurses and health visitors, given that both are based very much in the community.

As for where the resources would come from, I presume that they would come from reducing resources for hospitals. I note that in the statement entitled “Building a more sustainable NHS in Scotland: Health professions lead the call for action”, which has already been debated in the chamber, the RCN said:

“the focus has remained firmly on the traditional model of hospitals as the mainstay of the health service. This needs to change.”

As the motion says, we congratulate Edinburgh and commend the valuable work undertaken by family nurse partnerships in Lothian and across Scotland, and I very much hope that we can continue building on this example by disinvesting from our more reactive services and investing more at the preventative end.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Jackson Carlaw, after whom we will move to the minister for her closing speech.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

I hope to be commendably brief, Presiding Officer.

Although I support Jim Eadie’s motion on family nurse partnerships, I will raise some concerns about the consequences—John Mason expressed views about that, which I very much share. I support the family nurse partnership because of its focus on the preventative agenda; after all, all the evidence suggests that, if we are to make savings in our health service to ensure that it can cope with the wider challenges that we know it will face with an ageing population, we have to become much more successful in our preventative strategy. Although Mr Eadie is right about family nurse partnerships—the programme’s track record in the United States, which Malcolm Chisholm referred to, and in England shows that it can have dramatic results—it is neatly targeted and focused on young mothers under the age of 19, and it has a consequence for the wider health visiting strategy.

The Scottish Conservatives have expressed concern about our approach to health visiting. Each of our 14 health boards can determine its approach to that and the resource that it puts towards it. We moved away from a nationally GP-attached service to one that works in teams. The consequence was that the skill set that previously existed in individual health services, with health visitors being attached to GP practices, was slightly diminished by a range of skill sets in the broader teams that were then brought to bear.

Some of those skilled health visitors have now applied to be family nurse partnership specialists, which has further diminished skill sets in the health visiting service. Moreover, more than 40 per cent of the family nurse partnership staff are aged 50 or over, and a significant age issue is arising in national health visiting as well.

The Scottish Conservatives support family nurse partnerships. We believe that such targeted and focused assistance to the group involved is important. However, we also believe in a universal GP-attached health visiting service that takes children through to the age of seven, because there is a lot of compelling evidence to suggest that trends that develop in young children beyond the age of two—from the age of three and beyond—that lead to obesity, potential future addictions or even offending rates, can be dealt with through such intervention and support.

We believe in a universal service so that all children have access to it, but we also believe that there should be a concentration on areas with high levels of health inequality and deprivation, because that is where the service is needed most. There are young mothers who are vulnerable, deprived and over the age of 19, and they do not have the benefit of a family nurse partnership, but they need the support of a well resourced health visiting service if we are to succeed in the much wider spectrum of prevention in young persons’ issues.

I fully support the family nurse partnership programme and would like it to be rolled out further but, in the wider debate that we are having—I hope that the minister accepts that this is not a criticism but part of what we hope is a constructive approach to the shape of the health service going forward—I do not necessarily believe that this is, as John Mason said, a question of hospitals closing down. The whole point about a health prevention strategy is that we can—with a different model of GP facilities and with a successful health prevention strategy—reduce the incidence of people presenting at A and E and potentially the cost burden to the health service of type 2 diabetes, for example, because we could prevent that with a better approach to young people’s health and by avoiding issues of obesity.

I hope that the minister accepts my remarks in the spirit in which they are meant. I am concerned and I feel that, in the next parliamentary session, as we look at how this new model of healthcare develops, we need to roll out family nurse partnerships, which I believe are successful, in conjunction with a wider availability of service to a much wider target group of people, universally, and particularly where vulnerabilities and health inequalities exist.

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

I am delighted to be asked to congratulate NHS Lothian on Edinburgh becoming the first city in the world to offer the family nurse partnership programme to all eligible women in the programme’s fifth anniversary year. I welcome the speeches that members have made and I thank Jim Eadie for lodging the motion.

In 2010, NHS Lothian was the first board in Scotland to deliver the programme. It has been clear in its commitment to the programme from the outset. Evidence from the evaluation that was carried out over three years demonstrated that the programme could be implemented with fidelity to the original research model.

NHS Lothian has worked closely with the Scottish Government, using a co-production model, to ensure that learning is embedded in wider policy rather than just in the programme. The lessons that can be learned from the family nurse partnership are being applied in the wider health visiting community. Learning has been shared with other universal services, including maternity services and health visiting, and I commend them for their continuing commitment to the programme.

The commitment has been demonstrated further by expansion to other parts of NHS Lothian, including West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian, which will also have the opportunity to benefit from the programme. There are also the other health boards that Jim Eadie mentioned. The programme has started in NHS Grampian and will start in the Borders later this year, so it will cover 10 boards.

This is the first time that the Scottish Government has implemented a licensed, evidence-based programme at scale. Further expansion of the programme has to be agreed with the licence provider, Professor Olds, to maintain the quality of the implementation. The programme’s success so far has been demonstrated through the recruitment and retention of clients, as well as the dedication of the nursing teams that support them. NHS Lothian has an average uptake of 81 per cent, with only 9.6 per cent leaving the programme before their child reaches the age of two. That is well within the fidelity targets that are set in the licence, and that has been maintained throughout the implementation.

The achievement was recognised at the recent event that the First Minister hosted at Edinburgh castle to celebrate with NHS Lothian and bring a message of continuing support from Professor Olds. I was delighted to have the opportunity to attend that event and was struck by the family part of it. That involved not just mothers and their children; partners, boyfriends and husbands were also really enthusiastic and involved in the upbringing of their children. I was struck that their relationships with the nurse partnership were strong. NHS Lothian’s experience and learning have been used to inform how the programme can be rolled out across Scotland and how other health services can use it.

In her former role as the cabinet secretary for health, the First Minister visited a clinic in Harlem, New York, in April 2009, where she first recognised the strength of the programme’s evidence base and how it could contribute to giving all our children the best start in life. The programme supports first-time young mothers from early pregnancy until the child reaches two and it aims to improve maternal and birth outcomes, child health and development, and the family’s economic self-sufficiency. We have also noted a reduction in the number of children’s injuries; less neglect and abuse; and less criminal behaviour in other children and mothers. The investment is showing wider dividends.

The Scottish Government has invested £15.5 million in the programme since 2010. That has allowed dedicated nursing teams to be put in place in nine health boards. I stress again that the family nurse partnership teams are an addition to the existing community nursing workforce, which supports families who do not receive the family nurse partnership programme. We are not taking away from existing services.

The investment has also supported the infrastructure in NHS boards to allow the programme to be supported in the local context. An emphasis is placed on data collection at each visit, and the data is used to inform continuous quality improvement at each level of the programme, whether that be nurse-client, team or NHS board.

The sub-group of the population that is served by the family nurse partnership programme was recognised as a vulnerable group in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on pregnancy and complex social factors that was published in 2010. It recognised that young women under the age of 20 should be supported through the provision of tailored advice and support that recognises their specific needs. The family nurse partnership programme goes further than that; it also recognises the strengths in that population and where there are opportunities to work with them to help them to make good choices for them and their children.

The group’s vulnerabilities must not be underestimated. According to the most recent Information Services Division teenage pregnancy report, which was published in June 2014, those who are most deprived are 4.6 times more likely to have a teenage pregnancy. The report states that, in the group of under-20s from the most deprived areas, the rate of those who go on to have their babies is almost 12 times greater than that in the least deprived areas. We also know that levels of poor health behaviours, such as smoking, are highest in that group.

The strength of the programme is that it has generated transformational change in the partner organisations outwith the national health service—particularly in housing—and helped them to recognise how to realign their services to meet the particular needs of young mothers and their families. That insightful learning was first gathered by NHS Lothian and has led to a much greater understanding by all services of what it takes to support the population group well. NHS Lothian has provided guidance and support to the other NHS boards to help inform them of how to work in an integrated way with other service providers who might not immediately recognise the importance of their role.

I recognise the achievements of nurses and families from the NHS Lothian area in successfully implementing a social intervention as complex as the family nurse partnership programme.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank all the members who took part in this important debate.

13:05 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Business Motion

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Good afternoon, colleagues. The first item of business this afternoon is consideration of business motion S4M-13613, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 35 minutes

Groups 4 to 7: 1 hour 10 minutes

Groups 8 to 10: 1 hour 30 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 49A, the marshalled list of amendments, which is SP bill 49A-ML, and the groupings of amendments, which is SP bill 49A-G.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The voting period thereafter will be 30 seconds. Following that, I will allow a period of one minute for the first division after each debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments, please.

Section 2—Requirement for air weapon certificate

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on air weapons: requirements for grant or renewal of an air weapon certificate. Amendment 1, in the name of Alex Fergusson, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4. If amendment 2 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 3 and 4, due to a pre-emption.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I thank the Presiding Officers for allowing these amendments, which were also lodged at stage 2, to be brought back at stage 3. We believe that they are worthy of further consideration, and I am grateful to the Presiding Officers for permitting that.

The purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is really quite simple: it is to save unnecessary bureaucracy, unnecessary expense and unnecessary use of police officers’ valuable time. Surely those are three worthy aims.

As we know, there are an estimated 500,000 air weapons in Scotland and presumably at least 300,000 people who own them. Each and every one of those people will have to undergo a process to be approved for and obtain an air weapon certificate. That is a pretty monumental task in anybody’s book, but when it is to be carried out by Police Scotland, which is in the process of reducing Scotland’s specialist resource of civilian firearms officers from an already miserly 34 to the almost unbelievably low number of 14, one has to query whether it is achievable. Even if it is, I have to question its necessity.

When the statistical data on recorded crimes and offences were eventually published not that long ago, they showed that airgun crime is at its second-lowest level in the past decade. There has been a 73 per cent reduction in airgun crime from its peak. It therefore seems to me that, if the purpose of the regime is to reduce airgun crime and we want to find the perfect example of taking a large sledgehammer to crack a fairly small nut, we need look no further than the proposal.

On top of that, I have not spoken to a single person who has been engaged in the debate or discussion who seriously believes that the licensing regime in itself will do anything to reduce airgun crime. Too many airguns will simply drop off the radar once the bill comes into force for that to be the case. Those that drop off the radar are unlikely to fall into the hands of people who will immediately rush to ensure that they have the necessary permit to hold an airgun.

It is clear that the bill will be passed today—I accept that entirely. Therefore, in order to reduce the bureaucracy, expense and time involved, I urge the Government to accept amendments 1 and 2, which would simply mean that existing and future holders of shotgun licences and firearms certificates would not be required to undergo a further process in order to possess an airgun.

If nothing else, that would reduce the number having to be processed by some 40,000. More important, if someone is already deemed to be a fit and proper person to own either a rifle or a shotgun—both of which are infinitely more dangerous weapons than any airgun—it is surely disproportionate beyond belief to require such a person to undergo yet another process and further expense in order to possess an air weapon as well.

My amendments would save time, money and precious police resources. If amendments 1 and 2 are unacceptable to the Government, I offer amendments 3 and 4 as a less satisfactory but nonetheless simpler compromise than the bill as it is published. What is not to like?

I move amendment 1.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you very much. I received no prior notification that members wish to contribute to the debate on any of the groups of amendments this afternoon. I accept that members may press their request-to-speak buttons, in which case I will try to call them, but I must ask for brevity of contributions. I call Elaine Murray, to be followed by Liam McArthur.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

My apologies, Presiding Officer. I did not realise that we had to notify you in advance if we wanted to speak on amendments.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You do not have to notify us in advance, but if we run out of time I cannot call members because the timings are based on what we know.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I will bear that in mind.

The Countryside Alliance has contacted us about this issue and I have had a couple of constituents contact me to say that people who already have a firearms licence should automatically be allowed to have an air weapons licence.

I resist the amendments in this group. Firearms regulations differ from the arrangements in the bill. If somebody has one firearm, they are not automatically allowed to have another firearm—another lethal weapon. Therefore, the fact that somebody has a licence for a firearm should not necessarily mean that they are automatically entitled to have an air weapon—another lethal weapon—without showing that there is a good reason for that.

I therefore resist the idea that somehow because someone has a licence for one firearm they should be allowed to have any number of air weapons without having to prove that they have a good reason for having them.

The bill does provide for some exemptions and quite rightly so, but I believe that the chief constable should be satisfied that someone has a good reason for holding a lethal weapon, because airguns of the size and power in question are lethal weapons and people should have to have a good reason for having one.

I understand that farmers in particular may feel that, because they tend to have a shotgun licence, they should be allowed to have an air weapons licence, but this is not just about the farming community; it is about the whole community in Scotland. It is important that the bill stays as it is and is not amended in this regard.

On the second set of amendments in this group—amendments 3 and 4—amendment 3 proposes substituting “must” for “may”. I think that “may” is the normal terminology in legislation, but in any case they are just another way of trying to do the same thing as amendments 1 and 2. I would resist all four amendments in Alex Fergusson’s name.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The minister will be aware of the concerns expressed by my colleague Tavish Scott at stage 1 about the proportionality and effectiveness of the bill as it stands. I very much welcome the fact that Alex Fergusson has succeeded in lodging his amendments.

From my experience, Police Scotland is indeed struggling to cope with the workload pressures already involved in administering shotgun licences. The amendments lodged by Alex Fergusson would at least offer some opportunity to make the bill a bit more proportionate and ease some of those workload pressures on Police Scotland.

I am therefore happy to lend the amendments my support.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Mr Fergusson has lodged a group of amendments that would fundamentally change the way in which we and the police intend to approach the licensing of air weapons under this bill.

The amendments reflect some of the objections that we have heard to the principles of air weapons licensing. Those objections were expressed by some of the shooting representatives on our expert consultative panel and by others who responded to our public consultation in early 2013. The Local Government and Regeneration Committee heard similar views during the first evidence session on the bill last November and again at stage 2, when Mr Buchanan lodged his amendments. However, as I said at stage 2, we believe that the measures and tests set out in part 1 of the bill achieve our aim of establishing a familiar, proportionate and practical licensing regime for air weapons.

Amendment 1 and the consequential amendment 2 seek to provide an automatic exemption from the need for an air weapons certificate for any person who already holds a firearms certificate or shotgun certificate issued by the police under the Firearms Act 1968. We considered that as a potential exemption from the licensing requirement when we first developed the bill, but we rejected the option for several reasons.

Under the Firearms Act 1968, for example, the tests for the grant of a firearms or shotgun certificate are different. The test for granting shotgun certificates is less stringent. There is no fit-and-proper-person test, and the onus is on the police to demonstrate the absence of a good reason to be granted a certificate, rather than the applicant having to show good reason. That is not the right approach to the licensing of firearms, including air weapons.

Also, firearms, shotguns and air weapons are used for different purposes and in different circumstances, as the police clearly explained when they gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. It does not necessarily follow that someone who has a legitimate reason for requiring a powerful rifle, for example, will also have a good reason for requiring an air weapon.

The bill gives us the chance to set out proper provisions for the regulation of air weapons in a modern Scotland. Applicants should be required to demonstrate that they have a reasonable and proper use for the guns and that they can be entrusted to use them responsibly and safely.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I will first finish my points.

Amendments 3 and 4 offer an alternative to the first two amendments in the group. They would require the chief constable to consider any applicant who holds a firearms or shotgun certificate automatically to meet the requirements to be granted an air weapon certificate without any further inquiry. Accepting those amendments would undermine the fundamental principle behind the licensing regime and the tests that are set out in it.

Having said all that, we have been clear that the new licensing regime should not place undue burdens on the police or applicant. We have made provision in section 5(2) to allow the chief constable to take as satisfied the tests that a person is fit to be entrusted with an air weapon, and that they are not prohibited from possessing firearms under the Firearms Act 1968, if they already hold a firearms or shotgun certificate.

We also make provision at section 9 to allow the alignment of air weapons certificates with those for firearms and shotguns. Coterminous certificates exist to align firearms and shotgun licences. The addition of air weapons will mean that all certificates fall to be renewed on the same date, reducing the burden on the applicant and the licensing authority. The fee for a coterminous air weapons certificate application will, as a result, be set at a lower level than that for a full application, as the police will be able to conduct all their inquiries at the same time.

Those measures go significantly towards the aims set out in Mr Fergusson’s amendments, but without compromising our overall objective of setting an adequate and fair test for the granting of certificates.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s points. He has gone some way to addressing the concerns around burden, but Police Scotland is clearly struggling to deal with the workload pressures in operating gun licensing provisions. What he has set out will not satisfactorily address the concerns about the additional workload under the new regime. What reassurances will he give that Police Scotland is geared up to deal with the workload pressures that will come as a result of the bill?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member should consider Police Scotland’s evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee when it outlined how gun certificates are dealt with. There is a peak and trough in workload, and we are timing the introduction of air weapons licensing to fit into the period when a lower number of firearms and shotgun certificates require renewal.

Police Scotland is introducing a new database to deal with licences. It is confident that it can manage requirements smoothly, proportionately and reasonably. I am confident that, given the assurances that Police Scotland has given us, we can take forward the new regime. On that basis, I encourage Parliament to reject amendments 1 to 4.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I invite Alex Fergusson to wind up and to indicate whether he will press or withdraw his amendment.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I am grateful to members for their contributions. I say to Elaine Murray that the issue is not by any means just about the farming community, although we and other members will have received representations from that community. Indeed, many different people will consider that the extra burden that is to be placed on them is as unnecessary as it is disproportionate.

The cabinet secretary has pointed out, understandably, that the applicant has to show good reason for possessing a shotgun instead of the other way round, as happens in the current firearms licensing regime. At the end of the day, however, police officers or enforcement officers still have to decide whether that reason is good enough, so a burden is still being placed on the police.

I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is aware of this, but—and I will come back to this issue later this afternoon—I am reliably informed that Police Scotland is already failing to keep up with quite a heavy backlog of shotgun certificate and firearms licence applications. However much the Government might be trying to bring the processes together, I cannot see that this new process will be anything other than a very heavy burden on Police Scotland officers, when most of us think that they have better things to do.

We have made the arguments, and I accept that we are where we are. Nevertheless, I will press amendment 1.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I suspend the meeting for five minutes, after which there will be a 30-second division.

14:46 Meeting suspended.

14:51 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 1.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 96, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Section 5—Grant or renewal of air weapon certificate

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3 moved—[Alex Fergusson].

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 98, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Alex Fergusson].

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 100, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

After section 41

Group 2 is on alcohol licensing: licensing objectives. Amendment 5, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendments 6 and 7.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I was prompted to lodge my amendments after the recent decision about the Arches venue in Glasgow. Members will be aware of the press coverage of Glasgow licensing board’s decision to revoke the Arches’ ability to operate past midnight, effectively closing it as a club venue, with the consequent job losses and the cultural loss of the venue to Glasgow and Scotland.

Members will be aware of the 40,000 members of the public who signed a petition calling for that licensing board decision to be reversed. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. Could we hear the member?

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Not at the moment, thank you.

Members will also be aware of the open letter that was signed by more than 400 leading names in Scotland—

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Not at the moment, thank you.

The letter was signed by almost 400 members of the arts community in Glasgow. They said:

“our main concern is that we are not satisfied that full consideration has been given to the potentially catastrophic impact this decision will have on the cultural life of Scotland.”

The letter goes on to look at the social as well as cultural benefit of the venue:

“Thousands of people from all over the country come together at the Arches at weekends, and it is widely regarded by leading professionals as one of the best venues in the world.”

Later on, it says:

“As a key venue at the centre of Glasgow’s remarkable cultural renaissance of the past 25 years The Arches importance to the future of the cultural life of Scotland cannot be overstated”.

Having discussed the situation with colleagues who serve on licensing boards, I intend to address two issues through my amendments. First, the existing licensing objectives focus on the issues of potential harm, crime and disorder, the threat to public safety, nuisance, the impact on public health and the need to protect children from harm. Those are important factors and licensing boards should take them into account, but positive factors can come from licensed venues and their cultural and social benefit to a community. Those factors should also be taken into account.

Amendment 5 would introduce the additional licensing objective of

“promoting social and cultural life.”

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Is the member arguing that a venue that is causing problems should be closed if it is a stand-alone venue but allowed to stay open if it is linked to an arts venue?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am arguing that our approach to licensing should take a holistic look at all the impacts of a decision, not just some of them.

Amendments 6 and 7 address a second concern that colleagues on licensing boards threw up. They often feel drawn to making a decision purely about one venue rather than about the wider impact. In this case, we are looking at the harm that is caused by recreational drugs. Most of the people who went clubbing at the Arches used a recreational drug, but it was a licensed and legal recreational drug—alcohol—and most of us also use it. Recreational drugs pose a risk of harm that we should take seriously.

The Arches has a long-standing record as one of the most progressive, enlightened and responsible venues in relation to illegal drugs. It reported issues to the police, made sure that medical facilities were on site for when someone got into trouble and trained its staff well. The idea that closing such a venue means that people who use illegal recreational drugs when they go out clubbing will instead go to the library or to a poetry reading is nonsense. People will use the same drugs in less responsible and experienced venues. Let us not kid ourselves—many clubs in Glasgow, and elsewhere, will not report it to the police when they find drugs on the premises; they will flush them. Let us not pretend that there are not irresponsible venues out there.

By taking our current approach to licensing, we risk increasing the incentive for such irresponsible behaviour. Amendments 6 and 7 ask that we balance the decision about individual premises with the wider impact on the community.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I hear what Patrick Harvie is saying, but to be precise we are talking about one venue operating in two different ways. As John Mason suggested, people say that the Arches nightclub pays for the cultural part of it—and obviously we are sorry about anyone losing their job—but surely it would be better to give money to the cultural part of the Arches, rather than doing as Patrick Harvie suggests, which is to say that if a venue is safe to use drugs, it is all right as a cultural and social venue? What about all the other social venues that do not participate in that?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The argument for additional arts funding to try to salvage some of the Arches business model is still on the table.

The case that I am making for amendments 6 and 7 is not the same as for amendment 5. Amendment 5 is about cultural and social life as a licensing objective. For amendments 6 and 7, I would make the same case for a purely commercial club venue, which had no artistic element as part of its business model, as for the Arches. If we have a responsible venue, which behaves well, trains its staff and provides medical facilities, do we really think that we are improving public safety by closing it down and ensuring that its customers will go elsewhere, to a less experienced or less responsible venue? It is not appropriate to leave the alcohol licensing regime to mop up the harm that is done by irrational drug laws in this country.

I move amendment 5.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Despite the fact that the Parliament agreed a timetabling motion, it is clear from the number of members who have requested to speak that the agreed time will not be sufficient. Therefore, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 15 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the first time limit be moved by 15 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

That will extend the time limit for subsequent groups. I notify members that the clock in the chamber was reset in error. The time used in debate on amendments began at 2.32 pm and the timetable for consideration of amendments will be taken from that time.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate the concerns that Patrick Harvie raises and I recognise that it is about the regrettable closure of the Arches in Glasgow. There is a discussion to be had about how licensing boards operate, the proportionate policing of Glasgow’s club scene and the responsibility of licensed premises to meet public safety demands. We have not had much time to consider the amendments, but I am not convinced that the bill is the right way in which to deal with those issues.

We may need to have the debate at another time. It should not be rushed and would need to include full consultation with all interested parties.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

As I explained earlier, I understand about the cultural part of the Arches, but I have real concerns about the definition of “social and cultural life” in amendment 5. I know exactly what Patrick Harvie is saying about the Arches, but there are other forms of cultural life. Would the definition bring in strip clubs or sexual entertainment premises? I am worried that the amendment would go against everything that is sought by some of the amendments to the bill that I have lodged.

As Claire Baker said, perhaps we should have a further debate on this and look at the definition. However, at this late stage, the bill is not the proper channel to go through.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

On amendment 5, I can understand the desire to promote sensible social activities, but does Patrick Harvie not consider that the aim of

“promoting social and cultural life”

is already achieved by adherence to the current licensing objectives on the public’s behalf?

Licensing objectives are intended to protect the public and that should remain their core purpose. I appreciate the principles behind amendments 6 and 7, but I have concerns about their implementation. The objectives are meant to protect the public from particular problems and licensing decisions should respond to those when necessary. The key phrase is “where necessary”: local issues should be responded to locally.

Will Patrick Harvie confirm whether the intention of amendments 6 and 7 is to clarify the board’s responsibility for its whole area or to encourage restrictions to be applied across a whole board area, even when many parts of that area will not have pressing licensing issues?

As has been said, it is hard not to be sympathetic to the aims behind Mr Harvie’s amendments, but this is not the time or the place to debate them.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

I sympathise with Patrick Harvie’s motivation in lodging these amendments. The future of the Arches is an issue that has been raised by colleagues—including Drew Smith and Claire Baker—on the Labour side of the chamber. However, I would put two arguments to Mr Harvie. First, changing the legislation governing licensing to introduce a whole new objective of

“promoting social and cultural life”

would be a fairly significant development, which at the least deserves fuller consideration.

A second, related point is that it is not generally good practice to introduce new proposals such as this one at stage 3. Civic licensing is already a complicated area, and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 has been amended many times.

I urge Mr Harvie, having made his point, to withdraw amendment 5.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to Patrick Harvie for taking us through his amendments. The licensing objectives represent the values on which the Scottish alcohol licensing system is based, and they are central to the way in which licensing boards carry out their functions under the 2005 act.

The current licensing objectives contained in the 2005 act are

“preventing crime and disorder ... securing public safety ... preventing public nuisance ... protecting and improving public health, and ... protecting children from harm.”

By virtue of section 41 of the bill, the last of those will soon include “young persons”, too.

Patrick Harvie’s proposed objective of

“promoting social and cultural life”

sits very uneasily within an act whose purpose is the regulation of the sale of alcohol. It is difficult to see how it could operate in practice for licensing boards, the trade and the public. I am concerned that, while the aim is laudable, we should not be charging licensing boards with the promotion of social and cultural life. The existing licensing objectives concern themselves with mitigating the effects of alcohol. However, the proposed new objective does not have that same concern as its primary aim.

I am sure that we all expect boards to take decisive action to address alcohol misuse. Amendment 5 has the potential to create difficulties for licensing boards in deciding which objective should be deemed more important than another when considering an individual case, and to deter boards from taking the sorts of decisions that we would expect them to take.

I do not believe that legislation concerning the regulation of the sale of alcohol is the appropriate means by which to consider the promotion of social and cultural life in Scotland. In addition, I am of the view that the promotion of social and cultural life in Scotland is not dependent on the sale and consumption of alcohol. As such, I do not believe that that should become one of the licensing objectives in the 2005 act. I therefore ask Mr Harvie to withdraw amendment 5 and not to move amendments 6 and 7. If those amendments were agreed to, they would undermine the entire alcohol licensing regime and all that it sets out to achieve.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Michael Matheson’s final comment that the objective would undermine everything that the licensing regime sets out to achieve is a wee bit of hyperbole. Amendment 5 is intended to broaden the aims that we seek to achieve through the licensing regime.

The cabinet secretary says that the regulation of the sale of alcohol is not the place for the promotion of cultural life in Scotland. If that is the case, it is certainly not the place either for the promotion of the objectives of our country’s drug laws.

Whether members support or oppose our current drug laws, the fact is that the impact of incidents of illegal drug use was a critical issue that led to the licensing board’s decision on the Arches. Once again, I cannot accept the argument that moving recreational drug use from one venue to another increases public safety—certainly not if we are moving it from a responsible, well-trained venue to other venues that are less so.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

One issue that the licensing board had to deal with in the case of the Arches was concern from the police. Would the amendments mean that the licensing board could disregard those police concerns, which were at the root of the decision that was taken on the Arches?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I would not want any licensing board in Scotland to disregard the concerns of the police, but I want what one member—I think that it was Claire Baker—called proportionate policing. Is it proportionate or intelligent to signal to other club venues in Glasgow, or elsewhere, that if they report incidents to the police instead of covering them up, they will be putting their licence at risk? At the moment we risk sending out a signal that irresponsible behaviour is less likely to lead to a licence being at risk.

Several members have pointed out that amendment 5 was lodged late, which I freely admit. Some may feel that the change it proposes is too big to introduce at stage 3. I felt that the amendment was a necessary response to recent events, and to challenge the idea that we focus only on harm. We would be wrong to ignore the harm that is caused by licensing the sale of alcohol, but we are also wrong if we fail to acknowledge the good that is done by licensing responsible, well-trained venues, and supporting them to operate even when there are problems. Those problems may be better dealt with on those premises than elsewhere.

I will press amendment 5 to a vote. Whether or not members support it, I think that this issue requires further debate and a recognition that we have been shying away from problems and pretending that our current approach to licensing solves them, when it manifestly does not.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 109, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 109, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

Section 45—Ground for review of premises licence

Amendment 7 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 109, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

Section 54—Overprovision

Group 3 is on alcohol licensing: overprovision. Amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 9 to 11.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The amendments in the group are minor technical amendments concerning overprovision.

Section 7 of the 2005 act places a duty on licensing boards to make an assessment of overprovision of licensed premises in any locality within their areas and subsequently include a statement regarding it in their licensing policy statements. That allows boards to consider the unique circumstances of their areas, including distinct localities within them, and decide whether, based on local need, it is appropriate to restrict access to alcohol through limits on new licences, licences of a particular type or variations of existing licences within the entire area or identified parts of it.

It is important that the overprovision assessment is an effective and robust tool for licensing boards. In respect of the overprovision ground for refusal for a premises licence or for a major variation of a premises licence, our amendments to the bill at stage 2 made the wording of the 2005 act more concise. The technical amendments in this group have been lodged in response to concerns that were raised by stakeholders that our stage 2 amendments had, in reality, made the wording overly brief.

On further consideration, we agree that it will clarify interpretation if there is more detail at section 23(5)(e) of the 2005 act, which concerns the refusal of a premises licence on grounds of overprovision, and section 30(5)(d) of the 2005 act, which concerns the refusal to vary a premises licence on grounds of overprovision. We lodged these technical amendments to rectify that so that the updated sections 23(5)(e) and 30(5)(d) of the 2005 act would be clearer to the reader.

I ask the Parliament to support the amendments.

I move amendment 8.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendments 9 to 11 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

Section 55—Duty of Licensing Boards to produce annual financial report

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on alcohol licensing: annual functions report. Amendment 12, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 13.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I gave a commitment to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee at stage 2 to lodge an amendment that would impose a new duty on licensing boards to prepare and publish an annual report on the exercise of their functions. Amendment 12 addresses a concern first raised by Alcohol Focus Scotland and others, supported by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, about the need for licensing boards to provide greater clarity about how they carry out their business.

John Wilson moved a non-Government amendment at stage 2 to oblige licensing boards to lodge annual reports on the exercise of their functions. The Government is sympathetic to the views that were expressed during the bill process, and I am grateful to Mr Wilson for agreeing to withdraw his amendment at stage 2 to allow my officials to carry out some informal stakeholder engagement before lodging the Government amendment.

Section 55 already imposes a duty on licensing boards to produce an annual financial report. Amendment 12 imposes a further duty on boards to prepare and publish an annual report on the exercise of their functions no later than three months after the end of each financial year. The amendment sets out what generally should be included in the report and what boards should have regard to in its compilation.

Amendment 12 also allows licensing boards to publish a combined financial and functions report, if they so wish. To ensure that the reports remain as effective and useful as possible, amendment 12 provides Scottish ministers with the power to make further provision about the annual reports using secondary legislation. We would expect to consult on the most effective and proportionate format and content before laying secondary legislation is required.

The annual reports will ensure increased accountability and transparency from licensing boards so that the public can see how they go about their business. I ask Parliament to support amendments 12 and 13.

I move amendment 12.

John Wilson (Independent, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking on board the aim of the amendments that I lodged at stage 2, which were based on discussions with Alcohol Focus Scotland. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s decision to lodge amendments 12 and 13 at stage 3, and I look forward to their being agreed to.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

After section 59

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 5 is on alcohol licensing: register of alcohol premises licences and personal licences. Amendment 14, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, is the only amendment in the group.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was not a member of the committee that considered the bill, but I observed the evidence that was given by a number of people at stage 1 about information that is available to the public. Amendment 14 would create a national alcohol licensing register to ensure that communities would have access to comprehensive information on licensed premises to help them to participate in the licensing process, particularly in relation to overprovision. Collating data at licensing board level in a uniform manner and publishing it centrally, preferably with information available at the ward or small data area level, could ensure a much more accessible form of information for communities.

Currently, licensing boards have to keep a public licensing register, but Alcohol Focus Scotland was recently able to locate only 16 publicly available registers, covering 19 of the 40 licensing board areas. The form and content of the information provided in the registers is highly variable, and not all the registers are available electronically. Alcohol licensing registers are potentially valuable tools for communities and other stakeholders to make use of in supporting their involvement in the licensing process, but there is a need to consider the form in which they are produced to ensure that they are as accessible and helpful as possible.

There is a national online register for tobacco outlets in Scotland, which can be searched by local authority area, postcode and type of premises. Examples of other possible approaches include mapping tools such as that produced by Lambeth Council, and the new website that shows alcohol and tobacco outlet density for small neighbourhood areas across Scotland. That website was created by a partnership involving the University of Edinburgh’s centre for research on environment, society and health—CRESH—the University of Glasgow, Alcohol Focus Scotland and ASH Scotland.

At stage 1, Dr Niamh Shortt from CRESH said:

“One of the most striking things in the documentation”

that the committee sent out

“was the very small number of applications that were refused. In 2011-12, only 21 licences were refused, whereas 347 were granted. In 2012-13, 12 were refused and 332 were granted. That shows the difficulties for local authorities in looking at”—

and fulfilling—

“licensing objectives.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 19 November 2014; c 15.]

CRESH found that no data was available on licensed premises at the local area level, and that the data that was available was so variable that it took CRESH nine months to cleanse it before being able to put it into a research paper. Members might wish to look at the paper that has now been published, because it shows the relationship between the density—indeed, the overprovision—of licensed premises and alcohol problems in different areas.

It is a huge disappointment that communities have been unable to challenge overprovision largely because they have been unable to access the data. Access to total board area data and small area data is vital.

Amendment 14 would allow ministers to make provision for a national register to be completed by boards; it would not overburden licensees but would require boards to produce information in a specific format that would be publishable on the web.

Paragraph (3)(a) of the proposed new section that amendment 14 would insert would ensure that the information to be recorded not only would include the number of personal licences but could include data on the linear sales areas for off-licences and the number of drinking places available in on-licences.

I move amendment 14.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I will be brief. I welcome the cabinet secretary addressing the problem that is faced by individual licence holders who fail to renew their licences on time. I understand that that provision will be enacted swiftly, and I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could publicise now—and widely thereafter—that welcome change.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to Richard Simpson for lodging amendment 14, and I am sympathetic to the views that he expresses. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to introduce the issue at this stage. The issue has not been brought before the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, nor has it been subjected to detailed financial consideration. I understand that a similar service in relation to e-planning has cost several million pounds to set up.

I am also concerned that the amendment, as drafted, is unworkable, because it incorrectly places a burden on licensing authorities to provide information when, in fact, the information that is required is held by licensing boards.

I assure the chamber that the Scottish Government is alert to the issue and that work is already in hand to go some way towards addressing it. Government amendment 12, which public health bodies such as Alcohol Focus Scotland pressed for, will impose a duty on licensing boards to report on the exercise of their functions and provide considerable information on the licences that are held, including occasional licences. We intend to consult widely to ensure that those reports are as useful as they can be without imposing an undue burden on licensing boards.

Furthermore, Police Scotland is already well advanced in rolling out its national Inn Keeper database. The police are a statutory consultee, which means that licensing boards will be provided with information from that national database.

The Scottish Government is working with a wide range of partner organisations to develop a business case for a national online licensing solution. Initial work has led to the development of a wider scope that is looking beyond just alcohol licensing to the civic regimes and central Government licensing regimes.

As all members will be aware, Scottish Government resources are limited. Therefore, rather than hastily commit to a specific project, we would do better to subject a major project such as that which is proposed to proper scoping and cost benefit analysis. That would allow us to assess the widest possible benefits to stakeholders while using effectively the resources that the Scottish Government, local authorities and others have in the area.

I ask Richard Simpson to withdraw amendment 14, on the basis that the Scottish Government already has work under way to develop an action plan for the delivery of a national licensing solution.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Under subsection (6) of the new section to be inserted by amendment 12—the annual functions report amendment, which we have just agreed to—it will be possible for ministers do much of what I am asking for, through

“the form and required content of reports”.

I understand from the cabinet secretary’s comments that that would be the case.

If communities are to participate fully in seeking to prevent overprovision, it is essential that they have that information. I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to pursue the development work that he has referred to as rapidly as possible and to ensure that we have an electronic system that allows proper access to the information.

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s reassurances, I seek to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 60—Refusal to grant private hire car licences on grounds of overprovision

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 6 concerns overprovision of private hire cars. Amendment 15, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, is grouped with amendment 16.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

The amendments make it clear that if a licensing authority wishes to refuse a private car hire licence solely on the ground of overprovision, it must prove that there is, or would be, overprovision.

I consider strongly that refusing a private hire car licence solely on the ground of overprovision is anti-competitive and would hurt consumers, jobs and, indeed, the local economy. In the interests of compromise, I have worded the amendments to ensure that such refusals are kept to cases in which overprovision is certain.

Refusals due to overprovision would be against the best interests of the public for four reasons. First, restricting the supply of private hire vehicles would limit the ability of consumers to choose between different services and select their preferred option. That choice is crucial to increasing and maintaining standards of service in the industry. Secondly, preventing new entrants would prevent prices from going as low as they could do in a less restricted market, as an expanded supply of private hire vehicles would bring down prices and make such transport an even more affordable option for all consumers. Thirdly, experience elsewhere has shown that those lower prices would allow more people than before to make frequent use of private transport. That can be a great convenience and it would be a loss to the Scottish public if they were denied the same opening up of travel options that is available in other places. Finally, it is apparent that determining that there is overprovision in a locality would prevent economic growth and job creation.

If someone wishes to start work as a private hire vehicle driver, the licensing authority should not stand in their way just because other drivers have already entered the market and do not want competition for fares. For that reason, the amendments aim to provide some measure of protection against unfair licence refusals by ensuring that authorities can refuse licences on the ground of overprovision only where that is certain.

I move amendment 15.

Ken Macintosh

It is clear from Mr Buchanan’s comments that he believes that a competitive free market trumps every other consideration for this Parliament. I urge colleagues to resist the amendments.

Mr Buchanan suggests that we replace a local authority’s judgment that it is satisfied that there is overprovision with a requirement for there to be proof of overprovision. The matter was debated by the committee at stage 2, when I believe that Mr Buchanan asked the Government to remove section 60 altogether. The Scottish Government agreed to provide further guidance. That was accepted by the committee, and I ask Mr Buchanan to accept the committee’s judgment on the matter.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to Cameron Buchanan for explaining his amendments.

Section 60 will allow a licensing authority to refuse a private hire car licence where it is satisfied that granting it would result in an overprovision of private hire cars. I remain of the view that an optional overprovision test in relation to private hire cars is a useful addition to the taxi and private hire car licensing regime.

There are already appropriate checks and balances in place in relation to those who are unhappy with a decision that a licensing authority has made. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 provides that, where a private hire car driver licence is refused, the applicant can require the licensing authority to provide reasons for that refusal and can appeal the decision to the sheriff court. If, during any appeal hearing, the licensing authority is unable to demonstrate that it has reasonably reached its decision, the sheriff can uphold the appeal and remit the case back to the authority to be reconsidered or reversed.

I am concerned that the amendments would create uncertainty in the minds of licensing authorities and might deter them from considering an overprovision test in relation to private hire cars.

It would be wrong to take that tool away from licensing authorities or to discourage its use. An overprovision test would allow licensing authorities to ensure that those entering the private hire car trade can have an expectation of making a reasonable income while reducing the temptation for private hire car drivers to attempt to operate in illegal competition with taxis. I therefore ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 15 and not to move 16.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

Having listened to the arguments on both sides, I would like to press amendment 15.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. This will be a one-minute division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 102, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Amendment 16 not moved.

Section 61—Testing of private hire car drivers

Group 7 is on testing of private hire car drivers. Amendment 17, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, is the only amendment in the group.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

Amendment 17 would prevent licensing authorities from requiring testing of the navigational knowledge of applicants for a private hire car driver licence, although it would allow other forms of background checks or testing.

Satellite navigation now allows drivers to navigate efficiently without extensive knowledge of roads, which makes requiring a knowledge test an unnecessary barrier to employment and growth in the industry. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. I need to hear the member.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

Furthermore, restricting competition would act against the interests of consumers by keeping prices higher than they should be.

Some people may prefer the possibility that they will pay a little extra to be driven by someone with extensive local knowledge who does not need to use a satellite navigation system. Those people are free to choose a taxi instead of a private hire vehicle.

The point is that people should be free to choose for themselves which type of private transport to opt for. The Government should not allow that choice to be taken away from them. We should allow the market to reflect customers’ preferences by letting them make their own decisions, rather than allowing licensing authorities to dictate what sort of taxi industry there should be.

I recall that the minister argued at stage 2 that the testing provisions should provide licensing authorities with discretion, and that tests could cover issues such as customer care and disability awareness so that private services can meet customers’ needs. I acknowledge those points. Amendment 17 retains that discretion and would allow such tests to take place, including checks to allay any fears about an applicant’s criminal background. That is very important.

The point is that allowing knowledge testing of all drivers is a distinct issue. It would probably become a method to shield incumbents from the competitive effects of a technological change. Customer preference for either local knowledge or technology should be left to the customer, and testing should be introduced only where it is in consumers’ best interests.

I believe that amendment 17 strikes the appropriate balance and therefore urge members to act on behalf of consumers by supporting it.

I move amendment 17.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to Cameron Buchanan for explaining amendment 17.

I am mindful of Cameron Buchanan’s concerns that it is not desirable to create a barrier to entry to the private hire car trade that is too high. That is why the provisions on the ability to test private hire car drivers have deliberately been drafted to be flexible. Whether and what to test is at the discretion of the local licensing authority.

We are also happy to make the point that any test should be proportionate and necessary within the guidance that will accompany the legislation. Accordingly, where the local authority does not see a requirement to take forward a knowledge test of any kind for private hire car drivers, they are not required to do so.

However, I suspect that many passengers would quite rightly expect that a private hire car driver has a reasonable knowledge of the area and how to get about it. It is right to give local licensing authorities the ability to test that.

I remain of the view that the licensing authority is best placed to decide whether any testing of private hire car drivers should occur and what the test should involve. I therefore ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 17.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I invite Cameron Buchanan to wind up and indicate whether he intends to press or withdraw amendment 17.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

I sense some sympathy for my point of view. In view of that, I would like to press my amendment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 100, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

Section 68—Licensing of sexual entertainment venues

Group 8 is on notice of sexual entertainment venue licence application. Amendment 18, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendment 18 is an important measure in supporting community engagement in the licensing of sexual entertainment. The issue was raised by Cara Hilton at stage 2, and I undertook at that time to lodge an amendment at stage 3.

Although the current process already allows for robust notification procedures, with requirements for both newspaper advertising and notices to be publicly displayed, there are advantages in requiring specific notification to particular bodies that will have an interest in the licensing of sexual entertainment venues. There is a practical advantage in ensuring that important stakeholders, including violence against women partnerships and community councils, are notified of applications early, so that they have sufficient time to consider applications and to make such representations to the authority as they consider appropriate. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. Can we hear the cabinet secretary?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

There is also an advantage in that it will send a very clear message that groups that are identified as being appropriate to receive copies of the application, including violence against women partnerships and community groups, are at the heart of the licensing process.

Rather than identify particular bodies in primary legislation, my preference is for each local authority to identify which organisations in its area should be notified of applications, because local authorities are best placed to make that judgement. However, the statutory guidance that will follow the bill will indicate the types of bodies and organisations that should be considered, and my intention is that they will certainly include bodies such as violence against women partnerships. Local authorities will have to take that guidance into consideration when compiling their list of recipients. Local authorities will also have to have regard to their sexual entertainment venue licensing policy statement and the full range of objectives that are set out in that document.

I move amendment 18.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 9 is on sexual entertainment venues: access of persons under 18. Amendment 22, in the name of Cara Hilton, is grouped with amendment 19. If amendment 22 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19, because it will have been pre-empted.

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

I thank the Zero Tolerance Trust for working with me on amendment 22, and I thank Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, who has given the amendment his support.

The purpose of amendment 22 is to prevent under-18s from working in sexual entertainment venues. It would remove the option of young people being employed in those venues at any time and ensure that sexual entertainment venues cannot be accessed by children and young people at any time.

I recognise that Michael Matheson’s amendment 19 seeks to clarify the circumstances in which young people may enter sexual entertainment venues, and that it would oblige operators to provide a reasonable excuse, but I do not accept that that provides sufficient safeguards. When I lodged the same amendment at stage 2, there was some debate about the employment rights of, for example, an apprentice plumber who attended a job at a sexual entertainment venue. The reality is that that affects very few young people, but there will be significant risks to a large number of young people if the bill proceeds as it is.

The Zero Tolerance Trust has argued that allowing under-18s to be employed in sexual entertainment venues will in essence create a groomers’ charter by allowing venues to employ teenage girls to work as cleaners or in office roles and then to persuade or subtly coerce them to become performers when they reach 18. That is a real concern for vulnerable young women including care leavers, and for women who live with poverty or disadvantage. Even if sexual entertainment is not taking place, a young person who works in one of those venues will be exposed to sexually explicit materials and could be at risk of sexual exploitation, of being propositioned for sex or of being exposed to an industry that damages women and to an environment in which sexual entertainment is normalised. That could lead a vulnerable young person to come to the view that sexual entertainment is an acceptable form of employment for them.

Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Tam Baillie, has said that

“the approach being taken in this Bill towards young people being employed in sexual entertainment venues appears in direct contradiction to a range of key Scottish Government policies and legislation, including Getting It Right For Every Child”

and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. If we are serious about having an equal Scotland and about tackling domestic abuse and violence, and if we really want to make Scotland the best place for girls to grow up in, the Scottish Government must be consistent. Michael Matheson’s amendment 19 is well intentioned, but as Tam Baillie said, it has the

“potential to create more difficulties than it solves”.

The use of the word “reasonable” leaves the way open to wider interpretation. I think that that could be to the detriment of young people and that it will put more young people at risk. It is already the case that no one under the age of 18 can work in a sex shop under any circumstances. That provision should also apply to sexual entertainment venues. My amendment 22 would allow that to happen.

My amendment 22 is in the best interests of children and young people right across Scotland. I urge the Scottish Government and members to listen to the views of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and of groups including Barnardo’s Scotland, the Zero Tolerance Trust, Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid. Members should support my amendment.

I move amendment 22.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendments 19 and 22 follow issues that were highlighted by Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People ahead of the stage 1 debate and which were subsequently pursued by Zero Tolerance Scotland. Each concerns the position of young people in relation to sexual entertainment venues and the particular concern that a young person could be employed in such a venue—as a cleaner, for example—and then find themselves being drawn into becoming a dancer. At stage 2, I agreed to consider the matter further and to lodge an appropriate Government amendment at stage 3.

We have always made it clear that the bill’s intention is to tighten up the licensing of sexual entertainment venues, which have been treated hitherto in more or less the same way as any other licensed premises. That has meant that under-18s could perhaps collect glasses or undertake similar activities while the premises are open and the sexual entertainment is taking place. We do not believe that that is acceptable. That is why the bill, as introduced, made it clear that under-18s should never be on the premises while sexual entertainment is taking place.

I have fully considered the concerns that have been raised about the employment of under-18s in such venues, and in response, we have lodged amendment 19, which would remove the provision in the bill that would have permitted a young person to be employed by a sexual entertainment venue. Amendment 22 would do likewise, as Cara Hilton has outlined. Therefore, both amendments mean that under-18s should not generally be able to access such venues.

However, the Government amendment goes further in providing protection. There is a misunderstanding about how the law works in this area, which has led to some stakeholders confusing the impacts of amendments 19 and 22. I hope to make that clear this afternoon.

The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 includes a provision for a reasonable excuse that will permit a young person to be in a sexual entertainment venue. Cara Hilton’s amendment would simply remove the provision in the bill relating to the employment without addressing the reasonable excuse in the 1982 act and would therefore permit a young person to be in such a venue at any time, including when sexual entertainment is being provided if that young person has a reasonable excuse. It will be a matter for the courts to determine what might constitute a reasonable excuse.

However, the Government’s amendment would restrict availability of that defence of a reasonable excuse only to when the sexual entertainment was not taking place. That is, under amendment 19, no person under 18, whether an employee or otherwise, will be permitted on the premises while sexual entertainment is taking place and only where there is a reasonable excuse for that young person will they be permitted within the premises when no entertainment is taking place. Cara Hilton’s amendment does not go that far.

Therefore, both the Government amendment 19 and Cara Hilton’s amendment 22 would remove the provision in the bill that permits an under-18 to be employed in a sexual entertainment venue. However, Cara Hilton’s amendment is less restrictive than the Government’s amendment in that it would allow the reasonable excuse defence to be applied at all times, whereas amendment 19 will restrict that defence to times when sexual entertainment is not taking place.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. He will be aware of the children’s commissioner’s concerns, specifically in relation to that point. In his briefing the commissioner states:

“Amendment 19 also shifts the focus from young people in an employment capacity to young people more generally. There is therefore a possibility that venue owners could find ways for younger children and young people to be ‘legitimately’ allowed to enter sexual entertainment venues.”

How would the cabinet secretary respond to that specific concern?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Unfortunately, the children’s commissioner has got the law wrong in this area, because of the reasonable excuse provision, which is provided for in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which has not been addressed. That is why the Government’s amendment 19 addresses that point.

Government amendment 19 makes it clear that no person under 18 can ever be employed in a sexual entertainment venue. It also makes it clear that no under-18 can be on the premises when sexual entertainment is taking place. Finally, it makes it clear that even when sexual entertainment is not taking place, an under-18 can be on the premises only if it is shown that there is good reason for them to be there.

For those reasons, I ask Parliament to reject amendment 22 and to support amendment 19, which imposes further restrictions to protect young people.