Scottish Parliament, 20 June 2018

258 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Agricultural Support (Post-Brexit Transitional Arrangements)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The first item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the future of Scottish agricultural support—post-Brexit transitional arrangements. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Scotland

did not vote for Brexit, but we will have to deal with its consequences. The Scottish Government’s preferred option is for the whole United Kingdom to remain in the European Union. Failing that, our consistent position has been that staying in the European single market and the customs union is essential for Scotland’s economy and particularly our rural economy. That would enable us to continue to benefit from the four freedoms—the freedom of movement of goods, services, people and capital—and from a wide range of environmental, animal, plant and food standards, but it would mean that we were outside the common agricultural policy.

In recent months, a wide range of stakeholders have promoted the prospect of change. One of the central conclusions of the agriculture champions was:

“No change is not an option.”

That premise also featured strongly in the discussion paper that the national council of rural advisers published last week. It said:

“Now is the time to change the way we think, act and operate to tailor bespoke policy frameworks.”

The title of NFU Scotland’s discussion document on a new agricultural policy for Scotland post-Brexit is simply “Change”.

Change therefore seems inevitable; what we must determine is how far we go and—which is important—how fast. We must navigate our future through a bewildering set of uncertainties. We do not yet know when we might be made to leave the EU—that might be on 29 March next year, at the end of 2020 or at some date that is as yet unknown.

There is little clarity about funding. We have a commitment from the UK Government that it will provide the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of the current UK Parliament, and that contracts that are entered into before the end of March next year will be honoured. We are said to be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019, but we have no idea what will follow.

That is not all. Time and again, Cabinet colleagues and I have sought additional information about funding guarantees but it has not been forthcoming. Perhaps worst of all is the prospect of being denied control over or access to the powers that were hard won in the devolution settlement. Those powers matter hugely for rural Scotland, as they would enable Scotland to design its own solutions for funding and policy to meet Scottish needs in farming, food production, food standards and the environment.

The clock is ticking. We can no longer wait for Westminster but must get on with determining our future. Scotland’s wellbeing might mean nothing to Westminster, but it is our central and overriding concern.

Rural Scotland deserves security and stability in the short term, so I am today launching a consultation on proposals to provide stability and security for rural businesses in the immediate post-Brexit period. It marks the start of the process of developing a new rural support policy for Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Hooray! Well done.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The consultation also forms part of the civic conversation that the national council of rural advisers will lead over the summer to shape a comprehensive new approach to supporting Scotland’s rural economy.

The consultation focuses on what might be done to provide stability in the period immediately after Scotland might have to leave the EU in 2019. It sets out ideas for short-term simplifications that could help current claimants of CAP-related support while improving or enhancing the delivery of policy goals. It asks questions about how best to support agriculture and integrate it into the broader rural economy over the transition period and beyond. It also seeks views on how pilot projects might be developed to test different approaches to rural support that might be taken forward. It is not an entirely open-ended consultation, however, as I am clear about what the key proposals should be and that the proposals should aim to deliver stability and security for businesses and communities.

The plan proposes that we have a transition period. The agriculture champions’ recommendation and rationale for a three-year to five-year period is compelling. Such a transition period would provide the space that we need to properly develop and devise a new and different approach for Scotland, which is in stark contrast to the one-year transition period that is currently proposed by the UK.

I propose that, within the five-year window, we have a two-year period of stability in which we continue to adhere to EU rules. I envisage that, during that initial phase, current EU support schemes will remain largely the same and provide security where it is needed most. That security will be enhanced for more than 11,000 farmers and crofters by my decision to also maintain the less favoured area support scheme in 2019 at 80 per cent, ensuring that our most marginalised farmers and crofters continue to receive the support that they need.

I propose to make some amendments to payment schemes in the second phase of the transition period to simplify and improve customer service, to provide enhanced public benefit and to make it clear that we are not standing still during that crucial period.

I want to explore and consider income parameters for farm payments, but I also want to declutter the payment landscape by removing penalties for minor indiscretions. Such an approach signals a key shift in mindset and attitude away from strict compliance towards a relationship that is based on trust and that values and supports delivery that is based on outcomes. I also want to reduce the administrative burden with regard to a range of steps in the payments system and process including inspections, mapping and scheme rules. Further, I propose that we use that time to streamline and synergise some of the myriad pillar 2 schemes.

Those measures will free up resource, in its widest sense, to be invested more in activities that we do now that we will want to continue in the future. For example, we already want to support more new and young entrants into farming and food production, so we will want to continue providing support in that area. However, we will also utilise resources to innovate and to develop and pilot new approaches. As well as encouraging new and young entrants, there are intergenerational challenges that we will need to address.

During the consultation, I want to hear views on the longer-term direction of travel. All ideas and proposals will be explored as part of the wider civic conversation on how best to sustain a vibrant and flourishing rural economy in the future. Key to that will be exploring how best to combine delivery of desirable outcomes for rural Scotland with support in the future. A new rural policy framework should seek to ensure that public investments in social, economic and environmental capital not only create a stable and secure environment for rural businesses but contribute to a sustainable, productive, diverse and thriving rural economy.

There is no doubt that the next few years will be extremely challenging for rural Scotland. However, unlike the UK Government, which becomes more chaotic and clueless by the day, this Government is focused on its responsibilities to protect and serve the best interests of the people and businesses in our rural communities. Since the EU referendum, almost two years ago, the UK Government has provided little clarity and almost no certainty. With less than a year to go to a Brexit that Scotland neither voted for nor wants, we cannot wait any longer. Rural Scotland needs and deserves as much security and stability as can be provided in the short term, and today I have published a plan to achieve that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that have been raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that before we move to the next item of business.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I refer to my declarations on crofting and farming in the register of members’ interests.

It was with a sense of irony that I heard the cabinet secretary say that the Scottish Government feels that it can no longer wait and that we must get on with determining our own future, given that every Opposition party in the chamber has been urging the Government to stop dithering and get on with outlining its plans since the Brexit vote almost two years ago.

This is the third ministerial statement in as many weeks, and until now it is the Scottish Government that has provided little clarity and almost no certainty. It is only after pressure from the Scottish Conservatives, a day before the Royal Highland Show, that the cabinet secretary has finally been forced to make a statement to Parliament.

That said, we welcome this consultation about transition. We will take time to digest the proposals. Where there is common ground, we will seek to find it. Our priorities for support are that the UK internal market is protected and that the support concentrates on production from active farming, protects our environment and recognises that 85 per cent of farmland in Scotland is in less-favoured areas.

My questions to the cabinet secretary are these. First, in the light of the documentation of the last three weeks, will he commit to holding a proper debate on this subject, in this chamber, as soon as possible after recess? Secondly, given the concerns that NFU Scotland expressed yesterday about the European Commission’s approach to LFAS, does he recognise that caps on LFAS of 80 per cent in 2019 and of potentially 20 per cent in 2020 will be a significant blow to many of Scotland’s livestock farmers?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In response to the questions that Mr Cameron asks, I am happy to debate those matters—that is right. There is a question about the timing of a debate, as it would benefit us to have the responses to the consultation document—the document that I have here, which will be consulted upon. I propose, however, subject to the parliamentary authorities, that a debate be had. That is a positive suggestion and I entirely agree; it is something that we would do anyway.

I am sorry to disabuse Mr Cameron of his notion of the efficacy of the Scottish Conservatives, but we have in fact been working on this for several months, as I hinted when I gave evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, and as I think that any member would expect.

As far as LFAS is concerned, the European Parliament happily postponed the operation of the 80 per cent limit, and therefore we maintained LFAS at 100 per cent this year in Scotland. It will go down to 80 per cent, but it is completely unacceptable that it go down to 20 per cent the year after. The consultation paper sets out proposals and asks how we avoid that coming to pass. It is essential that we support our hill farmers. I am pleased that Mr Cameron has raised this matter, and I intend to press the point with Mr Gove when I see him at the Royal Highland Show tomorrow.

I am pleased that the Conservatives have recognised that this is a serious document. I think that it will be broadly welcomed by many farmers precisely because it offers stability of continued income. It is, of course, dependent on the UK Government playing its part and delivering on its promises that, post Brexit, it will deliver—and at least match—the EU funding that we came to acknowledge as necessary.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Today’s statement is long overdue but it is also welcome.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that, in the current constitutional chaos, there remains a lack of clarity from the UK Government on areas such as policy funding, devolution, access to EU labour and trading conditions.

The reality is that, for months, organisations such as the NFU and Scottish Environment LINK and Governments such as the Welsh Government have been leading the way by setting out what they see as the key principles for rural and agriculture support post-Brexit, but the Scottish Government has been left standing.

There is much in the statement that I welcome and agree with, such as a stability period of two years and a commitment to declutter the payment landscape, but, as the cabinet secretary said, the clock is ticking. Will he give a clear commitment that the consultation will be carried out on a timely basis and that firm, detailed proposals will be set out as soon as possible? Rural businesses and communities need to start to plan now, and the lack of clarity is already damaging our rural economy.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Being an optimist, I will interpret that broadly as a welcome. To be serious, I will say that the plan sets out a very clear set of proposals. It sets out that farmers, in a stability period for the next two years, would, broadly speaking, continue to receive the payments that they have received under pillar 1—the basic payment and the other payments.

It then suggests that there should be a further three years in which we should proceed along those lines but then seek to introduce improvements and changes. I think that that mix of stability, certainty and simplicity will be broadly welcomed by farmers in Scotland.

Having read the other documents that have been published by the UK Government and other bodies throughout the UK, I have to say that our document is—as far as I am aware—the most detailed plan that exists on Brexit, and that is because we have spent several months working on the need to replace the uncertainty of the current time with certainty over a period of not one year, as Mr Gove proposes, but five years. If I am right, farmers will think that the five-year transition will give us the time to prepare for the change that I think that most commentators regard as necessary.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

A lot of members want to ask questions, so I ask people to get straight to their question and I ask the minister to give short answers, where possible.

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

As, I know, my constituents will, I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to more than 11,000 farmers and crofters with his decision to maintain LFAS at 80 per cent next year.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that

any move to pay LFAS at 20 per cent for 2020 would be severely detrimental to crofters and farmers, many of whom have made that clear to me? Further, will he commit to exploring options to ensure that our most marginalised farmers and crofters, many of whom are in my constituency, continue to receive the support that they need?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Kate Forbes represents much of Inverness-shire and Ross-shire. Many hill farmers in those areas, in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the 85 per cent of Scotland that is covered by LFAS rely on those payments. As I said, LFAS going to 20 per cent is completely unacceptable.

I remind members that Scotland is the only part of the UK that has continued with LFAS—I think that that has been the case for around seven years.

Page 13 of the consultation paper says:

“The Scottish Government’s main priority is to explore options for protecting affected farmers and crofters in this period and maintaining levels of income support as far as possible, taking into account legislative, state aid and budgetary factors.”

We are wholly committed to doing precisely what Kate Forbes has asked us to do for her constituents.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my declaration in the register of members’ interests.

I am delighted that the cabinet secretary has come forward with some ideas in answer to our calls and the calls of industry. It is sad that it has taken so long, but I welcome that he has accepted the need for a two-year stability period. However, as he says, the clock is ticking.

In most cases, farming businesses are already working to a five to 10-year plan. Will the Scottish Government publish before the end of this year its vision for agriculture for the period following on from the two-year stability period?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The document sets out clearly our vision for agriculture, and I have done so many previous occasions. I am pleased that there is a broad welcome for the plan. It sets out a transition period lasting five years, the first two of which would, broadly, be affected by EU rules and the further three of which would give us an opportunity to provide something that every farmer to whom I have ever spoken has wished for, which is a simpler system. The paper sets out a number of ways in which, in relation to mapping, inspections and administration, that simpler system could be achieved.

To be fair to him, Commissioner Hogan has also expressed similar desires and objectives in the current CAP proposals that were considered by the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg, during a session that I attended part of.

We have published what is, as far as I am aware, the most detailed Brexit plan in the whole of the UK. I expect that, during the course of the Royal Highland Show, which many of us will be attending, I will engage with many farmers and discuss with them the proposals, and I hope that I will get their views on the consultation document over the summer months.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The cabinet secretary mentioned a number of bodies, including the agriculture champions, the national council of rural advisers and the NFUS—others would, I think, include the CAP greening group—that have done quite a lot of work on this area and have submitted comments on it already. Does he feel that a further consultation is necessary and that there is more to be gained from that?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I think that it is necessary because, looking at this analytically, there are really two periods. There is a period where we prepare for change, and then there is the period of major change after that. In my view, it is essential that the first period is long enough to have the national debate that all members recognise is necessary, to formulate the policy, and then to ensure that we are capable of delivering and administering it perfectly. That takes time. It is somewhat comical that the UK Government thinks that that can be achieved in one year. It cannot. I suspect that the UK will renege on that at some distant time. However, I do not think that there is any overlap or duplication between the various reports that have been issued. They are all intended to do different things, and I am proud that the Scottish Government has already reached out, through the national council of rural advisers and through our four agriculture champions, to set out clearly a vision of what the longer-term change will be after the end of the transition period.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome the long-overdue consultation. In the section on simplification and piloting new approaches, what is there to inspire the necessary shift to a fusion of production and environmental ways of working towards agro-ecology, and what is there on support that farmers will need for that?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Many farmers are already grasping that challenge and are doing so with vigour and success. We want to continue the work to focus on the environment—for example, in carbon testing, improvement of soil quality and concentrating on effective drainage techniques that are centuries old and are fundamental to farming. The consultation paper sets out certain matters relating to the environmental schemes in pillar 2, although more work needs to be done on that because they are largely not recurrent payments; in many cases, the schemes are individual projects. I look forward to working with Claudia Beamish on developing a simpler system that meets the needs of farmers and of the environment.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I remind Parliament that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary. He has mentioned that he and his colleagues have pressed for certainty—on funding, for example. Can he provide us with examples of matters on which we do not have certainty?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

There are three or four areas on which we do not have certainty. First, we do not know what the position is in relation to pillar 2 projects that are signed for after 2019, which is less than a year away. Most of those projects are very long term. Secondly, we have no idea what the funding position will be after we fully leave the EU. Thirdly, we do not know whether the UK will deliver and implement the promise that it made that the funding that we have been receiving from Europe will be at least matched.

Finally, there is a matter that I will be pressing Mr Gove on when I meet him at the Royal Highland Show, which is that we still have no action on implementing the convergence funding pledge that he made to proceed with an independent review. I can only assume that he will, when he comes to Scotland tomorrow, announce that the delay is over, that the dithering is at an end and that the review will, as he promised last November, finally go ahead after years of delay.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I quote:

“We will incentivise methods of farming that create new habitats for wildlife, increase biodiversity, reduce flood risk, better mitigate climate change and improve air quality”.

Sadly, that is not the Scottish Government’s vision, but the vision of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has been out for consultation since February. We still await the Scottish Government’s vision for what it is trying to achieve with its food and agriculture policies. How will the status quo measures that have been announced today get Scotland’s biodiversity targets back on track? We are failing to hit our biodiversity targets. We have the news that one in five British mammal—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Ruskell, you have asked your question.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

They are facing extinction. What is the cabinet secretary—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You may answer the question now.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I refer Mark Ruskell to question 25 on page 22 of the consultation paper, regarding agri-environment climate scheme matters, and to the section on climate change on page 18. It seems that he has not read them.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary said in his statement that

the consultation

“marks the start of the process of developing a new rural support policy for Scotland.”

I said, “Hooray!” However, 18 months ago Parliament unanimously told him, through a Liberal Democrat amendment, to start the process. We have lost a year and a half. Why has it taken him so long?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I was pleased to hear the hurrah, but I expected it to be caveated, so I am not surprised that it was.

We have worked on the proposals for some time. We hoped that we would have had greater clarity by now on the big Brexit questions, including whether there will be tariffs of as much as 70 per cent on some of our food produce, whether people who come here to work from EU countries will be able to continue to do that, and whether we will be flooded by cheap meat imports from countries that do not respect our high environment and welfare standards, but no answers have been forthcoming.

We have been preparing the consultation for several months. As I said in my statement, we decided that the time for waiting for Westminster to act was over. I hope that the most detailed plan in the UK will alleviate the concerns of farmers. It is now over to the UK Government to confirm that it will provide the necessary funding to enable stability, certainty and simplicity to be guaranteed over the five years ahead.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Scottish farmers have been in the single market for all 25 years of its existence. As the cabinet secretary has outlined, without membership of the single market and the customs union, they will face tariffs and labour shortages. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that no amount of subsidy could mitigate the damage that would be done to farmers and rural communities by a Tory hard Brexit?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

That is a very serious point with which I entirely agree. I noticed that, just this morning, the director of the Fraser of Allander institute said of the UK Government:

“With just nine months to go until the UK leaves the EU, the lack of a coherent plan from within Whitehall about the UK’s long-term economic relationship with our most important trading partner risks holding back Scotland’s recovery.”

At least the Scottish Government has today published a plan that will address some of the problems. However, it cannot address the bigger problems that Joan McAlpine mentioned relating to the freedom of movement of people, application of tariffs and withdrawal of access to the single market, which has been very important to our farmers in Scotland.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I declare an interest as a hill farmer.

Another day, another consultation. In the real world, concerns are growing. The cabinet secretary is well aware of the concerns of the sheep industry and Quality Meat Scotland about the future viability of sheep farming in Scotland’s LFAs post-Brexit, given the massive cuts to LFASS that the cabinet secretary is proposing. Given the lack of alternatives to sheep farming in much of Scotland’s LFAs, what additional special measures does the Scottish Government consider will likely be required to keep farmers, as food producers and custodians of our landscape, in business in Scotland’s LFAs post-Brexit, as LFASS payments reduce from £65 million to £13 million in 2020?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

As I have said, I ensured that this year LFASS payments were paid at 100 per cent, after the European Parliament secured that concession from the previous proposals—the previous proposal was that payments must be at 80 per cent. We took action to deal with that.

We have announced that we will continue to pay LFASS at the maximum possible rate at which we can pay it.

I referred to page 13 of the consultation paper in responding to Kate Forbes’s question. I think that Mr Scott envisaged LFASS going down to 20 per cent in the figures that he quoted. That is not acceptable. Therefore, we want views from all concerned about alternative means of providing the necessary support. I am pleased that there seems to be consensus across the chamber that that is the correct approach.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If Angus MacDonald’s question is very quick, I can squeeze it in.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Has the UK Government bothered to share its draft agriculture bill? Will it contain measures that will impact on farming and food production in Scotland?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Ewing should give a very quick answer, please.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

No, it has not.

NHS Lothian (Musselburgh General Practitioner Services)

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with NHS Lothian regarding general practitioner services in Musselburgh. (S5O-02239)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

NHS 24 is delivering a pilot at the Riverside GP practice in Musselburgh whereby it is triaging patients who have requested same-day GP appointments. Where appropriate, NHS 24 will signpost patients to areas of the primary care system that are better placed to meet their needs, often more swiftly. Indications are that the pilot is working well, with a number of patients signposted to more appropriate support, freeing up GPs to deal with patients with more complex needs. A full evaluation is under way with a report due in the coming weeks, which will be shared with health boards and integration authorities.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Earlier this month, 200 angry Musselburgh residents turned out at a public meeting because they have had real and persistent difficulties in accessing GPs locally. They do not think that the pilot is working that well. Many of the problems are caused by a GP shortage—a point that the practice and the British Medical Association have acknowledged. Can the cabinet secretary explain to my constituents why they have to phone NHS 24 to see their GP and when she expects Scotland’s GP shortage to be resolved?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The pilot that NHS 24 is running is a system that has worked well elsewhere and that has had strong evaluation, so I urge Kezia Dugdale to wait for the formal evaluation of the pilot. I am happy for her to be furnished with the evaluation if she would be interested in that.

With regard to the way forward for general practice, she will be aware of the new contract that has been put in place with substantial resources to back it up. In this financial year, we will invest £100 million to support the new contract, and we also have the ambition to increase the number of GPs by at least 800 over the next 10 years. In addition, the multidisciplinary team will make sure that we can reduce the workload of GPs.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

As Kezia Dugdale has outlined, Musselburgh residents are complaining of long waits—often of half an hour—just to get through on the phone and then waits of around three weeks before they are seen by a GP. Does the cabinet secretary think that that is acceptable?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

No, I do not think that that is acceptable. However, it is important that we try new ways of working. The NHS 24 system has worked well in other areas and has been well received by patients. If there are issues with the way in which the pilot is working in Musselburgh, that will need to be picked up by the evaluation.

More generally, Miles Briggs will know that the work around the expansion of the primary care team, the new GP contract and the increase in the number of GPs over the next 10 years are all about reducing the workload of GPs so that they can spend more time with patients when they need to. That requires a multidisciplinary team, which it will take a bit of time to put in place.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Diagnosis (Adults)

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what the average waiting time has been in the past year for adults seeking diagnosis for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and how many rejected referrals for diagnosis there have been. (S5O-02240)

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

The data on waiting times for psychological therapies is collected by Information Services Division Scotland. The data is gathered in an aggregate form from NHS boards and does not allow waiting times and rejected referrals for adults with an ADHD diagnosis to be analysed separately.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It is dreadful that we do not capture that data, because it is critical in enabling people to be directed to the right specialists. It is a bit like not knowing whether people are being referred to oncology or to orthopaedics for physical health conditions. Anecdotal evidence—

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

No—I want your question, please.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

What will the Government do to catch that information so that people can be directed more effectively in mental health services?

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

As I said in my previous answer, that information is not collected at the moment but we are looking into the matter

and are in discussion with ISD Scotland on how we can move it forward.

Ageing Population (Oral Health)

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to meet the oral health needs of an ageing population. (S5O-02241)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In January, we published Scotland’s “Oral Health Improvement Plan”, which includes actions to ensure that older people receive appropriate oral health care. One of our priorities is to introduce a new domiciliary care service. For adults, including older patients, the plan also introduces an oral health risk assessment, which will ensure that dentists can offer tailored advice to older people on how to look after their oral health and minimise any risk of dental disease, including oral cancer.

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

What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the United Kingdom Government on including dentists in the proposed visa cap scheme, particularly given the large number of European Union nationals who operate as dentists in the north-east of Scotland, whose future in the service might be at threat?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The member is right to point to the number of EU nationals who are working as dentists in the north-east of Scotland—that is also the case in Dumfries and Galloway—as a result of previous successful recruitment campaigns. I would be very concerned to lose any of them from Scotland.

An announcement last week confirmed that, from 6 July, doctors and nurses are to be excluded from the cap on skilled worker visas under tier 2 of the immigration rules. Although that is welcome, we need to see the detail of the policy, which may increase capacity for other applications from outside the health professions. Obviously, dentists are not directly covered, so we want to take the matter up with the UK Government, and we will seek further detail on that in the coming weeks.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a former practising dentist and that my wife is still a practising dentist.

The health secretary will be aware that the British Dental Association has raised concerns about the risk, which the new oral health action plan poses, that more patients will turn to private plans such as Denplan. What assessment has been made of the number of patients who are turning to Denplan? Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet me and a delegation from the BDA as well as practising dentists to discuss the issue further?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I have discussed the issue with the BDA and with dentists when I have had opportunities to engage with them. They have raised positive issues about the new plan as well as some of the concerns that Anas Sarwar has raised. He will understand that the issue is about making an appropriate risk assessment and that the whole idea is to ensure that dentists can spend more time with those who have the poorest oral health. That means that the appropriateness of the plan is dependent on the person’s oral health. I would hope that we can all agree on that.

On the implementation of the plan, it is important that the chief dental officer and others continue to engage with the BDA and others—as I will do—to reassure them on the issues that they have raised.

NHS Fife Primary Care Emergency Services (St Andrews)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with NHS Fife regarding the withdrawal of primary care emergency services from St Andrews, and what action it will take to ensure that the town is considered an option for future service provision. (S5O-02242)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

My officials have been in regular contact with Fife health and social care partnership during the contingency period for the primary care out-of-hours service in Fife. The provision of a safe and sustainable out-of-hours service is the responsibility of NHS Fife in collaboration with the health and social care partnership. I understand that the partnership will shortly consult on the future of the out-of-hours service across Fife. The review, including an options appraisal, has been in development for some time in response to the recommendations from Sir Lewis Ritchie’s report on out-of-hours services in Scotland, which was published at the end of 2015.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the health secretary understand the level of anger and frustration that exists in the whole of North East Fife? St Andrews community hospital is not even an option in the consultation that she just talked about for primary care emergency services, even though local general practitioners have offered to support a local solution in North East Fife. Will the health secretary intervene to ensure that that is considered as an option, so that the whole of Fife can get the service that it deserves?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said, my officials are in regular contact with the partnership. I understand that the partnership is continuing its discussions with GP colleagues in North East Fife on the future of the out-of-hours service and their potential contribution. I have asked to be kept informed of those discussions as they progress.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary agree with Professor Sally Mapstone, who is the principal of the University of St Andrews, and her senior officers? At the recent public meeting to which Mr Rennie has just referred, they argued that the large percentage share of students in the town creates a unique demography that, in itself, is reason to treat St Andrews as a special case when it comes to the provision of medical services.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In implementing the proposals, the partnership will have to look at the provision in the whole area, including St Andrews. I would expect it to take into account the demographics of the population, including the student population to which Liz Smith has referred. All of that should be looked at, and I will make the point that Liz Smith has raised to officials to pass on to the partnership.

NHS Dumfries and Galloway (Vacancies)

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to fill vacancies at NHS Dumfries and Galloway. (S5O-02243)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

NHS Scotland boards are required to have the correct staff in place to meet the needs of the service and ensure high-quality patient care. The Scottish Government works closely with boards to support their efforts in staff recruitment.

The Scottish Government remains fully committed to a sustainable NHS and its workforce, who continue to deliver consistently high-quality healthcare services to the people of Scotland, including those in NHS Dumfries and Galloway.

NHS Dumfries and Galloway is currently exploring a number of options to meet its continuing recruitment challenges, particularly in relation to medical staffing. The board has reported that it has recently made a number of offers of appointment and that further targeted recruitment activity is planned.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary realise that, in NHS Dumfries and Galloway, the vacancy rate for pharmacists is 28.4 per cent and the vacancy rate for consultants is 22.1 per cent? The bill for locums is an eye-watering £12.6 million per year because it cannot fill vacancies. Newton Stewart and Moffat hospitals have just had to cut their numbers of beds by a third because there is a shortage of nurses. The health board has reported that it—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—I need a question now, please, Mr Smyth.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I ask the cabinet secretary whether she is aware of all those matters.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. I call the cabinet secretary.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Is she aware or—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—thank you. Cabinet secretary.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Yes, of course. That is why, in my initial answer, I referred to the recruitment campaign that we support NHS Dumfries and Galloway in undertaking. I hope that the board will be part of our international campaign, which I announced just this week, to help to fill key specialties that are very difficult to fill here.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

What action is the Scottish Government taking to grow our NHS workforce across Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Under this Government, the workforce has increased by more than 10 per cent, to historically high levels. In the past year alone, it has risen by almost 500, to nearly 140,000. The fact that we have more posts sometimes impacts on the vacancy level, which we are determined to address.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

In 2015, we saw a GP recruitment and retention programme recruit, at a cost of £2.5 million, only 18 doctors, none of whom was in Dumfries and Galloway. Only this month, there has been an announcement of yet another similar scheme. This health secretary has been trying such schemes since 2015, and they seem to be failing. Does she not agree that fresh ideas for recruitment in rural areas are needed urgently?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Well, if Mr Carson has any such ideas, they would be gladly received. However, the ones that we have had have been based on evidence about how to conduct the recruitment of GPs, which has been very difficult everywhere and not just in Scotland. Such incentives are proven to attract GPs, and we want to do more of that. As I have said, the international recruitment campaign that we have launched this week will look at the key specialties, of which I am sure that general practice will be one.

Health and Social Care Hub (Glasgow East End)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether Parkhead should be the location for a new health and social care hub for the east end of Glasgow. (S5O-02244)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The decision on the location of the new health and social care hub is a matter for local determination by the Glasgow health and social care partnership in consultation with local stakeholders. I expect the initial agreement to be submitted to the NHS capital investment group for discussion at its next meeting in August. Before any final decision is made, I expect the partnership to carry out a site options appraisal, which will be an open and transparent process as required by the Scottish capital investment manual.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I accept that the decision will, and should, be made locally. However, will she at least accept that transport—especially public transport—links to Parkhead are much better than those to other sites such as Lightburn, so that Parkhead is by far the best option?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Full marks to John Mason for trying. As I have said, I expect the health and social care partnership to engage fully with the local community before coming to a conclusion. All the issues that John Mason has raised, including transport links, deprivation and, of course, an analysis of the best site, will be taken into account. Once a shortlist of options has been agreed to, further engagement will take place.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran (Gender Pay Gap)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action NHS Ayrshire and Arran is taking to tackle its gender pay gap. (S5O-02245)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s latest published gender pay gap information shows a male-to-female pay gap of 2.84 per cent for NHS agenda for change staff overall and 4.63 per cent within the consultant cohort. Each health board has published its own gender pay gap data, which is not collated centrally across NHS Scotland. However, the figures for NHS Ayrshire and Arran compare favourably with the full-time gender pay gap in Scotland, which was 6.6 per cent last year, compared with a United Kingdom-wide gap of 9.1 per cent.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

In Ayrshire, the reality at University hospital Crosshouse is an average pay gap of £35,000 between male and female consultants, with men earning a staggering 61 per cent more than their female counterparts. Will the cabinet secretary introduce any proposals or strategies to address the huge variations in the gender pay gap in our NHS?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government has taken clear steps to promote NHS Scotland as a modern, inclusive and diverse employer and is supportive of all measures to promote women in strategic leadership roles and deliver a more equal workforce, including tackling the gender pay gap.

NHS staff receive NHS pay rates and receive the rate for the job. Although the rate is the same for male and female workers, evidence of a gender pay gap is sometimes quoted as average earnings, but that, of course, does not take into account hours worked and any allowances accrued.

The gender pay gap at that grade reflects the fact that, historically, there were few female consultants in NHS Scotland due to childcare commitments and career breaks. The situation is slowly changing, and more specialties report that between 30 and 60 per cent of females are in post in the middle trainee grade. When those doctors finish their training, the percentage of female doctors and consultants will increase across NHS Scotland, which will help to close the gender pay gap.

General Practitioner Appointments

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that general practitioner appointments are being made available in a timely manner. (S5O-02246)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The new GP contract, which is backed by investment of £110 million in 2018-19, will ensure that GPs can spend more time with patients when they really need to see them, as well as developing wider multidisciplinary teams to support GPs and to improve patient care. We are also working to increase the number of GPs by at least 800 over 10 years to ensure a sustainable service that meets increasing demand.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

The lack of GP appointments is a constant issue across my region. A woman from Blantyre recently told me that it would take more than three weeks for her to be allocated an appointment. I have raised the issue in writing with the cabinet secretary and I am still waiting for a reply 10 weeks down the line. When will she reply to the issue that I raised on behalf of my constituent? What specific—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. I call the cabinet secretary.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

What specific action—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary. Please, Mr Kelly.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

—

is being taken to address the GP crisis?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I have outlined, the level of investment that we are making, the new GP contract, the primary care plan and our ambition to increase the number of GPs by at least 800 over the next 10 years show our plans to expand primary care.

I will chase up the reply to James Kelly’s letter and make sure that he gets that as quickly as possible.

Distress Brief Intervention Pilot

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

9. To ask the Scottish Government how it is progressing the distress brief intervention pilot. (S5O-02247)

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

The distress brief intervention pilot went live in June 2017, initially in Lanarkshire only, with the other pilot areas in Aberdeen, the Scottish Borders and Inverness going live in October 2017. The pilot is being hosted and led for the Scottish Government by North and South Lanarkshire health and social care partnerships. It is progressing well.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I ask the minister to recognise what a sensible scheme this is, with local public agencies in Lanarkshire being responsible for intervening early if people are seriously distressed, and to recognise how worth while it is to train all staff in public agencies on such early intervention.

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

I thank Linda Fabiani for her interest in the pilot that is under way in her area, and I thank her for hosting the parliamentary reception for members of the international initiative for mental health leadership, who had a worldwide week of collaboration in Scotland to learn about the DBI, which they were very impressed with and hope to replicate in their countries.

Mesh Implants Review

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

10. To ask the Scottish Government whether it can provide an update on the inquiry by Professor Alison Britton into the review of mesh implants, and when it expects the findings to be published. (S5O-02248)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I understand that Professor Britton’s review is progressing, but as it is being carried out independently of the Scottish Government, the precise detail, including the publication date of the final report, is a matter for Professor Britton and her team.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Will the cabinet secretary join me in paying tribute to Michele McDougall, a brave soul who recently died of cancer and was tragically unable to receive chemotherapy because of the debilitating consequences of faulty mesh devices that were implanted in her groin and abdomen years earlier? In view of the national and, indeed, international attention on and importance of Professor Britton’s review, will the cabinet secretary agree to hold a full parliamentary debate on the report in the autumn, when it is published, and on the wider developing issues that are now associated with the use of mesh?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I join Jackson Carlaw in paying tribute to Michele McDougall. When Professor Britton produces her report, I will be happy to bring that back to Parliament in whatever form is appropriate. As I said, I do not know the timescale for the publication of the report, but we must allow Professor Britton to continue her work and to conclude it in due course.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I was at Michele’s very moving and quite inspiring funeral. The resolve of the mesh women who attended is greater than ever. I remind Parliament that 101 members of Parliament called for there to be no whitewash of mesh reports. We will be watching very carefully, and I hope that the debate on the report happens very early, in Government time, in the new term.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said, it will be down to Professor Britton to determine when her report is published. Of course, it will be her report but, as I said to Jackson Carlaw, I will be happy to make sure that Parliament is given the time and the opportunity to discuss it.

Respiratory Improvement Task Force

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

11. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work of the respiratory improvement task force. (S5O-02249)

I remind Parliament that I am the convener of the cross-party group on lung health.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Officials are working closely with the recently appointed chair of the respiratory task and finish group and key partners to finalise the group’s constitution and to set out the objectives, including the workstreams that are required to develop a plan for respiratory care for Scotland.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

This week is pulmonary rehabilitation week, and PR is one of the most powerful and cost-effective interventions for people who live with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other lung diseases, as it allows people to self-manage and stay out of hospital. What action will the Government take to ensure that every person who would benefit from pulmonary rehab gets access to a programme?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government recognises that pulmonary rehabilitation is an important element of respiratory disease care. There is a well-established evidence base for its benefit in helping to support self-management and reduce exacerbation and hospital admissions. It is the subject of a key recommendation in the national clinical guidelines, which we expect boards to follow.

Access to pulmonary rehabilitation will form an important part of our quality improvement plan for Scotland, and I am pleased to advise that the Scottish Government is funding participation in the national asthma and COPD audit programme, which will collect data on the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation across Scotland. That will be a valuable tool in improving the care of and outcomes for people in Scotland who live with COPD.

Suicide Prevention

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

12. To ask the Scottish Government what priority it gives to suicide prevention. (S5O-02250)

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

Mental health and suicide prevention are an absolute priority for the Scottish Government. Over the past several years, we have worked with a wide range of partners to tackle suicide, and the suicide rate has fallen by 17 per cent over the past decade. Before recess, we will publish the new suicide prevention action plan, which will be designed to continue that long-term downward trend.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Emma Harper—oh, I am sorry; Brian Whittle.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Try again.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I beg your pardon—I am all guddled up. I should have called Clare Adamson. I apologise.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The minister will be aware of the particular circumstances in my constituency, where a number of young men have taken their lives leaving their family and friends and the wider community devastated. My staff are undergoing safeTALK training and I undertook an applied suicide intervention skills training—ASIST—course last year. What opportunities are there for young people to access those training services across our communities in Scotland?

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

E

very life matters and every death by suicide is a tragedy. Everyone has a role to play in suicide prevention. NHS Health Scotland provides a range of training on suicide prevention. We are committed to continuing support for the mental health first aid and suicide prevention training. The new suicide prevention action plan will be published before recess, as I said, and an extra £3 million over the next three years will support innovative work on suicide prevention.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Strangely enough, I call Mr Whittle.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Is the minister aware of Kris Boyd’s charity, which was formed after the tragic death of his brother, and its approach, which is to encourage those suffering to come forward and discuss their issues, and to break down the stigma associated with mental ill health? Does she recognise the importance of peer-to-peer work in the prevention of suicide?

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

I am aware of the Kris Boyd Charity. There are a wide range of interventions, and peer support is absolutely crucial. Under the suicide prevention action plan, I am very keen for peer support to give families and relatives who have been bereaved by suicide the support that they need.

FreeStyle Libre Glucose Monitoring System

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

13. To ask the Scottish Government which national health service boards offer the FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system. (S5O-02251)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Currently, seven NHS boards in Scotland have included FreeStyle Libre sensors in their local formulary. They are NHS Borders, NHS Forth Valley, NHS Lothian, NHS Dumfries and Galloway, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, NHS Lanarkshire and NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

If FreeStyle Libre is good enough for patients in Edinburgh, why is it not good enough for patients in Inverness?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

David Stewart knows that it is up to NHS boards to determine what is available, based on the best clinical evidence. There is still a bit of work to be done around the clinical evidence on FreeStyle Libre. Once that is established, local NHS boards will be able to work out how best to support patients with type 1 diabetes. I will keep him updated, as we expect the Scottish health technologies group to publish its advice statement, which will enable health boards to take an informed decision.

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

Can the minister outline when the Scottish health technologies group will report on the long-term clinical evidence on FreeStyle Libre, as I understand that some boards, including Fife, are waiting to make local decisions based on those findings?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Jenny Gilruth is absolutely right, and that is why I said what I said to David Stewart about the evidence that is required for NHS boards to make their own decisions on the matter. We expect the Scottish health technologies group to publish its advice statement in July 2018.

In Vitro Fertilisation (National Health Service Policy)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

14. To ask the Scottish Government what the national health service policy is on access to in vitro fertilisation treatment by couples. (S5O-02252)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Couples must meet certain eligibility criteria before being referred by either primary or secondary care providers for NHS IVF treatment. The eligibility criteria for and the provision of NHS IVF treatment have changed on a number of occasions over the past few years, following recommendations from the national infertility group, always with a view to improving the service for the majority of patients and improving outcomes for babies born following IVF treatment. I am pleased that Scotland has the most generous provision of NHS IVF treatment in the United Kingdom.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

My constituents, who have been unsuccessful twice with treatment, were told that they could have a third attempt, but NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde maintains that they are not entitled to that. Will the minister meet me and my constituents to discuss what can only be described as an outrageous situation for them?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

If Mr Lyle’s constituents were referred from primary or secondary care for NHS IVF treatment after 1 April 2017, they should have been considered for a third cycle of treatment. If they were referred before 1 April 2017, they are unfortunately not eligible to be considered for a third cycle. I am disappointed to hear that Mr Lyle’s constituents were given conflicting advice about whether they were eligible for further treatment, especially when it relates to something as emotional as the longing to start a family. I will ask the health board to investigate this serious issue and meet Mr Lyle and his constituents. As always, I am, of course, happy to meet Mr Lyle to hear his concerns about the case directly.

Health Services (Deprived Areas)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

15. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the provision of health services in deprived areas. (S5O-02253)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that there is adequate provision of health and social care services across all areas of Scotland. It is worth noting that the new general practitioner contract is designed to support areas with higher levels of deprivation. Decisions on the level of provision required are a matter for local determination.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The east end of Glasgow contains an extremely high proportion of Scotland’s most deprived communities, so it is good news that Lightburn hospital was saved and that health services in the area are to be enhanced. I will be conducting my own survey of constituents over the summer to ascertain local views on the scope and shape of local services—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Get to the question, please, Mr McKee.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that full public consultation is essential to ensure that the east end gets the services that it deserves in the best locations, including the Lightburn site if appropriate?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said earlier to John Mason, it is important that there is full consultation and full analysis and that there is a full site options appraisal, which is an open and transparent process, as required by the Scottish capital investment manual. That is what should happen in the east end of Glasgow.

NHS Lanarkshire (Meetings)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

16. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Lanarkshire. (S5O-02254)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives from all the health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire, to discuss matters of importance to local people.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Recently, at a meeting with NHS Lanarkshire, I raised the issue of the withdrawal of phlebotomy services from general practitioner practices in Stonehouse. NHS Lanarkshire had no knowledge of that but ensured that the nurses got access to accommodation to continue this much-needed service in Stonehouse hospital.

Will the cabinet secretary discuss with

NHS Lanarkshire at a future meeting the need to improve communication with GP practices, especially when there are significant changes to the services that are available at the practices?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As part of the development of primary care improvement plans, which needs to happen in every area to implement the new GP contract, integration authorities should liaise with their local GP community on changes to services. My officials are engaging with NHS Lanarkshire in the process and I will be happy to write to Christina McKelvie on the matter in the near future.

HM Prison Edinburgh (Prisoner Health and Wellbeing)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

17. To ask the Scottish Government how the national health service supports the health and wellbeing of prisoners in HM Prison Edinburgh. (S5O-02255)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

NHS Lothian is responsible for the delivery of healthcare in HMP Edinburgh. The health centre in HMP Edinburgh has primary care, mental health and addictions trained nurses who provide for the health needs of the patients in the prison environment. There is also access to visiting specialists, including in psychiatry, psychology and dentistry, and patients have access to a full range of secondary services.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Saughton prison, in my constituency, has had a substantial increase in the number of prisoners self-harming—there have been 74 cases in the past year. What action is being taken specifically to address self-harming in prisons?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank the member for raising that important issue. Of course, the Scottish Government always takes the mental and emotional wellbeing of people in prison incredibly seriously. That is why action 15 of the mental health strategy, which is being taken forward by Maureen Watt, commits the Government to increase access to the mental health workforce through the introduction of 800 additional staff in key settings, including in prisons.

The Scottish Prison Service is committed to ensuring that those in its care who are experiencing distress and who are at risk of self-harm have access to the support that they need, including from NHS Lothian and other partners. The SPS ensures that staff are fully equipped to promote a supportive environment, so that people in prison can ask for help, and all prison establishment staff are trained in suicide prevention. The SPS also supports Scottish mental health first aid training.

I am happy to meet the member if he would like to discuss the issue further, so that we can ensure that we are doing all that we can to support the vulnerable people in prison in the constituency that he represents.

Teenage Cancer Trust (Talks)

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

18. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the value of talks by the Teenage Cancer Trust to make young people aware of the signs and symptoms of cancer, and how it ensures that local authorities encourage schools to hold such talks. (S5O-02256)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government supports the Teenage Cancer Trust’s work in delivering vital awareness and education sessions in secondary schools.

I am encouraged that 80 per cent of schools in Scotland have already received an awareness session from the charity in this academic year alone. I am even more heartened to see that that figure is 100 per cent in my constituency of Dundee. I have written to all members of the Scottish Parliament asking them to engage with their relevant local authorities, to encourage schools in their catchment areas to welcome this cancer education programme.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does the minister agree that promoting the talks in our schools should be a priority in helping to improve survival rates of young people in Scotland with cancer?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with the member that educating our young people about the possible signs and symptoms of cancer at an early age is of vital importance for not only their own wellbeing but their role as influencers of older adults in the family circle. It is timely, in the year of young people, that we acknowledge that we need to equip our young people with the skills and information that they need in order to know about the benefits of good health and when they might need to seek medical advice.

NHS Borders (Delayed Discharges)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

19. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce delayed discharge at NHS Borders. (S5O-02257)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Scottish Government officials are meeting senior officers from the partnership today and will continue to work closely with them to reduce the level of delays. A range of improvement measures have already been put in place, which has led to a reduction of more than 30 per cent in bed days lost between November 2017 and April 2018.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Information Services Division statistics have revealed that NHS Borders lost, on average, 1,000 bed days a month

over the past two years, which is just not good enough. What will the Scottish Government do to help rural health boards like NHS Borders ensure that when a patient is fit to leave, they can?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In the April census, 10 partnerships recorded standard delays over three days in single figures, but the worst four partnerships accounted for 43 per cent of the total delays, so it is important that we focus particularly on those partnerships.

The Borders partnership has introduced a range of measures aimed at reducing delays, including an £850,000 investment in a step-down intermediate care facility and the development of a hospital-to-home reablement service. That service was piloted initially in two localities, which led to a 40 per cent decrease in long-term care requirements. The partnership plans to roll out the service across the area, with increased allied health professions input, which I think will make a real impact on reducing bed days lost.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Stranraer)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

20. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to tackle the reported high levels of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Stranraer area and whether that will include the installation of new air-monitoring equipment. (S5O-02258)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We know that Scotland has high rates of COPD, which is why we are working with our clinical experts and key partners, such as the British Lung Foundation and Chest, Heart & Stroke Scotland, to develop a respiratory health plan for Scotland. The plan will include the key priorities of prevention, diagnosis, treatment and research in relation to respiratory conditions, including COPD, and it will build on the work of the “COPD Best Practice Guide”, which was published in November last year.

It is my understanding that under the Environment Act 1995 local authorities have a duty to designate areas where air quality objectives are not being met as air quality management areas. Currently, no air quality management areas are identified in Dumfries and Galloway. That will be kept under review, to ensure that we make the most efficient use of limited resources, such as our network of high-precision and real-time air quality monitors, by focusing our attention on areas of concern.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

As the minister might be aware, Stranraer has not only the highest levels of COPD in Scotland but the highest levels in the world. An Interreg project called the BREATH—Border and regions airways training hub—project is currently investigating the reasons behind that high incidence. Can the Scottish Government outline how it might help the BREATH project to establish a centre of excellence in Stranraer?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I recognise the interest that the member takes in the issue and I am aware of the BREATH project. Scotland participates in the Interreg VA cross-border programme 2014-2020 with Northern Ireland and the border region of Ireland, and the eligible areas for Scotland are regions in the Western Isles and the west of Scotland. We will maintain a real interest in the BREATH project as it progresses, to ensure that we get the best evidence on how much more we can do to help to support people in areas with a high incidence of COPD. We want to ensure that we recognise the learning that can be got from projects such as the BREATH project, to enable us to tackle COPD across the country.

Freedom of Information (Scottish Government Request Handling and Record Keeping)

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-12861, in the name of Rhoda Grant, on a review of Scottish Government freedom of information request handling and record keeping.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The intervention report from the Scottish Information Commissioner exposes the utter contempt in which this Scottish National Party Government holds the freedom of information law.

In publishing that damning report, the Scottish Information Commissioner has done the principle of openness and transparency a great service, and I truly hope that the report is a wake-up call for the Scottish Government.

FOI legislation was enacted to make Government more transparent and to improve scrutiny, yet this Government has done the opposite. It refuses to be held to account and it refuses to be scrutinised. In the Scottish Parliament, questions—particularly written questions—get poor and evasive answers, so members are forced to use the FOI legislation to get the answers that they should have been provided with in the Parliament. However, the Scottish Government seeks to block that as well. It singles out journalists and MSPs and their researchers for special treatment. FOI requests are subject to greater scrutiny and sign-off and are less likely to get answers, and those answers that are provided take longer to receive.

The report states:

“by creating and applying a process based on requester type rather than the nature of the request, not only is the spirit of FOI legislation offended, but trust between those groups mentioned in the policy and the Scottish Government may also be damaged.”

This is not just important to those of us in the political bubble. It is important to hold the Government to account and to understand how and why decisions are made and who influences why they are made. Meetings that Government ministers have taken part in are matters of public interest and national importance. We are calling, therefore, for an independent review of how the Government handles FOI requests and its overall record keeping, which is another area in which it has fallen short.

For example, we have a transport minister meeting the chief executives of both Stagecoach and FirstGroup with no minutes being taken, nor any agenda being prepared. We have a First Minister, alongside her finance secretary, her education secretary and her economy secretary, inviting a host of business figures to dinner at Bute house, including SNP donor Brian Souter, again with no minutes or agenda. It is outrageous that Scottish Government ministers think that they can have such covert meetings and ride roughshod over FOI legislation and indeed the law.

That means that even the Scottish Information Commissioner is unable to track the Government’s behaviour and decision-making process. The report states:

“Where data was absent or unclear, it was excluded from our analysis.”

Therefore, the report is based only on the findings from the Government’s better record keeping. We can only guess what is being covered up by its worst. Whether by intent or negligence, poor record keeping in the very process that was enshrined in law to make Government more transparent makes it less so, and that is extremely disappointing.

The Scottish Information Commissioner’s report states that he cannot be clear what role special advisers have with regard to FOI. Their involvement varies between departments, and he states that there is little guidance on their role and whether it impacts on responses that are given. We all know that special advisers have a more political role in helping Government, but that should not allow them to evade the law or indeed the spirit of the FOI legislation.

If information that is requested is available and is not subject to any legal exclusion, it must be provided. That is the letter and the spirit of the FOI legislation, and it must be adhered to. It is simply wrong that a Government that should be leading the way and providing a good example has behaved in the way that it has, and it must stop now.

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

I speak as someone who

ceased to be a minister six years ago and who, for three years after being a minister, continued to be asked for confirmation about FOI responses. Who in Government should be the person who contacts people such as me, who are no longer in Government, in order to ensure that the FOI responses that are being made are being checked?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is surely for the minister to ensure that his answer to an FOI request is right because, ultimately, the Government is responsible. If a minister needs to depend on a special adviser to help them to hide information, that is not good for governance or transparency.

If the answer to a request will disclose information that embarrasses the Government, it is the Government’s job to answer that request and to put right the wrong that has been uncovered—not to seek to hide it, which would be not only underhand and evasive but illegal. If poor record keeping is being used to disguise such an approach, that is even worse. The question also arises whether the additional level of scrutiny delays answers to journalists, MSPs and MSPs’ staff or whether there is a culture of deliberately delaying the provision of information to such people to kill a story or a line of inquiry.

The report talks about the lack of training for staff who deal with FOI requests. There appears to be no formal training, which is surely untenable. Those staff need to be trained in meeting their legal obligation to ensure transparency, and surely they must also be trained in how to provide the information in an accessible way. It is unbelievable that more than 1,000 people in the Government are involved in FOI work but have no formal training. We strongly suggest that that should be put right as soon as possible.

All those problems stack up to create a pretty damning report. There is little that is good in the report—the only thing that stands out is that an improvement has taken place, but it happened only after the Information Commissioner stepped in, and it does not go far enough. If that is what improvement looks like, we can only imagine how bad the situation was previously.

The catalogue of errors reflects poorly on the Government. We expected the report to describe some failings in the system, but it shows failing after failing. Those failings might not always have occurred with intent, but carelessness is hardly an excuse when it prevents proper governmental scrutiny by Opposition parties, back benchers and the press.

The Government’s amendment would remove from our motion the concerns that are expressed in the report. That is disappointing, because it shows a lack of understanding of the findings’ seriousness. The Government talks of consulting on extending FOI legislation to companies that provide services on the public sector’s behalf. We support that extension, but the Government must go further than consulting—it must commit to legislating on the consultation’s outcome. It also has to put its house in order, so that we have confidence in the system and in its extension to non-governmental service providers.

We need a new approach to FOI—one that we can be confident about; one that can withstand independent scrutiny; and, most important, one that adheres to the letter and the spirit of the law.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If you want your motion to be voted on, you had better move it.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I move,

That the Parliament notes the concerns raised on Scottish Government transparency in the intervention report from the Scottish Information Commissioner; notes the key findings that the Scottish Government’s FoI policies and procedures are not clear enough regarding the role of special advisers in responding to FoI requests; believes that the Scottish Government takes longer to respond to journalists’ FoI requests than other requests; considers that a number of areas have been highlighted for action, including clearance procedures, quality assurance of FoI responses, training, case handling and case records management, monitoring FoI requests and review procedures, and calls for an independent review of both FoI handling and the recording of information from meetings.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Joe FitzPatrick, who has a tight six minutes.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

In speaking to the amendment in my name, I thank Rhoda Grant for giving us the opportunity to further debate the Scottish Information Commissioner’s intervention report. The debate allows me to set out the improvements that are being put in place to ensure that our processes and performance meet the highest standards that are required and expected of us.

The Parliament can—rightly—be proud of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. The act is rigorous and is well regarded internationally, and we have sought to maintain that position with incremental changes to the act—for example, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013 paved the way for reducing the lifespans of key exemptions from 30 to 15 years. The 2002 act has also been extended to bring within its scope numerous bodies, including arm’s-length trusts, providers of secure accommodation for children and young people and private prison contractors.

The Scottish Government takes our FOI commitments seriously, and the Scottish Information Commissioner’s intervention report, which was published last week, was a serious assessment of our FOI handling processes. I am pleased that the report identifies examples of good practice, but it also highlights areas in which improvements in processes are needed. As I informed members last week, the Scottish Government has accepted the recommendations of the report and will develop an action plan by 13 September this year.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will Joe FitzPatrick take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I will make some progress, if that is okay.

Turning to today’s motion and its call for an independent review of FOI handling, I hope that no member doubts the independence of the Scottish Information Commissioner and his staff. Indeed, in responding to calls last year for an independent inquiry into Scottish Government request handling, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee agreed that the commissioner might be an appropriate person to undertake such an inquiry. Therefore, I am slightly surprised that today’s motion appears to call for another independent review of FOI handling. Perhaps the Labour Party is unconvinced of the commissioner’s independence.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Before the minister moves on, will he tell members how many times his Government has broken the law in relation to FOI?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Neil Findlay makes a point that Andy Wightman raised during last week’s statement. They imply that the report suggested that the Government broke the law, but that was not a conclusion that the report came to. The commissioner’s inquiry was a level 3 intervention under section 43(1) and section 43(3) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which relate to “good practice”. It is my intention, and I am determined, that the Scottish Government will become an exemplar in best practice, and this report will help us to achieve that aim.

As reflected in the Labour motion, the commissioner’s report highlights a number of areas in which action is required, including clearance, training, case handling and records management. The report is thorough and is being considered in detail by officials.

However, as I notified members last week, we have revised guidance on our clearance processes with immediate effect, so where, in some of the language that Rhoda Grant used, “This is what we do”, it is now “That is what we did.” I have signed off new guidance that changes our processes on those matters. That directly addresses the report’s recommendation 3, on the treatment of requests being based on the class of the requester rather than on the sensitivity of the information that is sought. Our revised guidance, which is in the public domain, as is all our guidance, makes clear that consideration should be based on the information that is requested, rather than the identity of the requester.

In addition, in addressing issues that were raised in recommendations 4 and 6, we anticipate that the introduction of a new tracker system and the updating of the Scottish Government’s electronic records management system should significantly improve request monitoring and record keeping.

I confirm again that the agreed action plan will be published and I am sure that the Scottish Information Commissioner will make public any report into the Scottish Government’s implementation of the action plan. Therefore, we will support the Conservative Party’s amendment tonight. The commissioner also noted concerns about the case file and record keeping of case handlers, and we will address the commissioner’s concerns about record keeping in developing our action plan.

A vast amount of information is proactively published by the Scottish Government on its website, which includes Government spend data and a range of ministerial information. I am pleased to announce that, from July, that will include ministerial travel and subsistence expenses.

My amendment confirms that the Scottish Government accepts the commissioner’s recommendations in full and will develop an action plan by the September deadline. The amendment also acknowledges that improvements are required on response times to journalists’ FOI requests. As set out in the commissioner’s report in 2017-18, the average response time to media requests was 19 days compared with 17 days to non-media requests. We will fix that.

As well as through the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013, the Scottish Government has sought to ensure that our FOI legislation remains fit for purpose by bringing forward two orders that extend coverage of the act. We have also consulted on a draft order that would extend coverage of the 2002 act to registered social landlords. The terms of that order are currently being finalised.

However, against a backdrop of an ever-changing public service delivery landscape, where services that were traditionally provided by public authorities are now being provided by the third sector or private contractors, I am conscious of increasing demands to look again at the scope of coverage of the legislation. In particular, I credit the Liberal Democrats for keeping the issue of coverage on the radar. We will therefore develop proposals to consult on further extension of coverage of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, for example to companies that carry out services on behalf of the public sector.

Our proposals will reflect changes in the delivery of public services—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, minister, you must conclude.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

—and help to ensure that FOISA remains fully effective in holding to account those who are responsible for delivering public services. I urge members to support our amendment.

I move amendment S5M-12861.2, to leave out from “a number of areas” to end and insert:

“response times for journalists’ FoI requests have improved but can improve further; notes that the Scottish Government has accepted the commissioner’s recommendations in full and will develop an action plan as required by the commissioner to be published in September 2018; welcomes the proposed extension of FoI law to registered social landlords, and agrees that the Scottish Government should consult on proposals to further extend coverage of Scotland’s freedom of information legislation, for example, to companies providing services on behalf of the public sector.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, but we are very short of time—there is no time in hand. I call Edward Mountain to speak to and move amendment S5M-12861.1. You have five minutes, please.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Tony Blair, the architect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, later said of his creation:

“Freedom of information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naïve, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop.”

The former Prime Minister went on to say:

“Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him?”

I am no supporter of Tony Blair—nor, indeed, of Sir Humphrey—and I firmly believe that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 strengthens our democracy and is intrinsic to holding the Government of the day to account. The Scottish Government might not like that, but that is democracy. It is why I would like to move the amendment in my name, which calls on the Scottish Information Commissioner to publish an annual report into the Scottish Government’s performance in handling FOI requests.

I encourage all members to support my amendment, which seeks to strengthen scrutiny and would ensure that the Scottish Government was made accountable for its performance every year.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

The amendment talks about making

“public the report on the government’s implementation of the action plan when approved annually.”

The commissioner has committed to publishing the action plan that is provided, but I am not aware that he is committed to publishing an annual implementation plan. Can the member clarify that?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is not my understanding that the commissioner has agreed to publish it annually—that is the point that I am making. I would like to see it published annually, so that we can see how the Government is performing.

The investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner that we have been talking about came about because of a motion that I lodged last year, which condemned the Government’s performance in handling FOIs and called for the independent inquiry. That motion led to the Government condemning itself—we should never forget that.

The resulting report is a damning indictment that shows the true scale of the issue: a Government is trying to cover its tracks and bury bad news. If the problem is not the paucity of information in case files it is the unwarranted interference from special advisers. I, for one, am deeply uncomfortable with the way in which special advisers are used by this Government, having experienced their reprehensible behaviour during the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill.

In his report, the Scottish Information Commissioner rightly questions why SPADs are checking FOI responses before they are released. The SPADs say that they can advise but they cannot instruct. How many are sticking to that code? To me, it seems that the shadowy fingers of SPADs mark many FOI responses.

One example in the report shows a SPAD saying to the case handler:

“Grateful if you could reconsider the information you propose to release”.

Presiding Officer, if you said words to that effect to me in this chamber, I would take it as an instruction, and so would most people. The SPAD knew exactly what they were doing—they were giving an instruction.

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

Is that an instruction that the provider of information look further, to ensure that there is no additional information to be provided, or is it meant in some other way?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The way in which it is phrased gives a clear indication of what is to be achieved. It does not ask for more information; it asks about what information is to be released and whether that is right.

It appears to me that the Government’s guidance on handling FOls is lacking and that special advisers are constantly overstepping the mark and undermining the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

My colleagues who are sitting beside me and the journalists who are watching the debate will all have examples of freedom of information requests having been delayed or ignored. There is clear evidence that this Government treats FOI requests from MSPs and journalists differently, which goes against the applicant-blind principle of FOI laws. When it comes to FOIs, we should all be treated the same.

This Scottish Government is based on secrecy and control. MSPs and journalists know that getting information from this Government is like drawing blood from a stone. They have to ask the right questions, and probably a sequence of them, before they get the information that they have reasonably requested. It is deeply disingenuous that we are forced to play a cynical game to get information that should be in the public domain.

Democracy is not a game. Democracy requires Governments to be open, transparent and accountable. It is time that the Scottish Government was democratic.

I move amendment S5M-12861.1, to insert at end:

“, and further calls on the Scottish Information Commissioner to make public the report on the government’s implementation of the action plan when approved annually.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is no time in hand, so I will be strict with timings. Andy Wightman, you have four minutes.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I welcome the debate and endorse everything in the Labour motion.

It seems unkind to be here again, giving the Government another kicking, but I hope that this debate, which was engendered by the concerns of journalists over a year ago, will reinforce the importance of freedom of information.

The intervention report makes sobering reading. I commend the commissioner and his staff for a comprehensive piece of work that, beyond the specific case that is being investigated, shines a useful light on Scotland’s freedom of information regime more generally.

In response to Neil Findlay’s intervention, I note that paragraph 140 of the report says:

“There is nothing in FOI law or the Section 60 Code of Practice which permits authorities to treat certain groups of requesters less preferentially than others.”

I remind the Government that it can do only what is permitted by law. Notwithstanding that, I commend ministers for having accepted all the recommendations. Scottish ministers represent the most powerful public body in Scotland, and the FOl regime was introduced to enable the public to have greater access to information that is held by elected bodies and public authorities.

FOl is uncomfortable for those with power, but it is a vital part of open and transparent governance, and I am proud that this Parliament introduced a regime that is among the best in the world. However, FOl is only a small subset of transparency. Rhoda Grant’s motion talks of records of meetings. Recently, I have been studying the Government papers in the National Archives of Scotland relating to how the Scottish Office and Scottish ministers lost control of key powers over the governance and finances of the Palace of Holyrood. I have been struck by the fact that memos, notes and letters provide great detail of the affairs of the Lord Chancellor’s office, the Lord Chamberlain, the royal household and the Scottish development department of the time. It is vital that comprehensive, meaningful, accurate and substantive records are kept of the affairs of Government and public authorities.

In that regard, I draw members’ attention to paragraph 173 of the intervention report, which says:

“The examination of Scottish Government case files revealed significant gaps in the information recorded. In many cases, there was scant information contained in case files; in some there was no documentation whatsoever.”

That is an excellent example of how even a gold-standard FOl regime can be rendered ineffective if the information does not exist.

A further example of the need for a broader debate on transparency is provided by today’s announcement of a consultation on draft regulations to establish a register of persons with a controlling interest in land. Ministers say that that information will be free, which is welcome, but the bigger problem is that, to access information on the land over which such persons have a controlling interest, one has to pay £30. Scotland’s land information system—ScotLIS—was launched last year, following a commitment by John Swinney to provide a comprehensive source of information on the ownership, use and value of land. However, it is useless. Of course, business users get an excellent service and, instead of paying £30, pay only £3. Moreover, data on land that is owned by overseas companies has been published by Registers of Scotland, but it costs more than £1,500 plus VAT to obtain, whereas the equivalent data is made freely available by the Land Registry in England and Wales, and the United Kingdom Government is committed to creating the largest open land dataset in the world.

Five years ago, some journalists and campaigners from Scotland and Ireland set up an informal FOI club, and we collaborated on methods and sources. I am now in Parliament, and Rob Edwards and other members of that club now run The Ferret, which was a key part of the campaign by journalists a year ago.

FOl matters to everyone. We need to open up all the information and data that sit behind pay walls in Government, as we are already falling behind the ambitions that have been set by the Tories at Westminster. I do not want to be in that position, and I hope that the Scottish ministers agree with me.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am grateful to the Labour Party for securing the debate, for the significant reason that it allows us to retell the story of Alex Salmond’s tartan trousers. For more than seven months, he managed to avoid telling the public exactly how he had managed to get the taxpayer to pay for a £259.40 pair of tartan trews on his visit to China. The significant point is that it took a journalist seven months and repeated freedom of information requests to get the information out of the Government.

Who really cares about Alex Salmond’s tartan trousers?

Members

We do!

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I do, because

it speaks to the wider problem, which is the Scottish Government’s addiction to secrecy. Even for such a simple issue as a pair of tartan trousers, it was prepared to run a campaign for seven months.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Although I do not really care much about Mr Salmond’s sartorial inelegance, I do care about the fact that he and other ministers go to Qatar to flog our public services to the Qatari sovereign wealth fund and we have to use freedom of information laws to find that out as well.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is absolutely right. I am sure that he bought a different pair of tartan trousers when he went to Qatar, because the other ones were not good enough.

I was intrigued by what the minister said in response to a question from a Labour member about whether the Government has ever broken the law. He dodged the question, which was intriguing. He gave an answer that was not quite an answer. I would like him, in summing up, to be clear about whether the Scottish Government has ever broken the law on freedom of information, because the dodging of the question told a bigger story.

The report is quite damning, because it shows that journalists and members of the Scottish Parliament were prevented from doing their jobs and from carrying out the scrutiny that we are elected to this Parliament to do: asking for and getting information from the Government and exposing the performance not just of ministers but of the Government as a whole. Special advisers were overruling officials to ensure that information was not being made public. Information was missing. There was a disregard for the statutory guidelines. All of that speaks to the addiction to secrecy that I mentioned.

I want to see the action plan, and I want to see progress on the action plan. Edward Mountain’s amendment is absolutely right.

Getting that right and sorting out the addiction to secrecy is not enough. Because of the expansion of outsourcing by the Government, the exposure and coverage of freedom of information legislation has been reduced. We spend about £11 billion on public procurement in the public sector. A lot of that money is spent on private companies, on which we have made some progress in the most recent set of changes although there are still a lot of private companies that are not subject to the scrutiny that they should be subject to.

I am pleased with the Government’s amendment. We worked on that amendment with the Government yesterday to ensure that it would not be defeated in Parliament today; nevertheless, it is progress. I want not just a consultation but real change and a commitment to real change, because we should be following the money. We should be following taxpayers’ money through a freedom of information regime that covers all public spending, not just what is spent strictly within the public sector.

I welcome the move today, and I welcome the fact that we are able to make some progress, but we need to make much greater progress if we are to change the addiction to secrecy that has got hold of the Scottish Government.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It is often the case that when people talk of democracy they think of voting, and when they talk of Parliament they think of powers, but the reality is that democracy and Parliament are reliant on much more than those simple narrow factors. Civil liberties, the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the transparency of Government are all vital to the work that we do in Parliament. Government of the people for the people demands transparency, because without it we cannot know what the Government is doing in our name and in our interests.

That why the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was such an important addition to the statute book, and it has been shown to work. From high-profile scandals to the day-to-day statistics that we use in Parliament, the act is an important part of our democracy.

The Scottish Information Commissioner’s report is so concerning because it points to Government conduct and behaviours that do not uphold that important aspect of our democracy—from a lack of clarity on request handling, to the influence of special advisers on clearance and as a filtering function, to evidence of deliberate delays of information while communications plans are put in place, to inadequate record keeping. Perhaps the most worrying finding is that there is a twin-track FOI process—for members of the public and for members of the press and MSPs.

The minister would do well to take the commissioner’s words more seriously. He said:

“changes are required for consistency with both the letter and spirit of FOI law”.

It is not good enough to dodge the question whether the law has been broken; the question is in the report for the Government to answer. The seriousness of the commissioner’s report is made clear by the fact that he requires that changes be made by September this year.

The reality is that the Scottish Government is failing to uphold the standards that we all expect of it when it comes to transparency. That is not limited to freedom of information. It is disappointing that the minister confined his remarks to freedom of information requests, because the issue is much broader than that, and includes even the most basic and fundamental matter of ministerial correspondence. Correspondence might seem to be mundane, but it is vital to the work that we do in Parliament. It is the lifeblood of what we do to gain answers and insights for our constituents.

However, the reality is that, even on correspondence, the Government is falling behind our expectations. Simple acknowledgements are taking two weeks or more to be sent, which means that constituents regularly wait for six weeks or more, and up to 10 weeks, to gain answers. It is the same old wheeze that we see time and again in the public sector: acknowledgement is delayed in order to gain more time to provide answers and observe due process.

I would like the minister to provide clarity on the Government’s view on whether it needs to do better on minutes. Understanding of who the Government is meeting and for what purposes, and of what commitments have been given when it has had meetings is vital.

I gently suggest that the Government look at the work of the mayor of London’s office. On 19 April, the deputy mayor met the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police with two officials from City hall. I can tell members that because the minutes are published bi-monthly: the information is on the office’s website. That is simple and straightforward. There is not a lot of detail, but there is enough to see who was there and what was discussed. That is a simple suggestion. The approach is not very complicated, and I fail to understand why the Government cannot be open and transparent about whom it meets and when it meets them.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Like other members, I welcome the debate and its generally serious tone because,

as has been said already, the transparency of the Government, public agencies and, indeed, private companies matters to us all. It is in the public interest that appropriate information can be obtained, analysed and considered. Media scrutiny of the Government is an essential part of our democratic process.

I welcome the report and remind members that we should be proud that Scotland has the most open and far-reaching freedom of information laws in the UK, and that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed by a previous Administration and has been enhanced by the SNP Government.

The report calls for greater clarity on the processes and procedures relating to FOI requests. I welcome the fact that it recognises that the Scottish Government has already taken steps in the past 12 months to improve its freedom of information practice.

The minister said that the Scottish Government accepts the commissioner’s recommendations in full—I very much welcome that, as we all should—and that it will develop an action plan, as required by the commissioner, to be published in September this year. In welcoming that action plan, I suggest that members vote for the Government’s amendment, which makes that clear.

We have today’s debate and the report’s recommendations should be taken forward—which the Government will do in full—but it is important to recognise that our freedom of information legislation is widely recognised as being robust. The Scottish Government is better at responding to FOI requests than previous Administrations and the UK Government. In 2017, 2,441 requests were answered on time, which was 83 per cent of total requests. In comparison, in the last years of the previous Administration, only 61 per cent of requests were responded to on time. Furthermore, in the first four months of 2018, the Scottish Government responded to 93 per cent of requests on time—more than the 90 per cent target that was agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner.

That effective performance should be recognised in the context of the steady increase in freedom of information requests to the Scottish Government: 3,046 requests were received in 2017, which was 41 per cent more than the previous record of 2,155 in 2015. It is also worth noting that the Scottish Government responded last year to more than 5,000 requests—

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Mr Macpherson is in his last minute.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

That proactive response is outwith the freedom of information system.

I have been in touch with the minister with a written question about the draft order to extend freedom of information legislation to the register of social landlords, and received today a comprehensive response outlining the process to progress the draft order, for which I am grateful.

The Scottish Information Commissioner noted many steps that the Scottish Government has taken since last year to improve and monitor its performance with regard to freedom of information requests, including an increase in the number of staff in the freedom of information unit since 2017. It is welcome that the Government is taking forward the recommendations in full—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close, please.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I look forward to seeing the action report in September.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

This SNP Government talks about openness, accountability and transparency, but the truth is that its rhetoric does not match the reality. We need only look at yesterday’s court judgement on fracking to see the depths to which the SNP is willing to go. The people of Scotland have had enough, and deserve far better than a Government that is more interested in saving face than in providing the facts.

The information commissioner’s report is just the tip of the iceberg but, importantly, it reaffirms what many people already know: there is a casual disregard for transparency and a deep-rooted culture of arrogance about freedom of information at the highest levels of the Government.

The report makes for grim reading, and no amount of cherry picking or claims of progress can excuse the appalling practices that it identifies. I found it doubly depressing to read the report having witnessed many of the issues that it highlights during the Education Committee’s recent consideration of the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill, when the lack of clarity and information from the Scottish Government fell below the level of transparency that both the public and Parliament should rightly expect. That situation led to a number of freedom of information requests being made; it is a sad state of affairs when parliamentarians rely on freedom of information requests to get even the most basic information out of the Government.

However, it is even worse that those requests did not elicit the full or accurate responses that one would expect. On multiple occasions since last October, I and others have sought factual information on the Scottish Government’s engagement with committee witnesses in an attempt to establish the timeline of events. On multiple occasions, the responses have been either incomplete or inaccurate.

What concerns me most is that a number of those omissions and errors relate to information that casts doubt on the original version of events that was given by John Swinney. In a number of instances, those omissions and errors have unfairly cast doubt on the actions and integrity of others. I will not make accusations that cannot yet be substantiated, but there is no denying the emerging pattern. Clearance of FOI requests has been deliberately delayed, damaging emails have been omitted due to inadequate systems and processes and, of course—my favourite—we have had the downright selective release of emails.

Astonishingly, when John Swinney wrote to the committee on 15 March, he presented a handful of pages of emails as being representative of the Government’s communication with committee clerks. Interestingly, when the Scottish Parliament was FOI-ed, we found that the equivalent correspondence runs to 70 pages and tells a completely different story. We still do not have all the answers, and I remain deeply concerned about the damage that the episode has done to Parliament. I believe that the SNP Government is let off the hook far too often.

I have not given up, and I remain convinced that it is only a matter of time until the facts come out in the wash—or, at least, in the next round of FOI requests, the round after that or the one after that. If we keep going with the Scottish Government, emails eventually turn up and new information comes to light that is never very favourable to the Government.

That is just one example of the SNP’s secret Scotland. My experience and exasperation give me a great deal of sympathy with the concerns that journalists and other MSPs have raised, which is why I urge colleagues across the chamber to send the Government, at decision time, the message that enough is enough.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The building that we stand in today was designed in such a way as to reflect open, inclusive and transparent government. It was intended to be a space where the public could visibly see the workings of their Government and to create a shift away from the perception of the Government as something that is far removed and lives in a bubble. It is about openness, transparency and government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Freedom of information was a key step in breaking down further the barriers that the public face in seeing what their Government is doing. I assume that, when Labour introduced freedom of information, it knew that the measure could well make life more difficult for the Government but, nevertheless, Labour did so because it was the right thing to do.

That is why it is right that Labour is today highlighting the unacceptable situation that we find ourselves in, where the Scottish Information Commissioner has highlighted major flaws in the Government’s approach to handling requests for information. No matter the Government’s political colour, it has a responsibility to the people of Scotland to be consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law. The way in which the SNP Government has been dealing with information requests is not acceptable and it is right that the Parliament says so and stands up for the democratic rights of all the people of Scotland.

It is not for the SNP Government to decide who can and cannot be told or to treat requests differently based purely on who is asking. The commissioner’s report criticised the practice of referring requests to ministers for clearance simply because they came from journalists, MSPs or researchers. As the commissioner said,

“in most cases, it should not matter who asked for information.”

The commissioner also highlighted the fact that it took longer to respond to journalists’ requests and he made seven recommendations for further specific improvements to clearance procedures, quality assurance, training, case handling and records management as well as monitoring and review procedures. The message to the SNP Government is clear: it should get its act together and respect the democratic right of all the people of Scotland to access information. The Government now has an opportunity to listen to the Information Commissioner. He has given the Government the opportunity to fix the issues and we in the Parliament must demand that it does so.

I reiterate Labour’s view that the report is also an opportunity to look at ways of improving freedom of information and extending the powers to all aspects of public services in order to make Scotland a world-leading example of open and transparent democracy. We need clarity on the role of special advisers. The practice of not taking proper records and minutes of meetings must end. The Government has a chance to fix the issue, and I hope that it takes that chance.

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

Apparently, I am the relevant parliamentary liaison officer for this subject.

As a big believer in freedom of information and a former—and occasionally current—FOI request submitter, I have no problem in supporting the Government’s amendment, which states:

“the Scottish Government has accepted the commissioner’s recommendations in full and will develop an action plan as required by the commissioner to be published in September 2018”.

Despite the Opposition’s claims, the Scottish Information Commissioner’s report recognises that, in the past 12 months, the Scottish Government has already taken steps to improve its FOI practice and those changes

“have already resulted in a number of significant improvements to the Scottish Government’s FOI performance”.

That is right, because media scrutiny of the work of this or any other Government is essential to the reliability and openness of our democratic processes and should be welcomed by all of us. In this week alone, I can think of countless reports in which the press have brought to public attention the actions and behaviour of international policy makers that range from being heartbreaking to disgraceful—or both, as in the current case of the United States immigration centres. Without the work of the press, we would not know about those, there would be no outcry and there would be no pressure for change.

Back in Scotland, FOI requests are an important tool for the independent press. Scotland needs a healthy and an honest press—and never more so than at a time of conflicting reporting, social media and “fake” press.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

If a free press is so important, why did Ms Forbes’s Government make sure that journalists were treated differently and that their requests took longer to be responded to?

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

In fact, the commissioner stated that the percentage of refused requests for journalists was lower than it was for other types of requester, at 10 per cent compared with 13 per cent.

The minister has listed the Government’s plans to make changes and to take steps to improve the FOI process further, so I want to use my time to emphasise why I think that that is important. Quite simply, FOI requests are a means of accountability. Andy Wightman used the word “uncomfortable”, which I think is an excellent one to use. Whether I speak as an elected politician or not, or as a member of the party of Government or a member of the Opposition, I value the legitimately uncomfortable scrutiny of the press. I value it both locally, and nationally, and—

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member give way?

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

I have only four minutes.

I have worked hard to support the local papers in my own rural Highland constituency, including the

West Highland Free Press

, the

Ross-shire Journal

and the

Strathy

—the

Strathspey and Badenoch Herald

—to name just three that do a sterling job of holding local politicians to account. I am sure that my Highland colleagues who are leading the debate for the Opposition can testify to that. At a time when national circulation figures seem to be forever falling, such local papers are still relatively well read, employ excellent journalists and set the local agenda. FOI requests are a key part of that, because they make information equally accessible and enable everybody—wherever they are in the country and whoever they are—equally to hold decision makers accountable.

Notwithstanding the comments made by journalists and the Opposition, which, I can see, the Government is taking on board, the Scottish Government has welcomed and co-operated with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s review and appears to be happy to accept, in full, its recommendations to support continued improvement. I think that that is right and proper.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

We can all agree that full transparency is a key requirement in holding the Scottish Government to account. Responsibility for such transparency in this place lies with the Scottish Government which, to be fair, responded positively and joined all Opposition parties when voting in the chamber following last year’s debate that highlighted the open letter by 23 journalists complaining about the SNP’s handling of FOI requests.

However, here we are again—almost a year to the day later—debating the same issue. The report by the Scottish Information Commissioner and the subsequent intervention by his office are quite remarkable—not least because they indicate a willingness by the Scottish Government to bury bad news and prevent negative headlines.

It is even suggested that Nicola Sturgeon’s ministers are breaking the FOI laws by creating a two-tier system and treating journalists, MSPs and researchers more harshly.

John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, was found to have interfered in an FOI request to block the publication of several documents. Emails show that Mr Swinney said that “it would be better” if material was withheld, and special advisers subsequently looked for technical exemptions to withhold documents that the minister would prefer not to be released.

That ministers would prefer documents not be released is not sufficient reason to withhold them, no matter how politically damaging or embarrassing the content may be to the Scottish Government.

The response to FOls and written questions is consistently raised by members in the cross-party groups that I have attended. In a recent dual CPG meeting on chronic pain and arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions, it was—if you will pardon the pun, Presiding Officer—a particular pain point.

At every CPG meeting, we try to agree positive actions, which usually include sending questions to the Scottish Government. However, the Government’s standard of reply has been appalling, which necessitates a further question mirroring the first question. It is no wonder that the number of FOls and parliamentary questions is rising so quickly. I have found myself having to answer for the Government’s reluctance to give out any information, explaining the process and suggesting that the same question be resubmitted.

I highlight as a recent example Findlay Carson’s FOI request to ministers for information about the land held by the Scottish Government in connection with the A75. The reply was:

“While it is recognised that there may be some public interest in the details of land held by Scottish Ministers in connection with the A75 trunk road, specifically along the margins of the road itself, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.”

In the space of a sentence, we are told that details of land held by ministers may be of public interest but that they apparently do not know what land they hold. I am not sure what is worse—failing to tell people what land ministers hold, or admitting that ministers do not know what land they hold.

I have, on many occasions, asked the Scottish Government how many times the A77 south of Whitletts roundabout has been closed. What was Humza Yousaf’s reply? He said:

“The detailed information is currently being collated. I will write to the member as soon as the information is available.”—[

Written Answers, 27 March 2018; S5W-15272

.]

The trouble with that response is that it is dated three months ago.

I am finding that the transport, health and education portfolios are the ones that are most at fault; they also happen to be the ones under the most pressure for underperformance. The Scottish Government cannot choose which questions it will or will not answer based on how it happens to be underperforming at that time.

This game of question-and-answer ping pong has got to stop. If the Scottish Government wants the volume of FOls and PQs to reduce, it should not make us ask the same question repeatedly to get a half-decent answer. The Government should follow the protocols that are set out. It is not good enough. I ask that the Scottish Government takes action that reflects the verbal commitment that it has made in this chamber.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

How any Government conducts itself while going about its business is important, but we have to look at the issue honestly and be honest about the debate. Like Edward Mountain, I, too, want to quote Tony Blair, who is, after all, the father of FOI. The quote carries on beyond what Edward Mountain cited. Although I do not agree with what Tony Blair said, I can understand and respect part of his point of view. He claimed that FOI is not used for the most part by the people. He said:

“For political leaders, it’s like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, ‘Hey, try this instead’, and handing them a mallet.”

Tony Blair is a leader who has gone through many things and held different ideals. Although I do not agree with his point of view, we can understand where he is coming from, because a number of mallets have been brought out here today.

In all honesty, freedom of information has progressed since Tony Blair’s Government introduced it. Things have changed in the world, and there is a lot more data in the world, so it will be more difficult to process all of it. However, the Scottish Government is doing well on transparency. It is still not perfect, but it is doing better.

In 2017, there were 2,441 requests answered on time. That is 83 per cent on target, which is not a bad return. It is 300 higher than the number of requests that were made in 2015 or 2016. In 2017, 3,046 requests were received, which is an incredible 41 per cent higher than the previous record of 2,155 in 2015.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My concern is that the number of freedom of information requests is going up because none of them is being answered. Most of us are having to submit more than one FOI request in an effort to get an answer to a straightforward question.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Greater use is now made of technology, and there is greater openness and transparency, which means that people are engaging more with the process. I would say that that is the reason for the increase in the number of FOI requests.

It is important to add that, during the first four months of 2018, the Scottish Government responded to 93 per cent of requests on time. That is above the figure of 90 per cent that was agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner. In his report, the commissioner recognises that, over the past 12 months, the Scottish Government has taken steps to improve its FOI practice.

I turn to FOI requests from the media. We can all agree that media scrutiny of the work of Government is an essential part of the political process. Last year, the Scottish Government responded to more than 5,000 requests from journalists outwith the FOI system. Last month, the Scottish Government dealt with 449 inquiries from the media. The Scottish Information Commissioner acknowledged that specific improvements have been made in the way in which FOI requests are dealt with. On page 28 of his report, he went as far as to say:

“What can also be observed ... is a significant improvement in 2017/18, with the average response time for dealing with media cases reducing to 19 days.”

That shows that things have moved forward and that the Government has taken on board many of the issues that have been brought up.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I am just closing.

In any Government, transparency and openness are extremely important. In such debates, we need to move away from the extreme hyperbole that we have had a great deal of in this afternoon’s debate. Although the current system is not perfect, the Scottish Government’s direction of travel is positive. That is an important point, and that direction of travel must continue to be encouraged.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the closing speeches. I ask members to keep to time, please.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am glad to have the opportunity to close the debate for the Conservatives. From listening to what has been said, it appears that there has been an increase in the number of FOI requests as a result of a lack of information from the Scottish Government or a lack of transparency.

I fully support freedom of information, as every member does. The aim of the FOI legislation is to encourage as much openness and transparency as possible on the substance of information. The work of the Scottish Government should not be based on secrecy and control. We know that FOI requests work—they show mismanagement in our NHS, for example—and that they are an effective way of holding any Government to account. Denying elected members, their staff and journalists access to information or deliberately slowing down the process are practices that belong to a dictatorship, not a democracy. Rhoda Grant said that the Scottish Information Commissioner’s report is

“a wake-up call for the Scottish Government.”

It certainly is. I congratulate the work by journalists and MSPs in bringing such practices to light.

Ministers and their special advisers should not be the judges of who can and who cannot get information, never mind being the decision makers who decide what information gets released to the public. FOI requests are a legitimate method of sourcing information that is not already in the public domain. No minister or special political adviser should stand in the way of that. We can imagine how SNP back benchers would howl if things were the other way round, but they are not—it is the SNP Scottish Government that is ducking and diving to avoid passing on information that is not favourable to it. The minister was asked how many times the Scottish Government has broken the law when it comes to FOI requests. There was no answer—the Government was rumbled by Neil Findlay. It is right that we debate the issue, so that we can give the Government an opportunity to restore public confidence and trust.

The Information Commissioner’s report is damning, and he has given the Scottish Government until 13 September to produce, for his approval, a draft action plan to address the recommendations.

The Government’s habit of referring media requests to political advisers for clearance is contrary to the spirit of the FOI legislation. The report advises that the Scottish Government should undertake a detailed review of clearance procedures and that it should clearly set out the roles of special advisers, outline the procedures that should be used when case handlers and special advisers disagree, and introduce clear rules for the recording of decisions. The report says:

“The current procedures for the clearance of information requests are unclear and lacking in detail. This makes the role of those involved opaque when it should be transparent.”

In addition, the report recommends that the Scottish Government should examine procedures to learn from poor initial decisions and prevent recurring failures, and that it should investigate whether it would be better for quality assurance to be carried out by staff in directorates or agencies rather than by special advisers.

The report calls for media requests—for which people wait an average of two days longer than happens with other requests, with 25 per cent of them issued late—to be given a fairer hearing. The report says:

“It is inherently wrong that a class of requesters is treated differently when processing requests for information solely because of who or what they are. This covers not only journalists, but also MSPs and political researchers.”

Daren FitzHenry has castigated Scottish ministers for the way in which they handled FOI requests, which he says was “inherently wrong”.

The report calls for the Government to ensure that case handlers have sufficient knowledge and training to deal with the requests. The report also recommends that the Government should improve its record keeping to ensure that FOI performance is properly tracked and to improve the time taken to respond.

The Government amendment shows a lack of understanding, I am afraid, and the Scottish Conservatives have misgivings about it. We would have preferred to see the Scottish Government get its house in order. It has promised to implement the report’s recommendations in full—we, too, recommend that. In the amendment in the name of Edward Mountain, we call on the Scottish Information Commissioner to publish an annual report on the Government’s implementation of the action plan, and we hope that we will receive support for that tonight.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I apologise if I misquote him, but Alex Rowley said that we should listen to the commissioner. I hope that members will accept from my earlier comments that we are listening to the commissioner. We acknowledge that the commissioner made clear in his intervention report that there are several areas for improvement in our handling process. We are determined to take those forward and make those improvements.

As I have already said several times, in the light of the commissioner’s recommendations, we will publish an action plan by 13 September, as he requests. However, I urge members to note that considerable improvements have already been put in place as part of wider work that is in train in the Scottish Government. More resources have been committed to our central FOI unit, review responses are being cleared centrally—

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I have only four minutes and there are a few points that I need to cover.

Quality and consistency are consistently improving, and

for almost a year we have published the information released in response to requests online, with more than 1,800 releases published to date.

Following a concerted effort, our performance has also improved significantly in the past year. As George Adam said, in 2016 we responded to 76 per cent of requests on time, in 2017 that moved up to 83 per cent, and so far this year the figure is sitting at 93 per cent. We continue to work to see what we can do to improve our overall performance. This should be clear, but it is important to point out that in the majority of cases information is released. Against a backdrop of record numbers of requests—as was also pointed out by George Adam—this Government is releasing more information on time than any previous Government.

The release and publication of information in response to FOI requests is only one part of the Government’s wider openness agenda. As Ben Macpherson said, in 2017, the Scottish Government responded to more than 5,000 requests from journalists, separately from—and in addition to—those handled under FOI. It is important to make the point that our fantastic officials respond to the overwhelming majority of those media requests in less than three hours.

Daniel Johnson made a point about ministerial correspondence, which we did not have a huge amount of time to discuss because of the shortness of the debate.

In 2017-18, the Scottish Government received 43,000 pieces of ministerial correspondence that required responses, of which 90 per cent were answered on time. I have already mentioned the new systems that we are putting in place. I hope that they will improve the tracking of ministerial correspondence, and that they will help to improve our FOI performance.

As I said earlier, a wealth of information is made available on the Scottish Government’s website. Details of all ministerial engagements, overseas travel, car journeys, domestic travel, ministerial gifts and guest lists are published proactively on the gov.scot website and, as I announced in my opening speech, from July we will publish ministerial travel and subsistence expenses.

We are always looking for examples of good practice elsewhere, and I take on board the point that Daniel Johnson made about the practice of the Mayor of London’s office. I will look to see whether there are lessons to be learned from there, because it is absolutely in line with our approach to try to ensure that this Scottish Government is an exemplar in freedom of information practice.

Freedom of information forms a critical part of the wider transparency agenda. We will, in line with the commissioner’s recommendation, make changes and reforms where required, and we will continue to drive forward improvements in performance.

We will take on board the points made by the Liberal Democrats about looking for further expansion. I know the point about the desire for legislation, but there is a legal framework process that requires consultation. I am very much on the same page as the Liberal Democrats on the issue and I thank them for the way that they have approached it. It is worth acknowledging that—