Scottish Parliament, 2 November 2016

314 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Decommissioning Jobs

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making with keeping decommissioning jobs in Scotland. (S5O-00271)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Our commitment and approach to the opportunities that are presented by decommissioning are clearly outlined in the programme for government. On behalf of the Scottish ministers, Scottish Enterprise is developing a decommissioning action plan, which should be published by the end of the calendar year. At our instruction, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are carrying out work to identify potential sites for investment with a view to increasing capacity for larger decommissioned units to come ashore at our ports and harbours.

It is important to recognise that decommissioning the top-side infrastructure is a relatively small share of the overall contract value and many Scottish supply chain companies are very active in the decommissioning market. We hope to further support them in the future. Our transition training fund is also available to help those who were made redundant from the oil and gas industry to retrain for opportunities that might arise in decommissioning. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work and I will chair a meeting later this month with North Sea operators that are involved in decommissioning projects to better understand the opportunities in decommissioning, as well as the challenges that our oil and gas supply chain faces in maximising those opportunities.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I note that the minister did not give a commitment to publish the strategy before Christmas, which was the previous commitment. Will a high-level strategy working group chaired by him or the cabinet secretary be included in that action plan? Is the minister satisfied so far with the engagement of Scottish Enterprise in decommissioning opportunities? After meetings Scottish Enterprise, I am not convinced that there are a sufficient number of people working on that full time.

Will the minister accept my invitation to visit the port of Dundee as a potential decommissioning site before Christmas?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

There are a number of issues there. On the role of the high-level working group, there will certainly be a strong level of ministerial engagement. The cabinet secretary and I—and, indeed, the First Minister—have all been involved in discussions on decommissioning, and I give a commitment to Jenny Marra and to other members who are interested in the issue that there will be a high level of ministerial engagement in the subject.

On Scottish Enterprise’s role, it should be recognised—and I hope that Jenny Marra will be pleased to know—that the Scottish supply chain is already capturing much of the offshore decommissioning work. That is according to companies that are involved in the sector, including Maersk, which said that at an Oil & Gas UK board meeting. I am aware that the vast majority of the decommissioning work that is going on at the Brent field, particularly the plugging and abandonment work, is being captured by the Scottish supply chain. There are great successes, although perhaps they are not as visible as we would like them to be. Ensuring that the industry is recognised for the work that it is doing in decommissioning is one aspect that we can improve. Scottish Enterprise has been very active in that and it is supporting a number of innovative companies in Scotland to innovate for the decommissioning market. I have visited a number of those companies myself.

I have already been invited to visit Dundee harbour by Joe FitzPatrick, but I am more than happy to meet the member in Dundee at some point in the near future to discuss the possibilities for exploiting decommissioning in the city.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

How many people is it anticipated will be employed in decommissioning Hunterston B nuclear power station when it eventually closes? How many years will it take to complete the decommissioning?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

That is an important question, although I appreciate that it is on a slightly different subject from that intended by Jenny Marra’s question. Decommissioning activity that is being undertaken in the nuclear sector involves some skill sets that will be transferable to the oil and gas sector. I have spoken to at least one company that has expressed an interest in project management in that sphere.

It is difficult to anticipate at present the exact nature of the jobs that will be sustained in decommissioning Hunterston B, although experience with existing decommissioning sites in Scotland would suggest employment levels of several hundred people for about 20 to 25 years. The Scottish Government is working with Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and other partners to increase Scotland’s skill capacity in nuclear decommissioning. We know from work that was undertaken in Chapelcross that 280 workers were employed in that capacity—and 200 were employed at Hunterston A—but those were different technologies, and different solutions might be required for decommissioning at Hunterston B.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests with respect to my work in the oil and gas decommissioning sector with Zero Waste Scotland and, in particular, the production of the report “Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning”, which was launched just a little over a year ago.

I recognise the concerns that were expressed by Jenny Marra about the commitment of Scottish Enterprise to this area. Will the Scottish Government consider investment in an upgrade of port facilities—most likely in Nigg or Shetland—so that Scotland has the ability to decommission a platform that is recovered via the single-lift method, as opposed to some of the large-piece or small-piece decommissioning options that are available?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I want to defend the roles of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, both of which are active in this area at the moment and are helping us to identify what port-side investment opportunities might be available to capitalise on the funding that is available for decommissioning.

I refer the member to my initial answer, which stressed that we are working with both organisations to filter through the number of interested ports and harbours that are looking to capitalise on the work.

I also emphasise the point that I made to Jenny Marra that the vast majority of the contract value is, thankfully, being secured by the Scottish sector. The removal of the top-side infrastructure is a relatively small share of the total contract value, but it is an important share and we will, obviously, do what we can to try to secure that as well.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

In addition to the transition training fund, which does not help workers to keep their current skills up to date, will the minister consider the possibility of establishing a job retention fund for oil workers, which could assist in refresher courses for skilled workers, which can cost them, personally, between £300 and £400?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Obviously, I would be keen to hear from Elaine Smith if she has specific examples of individuals requiring support whom we have been unable to support through the transition training fund. I emphasise that we need to be careful to ensure that we help those who are most immediately threatened by redundancy, rather than those who perhaps are still in the sector but are looking to divert their skills into other areas that might have more growth potential. The transition training fund is being taken up well. We are seeing a high level of spend through the fund and I believe that it is having an impact by helping a growing number of individuals who are affected by the downturn in the industry.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am glad to hear members mention the transition training fund. Yesterday, I hosted an event with people who are involved in the fund and I hope that members got a chance to talk to them.

Aside from the issue of decommissioning jobs, does the minister agree with the Oil and Gas Authority on the high remaining potential in the North Sea, following a strong licensing round, and does he also welcome the arrival of new entrants into the region? What representations will the minister make to the United Kingdom Government ahead of the autumn statement to call for exploration and development to be incentivised?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

This week, I attended the maximising economic recovery of UK petroleum—MER UK—meeting in London, where, among other things, I raised the contact that the cabinet secretary had had with Greg Hands before the UK Government reshuffle, which was used to emphasise the need for loan guarantees to be brought forward as soon as possible to the smaller independent operators in the North Sea, in particular, to free up their balance sheets so that they can release resource and undertake more exploration.

I am encouraged by the high take-up of the licensing round. I think that that shows a continued interest in the UK continental shelf. That is encouraging at a time when there is, perhaps, a tendency to be all doom and gloom about the future of the oil and gas industry. There are companies that are growing in the industry at the moment, and we need to help individuals to access the opportunities that arise from that and to transfer their skills into those productive areas.

Youth Unemployment

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce youth unemployment. (S5O-00272)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Scottish Government is committed to reducing 2014 levels of youth unemployment by 40 per cent by 2021 through the actions that are set out in “Developing the Young Workforce—Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy”. Youth unemployment fell by 9,000 from the strategy’s baseline figure of 52,000 in January to March 2014. The developing the young workforce programme reports on progress annually, and the second annual report will be published later in the year.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

Clearly, apprenticeships are an important vehicle to help reduce youth unemployment. What can the minister do to reduce inequalities in apprenticeships, such as young women being paid considerably less than their male counterparts and being more likely to be unemployed at the end of their apprenticeships? How many young women on modern apprenticeships are ineligible for statutory maternity pay due to the low youth rates of pay, which is a point that has been raised with me by Unite the union?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am always willing to hear from any trade union about any concern that it has and to respond to it.

More broadly, I concur with the point that was inherent in Elaine Smith’s question that there is much more that we need to do to ensure that women are better represented in our modern apprenticeship offer. They are not alone; there are others with particular characteristics that we need to do more in relation to. That is why we tasked Skills Development Scotland with taking forward the equalities action plan; it is doing that right now.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that all local authorities work to deliver the Scottish living wage?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

That is a well-timed question, because this is living wage week, which the First Minister kicked off on Monday by announcing the new rate of £8.45 per hour. I am very pleased that all local authorities in Scotland pay the living wage to their staff; that is very welcome. It goes along with the other range of activities that we take to promote the living wage, through commissioning the Poverty Alliance to promote the accreditation scheme. We now have 630 accredited living wage employers in Scotland—some 20 per cent of the United Kingdom total—and that may be why, among the four constituent nations of the UK, Scotland has the highest percentage of the workforce paid at least the living wage.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The inflexible way in which

Skills Development Scotland manages its grants is causing problems for the Blackburn local employment scheme in my region. The First Minister said last week at question time that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work would meet me and representatives from BLES to try to resolve the issue. Since then, I have had no contact from the cabinet secretary. When can we make that meeting happen, as it is a matter of urgency? All we need is some flexibility in the way in which SDS deals with grants and we will be able to help even more of the young people in that area than the 3,000 who have already been helped.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I know that that is an issue that Neil Findlay, among others, has taken up. Fiona Hyslop, as the constituency representative, has also written to me on the matter. I understand that the cabinet secretary has written to Neil Findlay and I am sure that he will be getting back in due course.

European Union Funding

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how much Scotland has received from European Union structural and investment funding and how many jobs this has supported. (S5O-00273)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Scotland has received about €4.75 billion in structural funds since the policy began in 1975. Those funds have helped to build digital networks, roads, harbours and causeways, have been invested in urban regeneration and business premises and have supported skills and training.

Every seven-year programme is slightly different and has a different focus. It is not possible to estimate the total number of jobs supported since 1975, but the 2007 to 2013 programmes were worth £750 million and supported 99,107 people into work; they created 44,311 jobs and provided business support to more than 80,000 small and medium-sized enterprises. The 2014 to 2020 programmes are worth a further €940 million, which is about £800 million, to Scotland.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply, which lays bare the damage that Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will would have. Does he agree that the continued uncertainty surrounding Brexit is already putting at risk potential investment in Scotland by business?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I agree. If the member talks to colleagues in the education sector—especially in higher and further education—he will know that that is the case. Leaving the EU is likely to weaken the economy, according to the UK Government’s analysis. Leaving the single market could lower Scotland’s gross domestic product by more than £10 billion.

Our starting point is to protect our relationship with the EU, and we are considering all possible options to ensure Scotland’s continuing relationship with and place within the European Union.

In addition to the jobs and financial benefits that we have received, we benefit massively from being a more rich and diverse country because of our membership of the European Union.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that ring-fenced funding allocations and targeted benefits to the Highlands and Islands as a transition region will be honoured by the Scottish Government. There is major uncertainty in this post-referendum, pre-Brexit phase. Will Highlands and Islands businesses and agencies be supported and not disadvantaged?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

David Stewart will know that that is exactly the Scottish Government’s aim. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution has made a number of statements on that, and I am sure that he will say something else specifically on that shortly, so perhaps David Stewart will give us the benefit of the doubt and wait until that statement is made. We share the same aim, which is to ensure that SMEs and individuals in the Highlands are not penalised by any reduction in ring-fenced or other European funding that might be coming to them, and we are making good progress towards ensuring that that assurance can be given.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

European funding has been enormously beneficial in creating jobs in the Highlands, as has been touched on, and bodies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise have received European grants. Will the cabinet secretary reassure my constituents that Highlands and Islands Enterprise will continue to be supported in the work that it does to create jobs and economic growth in the Highlands?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We recognise the different social, economic and community development challenges that face the Highlands and Islands

and we are determined to maintain dedicated support that is locally based and is managed and directed by HIE. The member will be aware of the First Minister’s statement that HIE will remain in place as a non-departmental public body. The Scottish Government believes that future budget provision will be sufficient to meet HIE’s funding needs and will allow it to meet its obligations and maintain the capacity to support key sectors.

Business and Trade (Non-European Union Countries)

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to show that Scotland is open for business with non-European Union countries. (S5O-00274)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government is building on the ambitious internationalisation agenda that was set out in March this year in “Scotland’s Trade and Investment Strategy 2016-21”. To make it clear that Scotland is open for business with Europe and with the rest of the world, we are establishing a minister-led trade board to bring together business interests; we are further developing the globalscot network; and we are appointing trade envoys to champion export market opportunities.

Scottish Government agencies are working to help more Scottish businesses to become exporters and to attract inward investment into Scotland. I appreciate that this relates to the EU, but we are opening innovation and investment hubs

in Dublin, London, Brussels and Berlin as well as doubling the number of Scottish Development International staff across Europe. Following the EU referendum, the Scottish Government is engaging directly with businesses to listen to concerns, provide reassurance and reiterate that Scotland remains open for business.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

The First Minister has made clear her efforts to boost trade with the EU in the wake of the EU referendum result through measures such as those that have just been referred to. However, in 2014, less than half—42 per cent—of Scotland’s exports were destined for the EU, which was a decline of £985 million on the previous year. The destination country for the largest amount of Scottish exports is the United States of America.

There is considerable trade growth potential in the huge world market of 7 billion people, as compared with the EU population of 500 million. Will the Scottish Government commit to taking new specific measures, together with the United Kingdom Government, to increase Scotland’s trade influence in parts of the world other than the EU, post-Brexit?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I think that it was evident from my first answer that we commit to doing that. For example, we have engagement in Kazakhstan coming up shortly and engagement in the middle east that relates to the oil and gas industry. In addition, we have a substantial presence in the US and China, which we want to build on.

Gordon Lindhurst makes an interesting point about the UK Government. His question acknowledges for the first time among the Conservatives that two Governments are involved in the economy of Scotland. Last week, not a single Conservative member would concede that the UK Government shares responsibility for Scotland’s economic performance, so I am pleased that Gordon Lindhurst has done so.

I made it clear to Liam Fox when I met him that we are happy and keen to work jointly in areas where it makes sense to do so and so that we do not duplicate effort. For example, I had a meeting with a large group of chief executive officers from India, which was in conjunction with the UK Government. We are happy to take that approach, but it takes two to do that and we are waiting to hear more from Liam Fox about how we can encourage that.

I mentioned the engagement in Kazakhstan, which will happen next year. We have decided to work with the UK Government on that, because that can produce the best results. We are happy to do that, but it takes two to tango.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if we had the powers to reinstate post-study work visas, we could give the message that Scotland is open for business to people with skills who can contribute greatly to the Scottish economy?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is one area in which one hopes that joint working between the Scottish Government and the UK Government will produce a beneficial effect. Even if the UK Government did not want to continue the use of post-study work visas in the rest of the UK, it could, through working with the Scottish Government, allow Scotland to use them.

A similar constraint in the US was quickly changed when the potential economic damage to the country was acknowledged, as will be the case for Scotland if people who study here do not have the opportunity to work here. The return of the visa would restore an important economic lever to Scotland and send a clear message around the world that Scotland is open for business.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We all care about increasing exports but, in evidence to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, a number of independent experts told us that the greatest potential for growth in exports lies in our proximity to our nearest market. What is the Scottish Government doing to increase exports to the rest of the UK, which is Scotland’s largest and nearest export market? What new initiatives is the Scottish Government bringing forward?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have detailed some of those initiatives in my previous answers. Our nearest market is actually the European Union—

we are in the EU single market. The member might want to acknowledge that fact and do a bit of work on the subject.

We are trying to defend our position in the EU market. Unfortunately, Scottish Labour is trying to provide political cover for its friends in the better together campaign and among the Brexiteers by trying to talk up the UK aspect. I am keen to increase our trade activity with the rest of the UK, with the EU and——as I highlighted in my answers to previous questions—around the world. I do not see that those three aims should conflict with one another; we should support them all.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

I apologise to members whose questions I could not take.

Treasury (Meetings)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the Treasury and what matters were discussed. (S5O-00281)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I last met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the finance ministers’ quadrilateral meeting on 24 October. We discussed the prospects for the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s autumn statement and areas of common interest in relation to the economy, public finances and Brexit.

I will shortly write to the Finance Committee to provide further details on the key points of the meeting. I used the opportunity to call once again on the UK Government to end austerity and to address the economic uncertainty following the European Union referendum.

At the meeting, the chief secretary confirmed HM Treasury’s agreement to approve the Scottish Government’s request for annually managed expenditure cover for the Scottish growth scheme, and to increase to 15 per cent the budget exchange limit for financial transactions. I, along with my counterparts from Wales and Northern Ireland, reiterated my concerns about the UK Government’s approach to the public finances and the economy and asked for a commitment from the Government to bring forward an economic stimulus while not reducing the current devolved settlements.

I will continue to make those points directly to UK ministers, including at a meeting of the joint exchequer committee tomorrow.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The progress on the growth scheme is very welcome. Can the cabinet secretary expand further on the UK Government’s position on potentially reopening Scotland’s current constitutional agreement?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

All the devolved Administrations made the point clearly that we do not want our finance settlements to be reopened negatively. We want a positive fiscal stimulus—which should be possible, considering that the UK Government and the chancellor have moved away from their predecessors’ positions on fiscal surplus.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As we have just heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, the Scottish Government believes that the UK Treasury should pursue a policy of fiscal loosening in the autumn statement. How much extra money does the Scottish Government think the Treasury should borrow?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

That is a matter for the Treasury, in terms of the figures that it arrives at. As we have said, the UK Government has abandoned the economic targets that it failed to meet and should now turn to borrowing to stimulate the economy. That opinion is widely held, and we would welcome such a move. With regard to resources that can fairly stimulate our economy, the more, the merrier—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Limitless borrowing!

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Mr Fraser may object, but that seems to be the mood music from the UK Government, so he may be performing more somersaults on the Tories’ economic policies.

Local Authorities (Fiscal Autonomy)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for local authorities to be given greater fiscal autonomy to raise their own money and manage their local economies. (S5O-00282)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Our reforms to council tax, including proposals that are currently before the Parliament, are, together with the lifting of the council tax freeze, key steps towards making local taxation fairer and ensuring that local authorities continue to be properly funded.

In addition, we have established an external review of non-domestic rates, which will report next summer, we will consult local government on the assignation of a share of income tax, and we are engaging stakeholders on local taxation of vacant, derelict and development land.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government is cutting Glasgow City Council’s budget by more than £130 million over the next two years. It is the biggest cut that Glasgow City Council has ever faced. The Scottish Government seems to be passing on to Glasgow a bigger share of cuts than has been passed on to it by the United Kingdom Government, for some reason.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the impact of delays in setting the budget on councils such as Glasgow, which face unprecedented cuts? Is he aware of the effect on the third sector, which provides vital services for the most vulnerable people? When can the Scottish Government provide certainty and fairness for Glasgow? Is it time for some devolution of power, so that Glasgow can manage a bit of its own economy?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am happy to engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government more widely on further devolution of powers. A good example of such work in practice is the city deal. Glasgow is a substantial beneficiary of the city deal, and we want it to work. It is more than £1 billion of investment—which has, of course, been totally discounted in comments about the wider local government settlement.

This Government has protected local government over the period of real-terms reductions from the UK Government.

Distribution is discussed jointly with COSLA. I encourage councils such as Glasgow City Council to consider their position in relation to COSLA, so that local government can speak with one voice and arrive at decisions on such matters, in partnership.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary say whether local authorities can be flexible in how they apply second-home council tax, in order to meet the needs of their communities?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Yes—in essence they can be flexible. The regulations that we were able to make recently will allow for further flexibility in relation to council tax discounts for second homes, including the ability to vary the level of discount between 0 and 50 per cent.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary tell us whether he is still open to the idea of a tourism tax, which local authorities could apply in their areas by retaining 100 per cent of tourism tax receipts to fight the cuts?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

That is a fair question. A small number of local authorities have approached me about the issue and I am engaging with COSLA on the basket of local taxes. Although we have no plans

to introduce a tourism tax, the issue is worthy of discussion, so I will have those discussions with local authorities that are interested in such a levy.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

As part of the proposed reforms to council tax, the Government agreed to increase support for households with children. How many children will benefit from the increase in the child allowance in the council tax reduction scheme?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The increase by 25 per cent in the child allowance in the council tax reduction scheme will benefit up to 77,000 households by an average of £173 per year and help nearly 140,000 children.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Question 3 has not been lodged.

Procurement Policy (Best Value)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that its procurement policy delivers best value. (S5O-00284)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Scottish model of procurement has at its heart value for money, which we see as an appropriate balance of cost, quality and sustainability. The need to achieve such a balance informs our approach to procurement, which is increasingly being recognised internationally as an exemplar of good practice.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish baby box is a fantastic initiative that involves spend of approximately £6 million per year, thereby potentially offering additional benefits through creation of jobs in manufacturing and supply businesses.

Tot Spot, in my constituency, is one such business, and is looking forward to tendering for the manufacture of nappies for the baby box, which will create jobs in a deprived area of Glasgow. Can the cabinet secretary assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that companies such as Tot Spot have an opportunity to play a role in the excellent initiative and, in the process, to create jobs in Scotland?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am not about to award contracts through answers to oral parliamentary questions, but I can say that the answer is yes, in so far as procurement rules allow it.

Of course, there are many potential advantages to the baby box, including through its procurement.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary would agree that procurement policy should be used to improve the rights of workers. Does he therefore share my disappointment that only 0.2 per cent of Scottish companies have signed up to the business pledge, which can be used to secure the living wage and ensure that there are no zero-hours contracts for workers? What steps will he take to increase the number of companies that sign up to that important pledge?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I agree with James Kelly; there is an ambition to expand the number of businesses signing up to the business pledge. We can all reflect on how we can encourage more businesses to take up the pledge. When I visit businesses I ask them whether they are supportive of it, and whether there are any elements that they need further encouragement on. We should all give further consideration to promotion of the business pledge in order to get as much good work out of it as possible. Certainly, the Government will continue to promote the policy actively for all the social, ethical and economic benefits that it brings.

Scottish Public Sector Green Information and Communications Technology Strategy

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making with the Scottish public sector green ICT strategy. (S5O-00285)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The green ICT strategy, which was published in May 2015, provides guidance for the public sector to contribute to this Government’s wider climate change targets. It aligns with assessment tools that have been developed as part of the amendments to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, specifically in the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015. They will be reported annually, beginning in November 2016.

We have also included green ICT principles in the “Digital First Service Standard”, which was published in May 2016 and set minimum levels for delivering digital public services. The standards apply to all digital public services that are being created in and by central Government. An assessment process is due to be rolled out in early 2017 and will be augmented and improved over time.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

A recent Audit Scotland report on NHS 24 found delays in implementation of the new IT system. It said:

“In 2009, NHS 24 began work on its Future Programme. The programme’s objective was to improve patient experience by modernising NHS 24’s core telephone and online technology. The implementation of the new system, originally scheduled for June 2013, is still not complete.”

Given that, and the year-long delays on other IT projects, how will the Scottish Government be able to achieve its goal of establishing newer, greener infrastructure?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

We have made progress on the monitoring arrangements around such projects, which will give us better checks and balances, stronger procurement and greater and deeper expertise. I am happy to share some of that information in writing with David Stewart, if he would find it helpful. I hope that that would reassure him that our processes are far more robust as a result of learning lessons from the mistakes that have been made in the past.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

In relation to the Scottish Government’s recent award of a £48 million framework agreement for the supply of information technology consumables, how was the ICT lifecycle impact mapped, and how was the disposal of the IT consumables incorporated in the specification that went along with the scoring award criteria for the contract?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I thank Maurice Golden quite genuinely for that very comprehensive question. It truly deserves a comprehensive answer, and I am happy to give him one in writing.

Scottish Futures Trust

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what savings it expects the Scottish Futures Trust to achieve in delivering projects. (S5O-00286)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Scottish Futures Trust is on course to achieve the objective set out in its corporate plan for 2014 to 2019 and achieve savings of between £500 million and £750 million.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the Scottish Futures Trust programme, Scotland’s schools for the future, helped build the new Lasswade high school in my constituency. Will he update the Parliament on how the work on Lasswade high school subsequently informed the Scotland’s schools for the future programme?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The new Lasswade centre, along with Eastwood high school in East Renfrewshire, was part of a pilot project that saw the Government and the two councils work together to jointly procure both schools in a groundbreaking £65 million collaborative initiative that saved £4 million as a result of the partnership approach. It was the first time that two councils had come together to procure two new schools. The initiative has proved successful, with the collaborative model being used by other local authorities to achieve benefits in savings across the programme. That kind of working will inform the programme from this point onwards.

Public Contracts (Prompt Payment)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether the prompt payment of bills relating to its public contracts has been sustained. (S5O-00287)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Scottish Government remains committed to helping businesses by paying invoices early and aspires to pay all undisputed supplier invoices within 10 working days.

The Scottish Government purchases some goods and services using the electronic purchasing card, and payment performance is measured by taking into account both EPC and invoiced transactions. For the first six months of the current financial year—from April to September 2016—the Scottish Government and bodies that share its financial systems have paid 98.8 per cent of all transactions within 10 working days.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that impressive answer. I welcome the Government’s performance on the swift payment of bills. Can the cabinet secretary update the Parliament on project bank accounts and say whether they will be used to support businesses in the construction sector?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I thank Mr Lyle for saying that that was an impressive answer—I thought that it was short and to the point, but it gave a very impressive figure for the Government’s compliance in achieving its payment target.

Following the successful completion of the trial programme of project bank accounts that was recommended by the review of Scottish public sector procurement and construction, the Scottish Government has published guidance on the implementation of project bank accounts in construction contracts. I encourage their use because it is important for subcontractors and the supply chain.

Small Businesses (Taxation Policy and Insolvency)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the link between taxation policy and small business insolvencies in Scotland. (S5O-00288)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Scottish Government recognises the importance of small and medium-sized businesses to our economic prosperity. As part of our overall approach, we are committed to using the tax powers that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament to support sustained economic growth. Our small business bonus scheme is, for example, removing or reducing business rates for more than 100,000 premises this year, and we have committed to expansion of the scheme so that it lifts 100,000 properties out of rates altogether.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of recent insolvency service statistics that show that, since the financial crisis hit in 2008, the number of corporate liquidations in Scotland has increased by 21.5 per cent while the equivalent figure for England and Wales has fallen by 23.1 per cent. Can the cabinet secretary please explain that disparity? Can he also explain how the Government’s plans to tax businesses an extra £262 million in business rates will help to reverse that trend?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am happy to check the figures on liquidations and insolvencies, because the picture that Mr Mountain paints does not reflect the figures that I have for corporate insolvencies. I am happy to probe that further. However, we cannot break down the figure for small businesses, which was the premise of Mr Mountain’s question.

On the wider issue of business rates, we have the most competitive package of business rates reliefs in these islands and I want to sustain that. We have the Ken Barclay review and we have matched the poundage. I would also point out that the number of small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland grew from148,000 in 2010 to an impressive 163,000 in 2015.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

What steps are being taken to give Scottish businesses a competitive advantage over their counterparts in other parts of the UK?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I again refer to the small business bonus scheme. The Federation of Small Businesses says:

“The Small Business Bonus continues to give most Scottish small firms a competitive advantage over counterparts in other parts of the UK.”

That shows how valued the small business bonus is and why it should continue.

European Union Funding

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on the continuity of European Union funding in light of Brexit. (S5O-00289)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

EU funding benefits Scotland significantly, supporting jobs, delivering infrastructure, sustaining rural communities, providing valuable support for the farming and fishing industries and delivering research funding for universities. I have personally met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on two occasions since the Brexit vote, and I have written to him, making clear the Scottish Government’s view of the insufficiency of the original EU funding guarantees that were provided by Her Majesty’s Treasury in August 2016.

The UK Government has recently revised its position on EU funding guarantees to cover in full the payment of all EU funding contracts for structural funds and for fisheries and farming projects that are entered into before the UK proposes to leave the EU, even if the payments extend beyond the Brexit date.

I am pleased to confirm today that, having considered the detail of the UK Government guarantees, I will be passing on the guarantees in full to Scottish stakeholders to provide stability and certainty for those key sectors of the Scottish economy.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

When the University of Edinburgh’s principal, Sir Timothy O’Shea, addressed the Scottish Affairs Committee on 24 October he warned that Brexit might have a “catastrophic” consequence on higher education in the UK, emphasising that one third of the university’s research outputs

“are done in collaboration with other EU countries.”

What reassurance—if any—can the cabinet secretary give the science sector on future funding and access to the horizon 2020 fund?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I have advised the member and the chamber that I have been able to pass on the guarantees that I have received from the UK Government, but there is absolutely no clarity in what happens after that date. That issue must be pursued with the UK Government.

It is true to say—I share these concerns—that Brexit poses a massive threat to higher education research development and a host of other areas. Therefore, it is really important that this Government—indeed, this Parliament—continues to stand up for Scotland.

National Health Service (Audit Scotland Report and Service Development)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on the response to Audit Scotland’s “NHS in Scotland 2016” report, and service development.

The cabinet secretary will take questions after her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call Shona Robison. You have a tight 10 minutes, cabinet secretary.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will today outline the Scottish Government’s response to last week’s Audit Scotland report and the process for considering the proposed service changes and developments that were debated on 28 September.

Audit Scotland has provided a balanced overview of the national health service and makes several recommendations that we accept in full.

Our NHS cannot stand still. It must continually evolve not only to deliver the best medicine and the best care, but to ensure that public money is spent as effectively as possible. Our clear vision to achieve that change has been acknowledged by the Auditor General for Scotland, who said last week that the Scottish Government

“has got a real vision to reshape services”.

Our strategy is founded on our twin approaches of investment and driving reform. We have

made significant investments in our NHS. Since 2010-11, the annual health resource budget has increased by 8.2 per cent in real terms. The Audit Scotland report recognises the real-terms increases in investment in our NHS, and this Government will go further to ensure that the NHS receives the resources that it needs to be equipped for the future. For example, we are increasing the NHS revenue budget by £500 million over inflation over this session of Parliament. However, it is important to invest more than money and it is imperative that we drive reform.

As well as progress with integration, we have taken other steps this year to accelerate the shift in care in order to develop and to reform the delivery of health and care services. Increasing demands mean that we are accelerating change. We have shifted more NHS funding to support social care; we have published the national clinical strategy and the “Chief Medical Officer’s Annual Report 2014-15: realistic medicine”; we have accelerated plans for investment of £200 million in our new elective centres; and we are reviewing targets and indicators through work being led by Sir Harry Burns.

As part of a plan to increase health spending by almost £2 billion by the end of this session of Parliament, we will take the share that is dedicated to primary services to 11 per cent of front-line NHS spending. We will increase our investment in primary care by an additional £500 million, helping to shift the balance of care and meaning that, for the first time ever, at least half of our front-line NHS spending is being invested outwith acute hospitals.

Despite the challenges, our NHS is performing well, and its staff are to be thanked for working to address the increasing demand for services. We now have almost 1.5 million new out-patient attendances every year, which represents an increase of more than 13.2 per cent under this Government. Since 2005-06, 25 per cent more hip replacements are being carried out, but waiting times have reduced by 50 per cent. On cataracts, there has been a 30 per cent increase in procedures and a 40 per cent reduction in waiting times.

We know that more patients than ever before are being treated for cancer. Compared with 2010, there has been an increase of more than 1,000 patients per quarter in the number of patients who are included in the 62-day cancer waiting times standards. Performance against the 62-day standard is lower than we want, which is one of the reasons why we are investing £100 million over the next five years to improve cancer care.

In addition, Scotland’s core accident and emergency departments have been the best performing in the United Kingdom for at least the past 18 months; they outperformed England’s by almost 8 percentage points in August 2016.

The Audit Scotland report confirms that NHS staffing is at historically high levels. There are more than 11,000 more staff working in our health service than was the case when we took office. We are also acting to ensure that our medical workforce grows further. We are making it more sustainable and increasing the number of undergraduate medical school and specialty training places, as well as creating a new graduate entry medical school.

We are working to establish national and regional workforce planning, which will help us to deliver the direction that is set out in our national clinical strategy and to protect our commitment to no compulsory redundancies. Through that process, we will carry out work to address the cost of supplementary staffing, which will include efforts towards recruiting permanent posts when they are required and reducing agency spend. We will also use those workforce planning efforts to make better use of a staff bank system and framework contract when supplementary staff are needed.

As I have said, we have consistently prioritised investment in the NHS. We have increased front-line health spending and we will continue to prioritise front-line health services as we go on to increase the NHS revenue budget by £500 million more than inflation over the course of this session of Parliament.

NHS territorial boards received a 5.5 per cent increase this year compared with 2015-16 budget levels. That comprises an increase for front-line services of £224 million—an above-inflation increase—and an additional £250 million, which the new health and social care partnerships are using to invest in social care under our arrangements for integration.

We will consider the Audit Scotland proposal for three-year budget management as part of our work to examine how to provide NHS boards with more financial flexibility and within the context of the accounting and financial management framework that is set by the Treasury.

Despite the record level of resources that is being provided, we recognise the challenge of meeting increased demand. As the Auditor General for Scotland has made clear in her report, more needs to be done than simply giving the NHS extra money, which is why our plans for change are so important. I can confirm that, by the end of this year, we will set out in a single framework a transformational change delivery plan that will bring together the different strands of reform that I have set out. I will keep Parliament informed of progress.

I move on to service developments. Audit Scotland has made it clear that some reorganisation of services will be required, but that does not mean that every proposal that is made by every board will be approved. We are committed to robust, evidence-based policy making that delivers better outcomes. However, to stand against any change anywhere in acute services is simply not credible. Where change is advocated, we must ensure that the local boards work with all stakeholders to explore any issues and benefits, and I reiterate that any major change proposals must be subject to formal public consultation and ministerial approval.

I will now take the opportunity to update Parliament on the specific service changes that were debated last month. On cleft surgery, the recommendation endorsed by the Royal College of Surgeons to consolidate on a single site in Glasgow is distinct in the sense that it relates to a specialist national service as opposed to a local service. As such, I am now considering the proposal, in line with the precedent of ministers making the final decision on national specialist services. I have met the clinical teams in Glasgow and Edinburgh and, in the light of those discussions and full consideration of the evidence, I expect to make a decision before the end of the year.

Lanarkshire NHS Board’s longer-term plans as part of its local clinical strategy have been designated as major change by the board—boards can choose to designate proposals as major and follow the appropriate process without the need to ask ministers. The plans in question were subject to formal public consultation between 2 August and yesterday, and the board intends to consider the outcomes of that process at its meeting on 30 November. In doing so, it will be informed by the report of the Scottish health council on the consultation.

Any board decision made on associated specific major service change proposals will then be subject to my approval. What is beyond question is that all three acute hospitals will retain their accident and emergency departments for the benefit of local people.

At its meeting on 18 October, the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde board agreed that its proposals on paediatric services at the Royal Alexandra hospital be designated as major. The board will now undertake three months of formal public consultation, which is due to begin next Monday. The board is scheduled to consider the outcomes of the consultation by spring next year, as informed by a report on the consultation by the Scottish health council, and any board decision made on service change proposals will then be subject to my approval or otherwise.

The remaining proposals from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde—those affecting deliveries at the community maternity units at Inverclyde royal hospital and Vale of Leven hospital, those affecting in-patient care at the centre for integrative care and those affecting Lightburn hospital—are all subject to on-going public engagement. That process cannot be prejudged as it is possible that some or all of the proposals might change as a result—and, indeed, some might not proceed at all. The Scottish health council continues to monitor engagement activity and will offer a view on the designation of the proposals at the end of that activity, which is likely to be in early December. Ministers will then carefully consider the views on designation from both the health board and the health council and come to a decision. The board will then consider the next steps, as informed by the designation decisions, at its meeting on 20 December.

Although I will not prejudge those proposals, I reiterate that they must be consistent with national policy such as the review of maternity services that is due for publication soon. Moreover, I once again put on record this Government’s commitment to the vision for the Vale of Leven and say that any final proposals for Lightburn must address the concerns that led to our previous decision in 2011. I will keep Parliament informed as further progress is made on these proposals.

I believe that there is a clear case for a further shift from acute to primary and community services. I am confident that there is broad consensus on this, and that the Audit Scotland report supports that view; certainly no one and no party in this chamber has so far brought forward an alternative way forward. I believe that that consensus can be underpinned by the mutual recognition that our NHS continues to require increased investment and must reform to ensure that it remains true to its founding principles of being publicly owned and free at the point of need.

I am happy to take questions on my statement.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We now move to questions. Time is very tight, so the shorter the questions and answers, the more members who will be able to take part.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. As we will debate the report later, I will keep my observations short.

Although much in the statement was not new, it is important to state that since the Scottish National Party first entered office almost 10 years ago, Audit Scotland has argued that, to change the way in which services are delivered, a shift is required from the traditional means of delivering services to community-based services. Almost every single Audit Scotland report since has noted that progress in that respect has been slow or non-existent and that funding has not been transferred from acute to community-based services at the rate that it should have been. As a result, although we welcome the announcement to shift the balance of care to primary care, the fact remains that it has taken far too long for this Government to take action. In this session, at least, it should not require two Opposition debates and a damning report to spur the Scottish Government to take steps.

I want to ask the cabinet secretary two questions. First, NHS staffing is clearly an issue on which we on this side of the chamber have concentrated. Will the Scottish Government commit to publishing a national workforce plan immediately and to presenting an update to the Scottish Parliament every six months?

Secondly, in light of her announcement that the share of primary services spending will rise to 11 per cent of front-line NHS spending, can the cabinet secretary tell us specifically how much of that money will go to general practice?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Donald Cameron talks about the time that it has taken to shift the balance of care. I think that all health systems would acknowledge that that is a challenge and a difficult thing to do. However, one of the Government’s big achievements in moving towards the shift in the balance of care has, of course, been the integration of health and care services. That is one of the biggest reforms that there has been in the public sector in a generation.

Although I accept that the pace needs to be increased, it should be recognised that there has been a substantial leap forward in shifting the balance of care through the integration of those services.

We have already set out our plans to develop national and regional workforce plans. We will publish a discussion document by the end of the year, because stakeholders want to be involved in that. I am happy to take on board Donald Cameron’s suggestion about six-monthly updates and to look at whether they can be delivered. If they can, we will do that.

I am sure that Donald Cameron will welcome, as I do, the First Minister’s announcement on increasing the share of spend on primary care services. However, that will mean change, as it will mean increasing the shift in the balance of care from acute services in order to deliver it to primary care services.

Donald Cameron will recognise, as well as I do, that it is not just about investing in general practice, although we will do that—he knows that we are working on a new contract with the British Medical Association—it is also about the wider primary care team. The workforce plans that we will set out will address not just general practice, but the wider primary care team.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement.

The truth is that the cabinet secretary has been dragged kicking and screaming to the chamber. A week after the worst state of the NHS report since devolution, she is before us armed only with warm words. There is no recognition of the crisis in the NHS, no acceptance of her Government’s role in the failures and no plan to reverse the damaging cuts to front-line services. The Government is letting down the staff and patients in our NHS.

We will focus on the Audit Scotland report in the debate later. I want to focus my remarks on the proposed service changes.

It is disappointing that the cabinet secretary chose not to accept the will of Parliament in the statement. In fact, she has said nothing new. There is no comfort for communities that face the loss of vital local services and valued local input. I will give one example. How can the cabinet secretary come to the chamber and say that the complete closure of Lightburn hospital—not a ward closure or a downgrade of services—is not a major service change? What we have—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Sarwar, you are almost at the end of your time, and you have not asked a question yet.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I am just coming to the question, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please hurry up.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister is clearly out of her depth. On “Good Morning Scotland” on the day that the Audit Scotland report—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Sarwar, will you ask a question, please?

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

This is my question, Presiding Officer.

The cabinet secretary said on

“Good Morning Scotland” that, in Parliament, Labour was

“putting blocks in the way”

of any service changes. Can the cabinet secretary clarify which service changes she was referring to and whethers every promise about local NHS services that her party made before the election will be kept?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Anas Sarwar’s contribution to the debate shows that he has nothing to say other than personal abuse. That is a thin fig leaf for having nothing to say about the NHS.

Unlike Anas Sarwar’s contribution, the Audit Scotland report was balanced and it recognised some of the achievements of the hard-working staff in our NHS. We have the right strategies in place and Audit Scotland says that we do. The Opposition has no plans and no alternative vision for the NHS. We have the vision and the strategies, and Audit Scotland says that they are the right ones.

On the will of Parliament, I have come here and laid out the decisions that I will make on the service change proposals that are coming to me. There may well be a major service change proposal relating to Lightburn hospital, but we are not at that stage. If it gets to that stage, the matter will come to me for a decision. I made it very clear in my statement that, on 20 December, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will decide which service change proposals—if any—it will continue with. It would be wrong to call in a service change proposal that might not even exist at the moment. I would have thought that even Anas Sarwar would understand that part of the process.

I suggest that Anas Sarwar goes and does his homework, and perhaps comes back to the chamber a little more informed than he has been today.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

When front-benchers overrun their time, all it does is penalise their colleagues.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The Scottish Government announced the review—chaired by former chief medical officer Sir Harry Burns—of health and social care targets and indicators that was advocated by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and other medical colleagues. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that certain performance targets, such as 95 per cent of patients being seen in accident and emergency within four hours and cancer treatment targets, will be retained in the wider work?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I have said previously, the work of Harry Burns in reviewing the targets is very important and the review has the support of the majority of members in this chamber. It is important that we look at the outcomes for patients and that our targets better reflect those outcomes. That is something that the royal colleges and many other stakeholders support.

I have made a couple of things very clear. It is very important that cancer targets are used to improve care and treatment for cancer patients. That is why we are investing £100 million of additional money in the next five years and we expect any review of cancer targets to reflect our ambitions to improve care and treatment for cancer patients.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine and I feel strongly about the four-hour accident and emergency target. It is a barometer of how the whole hospital is performing so I will take some persuading to move away from it. However, it might be that it could be made more sophisticated in nature and I am sure that Harry Burns will consider that.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement.

Page 15 of the Audit Scotland report has NHS Lothian’s financial position as a case study. Given that NHS Lothian, NHS Tayside and NHS 24 all continue to face major financial difficulties, what assurance has the cabinet secretary been given that that will not impact on patient care?

The Royal College of Surgeons supports the principle of the centralisation of cleft surgery, but it has said that its role is not to advise on a location. The cabinet secretary’s statement is clearly misleading on that. Will she correct that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The uplift to NHS Lothian for 2015-16 was 6.4 per cent. NHS Lothian has, of course, been an NHS Scotland resource allocation committee beneficiary, but I recognise some of the challenges that it faces. My officials have been working closely with NHS Lothian to address out-patient waits, for example, and I will have more to say about initiatives on improving out-patient performance in a few weeks.

I laid out very clearly that the decision on cleft surgery has now come to me. The college’s view has been made very clear indeed. I had a productive meeting with the Glasgow surgeons and the Edinburgh surgeon and her team. I now want to look at all that and come to the right conclusions about what is in the best interests of patients across Scotland. I hope that Miles Briggs will appreciate that that will be the founding principle of my decision.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Staff banks can provide boards with access to a pool of appropriately trained non-agency staff who can provide short-term supplementary cover when required. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will join me in commending those who give of their time in that way, often at short notice.

Of the total nursing and midwifery staff in NHS Scotland, what percentage is agency staff? What is the Scottish Government doing to reduce reliance on agency staff?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Next is Jenny Marra, to be followed by Bob Doris. [

Interruption

.]

I am sorry. I am so determined to get through everyone.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I will answer Clare Haughey’s question first by commending the work of all staff in our NHS. She has made an important point. Agency nursing represents approximately 0.4 per cent of the total nursing and midwifery staff in NHS Scotland. It is proportionally a very small figure, but it is still too high. That is why we have a programme of work under way nationally in which we are considering with NHS boards how we can have more effective management of all temporary staffing. We are working with boards to reduce reliance on, and the costs of, temporary agency and bank staffing. The team is ensuring that when temporary staff are required, agency staffing is the very last resort. As part of that, we have implemented monthly agency spend reporting to ensure that boards are informed of their spend and know where to focus their attention in addressing the matter.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

May we now have Jenny Marra, to be followed by Bob Doris?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Spending on agency staff is certainly too high in NHS Tayside. The cabinet secretary will know from the report that Audit Scotland has just published that that spending has increased by 39 per cent just over the past year. How will the framework contract that she mentioned in her statement assist with that critical overspend in NHS Tayside?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Jenny Marra makes an important point. There are big disparities between boards’ spend on agency staff—some are spending far more than others. We absolutely want to address that, and we are working with NHS Tayside to address it. There are regional variations—some boards find it harder to recruit permanent staff, but bearing down on agency costs is without doubt critical in this case. We have made it clear to the management team in NHS Tayside that we expect it to do that as a matter of priority, and we will help it to do that.

Part of the solution is to convert some of the agency spend into substantive posts, so we are helping boards to do that. The work that I have announced in relation to the workforce element of the delivery plan—both the national workforce plan and the regional one—will also help us to plan the numbers of nursing and midwifery posts that will be required going forward so that we can ensure that we have the right training places and the right numbers in the right places to support that. I am happy to keep Jenny Marra updated on the work that we will take forward with NHS Tayside specifically.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Audit Scotland highlights in its report that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has an impressive record on key NHS indicators, including the treatment time guarantee and referral to out-patient appointments, as well as a 30 per cent fall in bed days lost via delayed discharge. However, its accident and emergency performance was not impressive compared with that of other Scottish boards. How will we use the report to ensure that best practice is shared among boards so that we constantly drive up standards and, of course, performance?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Bob Doris raises some important points. The 30 per cent fall in lost bed days in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has been impressive. We have been looking at what the board has done with its partners and we are keen that other integrated partnerships follow suit in order that they use the best ways of reducing delay. We know what works and we want other partnerships to follow that. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has led the way on that.

On A and E performance, Bob Doris will be aware of the huge programme of work on delivering six essential actions—the six things that we know must be done in order to improve A and E performance across the board. The performance across the board over the past 18 months is the best in the whole UK; it has dramatically increased and improved, which shows that the programme of work on the six essential actions has worked. Glasgow has had more of a challenge, and there have been particular challenges at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital and Glasgow royal infirmary. However, my team of officials has been working closely with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to address those issues and I am confident that that work will bear fruit and that the board’s performance will improve.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Investment in prevention is key to reducing demand for NHS services. What action is the Scottish Government taking to develop a truly integrated public health strategy, as was called for in Audit Scotland’s report? Today’s statement did not address at all the urgent need for a truly integrated new public health strategy with a focus on prevention.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Alison Johnstone makes an important point about prevention. She will be aware of the review of public health and of the fact that we will have a new public health strategy.

We are looking at how best to consolidate the public health resource so that it can deliver a service not just to the NHS but to the rest of the public sector—local government in particular—to help decision makers to make the right decisions based on data and what the evidence tells us about the needs of the local population and, more importantly, what programmes within public health and prevention will work to keep people out of our hospitals by stopping them from falling ill in the first place. I am happy to keep Alison Johnstone updated on the progress of that new public health strategy and bringing the public health resource into one place, and on the benefits that I think it will deliver.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Brian Whittle. If he is very quick, I can call Colin Smyth.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I was disappointed that, in the cabinet secretary’s statement, there was not one mention of tackling the alarming rise of the serious preventable disease epidemic. When is the Government going to give proper thought and attention to a sustainable plan to address prevention of ill health and growing health inequality?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I have just said to Alison Johnstone, Brian Whittle will appreciate that a huge amount of work has gone into the public health review, which will help us not only to bring the public health resources and workforce together in a more coherent fashion, but to make sure that that delivers the changes that Brian Whittle is talking about.

Those changes cannot be delivered just by the NHS: this is about the whole of the public sector—not least, local government. I am keen that we give prevention and public health greater focus. The review has helped us to find a way forward to doing that. I am happy to keep Brian Whittle updated on progress.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The Audit Scotland report describes the cuts that are facing health boards as “unprecedented”—£293 million in 2015-16, rising to £492 million in 2016-17. Does the cabinet secretary still believe that the cuts are merely efficiency savings? Is she prepared to say to Parliament that not a single penny of those cuts and not a single measure that is taken to make those cuts will impact adversely on patient care?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

By the end of this session of Parliament, we will have increased health funding by almost £2 billion—building on the £3.3 billion increase that has already been delivered under this Government. By the end of this session, health funding will be at least £500 million more than inflation-only increases. That was the highest offer of any party in the Parliament, including Colin Smyth’s party, which had the lowest offer on health funding of all the parties.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please could you close now, cabinet secretary?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will take no lessons from the Labour Party about health funding. What is important, though, is not just the amount of money that is going into the NHS, but what the money is spent on. That is why we need to shift the balance of care, with an additional £500 million going into primary care by the end of this session—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please close now, cabinet secretary.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I hope that the plans will get support from all across the chamber.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is the first opportunity that Parliament has had since the publication of the damning Audit Scotland report last week to discuss the report, yet we have had five sycophantic questions from members of the Government’s party to pad out time but have not been able to call a member from every party in Parliament. Can we please extend the time for questions?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We had six Opposition questions and three Government questions. If that is an issue, please take it up with your business manager. There can perhaps be a discussion among all parties about asking questions rather than making statements, and giving back-bench colleagues the courtesy of allowing them all to take part. There is a debate on the same subject later this afternoon. [

Interruption

.] Histrionics will not change my mind, Mr Cole-Hamilton.

Sectarian Behaviour and Hate Crime

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02231, in the name of Douglas Ross, on justice. I will give people time to get quickly into position. We are already short of time for this debate so I impress upon members that brevity will be much appreciated.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a football referee officiating at matches for the Scottish Football Association, the Union of European Football Associations and FIFA.

Presiding Officer,

“The critical role for Government ... is to ensure that the law is fit for purpose.”—[

Official Report, 14 December 2011

; c 4644.]

Those are not my words; they are the words of Roseanna Cunningham, then the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, during the stage 3 proceedings on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill. I could not agree more with Ms Cunningham, which is why I am pleased to lead today’s debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

When the bill was passed, there was cross-party consensus among the Opposition parties that it was deeply flawed anti-sectarian legislation. The Scottish Government had failed in its duty to ensure that the law was fit for purpose. Almost five years later, that consensus remains. Let me clear from the outset that, whether in our schools, on our streets or in our football stands, sectarian behaviour should not, must not and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Sectarian violence, slogans and songs in and around Scotland’s stadiums provoke distress and division, and they offend and frighten fans who just want to enjoy our national game.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I appreciate the member’s sentiment. Does he feel that legislation has no part to play in the issue, or does he just want better legislation?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I absolutely feel that legislation has a point—we will go on to talk about breach of the peace. As others—not just politicians—said at the time of the passing of the bill and since it has been enacted, we should be using the legislation that was already in place, and we do not need to target one section of our society.

Let me also be clear that we do not believe that the hard-core minority of people who exhibit football-related threatening and violent behaviour should get away with it. My party’s long-standing opposition to section 1 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 is not a signal that the Scottish Conservatives do not support the eradication of the scourge of sectarianism—any attempts to suggest otherwise are a gross distortion of our position on that issue. We voted against the legislation because, quite simply, it is a bad piece of legislation. As my colleague John Lamont reminded members in December 2011, when the bill was railroaded through,

“bad law is worse than no law.”—[

Official Report

, 14 December 2011; c 4672.]

That is not just our view; it is the view of much of the legal profession. It is well documented that, in 2013, one senior judge complained that the complex, catch-all and badly defined provisions of the act were “horribly drafted”, infamously adding that

“somehow the word mince comes to mind”.

Many sheriffs have been “emphatically critical” of the act and have raised concerns about the clarity and human rights implications of section 1, as well as the quality of evidence in cases and the meaning of “offensive behaviours”.

During the bill’s rushed passage through Parliament, the Scottish Conservatives consistently argued that sufficient laws were already in place to deal with the behaviour that it sought to address. Again, that was not just our view; it was the assessment at the time of the Law Society of Scotland’s criminal law committee—and it continues to be its assessment. The committee concluded:

“The Committee is of the view that the offence, under section 1, does not improve on common law breach of the peace or section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.”

The First Minister and members on the Scottish National Party benches continually tell us that the SNP Government is a listening Government, so what is it that they are not hearing from Opposition politicians, football fans and the legal profession? The response has been clear and the way ahead for the Government is straightforward. To push legislation through when it has a majority is bad enough; to ignore the outcry following the legislation’s implementation and cover its eyes and ears, pretending that nothing is wrong, is lamentable and a failure of the Government’s duty to Scotland.

The SNP amendment today mentions that public opinion is supportive of the legislation, citing a Scottish Government-commissioned poll that found that 80 per cent of those surveyed supported the act. However, it should be noted that just over 1,000 people were surveyed, of whom 52 per cent said that they were “not very interested” or “not at all interested” in football.

The Government fails to recognise the significant efforts that James Kelly has gone to with his member’s bill. Knowing that there was cross-party support on Opposition benches to repeal the law, he launched a consultation on his proposed member’s bill. There were more than 3,000 respondents to the consultation, of whom more than 70 per cent were in favour of repealing the offensive behaviour at football provisions and more than 60 per cent supportive of repealing the threatening communications provisions. That is clear evidence of what the public—when they are asked for their views—want this Government and this Parliament to do. They have been clear.

Should we be surprised at the opposition to the act, given its track record so far? In the inaugural year of the act’s operation, the Scottish Government’s first set of statistics reported that 259 people were charged under the new legislation. At the same time, the number of people charged with comparable breach of the peace offences fell by 231, which suggested that prosecutors had simply replaced one offence with another, which vindicates the Law Society’s assessment.

The number of successful prosecutions has also been variable, ranging from 68 per cent in 2012-13 to 52 per cent in 2014-15. Even the Scottish Government has conceded that the 79 convictions in 2015-16 under section 1 of the act is “very small” compared to the 15,000 or so breach of the peace convictions that were secured in the same period.

Further, the Scottish Government does not seem to know how to measure the impact of the act. The former Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Paul Wheelhouse, praised the decrease in charges one year as evidence that the legislation was working effectively. However, the very next year, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice highlighted a 49 per cent increase in charges as evidence that it

“continues to be an important tool.”

Such double standards serve only to shed further light on the SNP’s confusion over the operation and application of the act. It is an act that the SNP will defend to the hilt, blinkered to its failings and acting in an ignorant fashion in response to its critics’ calls. The SNP is behaving like a football club that has used all its substitutes and would prefer to leave the injured player on the pitch rather than remove him for the benefit of the team.

There are occasions when remedying behaviour through changes in the criminal law is appropriate. However, on this occasion, the view of legal practitioners is that there were already adequate laws in place. Those can and should be used to prosecute offensive behaviour rather than vilifying football and its hundreds and thousands of fans.

The 2015 Morrow report emphasises that the impact of sectarianism varies from community to community and that it is not a one-size-fits-all issue. We need an enduring change in culture and attitudes. That happens in homes, classrooms and communities. It is facilitated by the work of charities and third sector organisations such as Nil by Mouth, and we need to see and support more of that community-led activity.

It is time that this flawed act was repealed. Not only does it unfairly target those civilised, law-abiding fans who simply want to enjoy Scotland’s beautiful game, but it has served simply to create confusion rather than clarity.

The SNP always bring out the mantra, “What would you do if you repealed the act?”

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Yes.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To use a footballing analogy to answer Mr Dornan, the 2012 act does not need a substitution—it needs a full-time whistle blown on it, and that is exactly what we intend to do here today.

It is not just the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the law is fit for purpose; it is also this Parliament’s responsibility. On too many occasions, the SNP has steamrollered over the legitimate concerns of members of Opposition parties who speak in this chamber for their constituents and Scotland’s stakeholders. Today, I sincerely hope that we can begin to reverse that trend.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that sectarian behaviour and hate crime are a blight on society in Scotland and should not be tolerated under any circumstances; notes that there are laws in place to prosecute acts of hatred in addition to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012; further notes with concern that the legal profession has repeatedly criticised the 2012 Act for being unworkable and badly drafted; regrets that the Scottish Government hastily pushed the legislation through the Parliament, despite widespread criticism from stakeholders and opposition parties, and urges the Scottish Government to repeal the Act as a matter of priority.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Football is indeed Scotland’s beautiful game. It is part of our culture. Supporters are passionate in their backing of their team, but there is a darker side to Scottish football—a part of the game that has been prevalent for decades and which many seem to have accepted as the status quo. Abuse, threats and violence are often excused as just banter or as letting off steam and appear to have been accepted as part and parcel of attending football matches in Scotland. However, there is absolutely no place in football for those who let their passion become violent or their pride become hateful. That is how we used to excuse racism and sexism, but it causes offence and harm and it undermines people’s dignity and respect.

As members will be aware, the immediate backdrop to the legislation concerned events in 2011, including when Celtic and Rangers played in a Scottish cup semi-final replay. Also around that time, prominent public figures, including the former Celtic manager, Neil Lennon, received bullets and viable explosive devices through the post because of their football allegiance.

Of course the Scottish Government recognises that the majority of football fans are well behaved and simply want to support their team. However, there is a stubborn minority who still believe that it is acceptable to be abusive, offensive and violent at football matches.

The 2012 act was introduced to rid Scottish football of that abusive behaviour and to differentiate between supporting a team and descending into threatening and abusive targeting of the opposition. Nobody is suggesting that there cannot be banter between rival fans, but when that spills over into racist, homophobic, sexist or sectarian behaviour, it is unacceptable. Indeed, evidence tells us that the majority of fans and people in Scotland’s communities find such behaviour unacceptable. I refer the chamber to the independent and comprehensive YouGov poll that found that 80 per cent of respondents, and 76 per cent of football fans, supported the act.

Too often, we have read about or witnessed behaviour at football matches that would not be acceptable anywhere else in society. Some have argued that the act unfairly targets football supporters and have asked why it does not apply to, for example, rugby or other sports. The simple answer is that there is not the same problem at those events. Ten days ago, an 11-year-old boy had to be taken to hospital after being struck on the head by a glass bottle; he required seven stitches. That happened in and around a football match, not another sport. It is important that members reflect on that.

Neil Findlay

rose

—

Murdo Fraser

rose

—

Presiding Officer, I wish to make some progress.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister does not wish to take either intervention. Please sit down.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

These are not new problems. Scottish football needs to recognise that society does not agree that historical tribalism is a justification for abusive behaviour. Football cannot simply wash its hands here. Football is an integral part of our society, and it needs to be part of the solution.

We should be promoting the game in Scotland and trying to encourage more people to go to football games, especially the next generation of fans—the ones who will be the lifeblood of the game in the future. Instead, we hear of families who are put off from going because they do not wish to expose their children to the inappropriate behaviour of the hard-core minority who sour the atmosphere and make it unwelcoming for the majority.

I turn to a few of the misconceptions about the act that we keep hearing. People have suggested that it was not needed because existing legislation was sufficient. However, we saw in the independent academic evaluation of the act that it brought a new clarity to the law. I refer members to the submission that the Crown Office made just a few weeks ago to Mr Kelly’s consultation, in which it made the point directly that the act was dealing with offending behaviour for which the prosecution may not have been able to secure a conviction using existing legislation.

Neil Findlay

rose

—

Douglas Ross

rose

—

I am afraid that I want to make progress.

Another misconception is that the act is ineffective, demonstrated apparently by a lack of prosecutions. Although that is perhaps not the normal approach to how we measure the success of criminal law and policy, I point out that, in any event, statistics clearly demonstrate that the rate of prosecutions under the act is comparable to the rate of prosecutions for other offences. The latest information, which covers 2014-15, shows how proceedings have been concluded thus far. In 98 cases brought under section 1 of the act, 76 people were convicted—that is an 84 per cent conviction rate. Comparable conviction rates for other offences in the same year are similar, with breach of the peace at 84 per cent and common assault at 75 per cent.

Neil Findlay

rose

—

I wish to make progress.

It has also been claimed that the legislation breaches human rights legislation, but Lord Carloway, then Lord Justice Clerk and now Lord President, rejected an appeal in February 2015 that the 2012 act was not sufficiently clear—the appeal court took the opposite view. The appeal court also took the view that the act did not infringe rights under article 7 of the European convention of human rights. That is the view of the appeal court in Scotland.

The principles and reasons behind the legislation are robust and it is important to point out that it is part of a broader approach to tackling issues such as sectarianism. As a Government, we have invested—and been proud to invest—some £12.5 million over the past four years, taking us to March next year, in many important community-based education projects. This morning, I had the pleasure of visiting one of those projects—the I see Scotland project—at Polmont prison.

We have worked to ensure that the recommendations—

James Kelly

rose

—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister is closing.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I will take an intervention from James Kelly.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

If the Government is fully committed to anti-sectarian initiatives, will the minister explain why the budget has been cut in the past year by £2 million?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We have put in an unprecedented amount of money—£12 million over the past four years, taking us to next year. That is more than any other Government in Scotland has invested. This week, Mr Kelly was quoted in, I believe, the

Daily Record,

saying that it was not sensible when tackling sectarianism to simply look at tackling what happened in 90 minutes in Scotland on a Saturday. I would say to him that

it is not sensible—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Ewing, you may close.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

It is not sensible to look at sectarianism without also considering what happens

in 90 minutes on a Saturday in Scotland.

I

n conclusion, Presiding Officer—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—I think that you have concluded, Ms Ewing. Thank you very much.

Amendment S5M-02231.1 moved, to leave out

from “there are laws” to end and insert:

“the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 sends a clear message that abusive behaviour has no place in Scottish football and gives additional tools to police and prosecutors to deal with acts of hatred; further notes that an independent poll carried out by YouGov showed overwhelming public support for the Act, including support from a majority of the football supporters surveyed; recognises the support from equality organisations in assisting to tackle unacceptable behaviour at football matches; notes the importance of Section 6 in tackling issues of threatening communications and stirring up religious hatred, which have been criminalised in the rest of the UK since 2006; further notes the Scottish Government’s record level of investment of £12.5 million in tackling sectarianism through education and grassroots community work, and urges the Scottish Government to continue with this work through the delivery of the recommendations of the independent Advisory Group on Tackling Sectarianism in Scotland, as well as tackling all other forms of prejudice and hate crime and implementing the recommendations of the Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion.”—[

Annabelle Ewing

]

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate.

Labour’s has an established position on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. We are against this unworkable, poorly drafted act. It has soured relationships, focused on a very specific group of people and failed to address and tackle the issues of sectarianism, bigotry and offensive behaviour.

That is why repeal of the act was in our manifesto, why my colleague James Kelly is bringing forward a member’s bill to do just that and why today we will support the motion.

Let me be clear that Scottish Labour does not condone any threatening, abusive, sectarian, bigoted or violent behaviour at football, in our schools, communities or homes, or online. I know that all of us in the chamber can unite on that position. We need a strategy that works, but unfortunately the act does not.

So far, the Government has failed to fully and satisfactorily answer the concerns with the drafting of the legislation. The issues range from subjectivity in deciding what offensive behaviour is to the way in which the act criminalises certain behaviours only in a football setting. There are also concerns about the consequences of the legislation for freedom of speech and human rights. According to Lady Paton, Lord Brodie and Lord Philip of the appeal court, the act

“created a criminal offence with an extremely long reach.”

It allows someone to be charged if they are on a journey to a football match, even if they have no intention of actually attending the match.

The law allows Police Scotland officers to use discretion when it comes to deeming what is offensive. Officers now have to become judge and jury in considering when “bad sentiment” becomes “hatred”, as one sheriff put it. That has led to claims of misapplication and misuse. Many people have been arrested without there being an identifiable victim and many charges have failed to lead to conviction.

It is clear that, since the introduction of the legislation, the relationship between fans and fan groups and the police has deteriorated. That relationship needs to be strong if we are to tackle sectarianism and offensive behaviour. Instead of co-operation and self-policing, we have fans being filmed, followed and searched. According to Fans Against Criminalisation,

“the whole atmosphere of football has become one of antagonism—not between opposing fan groups but between fans and the police.”

Young fans are growing up in a culture of distrust of our police force and a feeling of injustice. That is not a healthy relationship to foster in modern Scotland and it could have a knock-on effect on other justice issues.

Football is Scotland’s game, yet when we discuss it in the chamber, we often paint a dark and negative picture of the game. Fan behaviour has changed dramatically since the 1980s. The tartan army is renowned and loved the world over, and the tens of thousands of Celtic fans in Seville for the UEFA cup final won UEFA’s fair play award. Scotland’s clubs are the best supported in Europe if we consider attendances on a per capita basis. Every weekend, thousands of fans travel to games to support their team, doing their club and country proud. Yes, a minority of fans let the side down, but having an act that treats all football fans differently from fans of other sports such as rugby, golf or ice hockey is not the answer.

Ahead of the debate, the Government has repeatedly called for alternatives but, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the alternatives are already in place. Among others, we have the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Sectarianism, bigotry, hatred and violence are not new offences. We have common-law offences such as breach of the peace; public order offences relating to the incitement of racial hatred, harassment and religious prejudice; football banning orders; and a raft of other charges that can be brought against anyone who is clearly breaking the law. That was discussed at length during the passage of the legislation. Concerns were raised but went unheeded by the Government, which used its majority at the time to force through the legislation. However, nothing since the passing of the 2012 act has eased those concerns.

The best laws and legislation are simple, clear and understood, not just by the courts and the police but by the public. However, the act is at best confusing or, in the words of Sheriff Richard Davidson, “horribly drafted”. That critique is simple, clear and understood.

Repeal of the act would include repeal of section 6, which the Law Society of Scotland suggests adds to the complexity of prosecuting the offence and is an area that could benefit from clarity. I am confident that repeal would not restrict the ability to prosecute in that area.

Today, Parliament is uniting against this unworkable act. We have an opportunity to listen to the courts, lawyers, academics and fans and the chance to repair relationships between fans and the police. This is not the time for arrogance or stubbornness; it is time for the Scottish Government to accept the need to repeal the act.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I cannot impress on members enough just how tight time is in this very short debate. Speeches will be generally four minutes, including interventions.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

It would be easy to think that today’s debate is about tackling the blight of sectarianism, which—despite significant progress—still plagues modern Scotland. However, such arguments in this context are nothing more than a straw man because, as we have seen, the legislation does nothing in practice to tackle the underlying issues or to change behaviour. In fact, the only positive thing to come out of the legislation—I give the Scottish Government credit where it is due—is that it has succeeded in uniting football fans across the divide in a common cause. It has shown that—albeit in a narrow context—people can put aside their traditional rivalries in the interest of the game, and it has brought together Opposition parties in the chamber. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on that.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

No, thank you.

The legislation is tokenism at its worst and—perhaps more worryingly—it is very poor legislation that muddies the waters rather than delivering on any tangible policy aims. The warning signs are clear for all to see as judges, civil rights groups, and football fans and clubs have all highlighted continuing concerns. The Law Society of Scotland put it diplomatically when it said:

“We believe that the policy intention and objectives of the 2012 act to address the serious issues of offensive behaviour at football matches and threatening communications is entirely laudable. However, we remain concerned about a number of aspects of the act, which we expressed at the bill stage in 2011.”

That is just the point. The Scottish Government rushed through the bill, railroading it through Parliament without addressing any of the legitimate concerns and criticisms that were levelled. We now find ourselves back where we started, with legislation that is not fit for purpose and which is riddled with exactly the same problems that were predicted back in 2011.

Drafting and legal considerations aside, the most worrying and undesirable consequence of the 2012 act is that it brings so many young males into the criminal justice system for the first time. Of the 287 charges that were brought under the act in 2015-16, approximately 98 per cent of those charged were male. Sadly, almost half were 20 years of age or under and a further 29 per cent were aged between 21 and 30. That tells a very sad story and seems to point to a more worrying trend that continues to exist outside football. That is the point: these problems exist inside and outside football, which is why it is wrong to focus our political effort in this way.

What is more, the act provides no solutions whatsoever. By implication, rather than focusing our financial and political efforts on addressing offending behaviour, we are simply seeking to label the problem and make an example of a small number of individuals.

As YouthLink Scotland rightly highlighted in its most recent consultation response on the subject, we must be mindful of the fact that having a criminal record will impact on a young person’s attainment and employment prospects. That issue seems to fly in the face of the Scottish Government’s own priorities for justice.

After almost a decade in government, is not it time for the SNP to recognise that sometimes gesture politics is not without consequences? It is time for the Government to think again, to listen to legitimate criticisms and to call time on the dog’s dinner that is the 2012 act.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I want to highlight the meaning of the word “justice”. The dictionary definition states that it is

“a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people; fairness, equity and egalitarianism”.

Those values are precisely what the 2012 act promotes. It sends out a clear message that we will not permit discrimination, violence, sectarianism, prejudice or hate crime in Scotland.

I want to clear up a few myths about the act. It is working and is reducing sectarianism at football. In 2016, the number of people charged with offensive behaviour from the previous year has increased by 49 per cent, which means that the amount of abusive behaviour and language on our football terraces and streets has reduced by 49 per cent.

The fact is that the 2012 act is supported by the majority of the public—around 80 per cent. Those people just want to enjoy a game of football without having to experience the bile and hatred of a tiny minority of fans.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am sorry, I have too little time.

The 2012 act is also, in the main, supported by football clubs across Scotland.

The 2012 act is not confined to football. An offence is also committed if material is intended to stir up religiously motivated hatred. Sectarianism is not a matter for football in isolation, because the problem goes way beyond the football ground. The 2012 act is also designed to address online communications and hate crime.

Of course we will consider ways of improving the 2012 act’s application. We are happy to do so. However, to repeal the act and get rid of an additional and useful tool, which strengthens existing legislation for police and prosecutors, is not a priority for this Government. The Crown Office said that repeal would leave a gap in legislation, and we would be the only part of the United Kingdom that does not have such legislation. Repeal would be an entirely retrograde step. What message would it send to the next generation?

When my son was a football-mad six-year-old and wanted a football top, we bought him a Partick Thistle Football Club top so that he would not be identified with either side of the old firm. How do we explain sectarianism to a young child? We simply cannot do so, and we should not have to do so. Sectarianism has been the curse of the west of Scotland, and any steps that our Government takes to put a stop to it should be welcomed.

Douglas Ross’s motion, which asks for the repeal of the act, is regressive and negative. The motion is right to say that

“sectarian behaviour and hate crime are a blight on society in Scotland”,

but Douglas Ross’s party, like Labour, has not come up with a single solution to the problem.

What is the Opposition’s alternative? Breach of the peace is simply not strong enough.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

She is in her final minute.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Labour and the Tories supported the approach whole-heartedly in 2011.

To members who oppose the 2012 act, I say that we are proud that, rather than pay lip service to the problem, the SNP Government is prepared to tackle it head on and rid Scotland of a poison that has been a blight on our nation for far too long.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

Let us be clear. The football act has been a failure. It was imposed on the Parliament against the will of all the Opposition parties, it unfairly targets football fans, it causes friction between police and supporters, and it has been ineffective in tackling sectarianism.

That is why 70 per cent of the more than 3,000 people who responded to the consultation on my member’s bill proposal support the repeal of sections 1 to 5 and 62 per cent support the repeal of sections 6 to 9.

The Opposition parties are unanimously opposed to the 2012 act continuing, just as they were unanimous in opposing the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 in 2011. It is time that SNP members started to listen to us, instead of hectoring and lecturing us.

The repeal of the 2012 act would be important, first, because the act causes a lot of confusion and what is needed in the justice system is legal certainty. We need only consider some of the cases. In one example, a whole morning was taken up in a sheriff court by legal debate about whether the jaw movements of a young man whose mouth had been covered with a scarf could be construed as representing an offensive song that might cause public disorder. It really is ridiculous.

As Oliver Mundell rightly pointed out, in the recent tranche of cases, nearly half involved young men under 20, many of whom were being brought into the criminal justice system for the first time. I have listened to many debates on justice and sincere speeches from Michael Matheson and I cannot for a minute believe that that is a policy outcome that the Government wanted or wants to continue.

We must also consider the cost. Some £2 million has been spent on a unit that films football supporters in and outside football grounds. That is not to mention the cost of overzealous pursuit of cases. In recent times, we have seen the return of numerous dawn raids, in which police officers sit outside offenders’ houses in shifts, in order to carry out an arrest. Surely the amount of money that we invest in such measures would be better invested in better ideas in the public services.

The Scottish Government has got the approach to tackling sectarianism wrong in making the 2012 act its flagship policy. A lot of hate crimes are carried out away from the football, and the ministerial team does not appear to have grasped that.

I believe that we can do better as a Parliament. Surely, in 21st century Scotland, we should not have a law that targets one section of sports fans. Surely, in a modern progressive country, we should not be filming football fans going in and out of grounds.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Would you come to a close, please, Mr Kelly?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

Surely we can do better than a policy that criminalises young people under the age of 20. I think that there is an opportunity—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Kelly, would you close please?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

—for the SNP to reach out and build consensus with other parties and groups in Scotland, and it should start with the repeal of the 2012 act.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Green Party manifesto position was to support the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, and that is entirely consistent with objections that Patrick Harvie raised at the outset of the passage of the bill. Indeed, throughout its passage the Scottish Green Party MSPs repeatedly made it clear that although there may be a case for incitement to hatred legislation in Scots law, it should be developed with careful consideration. People have talked about the haste with which the bill was passed. Incitement to hatred legislation must have a significant level of consensus, but there was not consensus on the 2012 act, and it must treat everyone equally before the law—it is felt that the 2012 act targets football supporters.

Various references to judicial comment have been made. In one case at the High Court, the judge said:

“In enacting s1(1) the Parliament created a criminal offence with an extremely long reach”.

Many sheriffs are of the view that the Parliament overstretched itself.

I am sure that many members have had representations on the 2012 act. Someone said to me:

“I am no expert on intersectionality but an approach to religious or sexual discrimination which targets a section of the population doesn’t seem to fit ... The offence in s38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 has faced none of this criticism because, I’d suggest, it applies across the board.”

I hear a consensus that we need to tackle sectarianism.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Constituents have also written to me. One said that although they accept that the 2012 act probably does not deal with the numerous nuances of behaviour at matches, to repeal it would send a dangerous message to offending groups. I know that that constituent also wrote to John Finnie.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, indeed; this morning they got a courteous reply that outlined the Scottish Green Party’s position and the rationale for it.

Another representation that I had said:

“Unpicking the complex social histories and fabric which has resulted in the sectarian problems we have today is essential. The final report from the Advisory Group on Tackling Sectarianism in Scotland is the best basis we have for a strategy that will deliver on that complex task.”

The Morrow report talked about the need to challenge our acceptance of low-level sectarianism and the need to work across political parties, which I hope will happen. It also called for leadership from churches, community organisations, local authorities and football clubs, and it spoke about the need for funding for grass-roots activity.

The Morrow report was keen to portray the reality that sectarianism is not rife across football. Rather, it is strong in pockets. Sectarianism extends much wider into society and it is wrong to conflate football and sectarianism. There is no way of addressing the issue in football without addressing the wider issue.

How we go about that can be successful only if the approach is consistent and long term, and that can happen only if there is a shared political vision for the work. There never was a shared vision for the 2012 act. The Scottish Parliament is at its best when it is united. We have seen that in relation to some important issues and I hope that we will see unity in condemnation of sectarianism.

As I said, Parliament was never united on the legislation although there is no place for sectarianism in Scotland. The Scottish Green Party believes that the 2012 act unnecessarily restricts freedom of expression and has not been the most effective way of addressing the concerns, and Green MSPs voted against the legislation in 2011. However, I stress that there may be a case for incitement to hatred legislation in Scots law if we can get consensus on that.

I conclude by quoting Patrick Harvie’s final words in the stage 3 debate. He talked about the mistakes in the bill that MSPs would

“need to come back to correct in good time.”—[

Official Report

, 14 December 2011; c 4658.]

This is a good time to correct them—correction by repeal.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Douglas Ross for securing the debate and pay tribute to James Kelly for his diligence in keeping a spotlight on the deficiencies of the 2012 act and for his bill to repeal that ill-thought-through legislation. Like other members, I make it absolutely clear that I utterly condemn sectarian language, acts and behaviour, which are still too prevalent and pervasive in our society. I will happily work my socks off with any party, any group and any individual in a bid to rid our country of that stain. However, I am not interested in quick fixes, headline-grabbing stunts or shows of legislative muscle that are counterproductive and which damage the very relations that we will depend on for a long-term solution.

I say that partly in response to what I thought were insultingly patronising comments attributed to a Scottish Government spokeswoman earlier this week. She said:

“Critics of the act seem to think our only option is just to accept this contempt for fans and players.”

If that is the minister’s view, it does her no credit. For me, it has unpleasant echoes of the former justice secretary’s view that those who opposed the SNP Government’s plans to abolish corroboration were somehow sympathisers with or apologists for domestic violence and sexual assault.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No, thank you.

I do not believe that over 70 per cent of the respondents to the consultation on James Kelly’s bill are apologists for sectarianism any more than I believe that any member of this chamber is. They are groups and individuals who reflect the widely held view that the act was flawed from the start—a view that has been borne out by what has happened since the act was introduced. It was introduced by a justice secretary and a majority SNP Government that showed scant respect or regard for the Parliament, for civil liberties or for the complexities of the problem that they sought to address. It was a knee-jerk reaction in response to reprehensible scenes at an old firm game and accusations that the then First Minister and his Government had taken their eye off the ball and failed to carry forward the work on sectarianism that had previously been led by Jack McConnell.

I dare say that we will now be offered an inquiry into how the act is performing, but the time for an inquiry would have been prior to legislating in the first place. Emergency legislation is sometimes necessary, but its use in that instance was not justified and was based on no compelling evidence that the tools at the disposal of the police, the courts and our judicial system were inadequate at the time. No wonder the bill was described as “mince”. It singled out one sport and left what constitutes offensive behaviour open to the widest possible interpretation. Considering how quickly SNP colleagues can be offended when it suits them, such an elastic definition of offensiveness is surely not tenable.

What is the solution? Nil by Mouth and others call for the problem to be dealt with holistically, with action not stopping at criminalising the behaviour of one section of society in one particular circumstance. As John Finnie said, the advisory group on tackling sectarianism has established the foundations for change through initiatives that focus on prevention and building trust and understanding, recognising that councils, churches, football clubs, schools, the media, community organisations and others are all key in delivering grass-roots solutions. The advisory group has set out a series of recommendations. I accept that none of them is as easily packaged and sold as a single piece of newly minted statute, but if we are truly to tackle this scar on our society we must recognise that it will require patient, time-consuming, intensive work by many people and organisations over a sustained period.

We need to show sectarianism the red card, but that can be done more effectively by sending this ill-conceived act for an early bath.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 is an unfortunate relic of the previous parliamentary term and an act on which proper scrutiny was never allowed. Good law that works must take into account a range of views, particularly those from people who are affected by and involved in carrying out its provisions. The fundamental problem with the bill—pointed out well in advance of it becoming law—was its lack of clarity.

The concept of offence to a notional person, rather than to an actual individual who is affected by the crime, was always bound to be problematic. It has effectively placed the police and the courts in the difficult position of not just identifying but defining the alleged culprit.

The pre-existing law on breach of the peace is, by comparison, relatively clear—and that is saying something. What about the law in practice? Predictably, as has been mentioned, there have been conflicting decisions by respected judges in very similar cases. Different judgments have been handed down for the singing of the same song in the same year. In March last year, on a case a month after the one referred to, Donnelly and Walsh v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh, the then Lord Justice Clerk and now Lord President—the highest judge in Scotland—Lord Carloway, said:

“There is no blanket ban on singing sectarian songs and the appellants are at liberty to indulge their desire to do so at many alternative venues.”

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

No, I will not—thank you.

The law has, unsurprisingly, been branded as “capricious” and “unfair, unnecessary and unworkable” by Brian McConnachie QC, former chair of the Scottish criminal bar association.

It is astonishing not just to me but to my Edinburgh and Lothian constituents that football supporters visiting Tynecastle, Easter Road or Meadowbank stadium may be treated differently from those watching rugby matches at Murrayfield stadium. That seems nothing short of ridiculous.

The act provides a platform for the promotion and creation of social division. That is surely the opposite of its supposed purpose. Critically, as has been said, the act does not have the support or the respect of the fans. Police Scotland needs to have fans’ support and respect to maintain law and order, which the vast majority of football supporters want to see. Police Scotland’s job is difficult enough without being added to by unclear law such as this act.

There is, of course, a real issue that requires to be dealt with: sectarianism and its ugly consequences. The way to deal with that is through education and removing the circumstances that lie at the root of the problem. A law that fails in so many ways is not the answer.

Professor Ewen Cameron of the University of Edinburgh has rightly said that the legislation

“doesn’t really address the underlying issues, the deeply held cultural attitude and feelings. It addresses a symptom of sectarianism, the particular problem of ... sectarian language. Underlying attitudes can’t really be dealt with by criminalising songs.”

There is no point in having laws for their own sake. We need to deal with the underlying root causes and not just the consequences of sectarianism. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will, for once, listen.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am sad to say that I will not be able to take any interventions, because I have only four minutes. If I had had more time, I would have been happy to do that.

Presiding Officer,

“there are still instances of online campaigns which are sectarian in nature and are unacceptable ... The job for a ... parliament is to look at the laws around the internet”

to see if

“they’re tough enough ... we want the authorities to act”

and get

“the appropriate tools in legislation at their disposal to clamp down on this.”

That was a comment by James Kelly on 22 April 2011, which was coincidentally about two weeks before an election, which shows to me that this debate is nothing to do with trying to improve the legislation and everything to do with trying to defeat the Government. This is a political stunt by two parties that have been working very closely together for quite some time now.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

The member obviously was not listening to the beginning of my speech.

I have heard a number of people say that they cannot understand why football was singled out. The people who are saying that do not know anything about the situation in the west of Scotland.

The one defining picture of sectarianism in Scotland has always been football. That is not where it all comes from or where, deep down, it lies. All those things have been dealt with, but if we are trying to pretend that sectarianism and football have not been ugly brothers for some time, we have not been paying attention. We had to take on the sectarianism and antisocial behaviour at football, and the death threats that managers were getting. I cannot believe that the Conservatives are keen to get rid of section 6 of the 2012 act. There is absolutely nothing to replace it.

James Kelly

rose—

We have been told that we should do nothing. It is ridiculous. Douglas Ross said that we should do nothing, as did James Kelly. [

Interruption

.] No, Mr Ross, you said that we should do nothing. Yesterday, James Kelly told me that we should let the clubs deal with the issue, and that is what Douglas Ross is saying today. The clubs refused to do anything. The Scottish Football Association wanted to bring in strict liability, but the clubs said no. The supporters of two clubs fought at the Scottish cup final at Hampden—the whole world saw it—but neither club was found guilty of anything. [

Interruption

.] That is the whole point. We are saying that there is still work to be done. The Conservatives’ argument is that we should go back to having less legislation, with the result that we will be less able to hold people to account. We must hold the clubs to account. We must hold people to account. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Could members all talk through the chair, please, instead of holding private conversations?

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I apologise, Presiding Officer. That is what happens at football matches all the time.

The clubs will not do anything unless we make sure that there is legislation in place for them. We must keep the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. We must send out a message that we take the issue seriously.

I know that there is no member who is complacent about sectarianism. Douglas Ross says that we are wrong, but I say that I honestly believe that the message that the Conservatives would send out by repealing the 2012 act would be that they do not think that there is a problem that still has to be dealt with. I know that that is not Douglas Ross’s intention, but that is the message that would go out loud and clear to people all across the country.

I know lots of football fans; I have been a football fan for longer than most Conservative members have been alive. [

Interruption

.] Not you, Jackson. Many of the people I know support the 2012 act because they want to go to a game and enjoy their football. They want to take their children and their grandchildren with them, and they do not want to have to listen to the rubbish that I had to listen to when I was a kid, which my sons had to listen to when they were kids.

I ask members to support the Government and not to support the motion, because it is flawed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The last of the open debate speakers is Kate Forbes. I can allow you around two minutes, Ms Forbes.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I support the Government’s amendment because the Conservatives have lodged a motion that rightly condemns sectarian behaviour and hate crime, which it says are “a blight on society”—I agree—but it does not offer a single solution. It is a weak Opposition that will carp and criticise as it sits in the stands and a strong Opposition that gets on the pitch with an actual plan.

The appalling scenes at the recent Scottish cup final humiliated this nation. Quiet indulgence or passive acceptance of sectarian banter runs as a fault line through Scottish society. I know that none of us is resigned to the status quo. One thing that can be said for the Government is that it is not resigned or indifferent.

Immediately prior to the introduction of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, Opposition parties lined up to ask the Government what specific action it would take to address sectarianism. We did something. I repeat that question to the Opposition parties: what is their viable alternative that would solve football-related sectarianism? With the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, we criminalised hateful behaviour that incites public disorder and sent a message that Scotland would not tolerate any form of hate crime. We will continue to consider ways to improve the application of the act, but we are yet to hear of anything better to replace it with.

Education is, of course, important, but it is not the only answer. Funding is vital, but it will not fully solve the problem. We need legislation. Therefore, I repeat the question that was asked by Opposition parties more than four years ago: what are they going to do, when bullets and explosive devices are sent through the post, when banners with threatening remarks are displayed or when inflatable dolls are strung up at football matches? What is their alternative to the 2012 act when hundreds of police hours are spent investigating crimes after football matches and tens of people are arrested after a cup final?

That is the reality in Scotland. There is public support for tackling hate crime, for a strong criminal justice system and for clarity in enforcing legislation. We are committed to that, which is why this act exists. We can debate and oppose it if we want, but it is just empty rhetoric and—to use Mr Mundell’s words—gesture politics if there is no viable alternative.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the closing speeches, and I call Mary Fee. You may have four minutes, Ms Fee.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Sectarianism is an intolerable form of human behaviour that should never be treated with acceptance or ignorance. I thank the Conservatives for bringing this debate to the chamber this afternoon, because I think that their motion reflects the mood of the Opposition parties, football fans, academics and law bodies. We want to tackle sectarianism through education and prevention and to work with anti-sectarianism charities, churches, football authorities and fans to develop positive measures to stamp it out in Scotland.

I do not doubt the Scottish Government’s intentions in tackling sectarianism, and I believe that they are sincere. Like many others, however, I also believe that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was rushed and is reactionary.

There have always been wider problems surrounding football, particularly in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, but to tackle sectarianism adequately, we must look at the deeper roots and attitudes of those holding biased and sectarian views, whether or not they are football fans. James Kelly has outlined his reasons for holding a consultation to repeal the 2012 act. Over 70 per cent of respondents believe that the Scottish Government should listen to their views and join the rest of the chamber to scrap the act and take other measures to tackle bigotry.

Prior to the act becoming law in 2012, there were already eight pieces of legislation that tackled hate crime, sectarianism and behaviour of football fans. The 2012 act is illiberal and treats football fans differently from any other sports fan or, indeed, anyone in any other walk of life. Sectarianism occurs in the workplace, in the school and on the streets; it does not start when a fan walks through the turnstile and does not end when the full-time whistle blows.

Assumptions based on bias or bigotry can be made about something as simple as a person’s name. I have been in that position, having been abused because of the connotations of my surname for some people. That did not happen at a football game or while watching sport, and the same thing happens throughout society across the whole of Scotland. I believe that the 2012 act discriminates against fans; it has damaged trust between fans and police; and it has failed to tackle sectarianism in a proportionate or effective way.

Football across the world has a problem with inclusivity in a range of areas, especially homophobia and racism. Working with national Governments, the governing bodies of football—FIFA and UEFA—and the national football associations must do more at local and grass-roots levels to tackle all forms of discrimination.

The views across the Opposition benches are clear: the Scottish Government will have the chamber’s full support if it listens to the fans and goes back to the drawing board to work with a range of stakeholders, including fans, churches, anti-sectarianism groups, clubs, schools and many more, on a more effective way of educating people and understanding and tackling the root causes of sectarianism.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I have listened with interest to the contributions that have been made. It is fair to say that there is a level of consensus in the chamber, particularly on the need to do everything that we can to tackle unacceptable behaviour that takes place in or outwith football grounds. We all have a collective desire to drive out unacceptable behaviour in our society, whether it takes place during the 90 minutes of a football match or in communities.

It is important to recognise that no one says that legislation is a panacea to tackle unacceptable behaviour in our football grounds or communities. A variety of measures need to be taken to tackle unacceptable behaviour effectively. Through our schools, community-based programmes and partnership work in communities, we need to educate young people about unacceptable behaviour, whether that is sexism, homophobia, racism or sectarianism, all of which have no place in our society.

There is no doubt that our football clubs have an important part to play in tackling unacceptable behaviour that takes place in the environs of their grounds, and I have no doubt that clubs could do more to support that objective.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Let me make progress, please.

Equally, alongside that, legislation has a part to play in supporting our law enforcement bodies and our prosecutors to deal effectively with unacceptable behaviour in any shape or form, wherever it takes place.

Throughout the debate over the four years since the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was passed, there have been people who have said that the act does not work and should be repealed. We have repeatedly asked Opposition parties what they would do differently and how the existing legislation could be improved or how the deficiencies in it could be addressed. However, we have been struck by the silence from the Opposition parties.

I will pick up a couple of points.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Let me make progress on issues that have been raised in the debate.

I was struck by the lack of an alternative approach being set out by any of the other parties. I was particularly struck by James Kelly’s contribution. He referred to the Police Scotland focus group that deals with tackling unacceptable behaviour in football grounds. That group was not set up because of the legislation; it was set up on the basis of a recommendation from the joint action group on tackling unacceptable behaviour in football and it helps to address the issue in football grounds.

I was also struck by the contributions that were made across the chamber that tried to make the focus of the debate purely about football. The act deals with unacceptable behaviour in football grounds, but it also deals with issues to do with threatening communications. Section 6 is an important part of the act. Many contributions, such as those from Douglas Ross and other members, completely ignored that issue.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned the threatening communications section. Does he accept that, with only three cases having been brought in the past year, it is clear that prosecutors do not see that section as a viable way of tackling online abuse?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Looking at whether legislation is viable on the basis of how often it is used is a simplistic approach to dealing with such an issue.

Let us remember that section 6 was put into the legislation because a football manager received bullets through the post and because two members of the public, including a Deputy Presiding Officer of the Parliament, received viable explosive devices through the post. All of that could have been dealt with only on a summary basis in our courts, which would have limited their powers to sentencing people to no more than a year. However, we put such offences on indictment through the legislation, which allows our courts to deal with matters much more effectively.

Those who say that the legislation is just about football have to recognise that, if they want to repeal the act, they also want to repeal an aspect of it that is essential to dealing with threatening communications. If that was repealed, we would be the only part of the United Kingdom that did not criminalise threatening communication that has the purpose of stirring up religious hatred. That is what the Opposition parties seek to do with the motion, which is why it should be opposed.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At the start of the debate, Douglas Ross set out the case against the legislation. It is unnecessary, unworkable and illiberal, and I will deal with each of those aspects in turn and take the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been made.

We believe that the legislation is unnecessary. The Scottish Government introduced it as part of the something-must-be-done mentality to address a legitimate concern about sectarianism in Scottish society. It ignored the fact that, as we have heard throughout the debate, laws already existed to address the problem, including common-law breach of the peace. The Law Society of Scotland’s briefing for the debate says:

“A substantial proportion of the offensive behaviour related to football which leads to a public disorder was likely to be caught by the substantive criminal law which existed prior to the 2012 act coming into force and continues to exist.”

The Law Society is quite clear that the laws were already in place.

I have experience of those laws. I remember standing in football grounds in the 1980s and seeing the police lift people from around me who were singing threatening and offensive songs. One of the individuals in question is now a prominent Scottish lawyer, whom I will not name in the chamber. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that it was not Professor Tomkins.

We heard the cabinet secretary, Kate Forbes and Rona Mackay ask what would replace the legislation, but that completely misses the point of what we and others have been saying. If the existing laws were properly enforced with proper resources, they could deal with the problem.

At the start, the minister said—it is covered in her amendment—that we need to send a message. We have the act because it sends a message about the unacceptability of sectarian behaviour. There are better ways of sending messages than criminalising hundreds of young men. Oliver Mundell talked about young men, and there will also be young women who have had their life chances adversely affected because they have been criminalised under the act. The act has soured relationships between fans and the police.

Mr Dornan accused us of political opportunism for taking the issue as a chance to defeat the Government, but our view has been entirely consistent. We opposed the bill from the start, as did all the Opposition parties. Is it any surprise that we now see an opportunity to repeal what we believe is bad law?

My next point is that the law is unworkable. Claire Baker said that laws need to be clear and easy to understand. In her opening speech, the minister said that the act had brought clarity to the law.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I tried to intervene on the minister to ask her to explain that remark. I will be delighted if she can now explain why all the people in the legal profession and the judiciary who have criticised the law are wrong. Why does the Government think that it is right and they are all wrong?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

In his characteristic manner, the member is perhaps overegging his case in saying that the whole legal profession takes the view that he just described. I quoted the 2015 judgment in the appeal court, when the Lord Justice Clerk of the time, Lord Carloway, was sitting on the bench.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister has not responded to the broad criticism that is contained even in today’s briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, which talks about the lack of clarity in the law. That is backed by a range of experts sitting on the bench, whose concerns have been quoted throughout the debate.

We heard an interesting and well-informed contribution from John Finnie for the Greens. He said that there might well be a case for a law against inciting hatred, but it needs to be a general law and not one that applies just to football, because such an approach is inappropriate. We all agree that there is a genuine concern about sectarianism but, if we are to address it, we need to do so across society and not just at football. One of the concerns about the act that the cabinet secretary just mentioned is that it criminalises people in relation to football but not in relation to wider Scottish society.

My final point is that the act is illiberal. It criminalises those who cause offence to others. I believe that people should not offend each other—they should be better behaved—but that does not mean that we should make criminals of those who cause us offence. The act launches a new class of victimless crime, as Gordon Lindhurst reminded us.

In the Joseph Cairns case, a Celtic fan attended a match against Ross County in Dingwall and was filmed by police officers singing two Celtic songs—“The Roll of Honour” and “The Boys of the Old Brigade”—which led to him being prosecuted under the act. This was a victimless crime. Nobody complained to the police that they were offended by his singing and nobody was incited to public disorder. He was one of several thousand fans in the ground who were singing at the same time, yet he was the only one who was singled out for attention. As James Kelly said, the act unfairly targets people who are in football grounds or are associated with football. It does not address sectarian behaviour in other contexts.

The act is bad law. It has united commentators, football fans, lawyers and the judiciary in opposition and it is unworkable. It creates tensions between football fans and the police, it is unnecessary because what it does is covered by existing laws, and it is illiberal. For those three reasons, it should be repealed, and for that reason we should all support the motion in Douglas Ross’s name.

National Health Service

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-02232, in the name of Donald Cameron, on the national health service in Scotland.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The subject of the debate is, of course, Audit Scotland’s

report “NHS in Scotland 2016”. The report is now a week old. The picture that it paints of the NHS in Scotland is, however, much older. That is the true tragedy. As I will discuss later, the problems that are described are the problems that Audit Scotland described 10 years ago. That is 10 lost years, 10 years of inaction and 10 years of delay.

I will remind Parliament of some key points: only one of the eight key performance targets has been met, the number of out-patients waiting for an appointment went up by more than 20,000 in a year, and there is a recruitment crisis with skills gaps across the NHS. Those are just some of the damning statements in the report.

I have always said that we will welcome successes when they arise, and there are small glimmers of light in the report, so it would be churlish not to acknowledge them. Audit Scotland states that NHS Scotland met its drug and alcohol treatment standard, which we welcome, and the cancer target of 31 days between a decision to treat and first treatment was missed by a very marginal 0.1 per cent. There is also recognition that there has been a reduction in bed days lost to delayed discharge.

However, although there are morsels of good news, in any balanced view the report remains a stark indictment of the SNP’s handling of the NHS. Why do we keep hearing that? The SNP Government refuses to acknowledge that after nearly 10 years in its hands the NHS in Scotland is in critical condition. The longer the Government buries its head in the sand, blames other people and talks about a good record, the worse that will get.

Unlike the Government, we want to analyse the problems that are facing our NHS and, more important, talk about the solutions that will make it work not only for patients, but for the front-line staff who care for them. Those staff are one of the many reasons why people have such huge good will—for the moment—towards the NHS. That affection for the NHS does not mean that there are not fundamental problems with the way it is being run here in Scotland. In the report, charge after charge is levelled and proved. It is a forensic critique of a public service that is on its knees, so it would be incredible if the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport were to describe the report as anything other than deeply alarming.

A politician uses rhetoric at his or her own risk because its currency is devalued by overuse, but the position that we are in is more than “challenging” and “difficult”. It is truly a crisis. If we take targets as one aspect, all but one were missed, as I said, and performance on some is going backwards. Performance on the 18-week referral-to-treatment target is down by 1 per cent on last year, performance on the 12-week treatment time guarantee is down by 2 per cent on last year, and performance on referral to out-patient appointments is down by 3.4 per cent on last year. Those are not mere numbers: they represent real people across Scotland who are relying on our NHS but are being let down—each missed percentage point a person, and each fraction a family.

As I said earlier, and as Ruth Davidson pointed out last week, for the past 10 years Audit Scotland reports have been warning the Scottish Government about the lack of a clear plan to deliver a better NHS. Crucially, they have been warning about the failure to shift the balance of care. When the SNP took office in 2007, Audit Scotland published a report that said that there was

“no evidence that resources are shifting”

from traditional means of delivering services to community-based services.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Donald Cameron for giving way. Does he accept that shifting of services out of acute hospitals into the community might make targets harder to reach—in the short term, at least?

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As I was saying, i

n 2008, Audit Scotland said that despite the Government’s policy of shifting the balance of care closer to home, there was

“no evidence available to show changes in the balance of expenditure”

had occurred. In its 2009 report, it said the same thing—that

“significant changes in the balance of care from acute to more community-based services have yet to become evident”.

In 2014, the same thing was said. Last year, in its 2015 report, Audit Scotland was scathing about the Government when it said:

“the Scottish Government has not made sufficient progress towards achieving its 2020 Vision of changing the balance of care to more homely and community-based settings”.

We know what the 2016 report says: exactly the same thing—no progress, no shift in the balance of healthcare, and much more action required.

Year after year, the warnings have been ignored and we are now at breaking point. Despite the long wait, I welcome some of points that were made in the cabinet secretary’s statement earlier. I welcome the fact that the Government intends to accelerate the shift from acute care to primary, community and social care. I welcome the fact that the Government is committing to shifting 50 per cent of front-line NHS funding to outwith the acute hospital sector. However, the fact remains that that should have happened years ago, when Audit Scotland first raised the issue.

That said, as I read the cabinet secretary’s amendment I was encouraged. I thought, “At last—a genuine attempt to set out a list of actions, some of which we could support.” I should have known better. The final line of the amendment refers to UK Government welfare policy. How depressing that, at the last, the cabinet secretary chose to include a partisan red herring at the end of her amendment to try to shift the blame on to someone else. As far as I have been able to see, the Audit Scotland report makes no mention whatever of the effects of welfare policy. Reverting to type is an attribute of the Government.

Let us rise above that. It is clear that a fundamental change in direction is required. To carp from the sidelines is futile and, as a strong Opposition, we do not intend to do that. I have said it before and I say it again—blanket opposition to change in the NHS is irresponsible. The NHS can never be static and we accept that tough decisions have to be taken. The current political debate is failing the NHS because saving the health service now and for the future is more important than the politics of anyone in Parliament.

We want to contribute positively to that endeavour, which is why the Scottish Conservatives are setting out 15 things that we say can be done now and over the next few years to take our NHS through this difficult period, thereby showing that there is a middle course between underaction and overemotion. We are setting out several proposals that we feel can help our NHS to grow, to meet the challenges ahead and, crucially, to ensure that many of the recommendations that Audit Scotland has routinely made can be met.

For example, we are calling on the Government to consider the following: to give immediate clarity on which services will change and which will not; in the next six months, to evaluate the impact of splitting elective and acute care; to expand mental health services into primary, emergency and community settings; and to publish a national workforce plan and commit to six-monthly updates to this Parliament. Those are just a few examples; they are just sensible, straightforward and pragmatic suggestions that should be being implemented but are not. They should be being implemented because in order to solve the problems that exist, new ideas are required.

To sum up, if the SNP truly cares about the future of our health service and wants to provide better government for Scotland instead of endless constitutional navel-gazing, it must deliver an NHS that is fit for not just the next five years, but for the next 25 years and beyond.

I hope that the Audit Scotland report goes down in Scottish political history as a seminal moment in the story of our health service. I hope that the report really does mark a turning point, because we are truly at the stage of make or break.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Audit Scotland report, NHS in Scotland 2016; believes that the report paints a picture of a health service in crisis; notes that the NHS in Scotland has failed to meet seven of its eight key targets, that NHS boards are facing unprecedented levels of savings and that the health service as a whole is experiencing widespread problems in recruiting and retaining staff; believes that, after almost 10 years in power, the SNP administration must take responsibility for the clear and significant failures in the NHS, and, as a matter of urgency, calls on the Scottish Government to set out its response to all of the recommendations made in the Audit Scotland report.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Audit Scotland has provided a balanced overview of the NHS and has made several recommendations, which we accept in full.

As we consider the report, we have to recognise the challenges in our health services, but we must also acknowledge the many achievements. First and foremost, with patient satisfaction levels up to 90 per cent, I begin my speech by commending highly the commitment of all our staff across the NHS in Scotland. It is our staff—our nurses, our midwives, our doctors, our paramedics—whose dedication allows us to meet the challenges that we face and to implement new initiatives to ensure that we continue to deliver a health service that we can rightly be proud of.

I am proud of the national health service, I am proud of the record level of investment of close to £13 billion that has been committed by this Government, I am proud of the highest ever levels of staffing, and I am proud of our improvements in health, patient safety and survival rates. All those investments were acknowledged in the Audit Scotland report, but this Government wants to go further to ensure that the NHS receives the resources that it needs to equip it for the future. For example, having increased front-line health spending by 8.2 per cent since 2010-11, we will go on to increase the NHS revenue budget by almost £2 billion by the end of this parliamentary session, which is the highest commitment by any party in Parliament.

However, we need to do more than just give the NHS extra money. As I said earlier this afternoon, the NHS cannot stand still—we need to reform. We all recognise the nature and scale of the challenges that our whole system of health and social care faces. That is why we will continue to drive forward our significant programme of transformational change.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will, in a second.

The strategy is founded in our twin approaches of investment and driving reform. It underpins our 2020 vision, and will be delivered through the key programmes of work.

We will continue to deliver integration of health and social care. We will implement our national clinical strategy with its recognition of the need for new investment, for new ways of delivering medical services more effectively to communities, and for new approaches to practice. We will accelerate reform of primary care and of our comprehensive approach to public health improvement. To support those programmes, we will develop a national workforce plan.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

On transformational reform, are you aware that at Ayr hospital between April and September this year there were a total of 7,594 missed appointments, which represent 9 per cent of the total number of appointments? I presume that that figure is replicated elsewhere in Scotland. Do you agree that, if that problem could be addressed that would go a long way towards reducing pressures on our overburdened NHS?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask members to speak through the chair.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with John Scott that missed appointments are a challenge that we need to address. Boards are looking at ways of addressing that challenge through text messages, through follow-up and through reminders. I do not think that the answer is to charge people for missed appointments—which is what the Tories are proposing—because that would just compound health inequalities in our society.

I hope that I have managed to lay out the intense level of activity that we are undertaking to meet our aspirations on the 2020 vision. We have to move at pace, so for that reason, by the end of this year and as recommended by Audit Scotland, I will present a transformational change delivery plan to deliver that vision, which will bring the various elements together in a single framework.

The Audit Scotland report confirms that our strategy is the right one. We need to work together across Parliament and with our colleagues in health boards, local government and the workforce to progress it, to ensure public confidence in it, and to make it happen at pace on the ground. It is the right plan, and no one and no party in Parliament has come forward with a different plan. I have looked at the Tory plan—it is mainly our plan with a few small additions. I suppose that imitation is the best form of flattery, so I thank them. I hope that we will get the backing of Parliament for the plan’s implementation.

We know that simply doing more of the same things yet faster will not deliver the standards of care to which people in Scotland should have access. We also need to ensure that the mechanisms that we use to measure performance keep pace with our wider reforms and our commitment to improvement. To do that, we have put in place a review of targets and indicators for health and social care. The review will ensure that targets and performance indicators lead to the best outcomes for people who are being cared for—whether that is in hospital, primary care, community care or social care services. I am delighted that Sir Harry Burns has agreed to bring his expertise to the role of independent chair of the review. I am sure that members will offer support for Sir Harry in the review, along with support from the different sectors and professional bodies that provide care.

The Government is serious about ensuring that people are supported to maintain their independence as long as possible in their own homes and communities, and about ensuring that fewer people need to go to hospital to receive care. Where hospital care is necessary and appropriate, people should spend less time there and should return home more quickly. I am pleased that delayed discharge has reduced under this Government, and I remain committed to eradicating it by continuing to invest in preventative and rehabilitative services. We know what works. If all partnerships were delivering the reductions in delay that have been achieved by the top 25 per cent, we would immediately halve all delays. We will work with partnerships to help them to deliver change to reduce delays.

In her manifesto, the First Minister outlined the SNP’s continued commitment to the six essential actions for accident and emergency, which were launched a year and a half ago and have led to significant improvement in unscheduled care. The actions comprise a home-grown programme to improve whole-system emergency care, based on clinical feedback. The programme was produced jointly with Academy of Royal Colleges and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. It is no coincidence that Scotland’s core A and E departments have been the best performing in the United Kingdom for the past 18 months. That is a credit to all involved. However, despite those improvements, we absolutely recognise the challenges and are facing up to them. We accept that although we have a huge amount of work still to do, there is a general consensus nationally, locally and among representative bodies about enhancing the patient experience and ensuring optimal care, and there is enthusiasm in that regard.

Audit Scotland recognises the need to make a real shift from relying on treating people in hospital to providing care in the community and in primary settings, as well as in the home. We agree, which is why we are increasing the share of the NHS budget that is dedicated to mental health and to primary, community and social care. The First Minister has announced an additional £500 million to be invested in primary care, which will help to further shift the balance of care. That means that, for the first time ever, at least half of front-line NHS spending is being invested outwith acute hospitals.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can you wind up, please?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I bring my remarks to a close—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You will have to stop. I am sorry—we are very tight for time.