Scottish Parliament, 24 April 2019

287 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Brexit and Scotland’s Future

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Good afternoon. Our first item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on Brexit and Scotland’s future. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement. I encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak button.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Presiding Officer, before I make my statement, and with your permission, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of journalist Lyra McKee, who was killed in Northern Ireland last week and whose funeral is taking place right now.

I did not know Lyra, but everything that I have read by and about her makes me wish that I had. Talented, passionate and courageous, she was a symbol of hope for Northern Ireland’s future. Her death is a harsh reminder of the fragility of peace in Northern Ireland and how important it is that that peace is nurtured and protected.

I also express my shock and sadness at the horrific attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday. Senseless loss of life on such a scale is difficult for any of us to comprehend, and my heartfelt condolences go to the bereaved and injured, including, of course, the British citizens who were so tragically affected. To launch indiscriminate attacks on innocent people as they attended Easter services or enjoyed a holiday is barbaric beyond words. Christian churches, like mosques, synagogues and all places of worship, should be sanctuaries of peace and safety.

As we condemn unreservedly those acts of terrorism, we must again express our determination that hatred and violence will be defeated by love, compassion and our common humanity.

My statement will consider the implications for Scotland of recent Brexit developments. As members know, two weeks ago, the European Council extended the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union until 31 October, with a right for the UK to leave earlier if the House of Commons agrees terms of withdrawal.

The extension granted by the EU rescued us from the nightmare scenario of a no-deal Brexit on 12 April. As a result, I can advise Parliament that the Scottish Government has, for the time being, scaled down our no-deal planning. My thanks go to all those across Government and the public sector who have worked so hard to make sure Scotland is as ready as we can be for what would be a catastrophic outcome. However, I also want to express my regret and anger at the money and effort that has been spent preparing for an outcome that the UK Government should have ruled out.

As things stand, if an agreed way forward is not found quickly, the risk of no deal will rise again as we approach the October deadline, with the potential for yet more money, time and effort to be wasted. The UK Government could remove that risk now by making it clear that, if the only alternative is a no-deal exit, it will choose to revoke article 50 instead. I hope that members across the chamber will join me today in calling on the UK Government to do exactly that.

However, the extension afforded by the EU presents the UK with an opportunity to find a positive way forward and an opportunity for me to update Parliament about the implications for Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the best way to break the deadlock for the UK is to put the issue back to the people, with an option to remain in the EU. The Euro elections will also give voters a chance to back a party, like the Scottish National Party, that wants to keep Scotland in the EU.

Of course, almost three years on from the referendum in 2016, it is impossible to predict with certainty what will happen next. The UK might still leave the EU before October, it might leave in October, it might seek another extension or it might not leave at all.

That chaos is not an inevitable consequence of the vote to leave the EU—it is down to a toxic combination of dishonesty and incompetence. Those who campaigned to leave in 2016 failed to set out what Brexit would mean in reality. To the extent that they made any attempt at all, they misled people. The UK Government triggered article 50 before it had answered that question. The Prime Minister then boxed herself in with a series of self-defeating and contradictory red lines. Instead of trying to build consensus across Parliament or country, she claimed the right to interpret the result in the most hardline way possible.

As a consequence, those who voted to remain question the legitimacy of the whole process; those who voted to leave feel, with justification, that promises that were made to them have been broken; and faith in democracy has been damaged. Throughout all this, the Scottish Government and our party colleagues at Westminster have worked tirelessly to help to find the best way forward for all of the UK. Whatever Scotland’s constitutional status in future, it will always be in our interests for all of us on these islands to have the closest possible relationship with the EU. We therefore proposed the compromise option of single market and customs union membership; we back a public vote to break the deadlock, even though it offers no guarantee that Scotland will not be outvoted all over again; and we are working with others in an effort to remove the risk of a no-deal Brexit. In fact, we have done everything possible to help to avert the Brexit crisis for the whole UK and we will continue to do so.

However, we must also consider the best way forward for Scotland in the event that the UK does leave the European Union. To ensure that all options remain open to us, the time to do that is now. Of course, as we do so, we must learn the lessons of the Brexit mess. Whether we like it or not, the continued lack of clarity around Brexit has implications for Scotland’s decision making—a point that I will return to later. However, one point of clarity has surely emerged over the past three years, even for the most ardent opponent of Scottish independence: the Westminster system of government simply does not serve Scotland’s interests and the devolution settlement in its current form is now seen to be utterly inadequate to the task of protecting those interests. In other words, the status quo is broken.

Scotland’s 62 per cent vote to remain in the EU counted for nothing. Far from being an equal partner at Westminster, Scotland’s voice is listened to only if it chimes with that of the UK majority; if it does not, we are outvoted and ignored. The Scottish Government’s efforts to find a compromise that might mitigate the damage to our economy fell on deaf ears. Cross-party votes of this Parliament have been disregarded time and again. The agreed constitutional principles that have underpinned devolution since its establishment 20 years ago have been cast aside by the UK Government and vital powers were in effect taken from this Parliament without our consent. Even our financial settlement, which already leaves us vulnerable to austerity and with too few levers of our own, was openly breached by the UK Government’s bribe to the Democratic Unionist Party. There is no denying that Brexit has exposed a deep democratic deficit at the heart of how Scotland is governed. Whatever our different views on independence, that should persuade all of us in this chamber that we need a more solid foundation on which to build our future as a country.

The consequences of inaction would be severe. If we are unable to stop or even mitigate Brexit, we will find it harder to export our goods and services across the single market. Scotland will become less attractive to inward investors; a risk that will be compounded if the Northern Ireland backstop takes effect. The result will be fewer jobs and an economy that is smaller than it should be.

The Tory and, I am sorry to say, UK Labour obsession that drives the desire to leave the EU—ending free movement—will restrict the opportunities of our own young people to live, work and study across Europe, and it will send our working age population into decline.

I know that the issue of migration is not an easy one for politicians to address, but I am proud that parties across the chamber are willing to take on the many myths that surround it. In Scotland, we know and understand that the Westminster approach to migration, as well as being deeply inhumane, poses an almost existential threat to our future prosperity. So, the Brexit outlook for Scotland is a smaller economy, restricted job growth, fewer people, narrowed horizons and greater pressure on our ability to fund the public services and social contract that we value so highly.

Let me put it in simpler language. Brexit and all that flows from it will affect the ability of Scottish Governments now and well into the future to do the day job—to support businesses, combat poverty, fund the national health service and public services, and work with other countries to tackle the defining challenges of our time.

At a time when most people in Scotland would, I think, want to see the Scottish Parliament having more influence on the decisions that shape our future, there is a risk of the reverse. As the UK scrambles to do trade deals with Donald Trump or whoever, the inclination to impose uniformity—even in devolved areas—will lead to more Westminster centralisation. It is my judgment that, for the first time in 20 years, there is a risk of devolution going backwards, not through the blatant, wholesale removal of powers—although, on recent experience, more of that cannot be ruled out—but by an increasing use of Westminster’s powers to override the decisions of the Scottish Parliament and constrain devolved decision making.

The question that confronts all of us now is this: if the status quo is not fit for purpose—I know that even some of the most committed believers in the union find it hard to argue that it is—how do we fix it? Can we do so in a way that maximises consensus rather than amplifies our differences?

Those are not easy challenges, but all of us who sit in this chamber are elected to represent the national interest. We have a duty to rise to the challenge, stand in each other’s shoes and find a way forward. No one expects any of us to abandon deeply held beliefs. Just as Labour and Tory MSPs will continue to believe that remaining in the union is the right option for Scotland, I will argue that independence offers the best future.

The case for independence is even stronger now, given the profound changes that have taken place in the UK since 2014. In that time, we have seen the limits of Scotland’s influence within the UK and, in sharp contrast, the power that independent nations have as members of the EU. While Scotland’s interests have been ignored by Westminster, independent Ireland’s interests have been protected by the EU. Of the 27 independent countries that decided the UK’s future at the European Council two weeks ago, around a dozen are smaller than or similar in size to Scotland. Many of those countries are also more prosperous than Scotland. With all our assets and talents, Scotland should be a thriving and driving force within Europe. Instead, we face being forced to the margins and sidelined within a UK that is itself being increasingly sidelined on the international stage.

By contrast, independence would allow us to protect our place in Europe. It would enable us to nurture our most important relationships—those with the other countries of the British isles—on the basis of equality, and it would mean that decisions against our will and contrary to our interests could not be imposed on us by Westminster. It would put our future into our own hands, with the decisions that shape our future and determine our relationships with other countries taken here in our own Parliament. That is the essence of independence.

Let me turn to the issue of when I think people in Scotland should be offered a new choice on independence. My party was elected with a mandate to offer that choice within this parliamentary session should Scotland be taken out of the EU against our will. There is also a majority in the chamber for that position, and polling evidence suggests that a majority in Scotland want a choice on independence, although opinions vary on timing. There are some who would like to see a very early referendum; others want the choice to be much later. My job as the First Minister is to reach a judgment, not simply in my party’s interest but in the national interest.

In doing so, a key priority is ensuring that we learn the lessons of Brexit. To rush into an immediate decision before a Brexit path has been determined would not allow an informed choice to be made. However, if we are to safeguard Scotland’s interests, we cannot wait indefinitely. That is why I consider that a choice between Brexit and a future for Scotland as an independent European nation should be offered later in the lifetime of this Parliament. If Scotland is taken out of the EU, the option of a referendum on independence within that timescale must be open to us. That would be our route to avoiding the worst of the damage that Brexit will do.

However, that intention does not mean that we should cease trying to build as much agreement as we can on the best way forward; nor should we cease our efforts to avoid any Brexit at all. In all our actions, we must also try to avoid the mistakes that have caused so much division over Brexit and bring people together to focus on finding the common ground between us. Our aim must be to act in a completely different manner to the UK Government and Parliament. The fact is that, based on the evidence of the past three years, Westminster has failed. It has failed to protect Scotland’s interests, it has failed to reach a consensus and it has degenerated into chaos. It is now time for this Parliament and for all the parties represented in this Parliament to take charge.

There are therefore three specific steps that the Scottish Government intends to take now. I confirm that the Scottish Government will act to ensure that the option of giving people a choice on independence later in this session of Parliament is progressed. We will shortly introduce legislation to set the rules for any referendum that is, now or in the future, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We will aim for the legislation to be on the statute book by the end of this year. Mike Russell will set out the details next month. We do not need a transfer of power such as a section 30 order to pass such a framework bill, though we would need it to put beyond doubt or challenge our ability to apply the bill to an independence referendum. As members are aware, the UK Government’s current position is that it will not agree to transfer power, but I believe that that position will prove to be unsustainable.

By making progress with primary legislation first, we will not squander valuable time now in a stand-off with a UK Government that might soon be out of office. We will seek agreement to a transfer of power at an appropriate point during or shortly after the bill’s passage, on the basis that it will be exercised when this Parliament—and no other—considers it right to offer the people of Scotland a choice.

In 2014, the Scottish and UK Governments and Parliaments—to our collective credit—set the gold standard. Two Governments with very different views on the outcome came together to agree a process that allowed the people to decide. That is what should happen in the future. It is how we will secure unquestioned legitimacy not just here at home but, crucially, within the EU and the wider international community. It respects the principle that is enshrined in the claim of right that the Scottish people are sovereign. Those who oppose independence are, of course, entitled to argue that case, but it must be for the people to decide.

Finally, on this point, let me offer these words:

“With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.”

Those are the wise words of Abraham Lincoln, who was an ardent defender of a union, albeit in a great moral cause. For those of us who support independence, his lesson is obvious. If we are successful in further growing the support and demand for independence—I will say more, later this week, about how we will build that case—no UK Government will be able to deny the will of the people or stop that will being expressed.

Let me now turn to two parallel processes that I want to outline today. The first is directed at the parties in the chamber that do not support independence. I might not—as people might have noticed—agree with that view, but I do respect it.

However, what I hope that we might all agree on after the past three years is that serious change is needed. To those who believe that independence is not the right change for Scotland, I say that they should bring forward their own proposals to equip our Parliament with the powers that we need to better protect and advance our interests.

For example, we could have more powers to boost trade and strengthen our economy; more powers to tackle poverty and inequality; powers to protect the public finances that our NHS and public services rely on; powers that will allow us to grow our population; and powers that will give us a stronger voice in the UK, enable us to determine our own future and better protect our interests here at home and internationally. I welcome, for example, the recent signals from the Scottish Labour Party that it now supports the devolution of employment law.

This Parliament was almost unanimous in opposing the Brexit power grab, and I know that many share our deep concerns about migration and recognise that we do not currently have the tools to solve that problem. Perhaps there is already more common ground than we like to admit there is and a starting point that we can build and expand upon. The fact that we do not agree on Scotland’s ultimate destination should not stop us travelling together as far as we can.

I have therefore asked Mike Russell to explore with other parties, perhaps with the help of a respected and independent individual who can broker such discussions, areas of agreement on constitutional and procedural change, and to take the views of stakeholders on such issues. I will write to party leaders today, and Mike Russell will be in touch with their nominated representatives thereafter to consider how those discussions might be progressed.

This exercise should not start with our taking any fixed position—if parties can find it in themselves not to do that—but should openly consider the challenges that Scotland faces and the solutions that might help us address them. If serious and substantial proposals emerge, this Parliament could present them to the UK Government in a unified and united way. If other parties are willing, I give an assurance today that the Scottish Government will engage fully and in good faith.

The last aspect of my statement is also about how we confront the change that our country needs but in a way that tries to build agreement. None of us can fail to be concerned about the polarisation of political debate caused by the Brexit experience. The answer, though, cannot be to ignore or suppress the differing views about the best future for our country. We should try to find ways of debating our choices respectfully and in a way that seeks maximum areas of agreement, and we should lay a foundation that allows us to move forward together, whatever decisions we ultimately arrive at.

I have been struck recently by the Irish example of a citizens assembly to help find consensus on issues on which people have sharply divided opinions. Of course, the circumstances here are different, as are the issues under consideration, but the principle is sound, and I believe that we should make use of it.

I therefore confirm that the Scottish Government will establish a citizens assembly that will bring together a representative cross-section of Scotland, with an independent chair, and which will be tasked with considering, in broad terms, the following issues. What kind of country are we seeking to build? How can we best overcome the challenges that we face, including those arising from Brexit? What further work should be carried out to give people the detail that they need to make informed choices about the future of the country? Again, Mike Russell will set out more details shortly, and he will seek views from other parties on the assembly’s operation and remit.

Brexit was neither the choice of this Parliament, nor the choice of our country. As I said at the outset, the immediate opportunity that we now have is to help stop Brexit for the whole UK; we should seize that opportunity, and my party will certainly seek to do so.

However, if that cannot be achieved, dealing with the consequences of Brexit and facing up to its challenges will be unavoidable. I am aware that the debates that flow from that will provoke differences of opinion. I believe that the case for independence is now stronger than ever and I will make that case. As I have set out today, I will also do all in my power to protect Scotland’s right to choose. To do anything less would risk consigning the next generation to the damage of Westminster decisions that are not in our interests.

However, I know that others take a different view so, as the necessary legislative steps are taken over the next few months, I will also seek to open up space for us to come together and find areas of agreement, as mature politicians should do. In so doing, I will try to set an example of constructive, outward-looking and respectful debate. In recent times, we have seen in Westminster what happens when parties fail to work together, when leaders take a “My way or the highway” approach and when so many red lines and inflexible preconditions are set that progress becomes impossible. Tensions rise and tempers fray.

Twenty years on from the establishment of this Parliament, I believe that we can do better than that. Brexit makes change for Scotland inevitable, but our fellow citizens will judge us on how we lead debate on the best way forward and the efforts that we make to come to a common mind about it. This place was established with the hope that it would be a new type of Parliament. I think that we are, but we can prove it anew by the way in which we respond today to the challenges that lie before us. We can show that we have already begun to learn not just the lessons from Westminster’s failure but those that Scotland has taught us as devolution has grown and strengthened. We can show that we are able to put the interests of the people first.

If others across the chamber are willing to move forward in that spirit, they will find in me an equally willing partner but, if all they have to offer the people of Scotland is a failed and damaging status quo, the process of change will pass them by and support for independence will continue to grow. It is time to look to Scotland’s future. Let us do so together, with confidence in the potential of our country and of all those who live here. I commend this statement to Parliament.

The Presiding Officer

The First Minister will now take questions.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I begin by offering my condolences and those of all Scottish Conservatives to the family of Lyra McKee. Her death at the hands of the IRA is a tragedy and a waste of a talented young life. We all stand united to condemn the cowards who took her life and to ensure that peace prevails in Northern Ireland.

Following the shocks of Pittsburgh and Christchurch, we also yet again join all those who are appalled at the horrendous attack on Sri Lanka and give our sympathies to all those who have been horribly affected. It was an outrageous attack on us all. Perhaps the First Minister will confirm later whether we know of any Scottish citizens who were caught up in the events.

I turn to the substance of the statement. Whatever the First Minister claims, and for all the warm words about being inclusive, her statement is inherently divisive. Astonishingly, the First Minister thinks that the way in which we come together is for the people of Scotland to be plunged into another divisive referendum within the next 18 months. That is just absurd. It is a ridiculous and even disgraceful skewering of her priorities with the real priorities of the country. Frankly, when told of its delivery, as Scotland was enjoying the Easter celebration, my first reaction was to ask why on earth the First Minister felt it necessary to float a dark cloud over Scotland’s sunny spring by updating us on her plan for a second independence referendum. Then of course I remembered: there is another SNP conference coming this weekend.

The only thought of the SNP, which has been amplified today, is how to justify its plans to divide families, workplaces and communities all over again and for the foreseeable future. Well, that is not in the name of the majority of Scotland. Whether we voted to remain or leave in 2016, the past few weeks have fallen far short of what we all wanted to see. In a Westminster of minorities, competing interests have prevailed. There is of course a way to sort that: it is to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and support an orderly Brexit. I want that to happen, and I urge everyone at Westminster to work in a spirit of compromise and co-operation to achieve that. That way, the country can move on. Instead of that, however, today we see a First Minister who, once again, is focusing on her own priorities, rummaging around to create a shopping list of continued constitutional initiatives, however weak and divisive.

There is a big difference between now and 10 years ago. Then, the request for a section 30 order, which led to our once-in-a-lifetime independence referendum in 2014, was supported in this place with the votes of all the political parties here represented. We all agreed then that the question deserved to be answered. That was the process then.

No such coalition exists for more constitutional politics today. For the majority of Scotland, the last decade of constitutional politics and division has been more than enough. The majority of the parties here believe that by using the existing powers of this Parliament and the potential of our people, we can succeed. We believe in disavowing more constitutional division and focusing all our energy on things that we all agree are important: delivering better education, health and economic growth for Scotland now.

I am afraid that the depressing reality is this: independence, and the means to try to deliver it, is the SNP’s central purpose. For the SNP, it is a prerequisite—the essential step to Scotland being all that it can be. The SNP simply does not believe that we can succeed as we are. Nicola Sturgeon confirmed that again today. She baldly stated that the devolution settlement is, in her words, “utterly inadequate”.

No, First Minister, it is not. But that makes the choice clear. Scotland has had enough of constitutional politics and division. With the SNP, more of that is utterly and clearly inevitable. We say: no more. Enough is enough.

The First Minister

I fear that that was a lot of sound and fury, signifying not very much at all.

Jackson Carlaw referred to “a dark cloud”. May I point out to him that there is, right now, a dark cloud over Scotland? It is not in the name of the majority of the Scottish people, and devolution is incapable of protecting Scotland from it. That dark cloud is Brexit.

I can understand—I really can—why the Tories want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that this Brexit mess is not happening, because it shines a very, very harsh light on both the ideology and the incompetence of the Conservative Party, but it is not fair or good enough to expect Scotland to pretend that Brexit is not happening. Nor is it good enough for Jackson Carlaw to say, in effect, to Scotland, “Wheesht!” about it all, “Don’t say anything.”

Given the damage that all of us—even the Tories, in their hearts—know Brexit will do to this country, we have a duty to protect those of us who live in Scotland now and generations to come in Scotland from it and to find a way of building a future that is better and more prosperous and that keeps us at the heart of Europe. That is what my statement today is focused on doing.

Jackson Carlaw seems to be saying that there is nothing wrong with the status quo, although it has not protected and cannot protect Scotland from Brexit. Murdo Fraser seems to take a different view. Only a couple of days ago, he was saying that the current system has to change and was putting forward proposals for change—proposals that, as it happens, I do not agree with but, credit to him, they were proposals for change.

I will end my answer on a note of—again—attempted consensus. The Scottish Conservatives take the view—and I respect this—that independence is not the right way of fixing what is broken about our current system. If it is not, in their view, let them bring forward the proposals for change that they think are right. That is the open offer that we make to the Conservatives today. Over the days, weeks and months that lie ahead, we will find out whether the Conservatives really have any interest in protecting Scotland, or whether all that the Scottish Conservatives will ever do, when their Westminster bosses tell them to jump, is ask, “How high?”

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I add the support of the Scottish Labour Party to the First Minister’s comments on the shooting of Lyra McKee and the Sri Lanka terror attacks.

Timing is everything in politics, and the timing of this statement is nothing to do with where we are in the chaos of Brexit. It has nothing to do with where the polls are on the creation of a separate Scottish state. In other words, it has nothing to do with where Abraham Lincoln’s “public sentiment” is on the falling demand for a rerun of the 2014 referendum. The timing of the statement has everything to do with the First Minister’s party conference taking place in just three days’ time. The First Minister is using this parliamentary platform as a party platform and, in doing that, she is devaluing the office that she holds.

Responsible political leadership means that I will work with the First Minister on stopping a no-deal Brexit. It means that in the event of Brexit, we will act to ensure that powers are repatriated to the right level of Government, and I will continue to argue for more powers for this Parliament. However, responsible leadership also means getting out of Parliament and listening to, and thereby better understanding, the daily lived experiences of people across Scotland.

The First Minister knows that this debate is a distraction from the real and serious problems that Scotland faces: a low-pay economy, exhausted public services and one in four children living in poverty. What is worse is that the First Minister knows fine well that there is no evidence whatsoever that the people of Scotland want another independence referendum, and that is no wonder when the chaos of Brexit throws into sharp relief the challenges of leaving a political and economic union.

Despite her protestations, is the First Minister today not plainly putting the interests of her party before the interests of this country?

The First Minister

On the issue of timing, I am prepared to bet that given that the European Council agreed an extension to the UK’s EU membership the week after this Parliament went into recess, if I had not offered to make a statement about the implications of Brexit, the Opposition would have been demanding that I did so. Equally, had I chosen to go to my party conference and say what I have just said here today, the Opposition would have been queuing up to accuse me of disrespecting Parliament. That is the reality.

On the substantive issues, as I said a moment ago, I understand why the Conservatives want to pretend that this Brexit mess is not happening. I do not understand why that is the case for Labour, and as an aside, nor will I ever understand why Labour seems to support independence for countries all over the world, but opposes it so strongly for its own country here in Scotland.

Where I agree with Richard Leonard is on two things. I absolutely agree about testing public opinion. Of course, the last test of public opinion in Scotland was a by-election in this city, just a week or so ago. The SNP won it with an increased vote, the Labour vote went down and independence-supporting parties won a majority of the vote. There are plenty of tests of public opinion that I am happy to trade with Richard Leonard.

The substantive issue of powers for this Parliament comes back to the heart of my premise today. Nobody with the interests of Scotland at heart—and I believe that that is everybody in this chamber—can look at the situation and conclude that it is working for Scotland. We face being taken out of the European Union against our will, with all of the consequences that flow from that. Surely, we must come together and decide what to do in response.

My view, as Richard Leonard and everybody knows, is that we should become a normal independent country like the other independent countries of the European Union, and come together to work with them on the basis of equality. If Richard Leonard believes that that is not the best future, he should come forward, not just with a vague call for more powers, but to sit and talk to us about the specific powers that we think that this Parliament should have. That offer is open to Richard Leonard, just as it is open to Jackson Carlaw and those in other parties in this chamber.

The question for the parties that oppose independence, as they have every right to do, is this: are they going to rise to the challenge of bringing forward real proposals about how we put things right and ensure that this country, in the future, cannot have decisions that damage our interests imposed on us by Westminster? That is the question, and we will see over the coming weeks whether other parties in this chamber can rise to that challenge.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

With fellow members, the Scottish Greens pay our respects to Lyra McKee. Our thoughts are with her family and friends, and with all who have been affected by the shocking bombings in Sri Lanka.

Greens believe that Scotland’s future should be in the hands of Scotland, as an independent nation at the heart of Europe. The Brexit shambles confirms our belief that we would be far better off governing ourselves. Therefore, we welcome the First Minister’s statement today.

Support for independence grew over the course of the previous referendum campaign in part due to the breadth of inspiring visions of what our nation could be. The economic vision that is currently being considered by the Scottish National Party looks more like the failed model of the United Kingdom than the bold vision for independence that the Greens believe in. Therefore, my question to the First Minister is this: will the citizens assembly, which we welcome, inform the prospectus that is put forward by the Government in the referendum, and will the offer that is put to the people of Scotland be one that is shaped by the people of Scotland?

The First Minister

I welcome the support of the Greens for the statement today, and I welcome their support for Scotland becoming an independent country. Actually, what has just been demonstrated is the essence of independence. People can have different views on policies and on the direction of the country, but the key point that unites us is that those decisions should lie in the hands of the Scottish people and should not be imposed on us by Westminster. That is the reality that independent countries all over the world take for granted.

On the citizens assembly, as I said in my statement, we will discuss the remit and operation of that with other parties, if other parties are willing to have that discussion. That is very much about opening the process up to people who are not politicians—a representative section of the Scottish population who can start to consider these big questions about the future of our country. I hope that the Greens will take part in that in the spirit in which it is intended. The issues that we are discussing are not easy and there is no inevitability about them, but all of us—notwithstanding the differences of opinion that we have, which are valid in any democracy—can try to come together and see whether we can find areas of agreement and consensus.

Particularly now, given all that has happened in the past three years, there is a real responsibility on politicians not to put aside those things in which we believe passionately but to come together to find a consensus, notwithstanding those passionate disagreements. I am willing to do that, I trust the Greens will be willing to do that and I hope that, once they have had some opportunity to think about the proposal and reflect on it, the other parties will be willing to do that as well.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

My thoughts are with the friends and family of Lyra McKee, and also those who have been affected by atrocities in recent days across the world.

The First Minister pleads for consensus, but how can we take seriously her proposals about consensus on the issue of more powers when John Swinney, who is sitting right next to her and who was a member of the Smith commission, trashed that commission within minutes of its report being published? How can we take seriously the SNP’s pleas for a consensus when it treats a well-established process like that?

In her statement today, the First Minister has not done the one decent thing that people in Scotland want her to do, which is to make it stop and take her campaign for independence off the table. With all the division and chaos of Brexit, with all the wounds still open from the previous independence campaign, with all the problems with schools, hospitals and social care, the last thing that this country needs is to repeat the mistakes of Brexit. The last thing that this country needs is more division and chaos, which is what would surely come with a new independence campaign. Will the First Minister listen to Scotland? Will she just make it stop?

The First Minister

The first part of Willie Rennie’s question was such an utter mischaracterisation of what John Swinney said and did that I will not engage seriously with it.

There is a contradiction—some would say “hypocrisy”, but I will stick with “contradiction”—at the heart of Willie Rennie’s position. I know that he opposes independence, and that is absolutely fine. The issue is not about his or my views but about who decides. Willie Rennie thinks that the people of the UK should have the chance to change their minds on Brexit, and I agree with that.

However, Willie Rennie is adamantly opposed—no matter all that has changed in the past few years—to the people of Scotland getting the chance to change their minds on independence. [

Interruption

.] Willie Rennie is saying that that is because he opposes independence and Brexit, but that is like a Brexiteer saying, “I don’t want people having a second referendum on Brexit, because they might take a decision that I disagree with.” Willie Rennie, the Brexiteer, strikes in this chamber. It is not about the views of politicians but those of the people. Until Willie Rennie can somehow reconcile the contradiction at the heart of his argument, I am not sure that many people in Scotland will take his views on that seriously.

I will repeat to Willie Rennie the offer that I have made to other parties. He does not think that independence is the right way forward, but—surely even more than Jackson Carlaw—he cannot defend the situation in which Scotland faces being ripped out of the European Union against our will.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Federalism!

The First Minister

Mike Rumbles is shouting, “Federalism”. Fine. He should come forward, sit down with us and let us discuss that. But do you know what? Federalism has been talked about in the UK for 100 years or more, and we have not yet found the UK Government that will deliver it. That is the difference between federalism and independence: federalism depends on a UK Government delivering it; independence depends on the people of Scotland taking that decision for themselves.

The Presiding Officer

All the party leaders have had a chance to speak, so we now need to make speedy progress through the remaining 25 or so members who wish to ask a question. [

Interruption

.] Was that a groan? I call Keith Brown, to be followed by Adam Tomkins.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

A former Tory MP made the statement that if a union of free members sought to punish one of its members for wanting to leave it, the union would lose its claim to moral legitimacy. A Tory minister said that, “Once you’ve hit the iceberg”—the iceberg being Brexit—“you’re all in it together.”

In that context, does the First Minister agree that Scotland has bigger things to deal with, and that the parties in this Parliament need to rise above the vicious and vacuous party in-fighting that we see at Westminster and the unfolding disaster of the UK Government’s handling of Brexit? Not least among the things to deal with are the stability and prosperity of Scotland and its future as an independent nation in the EU.

The First Minister

The comment from an unnamed Tory—I am not surprised that they were unnamed—that we should all hit the iceberg together says a lot about the mindset of the Conservatives with regard to Scotland. Nobody in the UK should want to hit an iceberg and, in Scotland, we should do everything that we can to prevent any part of the UK hitting one. However, if the only option is to hit an iceberg, we in Scotland should consider how to get off the boat, rather than sailing into it.

There is a view, which surely extends across all parties here, that we can do better than this right now. We might have different views on how to do it, but we should not accept the situation in which Scotland’s fate is decided by Westminster against the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland.

If those on the Tory benches—and Labour and Liberal Democrat members—believe that the Scottish people do not want independence, why are they so scared to ask them the question? That is the question. Let the Scottish people decide. If that were to be the case, I am confident that the Scottish people would decide for Scotland to be a normal, equal, independent country that is able to play its full part in the EU and stop the damage to this and future generations that Brexit will undoubtedly do.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister said that we will not squander valuable time. She also said that her Government will shortly introduce a framework bill to this Parliament, paving the way for an unwanted second independence referendum, and that her Government will do that without first seeking a section 30 order. As she said, a section 30 order would be necessary to put beyond doubt the legality of any future independence referendum, yet she proposes now to act without one.

Therefore, my question to her is: how is plunging Scotland into yet more constitutional wrangling about legislative competence and constitutional process a sensible use of parliamentary time? We lost weeks over the failed UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. Now we face losing months over an indyref 2 framework bill. How is that doing anything other than squandering valuable time?

The First Minister

Adam Tomkins argued that the continuity bill was not within the legislative competence of this Parliament when it was introduced. The Supreme Court took a very different view.

It was only because Westminster subsequently changed the law that parts of that bill were then found to be incompetent. For all his undoubted expertise on those matters, I am not sure that we should be listening too closely to Adam Tomkins on issues of legislative competence.

I have no doubt that the bill that we will propose will be within legislative competence. If there is to be an independence referendum, we require to legislate for that, as we did in 2014. In 2014, we got a section 30 and then we legislated. This time, I propose that we do it the other way around. Why are we doing that? So that we protect the ability of Scotland to avoid Brexit. If we cannot do that through our efforts to stop the whole of the UK leaving the EU, Scotland must have the opportunity to protect itself from the damage that Brexit will do—damage to our economy, to our public services and to the opportunities and horizons of this and future generations. I do not call that squandering time. I call that standing up for vital Scottish interests.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Not a single patient will be treated better or quicker as a result of the statement. Not a single family will be lifted out of poverty and not a single child will receive a better education—the issue that is supposed to be the First Minister’s top priority. We have powers over all those areas, so when will we hear a half-hour statement and see rushed legislation from Nicola Sturgeon on those issues? What has been sidelined from the planned legislative programme to deal with Nicola Sturgeon’s real priority of independence?

The First Minister

I will be here again tomorrow at 12 noon for 45 minutes, answering questions on health, education, justice, the economy or anything that the Opposition wants to ask me about.

I disagree with Neil Findlay on his central premise about the impact of the decisions that we take now on patients who rely on our NHS and on children who rely on our schools. If we allow the damage of Brexit to happen to this country, we will face a smaller economy, reduced revenues, a shrinking population and narrowed horizons for this and the next generation. That will hamper the ability, not just of this Scottish Government, but of Scottish Governments to come, to protect our health service, our economy and our public services. That is why we must act.

It is not this Government that needs to be reminded about the day job. We do that day in and day out. Substantial policy work means that more than a dozen substantial pieces of legislation are before this Parliament. By contrast, the Westminster Government has produced not one piece of non-Brexit legislation, the Queen’s speech is indefinitely postponed and the only policy idea of recent times—the one about no-fault evictions and housing—the Scottish Government has already implemented. We get on with the day job every single day and we will continue to do so.

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

As the First Minister mentioned, the Westminster system is so broken that even Murdo Fraser admitted this week that big parts of it should be abolished. Given that most of this chamber will be in agreement that the current system is not working for Scotland, does that not demonstrate how important it is for all parties to come forward with ideas on how to fix it?

The First Minister

Yes, it does.

There will be a lot of sound and fury in this chamber about these issues today, tomorrow and no doubt on many occasions. In a democracy, that is as it should be. However, I repeat the point that I made in my statement. We also have a duty to try to come together to get over those disagreements and to see whether there is common ground. It will be very telling in the next days and weeks whether any of the other parties are prepared to do that. The offer is there; it is open and sincere. The other parties should bring forward their proposals. If they think that my prospectus for Scotland is wrong, they should bring forward their proposals and let us see how much common ground can emerge from that.

However, if all they have to offer people in Scotland is a broken status quo in which Scotland can be ripped out of the EU against our will with all the damage that that does, they should expect the process of change to pass them by completely, because support for independence will continue to grow.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister mentioned in her statement the 62 per cent of Scots who voted for the UK to remain in the EU, a figure that she describes as an “overwhelming majority”. The latest poll on support for independence, commissioned by her party colleague Angus Robertson, shows that an even more overwhelming majority of Scots support the union and reject independence. Given that the First Minister is previously on record as saying that she would not pursue another referendum unless there was demonstrable public support for independence, why is she now proposing to take us down the route of further division?

The First Minister

The party manifesto in 2016, on which I was elected as First Minister, said that if Scotland was taken out of the European Union against our will, the people of Scotland should have the option to choose independence. We are not yet out of the European Union and I hope that we will not be taken out of the European Union, but if we are, then, in my view, the mandate in that manifesto should be honoured and people in Scotland should have the right to choose. If Murdo Fraser is so sure that Scotland would choose not to be independent, that again begs the question that I asked earlier: why are the Tories so reluctant to allow people in Scotland to have that choice?

I have mentioned Murdo Fraser a couple of times today and I will praise him again, which would be utter death to his career prospects if they had not probably pretty much died some time ago. However, I give credit to Murdo Fraser because he accepts that things as they are are not acceptable—they are not good enough. As it happens, I do not think that his proposal, which is to put more powers in some new chamber in Westminster, is the answer. I think that the answer is to bring powers to this chamber in Scotland. That is fine; we have different views.

However, given that Murdo Fraser accepts that constitutional change is needed, I hope that he will persuade his party to take part in the process that I have set out today and come forward with its own proposals—the one that Murdo Fraser has already put forward and others. In that way, perhaps we can build some consensus on how this Parliament can be equipped with powers that allow us to grow our economy, better protect our public services and, crucially, grow our population, because the Tory approach to migration at Westminster is the biggest threat to this country’s prosperity that we face. I hope that Murdo Fraser will prevail in his party for once and get some common sense into them over the next period.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

In 2014, Ruth Davidson said:

“It’s disingenuous to say No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in. We are members of the European Union.”

First Minister, that has been shown to be completely untrue. Is it not the case that we simply cannot stand by and watch the dysfunctional Westminster system ruin Scotland’s future?

The First Minister

The reality that those who were in the no campaign in 2014 do not like to have pointed out to them is that they told Scotland that the way to protect our membership of the European Union was to vote against independence, yet here we are, finding that, because we are not independent, we face being taken out of the European Union and that our future is being determined by a dozen countries that are of the same size or smaller than us, with the UK out of the room. That is the reality that we face.

Adam Tomkins is not listening right now, but it was he who said, in 2014, that there was very little chance of the UK voting to leave the European Union. That is the “material change” in circumstances that has happened since 2014, and that is why people in Scotland should have the ability to choose whether they want to be part of Brexit Britain, with all the damage that comes with that, or whether they prefer to have a future as an independent country that is part of the European family, building those relationships on the basis of equality and building our prosperity on that basis, as well. I think that, given the choice, the people of Scotland will choose the latter—to become a normal independent country.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister cannot ask for genuine dialogue when she is already setting out her direction of travel. This is a “My way or the highway” statement. She cannot expect people to engage in honest dialogue in a citizens assembly when she has already stated that she will hold an independence referendum before the end of the parliamentary session. She is ignoring the settled will of the Scottish people and creating further chaos and uncertainty. Will she remove that threat in order to allow all parties to engage openly and honestly on what is best for our country?

The First Minister

I will respond to Rhoda Grant in a very genuine way. If she had listened to my statement, she would have heard me say—I will say it again—that, if we are to protect Scotland’s option to choose, we have to put the plans for that in place in this parliamentary term. That is why I have set out the plans for legislation today.

I have also openly invited other parties to come forward with their proposals. If we could agree on change that could be made more quickly and in a different way, I would be open minded on that. That offer is made in a genuine way, and it is for the other parties to decide whether they wish to engage with it. I hope that the Labour Party will do so, but I am less confident about the Tories. I am pretty confident that the Greens will engage with us, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats will do so, as well.

In a democracy, we should not expect any of us to put to one side or abandon the principles that we hold dear. However, notwithstanding those deeply held convictions and the differences between us, the public should expect us, as politicians, to try to come together to see where the common ground is. I am willing to do that, but we will make progress on that only if the other parties are also willing, so time will tell.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the First Minister confirm that the significant point in her very welcome announcement is that, while we await any remote sense of clarity on Brexit from the Tory UK Government at Westminster, in contrast, here at Holyrood, we can begin preparations now for a referendum on Scotland’s future, in order to keep our options open? Would a sensible and reasonable Government of any persuasion not do so in any such circumstances?

The First Minister

It is incumbent on any Government to act in a way that best protects the interests of the country that it serves, and my Government will continue to seek to do so. The Brexit situation is not of the Government’s choosing—or of the choosing of the Parliament or, indeed, the country—but we have to respond to it in a way that protects our interests as best we can, and what I have set out today does that. It keeps open the option of this country’s having the right to choose, within this session of Parliament, a different future to that offered by Brexit, in line with the mandate that we have. It also opens up space for others to come forward with different suggestions. I hope that all of us in the Parliament will move forward on that basis.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister wants to establish a citizens assembly to help us to find consensus. Does she really think that that is possible when her nationalist agenda is driven by grievance and division?

The First Minister

I have to say that a sense of “grievance and division” dripped from every syllable that came out of Maurice Golden’s mouth there.

Over the next period, we will find out whether there is any willingness on the part of all the parties in the chamber to try to find agreement. I am willing to do that, and, as I have said many times before, the offer to other parties is there. All parties should be enthusiastic about the prospect of a citizens assembly and should be prepared to discuss the details of it, because it will involve people from across Scotland helping us to shape the decisions that we take on behalf of the country.

Notwithstanding the tone of that question, I hope that, when the Conservatives have had the time for calm reflection and have got over having to talk again about Brexit—which I know they hate so much, for obvious reasons—we will find them, Labour and the Liberal Democrats coming to the table to see whether we can find common ground amid the disagreements that we have.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Unlike some others, I very much welcome the proposal for a citizens assembly. I echo the comment of

an Irish citizen, who said that having such an assembly

“got balanced and truthful information out among the people of Ireland”.

Can the First Minister assure Parliament that that will be the case with the citizens assembly in Scotland and that lessons will be learned on how not to conduct ourselves in the way that has been demonstrated so disastrously by Brexiteers in the collapsing Westminster system?

The First Minister

Yes, I give those assurances. We will seek to discuss with others, and with the Parliament as a whole, the remit and the operation of the citizens assembly.

It will not surprise the Parliament to hear that I think that the experience of the 2014 referendum was very different from the experience of the 2016 referendum. We had a prospectus that people agreed or disagreed with, but people had a wealth of detail with which to inform themselves before the decision was taken in 2014. That detail was completely absent from the Brexit referendum.

I think that we can go even further and use a citizens assembly, among other things, to really understand the detail and the information that people want to have in order to make truly informed choices about the future of the country, as well as to lay a foundation so that, whatever decisions we ultimately take as a country, people feel a sense of engagement and buy-in, so that we can move forward in a unified manner.

It is about trying to do things in a markedly different way from the whole Brexit process, which has caused so much division and angst. I think that we can rise to that challenge in Scotland, and I hope that all parties will help us to ensure that we do.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

People in Scotland do not want a second independence referendum. Why is the First Minister making the pursuit of independence her number 1 priority when there are record numbers of children in poverty, when people are working in two or three jobs because of low pay and when patients are stranded on national health service waiting lists, waiting for treatment?

The First Minister

James Kelly asserts that people in Scotland do not want the choice of independence instead of Brexit. I just do not think that he has the evidence for that claim.

He also asks me why I think that that choice is important when children are living in poverty. An increasing number of children are living in poverty because of the welfare cuts that are being imposed by a Tory Government that Scotland did not vote for. That is one reason for independence. He talks about people on low pay. Of course, employment law remains reserved to a Government in Westminster that the people of Scotland did not vote for.

Bringing powers back to this Parliament is how, or partly how, we will resolve and address the challenges that James Kelly has outlined.

Although James Kelly and his colleagues do not support independence, I hope that, in the spirit of the question that he has just asked me, we will see Labour come forward with proposals. It has said—I have already welcomed this today—that it now favours the devolution of employment law. If it had favoured that during the Smith commission, we might already be some way forward on that. Nevertheless, let us hear more proposals from Labour, and we might find that there is actually more agreement between the SNP and Labour than any of us likes to admit.

For the Labour Party’s supporters, seeing it side with the SNP on a few things would make a welcome change from seeing it side with the Tories on most things.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Even many Tories are alarmed at the prospect of an extreme Brexiteer such as Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister. Is that not another example of why it is essential that this Parliament keep Scotland’s options open in the face of a clearly broken Westminster system that could inflict even more damage?

The First Minister

When I set out the implications and consequences of Brexit for Scotland, I did not factor in the prospect of somebody like Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister. If that happens—there is apparently now a distinct possibility of its happening—the consequences that I outlined today would get even worse for Scotland.

Yes—I do think that that makes the case for Scotland being independent, taking charge of our own decisions and being in control of our own future all the stronger.

Interestingly, I have read voices from within the Scottish Conservative Party saying that, in the event of Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister, the Scottish Conservative Party should become independent from the UK Conservative Party. It seems that independence is good enough for the Scottish Conservative Party. Why on earth would it want to deny the people of Scotland the same opportunity?

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that the Brexit vote will lead to more powers being transferred to this Parliament and in light of the fact that the Scottish Government is not using all the powers that it already has—for example, it has handed back welfare powers to the Department for Work and Pensions—how can the First Minister seriously contend that the status quo is broken and one answer is further devolution?

The First Minister

Powers have been taken away from the Parliament as a result of the Brexit process. Frankly, it ill behoves the Tories to deny that that is the case; with the exception of the Tories, the Parliament was unanimous in opposing that Brexit power grab. I take the view that we should have more powers in this Parliament so that we can take our own decisions, which is better than having those powers in the hands of Conservatives who Scotland, by and large, does not vote for. I hope that we will hear proposals to that effect from the Scottish Conservatives.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

In its desperation to stay in power, the Westminster Government has proved itself to be profoundly unworthy of trust in negotiation. Considering the recent direct attacks on devolution and the deep inadequacies of the joint ministerial council structure, what safeguards and conditions has the Scottish Government considered to ensure that talks with the UK Government are conducted reasonably, respectfully and without the risk of undermining Scotland’s interests?

The First Minister

Right now, there are no assurances of that, I am sorry to say. I do not want to speak for the Welsh First Minister, but I am pretty sure that he and his predecessor would say the same thing: we can have talks with the UK Government until we are blue in the face, but it does not listen and it does not act in a way that protects or advances Scotland’s interests. That is an example of the democratic deficit that I spoke about. The views on Brexit of not just the Scottish people but the Scottish Parliament and the views on the best way forward of not just the Government but a cross-party consensus in the Parliament have been cast aside. In my view, that has underlined and illustrated strongly the need for the Parliament to have more powers, to have more control over the decisions that shape our future and ultimately, of course, to be an independent country.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The First Minister has confirmed that, if Scotland is taken out of the EU by a failed Westminster system, we will progress to an independence referendum before the end of the parliamentary session in 2021. How will she take forward the mandate that was given to the Government in 2016 to ensure that Scotland can vote to secure its re-emergence as an independent sovereign state?

The First Minister

As I have set out in my statement today, we will introduce legislation to protect the right for Scotland to have that choice within this parliamentary session. At an appropriate time, we will seek the transfer of power from Westminster that would allow us to apply it to a choice on independence. Whatever our views on independence, the fundamental point is this: if Scotland is faced, as it is, with Brexit against its will, Scotland should have the choice as to whether it wants that or to choose the alternative of being a sovereign independent country that is able to play full part in the European Union. That is the fundamental issue here. It should not be for any of us in the Parliament to determine that issue; it should be for the people of Scotland.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The First Minister has said that she is open minded and looking to build consensus and agreement. If she is genuine in her sentiments, will she be open to dropping this bid for a second independence referendum during this parliamentary session?

The First Minister

I have said that I am open minded to people coming forward with proposals for change. If we can have serious and substantial proposals that deliver perhaps not all the change that I want to see but change that will help to protect the Parliament, I am open minded on that. I say that without preconditions. The onus is on the Conservatives; will they come forward in good faith and have that discussion? If they do, they will find me willing to have that discussion in good faith.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is less than five years since I spent weeks on the Smith commission engaging in good faith with all the parties here to find agreement on constitutional and procedural change. That agreement included significant tax and welfare powers, yet the First Minister has handed some of those powers back and refused to use others to tackle poverty and inequality. If she can organise another independence referendum by 2021, why will it take until 2022 to pay low-income families the income supplement that she promised them? Should she not rise to the challenge of using the powers that we all agreed in 2014 before we trust her to sit down and discuss what new powers we might need and want now?

The First Minister

We will bring forward our proposals on the low-income supplement in June, which is what we said we would do. It does not do Iain Gray’s case any good for him to stand up and say that we have handed powers back when that is not true. There are carers across Scotland right now who have extra money in their pockets because of our use of welfare powers.

There are low-income families who are getting the best start grant when they have a child because of our use of the welfare powers, and the process of completing that will benefit low-income individuals and families the length and breadth of the country.

Labour has changed its mind since the Smith commission met. In the Smith commission, Labour firmly opposed the devolution of employment law, but it has now changed its mind, which I welcome. We are in changed circumstances. One of the biggest risks that our country now faces is Westminster policy on immigration, which threatens to put—[

Interruption

.] Someone is saying “Tory policy”, but Jeremy Corbyn seems to agree with Theresa May on ending free movement. That will send our population into decline. We are in different circumstances, and that is why we have to look afresh at the powers that our Parliament has. I believe Labour when it says that it has ideas on that, so let us bring forward those ideas and see what consensus we are able to build.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As the First Minister will be aware, the desire for independence is born not out of Brexit alone but out of anger at decisions that are taken at Westminster by a Government that we did not elect and which are increasing poverty, food bank use and inequality in Scotland.

Does she agree that it is those issues, along with Brexit, that underlie the need for Scotland to have all the powers to end poverty and for Scotland to be independent?

The First Minister

Yes, I agree very strongly. Brexit has illustrated many of those points sharply and it has illustrated the democratic deficit whereby Scotland can vote overwhelmingly to stay in the EU and yet still face being removed, with all the consequences that flow from that.

The essence of independence is not just about Brexit but about putting decisions about the future of our country into the hands of people who live here in Scotland. That is what happens in countries all over the world and that is what should happen in Scotland, too, so that we can work with other countries in the British isles on the basis of equality but not have decisions that damage children and the interests of this country imposed on us by Westminster. That is why I want Scotland to become an independent country.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In her statement, the First Minister said very clearly that the politics of Brexit have been highly divisive. Does she accept that one reason for that division is the fact that the public feel that the result of their vote has not been implemented, and does she accept that the First Minister would be falling into exactly the same trap by running a second independence referendum to try to overrule what was a very decisive vote in 2014?

The First Minister

I am slightly confused by Liz Smith’s question when she says that, because we have not yet left the EU, the decision of the country has not been implemented. The decision of Scotland, which is the country that all of us in the Parliament are here to represent, was to remain in the EU. So far, that decision is being implemented and I hope that it continues to be so.

A legitimate point that I have heard the Conservatives, including Liz Smith, make many times is that, although the majority in Scotland voted to remain in the EU, more than 30 per cent voted to leave the EU and we should do more to understand and respect that. I agree, and that is a responsibility that is on all of us. However, I never hear the Tories say that there is a need to understand the 45 per cent who voted for Scottish independence, and the growing number of people who, in the light of Brexit, want Scotland to be independent. Things have changed, and they have not changed for the better for Scotland in the UK. That is why it is right to look again at the powers of the Parliament. It is right to become an independent country, to give people in Scotland that choice, and not simply to sit back passively while Brexit—a policy that we did not vote for—does untold damage to the interests of the country now and for many decades to come.

Mark McDonald (Independent, Aberdeen Donside)

I welcome the First Minister’s proposal for a citizens assembly. I believe that it is a concept that could have a wider applicability in the future. What steps will the Scottish Government take to

ensure that the assembly captures the widest possible range of voices from within Scotland—particularly from minority communities and communities of disadvantage and poverty, whose voices are all too often not heard loud enough in the debates that we have in the chamber and in the country as a whole?

The First Minister

That is an important point to raise. By its very nature, the citizens assembly model works when it is as representative of the country as possible. It is important to stress that that does not simply mean being representative of the different sides of a constitutional argument: it means being representative of the glorious diversity of the country. That will be an important part in constituting the citizens assembly.

I do not want to say any more about the detail, because it is important that we take time to discuss with other parties and stakeholders how it will best be taken forward, but I give an assurance that that diversity will be very much at the heart of what we seek to do.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Ever since it was announced that the First Minister would be making this important statement, the Tory and Labour parties have been squawking about the Government getting on with the day job. For the avoidance of doubt, will the First Minister set out what actions the Government is taking to deliver for the people of Scotland?

The First Minister

We do the day job every single day. This month alone, we have extended free personal care to the under-65s, we have introduced the new ground-breaking and world-leading Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, we have signed contracts on the Laurencekirk junction and the Maybole bypass, and we have invested millions of pounds in schemes to tackle fuel poverty and to fund low-carbon initiatives. In recent days, we have invested money to make sure that children do not go hungry during the school holidays. Just this week, I think, we extended free tuition to European students who live in Scotland. The list goes on and on. Getting on with the day job is our responsibility: we will continue to discharge our responsibilities day to day.

The debate today, however, is in fact about the day job. When you listen to the Tories, Labour and the Liberals, it is almost as though they think that we should be oblivious to the Brexit juggernaut that is coming towards us. Our sitting passively and allowing it to hit us will have implications for our economy, our population and our revenues. All that, and the ability of this and future Scottish Governments to do the day job effectively, will be affected. It is very important that we do not let that happen, and that we allow people in Scotland the choice to have a better and more prosperous future.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On getting on with the day job, a few weeks ago we learned that Scotland’s police officers are chasing criminals in cars held that are together with duct tape. [

Interruption

.] Why is—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Why is endless constitutional wrangling—and using resources to draft legislation that might not even be competent and which hinges on an event that might not even occur—more important to the First Minister than resourcing police constables on the front line?

The First Minister

This Government is increasing the police budget. We have just agreed a pay award for our police officers, which is—according to the Scottish Police Federation—the best police pay award in Scotland in 20 years. The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London described the UK Government’s pay award to its police officers as

“a punch on the nose”.

There is a bit of contrast for Liam Kerr.

It is not this Government that needs to be reminded about the day job. At Westminster right now—this is a point that the Tories should reflect on—there is not a single piece of non-Brexit legislation before the House of Commons. There is no policy agenda on any issue except Brexit, and they are making a complete and utter hash of it. The Queen’s speech will apparently not happen, because the Tories do not think that they can get it through the House of Commons. By contrast, we have a policy reform programme under way, and a dozen or more pieces of substantial legislation before the Scottish Parliament.

We will get on with delivering on health, education, the economy and justice. We will also do everything that we can to protect the interests of Scotland from the actions of the incompetent Tory Westminster Government.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There is a contradiction in the First Minister’s statement. She talks about there being so much division over Brexit. Does she recognise that, for many, that was the experience and the legacy of the 2014 referendum? When there is little appetite in the country for another referendum in this session of Parliament, is she really prepared to cause greater division in our public discourse by pursuing the bill?

The First Minister

That was not my experience of the 2014 referendum. [

Interruption

.] I accept that other people feel differently. [

Interruption

.] Somebody is saying that that is because others were on the receiving end of abuse. One need only to go to my social media accounts to see that I am daily on the receiving end of a fair amount of abuse.

What is more important is this: all of us should try to do things better, differently and in a way that accentuates agreement rather than disagreement. The answer to worrying about division or disagreement cannot be simply to ignore the Brexit juggernaut or to suppress the differences of opinion about the future of the country. The answer has to be for all of us to rise to the challenge—to confront the challenges that our country faces in a more unified way. That is why I have made my offer today. I hope that people such as Claire Baker in the Labour Party—who I know wants to consider how we might do things more consensually—will prevail on her party leadership to enter those discussions in the spirit in which they are offered.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The First Minister may have seen comments from the Prime Minister’s office today that crumbling Westminster has

“bigger things to deal with”

than Scotland. Will the First Minister join me in reaffirming that the interests of Scotland are—and always will be—at the top of the SNP’s agenda?

The First Minister

I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Prime Minister and the UK Government, because there is no denying that the utter mess that they have made of Brexit is a pretty big thing for them to have to deal with. They are certainly not dealing with anything else in the UK—whether in health, education, justice, the economy or anything else.

It is a big thing for them to deal with.

However, if I was in the Scottish Tories, I would be despairing at that comment from this morning, because it drips with contempt for Scotland and for the idea that Scotland might not be entirely happy with the direction in which we are being taken by this Brexit-obsessed UK Tory Government. That is a big problem for the Tories, because it backs up the experience that we have had over these past three years, which is that the Tories want Scotland just to wheesht, keep quiet and go along with whatever they want. I do not think that that is right for Scotland. That is the difference between those of us in the SNP and the Conservatives. We think that Scotland should stand up for its own interests and that Scotland should have the right to choose its own future.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The First Minister asked the question: if the status quo is not fit for purpose, how do we fix it? Does the First Minister not understand that the Liberal Democrats and others in this chamber support a renewed federal democracy for our United Kingdom, and that her insistence on legislating with the aim of breaking up and dividing our United Kingdom totally undermines her siren calls for reaching agreement with other parties across the chamber?

The First Minister

I accept and respect the longstanding view of the Liberals on federalism. I often wonder why, when the Liberals were in Government at Westminster in recent years, they did not lift a finger to deliver the federal Britain that they claim to back.

I am absolutely willing to sit down with any party in this chamber to talk about our different visions for how we fix what is wrong with our current system. However, the question for those who propose federalism is where is the UK Government that will deliver it? We cannot unilaterally turn the UK into a federal country; it would require the UK Government to act, and no UK Government in the history of the UK has shown any interest in delivering a federal Britain.

The difference with independence is that it is within our control. If the people of Scotland choose to be independent, we do not have to rely on a Westminster Government; it is a decision that we can take for ourselves. Therefore, I will leave Mike Rumbles to continue to beaver away, trying to—at some point—persuade a UK Government to deliver federalism. If he ever manages it, I will be the first to congratulate him.

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

I welcome the orderly and inclusive path towards a second independence referendum that has been outlined this afternoon. Given that deprived areas tend to have lower electoral turnouts, will the First Minister consider the opportunities that a citizens assembly may present to boost democratic participation in some of our most deprived communities?

The First Minister

Yes. It is not the case that we have no experience of the citizens assembly model in Scotland—the work that we did in advance of establishing Social Security Scotland used a not dissimilar model, although we do not have the same experience as Ireland, for example. I believe that the model could be powerful in engaging people in all our communities in the democratic process and in how they can influence that democratic process, which is one of the reasons why I look forward to discussing with parties how we take it forward.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The First Minister talked about a busy legislative programme. If she wants the framework bill to be on the statute books this year, as she says she does, there is bound to be an effect on that programme. Which bills or proposed bills are likely to be delayed?

The First Minister

I do not expect it to have an effect on any of the other bills that are before the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that all MSPs across the Parliament are capable of working hard enough to deliver the legislative programme that is before us with another bill added in.

Justice and the Law Officers

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

Time is tight, so we will move on. The next item of business is portfolio question time. As usual, in order to get in as many members as possible, I would like short, succinct questions followed by short, succinct answers.

Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 will change the way in which domestic abuse is tackled. (S5O-03120)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 creates a specific offence that covers not only physical abuse but other forms of psychological abuse and controlling behaviour that were previously difficult to prosecute. The act creates a course of conduct offence for the first time, which will make it easier for the police and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute domestic abuse as a single offence and enable physical, psychological and controlling behaviour by a partner or ex-partner to be prosecuted at the same time.

The 2018 act reflects the fact that children are harmed by domestic abuse by creating a statutory aggravation in relation to children, and it will enable courts for the first time to use a non-harassment order to protect children as well as the adult victim of the offence.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

In preparation for changes in the legislation, how much has the Scottish Government provided to Police Scotland in order to support police officers to understand the dynamics of power and control in abusive relationships and to help them to recognise the signs of coercive and controlling behaviour?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Bruce Crawford has raised a really important point. As members will know, the legislation came into force at the beginning of the month. That was to allow training on that to take place.

To answer Bruce Crawford’s question directly, we gave funding of £825,000 to Police Scotland to support the development of the training of 14,000 police officers and staff. Police Scotland has developed a self-completion e-learning package on the new legislation, which was made available to 22,000 staff.

In addition, the Lord President has committed to ensuring that all members of the judiciary receive training on the 2018 act, and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has developed a package of training for our prosecutors. We have also provided £166,000 to Scottish Women’s Aid to develop training on the new offence in the act.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In response to the Justice Committee’s report on the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish Government accepted that it was possible that the creation of the new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour could lead to an increased cost for local authorities with an increased demand for criminal justice social work services. Given that the CJSW budget for the previous two years has remained static, will the cabinet secretary confirm that the necessary funding to cope with the anticipated increased costs will be made available to local authorities?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Margaret Mitchell has asked a very important question. It is important to note that we have, of course, ring fenced that budget for local authorities. My conversations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities on the matter are continuing, and we have made additional budgets available for any additional pressures that they may face with the passing of the presumption against short sentences. I will continue those conversations. I am very aware of the budget pressures that might exist but, as I said, my conversations and engagement with the local authorities on the matter are very constructive.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Training is important in tackling domestic abuse—indeed, in some jurisdictions, specialist officers are trained to degree level. What discussions has the cabinet secretary held with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority regarding the possibility of specialist officers receiving higher training to degree level?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Neither Police Scotland nor organisations that represent female victims of domestic abuse, such as Scottish Women’s Aid, have raised the need for additional training on top of the training that we have funded and the training that Scottish Women’s Aid has provided. In my next conversations with Police Scotland and the organisations that represent victims of domestic abuse, I will certainly raise the issue of further training and take the conversation from there.

Vulnerable Witnesses (Support)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take to support vulnerable witnesses before, during and after criminal court proceedings. (S5O-03121)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 introduced measures to support vulnerable witnesses and requires criminal justice agencies to set and monitor standards of service. The Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill aims to improve how child and other vulnerable witnesses give evidence, through the enhanced use of pre-recording.

We are providing £18 million in 2019-20 to fund a range of services that victims and witnesses can access before, during and after criminal proceedings. The victims task force, which I co-chair with the Lord Advocate, is considering additional actions to improve end-to-end support for victims and witnesses throughout the criminal justice process and beyond.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I welcome the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill, which recently passed stage 2 in the Justice Committee.

I have been contacted by constituents whose children were witnesses and gave evidence in court on a crime of which they were the victims. Although there was a successful conviction, which was very welcome, the families feel that neither the justice system nor the local authority provided the children with emotional support, particularly in the period following the conviction. Will the cabinet secretary advise how children who are both victims and witnesses can be better supported emotionally and helped to better understand the court processes and possible outcomes? Will he consider meeting those families to hear their experiences first hand?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I express my sympathies to those families and particularly the young people who had to go through the court process. From everything that Fulton MacGregor has said, I have no doubt that it would have been a traumatic experience and not easy at all. The matters that he raises are exactly the kinds of issues that the Lord Advocate and I, as co-chairs of the victims task force, are exploring.

As a member of the Justice Committee, Fulton MacGregor will be able to input into the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament. The bill will make a big difference to children who need to go through a court process in the future.

In the first instance, I ask Fulton MacGregor to write to me with the details of the case. I will then judge whether it is appropriate for me, as the justice secretary, to act. I have no fundamental objection to doing so, but the issues might come under other people’s jurisdictions or remits. However, I will look at that case very fairly.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I know that you wish to be polite, cabinet secretary, but I ask you to face the microphone so that we can hear your answers.

Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 (Implementation)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the way in which the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 has been implemented. (S5O-03122)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 provides local authorities with powers to impose dog control notices when a dog is deemed to be out of control. We are aware that some local authorities have imposed a considerable number of dog control notices, whereas others have not. That might reflect the fact that some local authorities choose to make greater use of informal warnings to dog owners.

As the member will know, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee is undertaking scrutiny of the 2010 act, and we will carefully consider the committee’s findings when the review is complete.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Because the 2010 act is not Government legislation, it appears that little has been done to promote it. It is claimed that even police officers do not all know about the dog control legislation that was introduced almost a decade ago. The current law on dangerous dogs and sheep worrying is fragmented between various acts and statutory instruments at devolved and United Kingdom levels. Does the minister agree that we need an all-encompassing bill, with clear powers outlined, to ensure that enforcers and the public are clearly aware of their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to the control of dogs? The 2010 act—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly, please.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

—provides the tools to consolidate the legislation and to cover multiple members’ bills.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The member has raised a number of different points. First, on the issue of awareness, the Scottish Government is always very keen to assist with awareness raising. Obviously, the dog control notice system is run by local authorities, but we will be very happy to take part in further awareness-raising work that might be helpful to communities.

As for livestock worrying, we are aware of concerns about the fact that dog control notices are not generally used for incidents of worrying—or livestock attack, as it is sometimes called—because such incidents are normally dealt with by the police rather than local authority officers. I am sure that the member will be aware of Ms Harper’s bill proposal and that it is out for public consultation, and I encourage people to respond to and offer their views on its proposals.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That provides a segue to Emma Harper.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 does not refer specifically to livestock worry or livestock attack; instead, it uses the word “apprehensiveness”, which is not strong enough. Does the minister agree that we need to encourage people to feed into the consultation that she has referred to so that we can get better legislation that better protects our farmers’ livestock from attacks by out-of-control dogs?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly, please, minister.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Scottish Government recognises the impact of dog attacks on livestock and we are committed to working with all our partners on tackling the issue. However, I agree with Emma Harper that all those with an interest in the matter should look at her consultation and contribute their views on how livestock can be better protected.

Courts (Support for Breastfeeding Mothers)

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what support is given to breastfeeding mothers when attending court. (S5O-03124)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

This is an operational matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which has fully embraced its responsibilities under the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Act 2005 by making facilities available in court buildings. Breastfeeding within courtrooms themselves is also welcomed.

More broadly, the member will be aware that the 2005 act makes it a criminal offence to try to stop a woman or prevent her from feeding a child under the age of two in any place to which the public has access and where the child under two is entitled to be. However, although legislation is in place to support public breastfeeding, we recognise that more needs to be done to address the negative cultural attitudes that can undermine that choice, and last summer, we announced an additional £2 million investment for breastfeeding support.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

As the author of the 2005 act, I am well aware of its provisions. I appreciate that there is policy to accommodate breastfeeding in courts, but I was recently made aware of the case of a breastfeeding mother cited as a witness who was advised by the fiscal’s office that she would not be permitted to bring her baby to court. Does the cabinet secretary agree that clearer, non-conflicting guidance and information must be provided to all breastfeeding mums who have to attend court? Moreover, if it is also considered somehow impractical to support breastfeeding mums on jury duty, should breastfeeding not be added to the list of excusals for such duty?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not know the specific case that Elaine Smith is referring to—although, that said, I might do. If she wants to chat to me offline about it, I will see whether I can help address the issue or facilitate a conversation with the SCTS.

There are some complications with regard to courts. In the public area, there must be no bar to a mother wishing to breastfeed; however, conduct in the courtroom itself is the responsibility of the presiding judge or sheriff, and I would also point out that there is a statutory bar on children under 14 being in a courtroom during a criminal trial, except where they are witnesses or a party to proceedings. In addition, a judge will consider the interests of justice and the normal requirements for ensuring proper conduct of proceedings, which might not necessarily be conducive to a small child being in the court environment.

Notwithstanding all that, I fully accept Elaine Smith’s point that, particularly as far as jurors are concerned—I think that I know the case that the member is referring to—facilities must and should be made available. If she wants an introduction to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to facilitate a conversation, I will be more than happy to make it.

Power of Attorney

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether there is a need for greater accountability to reduce the risk of people abusing power of attorney status. (S5O-03125)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Arrangements for powers of attorney, which are set out in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, include protections for those who may be vulnerable. It is for the granter to select someone who they trust to act as their attorney. The office of the public guardian has a statutory duty to investigate reported concerns regarding the actions of a financial attorney, and the relevant local authority has a similar duty in respect of welfare concerns.

The Scottish Government has consulted on aspects of the adults with incapacity legislation. We are working on improvements, including revision to the current code of practice for attorneys in order to set out as clearly as possible the rights and responsibilities of attorneys as well as the safeguards that are in place to protect individuals and the sanctions that can be imposed for misuse.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I feel that the safeguards are not very great. I recently took over power of attorney for my mother, and I now have complete access to do whatever I want with her house and all her other financial investments and so on

. I do not even have to return an annual report on what I have done with the money. I do not plan to abuse my mother’s money, but there are tremendous possibilities to do so.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have all these witnesses now.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am glad that the member made that clarification of his intent.

The arrangements for appointing an attorney, which are set out in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, make it clear that it is a private matter for the granter of the power to consider who they trust to make decisions on their behalf in future. As it is a private matter, there is no statutory supervision of financial attorneys by the office of the public guardian. The OPG supervises financial guardians, but that is a separate process in which applications are made to the sheriff court. If financial concerns are reported to the public guardian, the financial attorney will have to account for their decisions and actions.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Back in 2017, I wrote to the minister’s predecessor on concerns that had been raised with me about the restrictions on who can sign applications for power of attorney. At that stage, Annabelle Ewing confirmed that consultation on changes to adults with incapacity legislation was taking place. Will the minister commit to writing to me with an update on what changes, if any, have been made to the rules on that?

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am happy to commit to writing to the member with an update on that matter.

Secure Care Units

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service to get an update on secure-unit accommodation. (S5O-03126)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was not quite the question as drafted, but it was close.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Scottish Government officials are in regular contact with key organisations that are involved in the delivery of secure care in Scotland. Officials met local authorities regarding the matter on 5 November 2018 and 21 January 2019, and they met Social Work Scotland on 19 February 2019. There have been no meetings with the Scottish Prison Service, as it has no involvement in the provision of secure care, and we have had no discussions with it on that specific matter.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

The latest update states that there are no vacant beds in Scotland’s five secure units. What would happen over the next 48 hours if a young person was remanded and the judge recommended that they be placed in a care unit?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

My understanding is that a secure emergency bed is available, although that of course has limitations—it is for short-term use, of normally only 72 hours. However, James Kelly is absolutely right to ask the question. The Government, and in particular the Deputy First Minister, has been taking forward the issue after the tragic case of William Lindsay or Brown, which the member knows about.

As James Kelly will appreciate, the issue is complex. With the exception of the City of Edinburgh Council’s provision, the secure units are run by independent charities, so they have to be kept at approximately 90 per cent capacity because, otherwise, as many of those independent charities have said, they would not be able to sustain the units. We have to find a balance between keeping space available, which is important, and making sure that the secure units are sustainable. I expect an options paper from officials to come to me and another Government minister shortly. Once we have an update to provide, I will ensure that James Kelly is made aware of it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will squeeze in question 8, which is from Alex Cole-Hamilton.

New Age of Criminal Responsibility

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact on the justice system will be of a new age of criminal responsibility of 12 coming into force. (S5O-03127)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Raising the age to 12 through the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill will remove children who are under that age from the criminal justice system. That means that children under 12 will no longer be arrested or charged and nor will they be referred to the children’s hearings system on offence grounds. However, where children have engaged in serious harmful behaviour, that still needs to be investigated appropriately, so the bill sets out detailed police powers to make clear how and when the police and other agencies in the justice system can act to investigate such incidents and the boundaries within which that can happen.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Your supplementary must be brief, Mr Cole-Hamilton.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

The change is coming into force as a result of an international imperative. Another international imperative is to end the use of police cells for the incarceration of children, albeit under the guise of providing a place of safety. Will the cabinet secretary undertake a review of the use of police cells for children, including in the context of providing a place of safety, given that such an experience is recognised as an adverse childhood experience?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

My colleague Maree Todd, who is leading on the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill, has said publicly that we do not want to see children in police cells. There might be reasons why that is the only option, but it should be the absolute exception and certainly not the rule. Maree Todd will continue discussions in that regard in advance of stage 3 of the bill.

Brexit Consequentials (Glasgow)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has received any representations from Glasgow City Council seeking additional funding in relation to the £92 million of consequentials resulting from European Union exit preparation funding. (S5O-03128)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As a responsible Government, we are preparing for all European Union exit possibilities. As part of that work, we are working closely with our partners in local government to help them to identify and prepare for the potential impacts of EU exit.

I am aware that Glasgow City Council and other local authorities have expressed concerns about the possible costs of leaving the EU. As things stand, we have not received a specific request from Glasgow City Council for additional funding. That said, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has written to the Scottish Government, seeking additional funding for councils to help to meet Brexit-related costs. That request is being considered.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

Given the scale of cuts to Glasgow’s budget and the impact on local services and local communities, I am surprised that more specific demands have not been made to the Government.

Can the minister clarify and confirm how much of the £54.7 million in EU exit consequentials for 2019-20 will be spent by local government, given the importance of local government in delivering local services? If the minister cannot tell me that now, will he provide a written response as soon as possible, to give local government confidence that councils will get funds to address the budget shortfalls that they are experiencing?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The £54.7 million to which the member referred has been allocated to the Scottish budget across all relevant budget areas, including local government.

One of the few certainties of Brexit is that it will cost Scotland more than the amount of the consequentials that have been delivered by Westminster. Of course, local government is one victim of that. I understand that Glasgow City Council has been undertaking financial modelling to identify the costs of officer time and the need for additional services, which will inform its next steps.

The Scottish Government is alive to the burden that is placed on councils by a Brexit for which Scotland did not vote and has made clear that we will seek moneys from Westminster to meet incurred costs. I hope that we will have the support of Johann Lamont and other Labour members in making the case to the UK Government for a further and appropriate financial settlement with which to address that burden.

UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. (S5O-03129)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I wrote to the Presiding Officer on 5 April to set out the Scottish ministers’ next steps in giving effect to the decisions that this Parliament took when it passed the continuity bill.

Those decisions were within the Scottish Parliament’s powers to take at that time, but in many cases powers were retrospectively taken away from this Parliament by an act of the Westminster Parliament. The Scottish ministers have reluctantly come to the conclusion that, given the effect that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 has had on the competence of this Parliament, the best way of giving effect to the decisions is through further legislation, tailored to the circumstances of EU exit and to the newly limited powers of this Parliament, rather than by seeking to have the Parliament reconsider the continuity bill.

As I set out in my letter to the Presiding Officer, I am happy to answer questions on the matter here or in any parliamentary setting.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

After months of rhetoric, threats, big talk and using emergency procedures to rush the continuity bill through, the Scottish Government is now scrapping the bill. Surely, all along, this was no attempt at constructive law making but just another Scottish National Party grandstanding event.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Mr Lindhurst may believe what he wishes, but it is a complete travesty of the truth and he should recognise that.

The reality is that the bill was lawful when it was passed by this Parliament. The Supreme Court was very clear about that matter. What happened was that the UK Tory Government—members of the same party as Mr Lindhurst, so I am sure that he will want to take some responsibility for this—then passed legislation to damage and destroy the bill.

That was an anti-democratic action, and one which Gordon Lindhurst, as an elected member, should speak against. However, if he is willing to accept anything, even that kind of anti-democratic action from his own party, he is not worthy of the place that he occupies.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

For the avoidance of doubt, can the cabinet secretary confirm that the Scottish Government, in its on-going work, will respect, to the maximum extent possible, the choices made by the Scottish Parliament when it passed the continuity bill, and that it will introduce new legislation to bring back provisions on keeping pace with EU law?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The keeping pace powers, which survived even the Tory assault on the bill, are important and I think that the Parliament will want to look at them again. The choice was clear. Indeed, it was a choice that was discussed with all the parties, including the Conservative Party, which was part of those discussions. However, the conclusion—I believe that it was the right one—was that to take the bill into reconsideration, which would have been the first time that those powers had been used in this Parliament, would have been a risky and narrow thing. It is quite wise that we look at the keeping pace powers again, because we may wish to expand those powers to enable us to do some of things that we otherwise could not have done.

We will take this opportunity, and I think that it will have support across the chamber; that was the indication in the cross-party talks. Although I am never sure whether that will hold with the Conservatives, I think that it will hold with others.

Progress of Bills (Timetable)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the expected timetable for current bills to progress. (S5O-03130)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Legislative planning continues to be impacted by the unwelcome requirement to divert resources to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. As a consequence, individual bill timetables are subject to continual review. As minister with responsibility for parliamentary business, I discuss that with the Parliamentary Bureau and relevant committee conveners on a regular basis.

However, I can advise Mr Greene that, as things stand, the Scottish Government is on course to introduce all the bills in the current programme for government ahead of the announcement of our next programme.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The minister has no sense of shame in that answer, given the incredible strain that today’s announcement for an independence referendum bill will have on this Parliament.

Last year’s programme for government announced 12 bills. How many of those bills will have been published in this Parliament before summer recess, and how many of them will have been passed before the end of this session of Parliament?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Sometimes in Government we feel that we cannot win. A few moments ago, we were being accused of bringing in one bill too many and now we are accused of not introducing enough. Let me offer members a degree of context and assurance on the issue: despite the significant and growing impact of Brexit, the work of Government and this Parliament continues. We anticipate that more bills will achieve royal assent in 2019 than did so last year. Furthermore, when Parliament returns in September, this Administration will have a full programme of fresh and exciting new legislation to announce.

That stands in marked contrast to Westminster, where Mr Greene’s party is in power, and where they have run out of non-Brexit business to consider. It is reported that they are so paralysed by Brexit and ravaged by the divisions that it has caused that they are struggling to put together a sufficient programme of bills that they can agree on to present in a Queen’s speech.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Given the First Minister’s statement, the Government’s plans have changed. What will be taken out of the Government’s plans in order for the First Minister’s plans to be put in?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

There are no plans to remove anything from the Government’s programme of business. We intend to introduce all the bills that we previously intended, and I have every faith in the Parliament’s ability to work its way through that programme and to see those bills to a conclusion.

Local Government Elections (Mailshots)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Electoral Commission regarding the provision of a free mailshot for local government election candidates. (S5O-03131)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government has not had any discussions with the Electoral Commission regarding the provision of a free mailshot for local government election candidates in the past five years, although I understand that the issue was discussed previously.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I put on record our thanks to councillors from all parties and none who serve our communities.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that more consideration should be given to providing council candidates with a free mailshot during elections, as is the case for all parliamentary candidates? That would help not only to recognise the importance of local elections, but to make sure that we increase the diversity of candidates and encourage those who are currently deterred from standing because of concerns about campaign costs.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would be very willing to discuss the issue with people if they could bring to the table actual evidence of people being deterred because of campaign leaflet costs. I think that it is much more likely that people are deterred for a range of other reasons, including the salaries that are paid and whether they believe that they will be able to do an effective job.

I think that I would want to see evidence of the issue brought to the table rather than supposition. If the member has that evidence and wishes to bring it to the table, I will certainly look at it and discuss the matter with the Electoral Commission. However, I suspect that any evidence is of other matters.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

5. To ask the Scottish Government when it last held discussions with the Prime Minister. (S5O-03132)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The First Minister and Prime Minister met on 3 April in Downing Street to discuss the United Kingdom Government’s plans for European Union exit. However, the UK Government has so far refused to show any willingness to compromise in relation to membership of the single market and the retention of freedom of movement, which are essential for Scotland’s future.

Following the extension of article 50 until the end of October, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to call for on-going talks over EU exit to include the devolved Administrations, and for any deal that is agreed by the UK Parliament to be put to a second referendum. The Prime Minister has yet to reply. I raised the same issues in a phone call with David Lidington the day after the decision was made by the European Council, and I hope to speak to him again this week.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that fulsome answer.

I suggest that the next time that anyone from our Government meets the Prime Minister, they ask whether she considers herself a democrat and, if so, whether she will recognise people’s right to decide on their constitutional future and the right of Scotland’s Parliament to represent its electorate. Will they also ask whether she will explain to Scotland how a democrat can deny such rights?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I think that that is a fair and accurate point. [

Laughter

.]

It is funny that, when we talk about Scottish democracy, the response of the Tories is to laugh. It always strikes me as significant that that is the case. The Scottish Tories wish to jeer at the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

The issue that the Prime Minster and the Scottish Conservatives need to address is the issue of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. They need to listen to the Scottish people instead of laughing at them, or, in the case of the Prime Minster, contemptuously refusing to listen to them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

European Parliament Elections (Planning)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Electoral Commission regarding planning in Scotland for possible European Parliament elections in May 2019. (S5O-03134)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish Government officials take part in meetings of the Electoral Commission’s advisory board, where planning for the possible European Parliament elections has been discussed. Those meetings are attended by returning officers as well as Government officials from all four United Kingdom Administrations. Recently, meetings have taken place on a weekly basis. The Scottish Government’s clear view is that European Parliament elections should not be cancelled and should go ahead.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the European elections will see the election of six Scottish MEPs. Can the cabinet secretary reflect on what Scotland’s position would be if it were independent at the time of the elections? Does he share my hope that, at subsequent European Parliament elections, Scotland will take part as an independent member of the European Union?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I do hope for that.

I say to the UK Government that it is a very bad look to be involved in cancelling elections. It should look around the globe and see the record of those people, usually in dictatorships, who rejoice in the cancelling of elections, and it should think about that carefully.

There is a huge cost in organising elections, and that money would be wasted. Of course, a great deal of money has been wasted by the UK Government in relation to Brexit, and it would simply add to that.

The experience of Brexit makes the case for independence within the European Union even stronger. When we contrast the treatment of Scotland with that of independent nations, the case is clear. Further, the contrast is absolutely clear in terms of representation in the European Parliament. The Republic of Ireland, with a population that is comparable to that of Scotland, has 11 MEPs. Denmark has 13, as has Finland. Scotland currently has an allocation of six MEPs as part of the UK’s total of 73. We are being forced to the sidelines and the margins. Independence would allow us to protect our place in Europe and conduct our relationships with the rest of the UK and the EU on the basis of equality.

Brexit (Impact on Labour Supply)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it anticipates Brexit having on the supply of skilled labour. (S5O-03135)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

“No Deal Brexit—Economic Implications for Scotland”, which the Scottish Government published on 21 February, clearly demonstrated that Brexit would be catastrophic for jobs and investment in Scotland.

Brexit creates risks around the confidence and competitiveness of our businesses, their ability to plan and invest with certainty, and potential drastic increases in unemployment levels. When combined, those issues would cause significant disruption to the supply of skills to businesses in this country. That is why we are working with a range of partners, including Skills Development Scotland, to understand the potential impact of Brexit on regions and sectors.

We are preparing to respond as fully as possible to any resulting skills shortages and gaps, building on the strengths of our current skills system, should the United Kingdom Government decide to see through its plans for Brexit. However, as Mr Gibson will recognise, we cannot fully mitigate the unmitigatable.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank the minister for his comprehensive reply. It is the first time ever that I have heard the word “unmitigatable”.

Does the minister agree that the labour supply will be disproportionately impacted in the key sectors of the economy in which European Union nationals form a significant part of the workforce? Will he outline which sectors are most likely to be adversely affected, and what the resulting effect will be on economic growth?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

There are a number of sectors that will be particularly affected. For example, agriculture, hospitality, care services and the national health service all stand to be adversely hit. If we consider the role of agriculture in Scotland and the massive success story of our food and drink sector, we can see that it is self-evident how damaging Brexit will be in that key growth area.

By way of a specific, detailed illustration, my constituency is home to a soft-fruit industry that turns over more than £50 million annually. It requires access to more than 4,000 seasonal migrant workers to pick and pack its products and, even before Brexit kicks in, it is already finding difficulty in accessing that workforce.

Mr Gibson is absolutely right to highlight the threat that is posed to the Scottish economy by Brexit.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio question time.

I see that some members who are to take part in the next debate are not present. Please remember that business just follows on and if we gain time in one session, we have more time for the next. I will start the next debate, notwithstanding that all the relevant members are not yet present in the chamber.

General Practitioner Recruitment and Retention

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-17011, in the name of Alison Johnstone, on addressing Scotland’s general practitioner recruitment and retention challenges.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Nobody in the chamber would deny that Scotland’s GPs are facing considerable pressures. Those pressures impact practitioner wellbeing and also have huge ramifications for the recruitment and retention of GPs.

The results of a survey that was commissioned by the Royal College of General Practitioners in 2018 revealed that more than a quarter of GPs in Scotland are unlikely to be working in general practice in five years’ time. Of those who reported being likely to leave general practice in the next five years, one in three said that that was because it was too stressful. Those figures are a stark warning that Scotland’s GP workforce is teetering on a cliff edge.

I recognise that the Scottish Government has taken steps to tackle low recruitment, by introducing the new GP contract and through initiatives such as the Scottish graduate entry medicine programme—or ScotGEM—and by increasing training places. I applaud those efforts, but retention must be addressed urgently. We must take care of those who are already on the front line, or we might struggle to retain our workforce.

The chair of the British Medical Association’s Scottish general practitioners committee, Dr Andrew Buist, said that the contract was aimed at making general practice more attractive, but noted:

“Of course, these deep-seated problems—such as there simply not being enough GPs—were never going to be solved in a single year.”

That poses the question of how we can make things better for GPs while changes are being implemented. I acknowledge that the expansion of practice teams is a means of lessening the GP workload, as other health professionals will now deliver aspects of patient care that were previously the responsibility of GPs, such as vaccinations and pharmacotherapy. However, it will take time to grow and develop those teams.

Extra strain is placed on GPs when patients are not informed of changes. I have previously mentioned in the chamber that 35 per cent of GPs surveyed by the RCGP spent consultation time explaining to patients why they were offered appointments with other healthcare professionals instead of with a GP. That places strain on GPs and patients, who are becoming distressed, confused and, at times, angry, as GPs have reported. I urge the Scottish Government to hold a national conversation on changes to services to relieve the burden on practice teams to deliver that message. That must be an urgent priority for the Government. I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary on the form that any such information campaign might take.

The GP contract acknowledges that speed is not the only aspect of access that matters to people, and that being able to see a practitioner of choice also matters to some groups. Therefore, it is extremely important that patients are still able to see a GP when they need to, and that the workforce is in place to enable that to happen. However, the same RCGP survey showed that, of those who were likely to be working in general practice in one year, 20 per cent expected to work reduced hours. That represents a culture change within general practice. There has been a continued decrease in the proportion of GPs working eight or more sessions per week, from 51 per cent in 2013 to 37 per cent in 2017. Given the stressful working conditions that have already been mentioned and the fact that GPs frequently report that they work 12-hour or more days, that culture change is understandable, but until an appropriate workforce is in place to support that change, patients might find that they wait longer and longer to see a doctor. It is significant that the 2017-18 health and care experience survey showed that 67 per cent of respondents highly rated the arrangements to see a doctor, compared to 81 per cent in the 2009-10 survey.

The Scottish Government has pledged to provide an extra 800 GPs over the next 10 years. I welcome that commitment, but that figure refers only to head count. The RCGP estimates that Scotland will be short of 856 whole-time equivalent GPs by 2021, so the Government’s pledge falls short of what is needed, so I urge the cabinet secretary to introduce more ambitious recruitment targets in line with the Royal College’s recommendations.

The Royal College also says that there is a serious funding deficit for general practice. General practice carries out the vast majority of patient contact within the national health service. Given that Scotland has an ageing population and that GPs are seeing patients with increasingly complex health conditions, it is perhaps surprising that the RCGP’s latest figures show that general practice receives just 7.35 per cent of Scottish NHS funding, falling well behind the average funding of general practice in the United Kingdom, which currently stands at 8.8 per cent. The RCGP, supported by the BMA, has consistently called for general practice to receive 11 per cent of the NHS budget. That would represent approximately a 1 per cent rise every year for three years.

The “National Health and Social Care Workforce Plan” states that

“the primary care workforce is uniquely placed to influence the level of demand for other care settings”

and lists cost-effectiveness as one of the many benefits of strengthening primary care.

Investment in general practice is therefore an investment in Scotland’s entire healthcare system. Investing in general practice is investing in preventative measures. Lack of access to primary care often results in patients seeking assistance at hospitals. A better-equipped, well-funded general practice would relieve some of the strain on busy accident and emergency departments and beyond.

One of the aims of health and social care integration is to shift care towards preventative and community-based services. Why, then, is proportional investment in general practice consistently below what is needed? The Royal College says that such an investment would result in an increased GP workforce, modernised, fit-for-purpose surgeries, widened access to training and improved information technology systems. Those are the resources that are needed to support integration and for GPs to continue to deliver the very best standards of care for patients in Scotland.

Funding must also be targeted to tackle health inequalities. Scotland still has among the lowest life expectancies in western Europe, and GPs have expressed concern that no extra funding has been allocated to those practices that serve the most deprived populations in Scotland. Affluent practices with the most elderly patients continue to receive the highest GP funding per patient per annum. The RCGP has called for additional GP clinical capacity, with appropriate funding, for areas of high deprivation, in recognition of the specific workload that is associated with socioeconomic deprivation and in order for community link workers to be prioritised for practices in those areas of high deprivation.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will Alison Johnstone recognise, as the BMA does, that, with regard to how the funding is allocated, the new contract is weighted towards areas of social deprivation and those practices that care in particular for the elderly?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Johnstone, please move towards closing.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I appreciate that every member of Scotland’s population has an entitlement to the very best of care, but the cabinet secretary will be aware, and I am sure that the debate will emphasise, that there are still concerns around particular areas of the contract. That concern has been expressed to me by GPs.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer, with proper funding and a bolstered workforce, general practice can make significant strides in tackling health inequalities, lessening the strain on other NHS services and continuing to provide excellent care to Scotland’s population.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that Scotland is facing considerable challenges in recruiting and retaining GPs, with almost a quarter of GP practices reporting vacancies, leading to temporary and permanent surgery closures; notes that the number of whole time equivalent (WTE) GPs has been declining, from 3,735 in 2013 to 3,575 in 2017; agrees that WTE is a more appropriate measure than headcount in fully appreciating the recruitment and retention challenge; is concerned by warnings from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) that there will be a predicted shortfall of 856 WTE GPs in Scotland by 2021 at the same time as demand on Scotland’s healthcare system is growing; agrees that health and social care integration cannot be delivered without adequate resources and capacity in community services; welcomes Scottish Government action to improve recruitment and retention of GPs but agrees that more urgent progress is required; notes that general practice carries out the majority of patient contact in Scotland yet has received a declining share of the total NHS Scotland budget since 2005-06; notes RCGP’s call, supported by the BMA, for general practice to receive 11% of the total health budget, and calls on the Scottish Government, given the importance of general practice to tackling health inequalities and improving the health of people in Scotland, to undertake an urgent review of GP recruitment, resources and funding.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the significant progress that is being made to reform primary care and general practice and to acknowledge the challenges that we continue to face. More than 90 per cent of healthcare in Scotland starts and stays in primary care. It is a vital part of our health service, and I know that everyone in this chamber offers their thanks to the staff across the many different professions who deliver those indispensable services, day in, day out, in every community in Scotland.

We are working hard to deliver on our strong commitment to primary care, but there are challenges and I am keenly focused on them. It is important to recognise that those challenges are not only the recruitment and retention of GPs, but the recruitment and retention of the wider primary care team with all the multidisciplinary skills that patients need them to have. The guiding principle is the right one—that people should see the right healthcare professional at the right time and in a way that suits them. The new teams—including practice and district nurses, health visitors, pharmacists, allied health professionals, mental health professionals and link workers—enhance patient care, provide the support that our GPs need and deliver on that guiding principle.

The new GP contract—Scotland’s first—has been in place for one year. It is a landmark contract that was developed and negotiated in partnership with the BMA, receiving support from 71 per cent of its members. Increased business risk and workload were identified as key reasons that prevent people from wanting to be GPs and encourage them to leave the profession prematurely. Therefore, the new contract reduces risks around premises and staffing, and the creation of the multidisciplinary teams of healthcare professionals ensures that the GP’s workload is focused on those patients for whom the GP’s particular clinical skills are needed.

The new GP contract, in its widest sense and in its critical application, sits at the core of our reform of primary care. Central to the new contract is developing the leadership role of GPs locally. That includes the development of locally agreed primary care improvement plans covering all 31 integration authorities.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

What does the cabinet secretary say to my constituents in Stoneyburn, who do not have a GP practice for the first time since the creation of the NHS, in 1948?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I met representatives of the community council at the start of the Easter recess and was able to assist them in making sure that some of the services that they are concerned about can be made available to them in a sustainable way. I will continue to monitor and secure that engagement for exactly those purposes.

All GPs—urban and rural—need to see the benefits of the new contract: that it brings reduced business risk, improves workload and, critically, delivers the care that a patient needs from the right health professional. The way in which services are delivered should fit local circumstances, so the scope for local flexibility in the national contract is a central aspect of the work that we have commissioned from the working group that is chaired by Professor Sir Lewis Ritchie. We have asked the working group to agree exactly what the scope for that flexibility is. The group involves the BMA, representatives of rural health boards and integration authorities and, critically, rural GPs.

We are investing substantial sums in our reforms of primary care and general practice, and we have committed to increasing annual expenditure on primary care by £500 million a year by the end of this parliamentary session, with £250 million of that increase being invested in direct support for general practice.

Although our focus is on developing the multidisciplinary teams that we need to deliver enhanced services, we also need more GPs.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

rose

—

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I do not have time to take an intervention. I am sorry.

We have committed to recruiting at least 800 more GPs by 2028. However, we need to train, recruit and retain. Between 2015-16 and 2020-21, the Scottish Government will have increased the number of medical places in Scottish universities by 190, with the majority being focused on primary care. Those include places on ScotGEM and 60 additional places for the academic year 2019-20 at Aberdeen and Glasgow universities.

We have set up bursaries for harder-to-fill posts, in which we have seen a steady increase from 60 in 2017 to 101 in 2018. We are also taking specific steps to improve the recruitment and retention of GPs in remote and rural communities. Last April, we published the first-ever workforce plan focused on primary care. We have introduced and expanded practical services that aim to support GPs, including coaching and mentoring. We have also introduced special financial packages to encourage the relocation and retention of rural GPs, and we have developed a targeted GP recruitment marketing campaign. At the RCGP conference last year, we addressed another practical problem that it had raised with us when I launched the national GP recruitment website: GPjobs.scot. We will work to ensure that all existing vacancies are picked up and advertised there.

We are seeing early signs of success in meeting our commitment to increase the number of GPs, with the latest figures indicating a record number of GPs working in Scotland. In 2018, the GP headcount was 4,994, which was 70 more than in the year before.

I believe that all the actions that I have outlined—and the others that time prevents me from covering—are the right ones for us to take. However, I am also listening to primary care professionals, patients and members in the chamber. If more steps need to be taken to ensure that those essential services are not only protected but helped to flourish, we will take them. I know that, across the chamber, all members recognise that enhanced primary care services, with general practice at their heart, are the bedrock of the NHS.

I move amendment S5M-17011.3, to leave out from “is concerned by” to “total health budget” and insert:

“notes the aim of the Scottish Government to recruit 800 additional GPs; welcomes that funding for primary care and general practice will be increased to 11% of NHS Scotland frontline funding by the end of this parliamentary session; believes in the multidisciplinary approach that recognises the GP role as that of an expert medical generalist supported by expanded multidisciplinary teams that include practice and district nurses, health visitors, pharmacists, allied health professions, mental health professionals and link workers; understands that the GP contract, designed in partnership with the BMA, gives flexibility on aspects of delivery to reflect the needs of rural Scotland; notes that all aspects of GP support and re-imbursement will be considered in partnership with the BMA and GPs as phase 2 of the new GP contract is developed.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is a little time in hand for interventions, for which members will get their time back.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank Alison Johnstone and the Green Party for securing this important debate.

Parliament last had the opportunity to debate the GP crisis in Scotland in November 2017, when Scottish Conservatives brought to the chamber their own motion, which called for 11 per cent of funding to go directly to general practice. Since then, we have seen no progress on that becoming reality. Over the Easter recess, I spent time in the Highlands, Moray and Aberdeenshire, where I met rural GPs. Their overwhelming message was that they feel that the new GP contract is not working for them and that their concerns have not been listened to.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I accept Miles Briggs’s point that rural GPs face particular challenges. Does he also accept that deep-end GPs, who deal with the 100 most deprived areas, also face big challenges?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Absolutely—I was just coming to that. The Government’s ability to unite both sets of doctors has been amazing, in that deep-end GPs are equally unhappy with the contract.

Despite being responsible for delivering the vast majority of patient contacts in our health service, general practice in Scotland continues to face considerable underinvestment. A fall has taken place since its 9.8 per cent share in 2005-06; the latest figures show that general practice in Scotland receives just 7.35 per cent of Scottish NHS funding, well behind general practice’s average funding across the United Kingdom, which now stands at 8.88 per cent.

We will be able to boost the GP workforce only by investing sufficiently in general practice and ensuring—as Alison Johnstone said—that manageable workloads can be put in place. A serious funding deficit exists for general practice, which the Government must recognise. Without funding, the area cannot fulfil its potential and achieve its goals, as we all want to see it do.

In the face of more than a decade of cuts in the percentage share of NHS Scotland spending that is made available to provide general practice services, the RCGP has consistently called for 11 per cent of NHS Scotland’s annual budget to be delivered for general practice. As the RCGP briefing for the debate makes clear, the funding gap in general practice is unsustainable and urgent action should be taken to preserve patient safety by resourcing general practice with 11 per cent of the budget.

There has perhaps never been a greater need for clarification of the funding for general practice in Scotland and for the roles and capacity in the wider multidisciplinary teams. There is great potential if we fund general practice properly. As the RCGP briefing points out, it would enable new roles in general practice; support for practices; teaching and training development opportunities; and digitally enabled care across our communities. We should all be looking to deliver those things.

From the outset, Scottish Conservatives have raised concerns—with both the former health secretary and the new one—about the new GP contract’s unintended consequences for rural GPs.

The truth is that when general practice works well, our national health service works well. We should all look towards that and never more so than in relation to recruitment. Over the past 12 years, SNP ministers have launched several schemes to try to recruit to general practice. In 2015, the SNP created a programme that aimed to take forward proposals to increase the number of medical students who choose to go into GP training as well as to encourage them into rural practice and economically deprived areas. However, in two years and at a cost of £2.5 million, we have seen the recruitment of only 18 GPs. That is simply not good enough and it continues to fail our communities.

Rural GPs in particular have serious concerns about the proposals for the future contract, which is something that my amendment looks towards. Phase 2 of the GP contract must be agreed across the parties and there must be an opportunity to highlight the concerns and get the contract right, especially as we face an election year. I know that the Rural GP Association of Scotland has already put the concerns to the cabinet secretary.

For some time now, it has been clear that SNP ministers have not truly understood the crisis facing general practice across Scotland, especially in our rural communities. As I said almost two years ago, it is important that we take time to get this right. Tonight, Parliament can send a united message to ministers that they need to take urgent action on general practice and funding in Scotland and to do far more than they are currently doing to prevent the crisis from growing even further. Until the Government fundamentally addresses the complaints and concerns that GPs are putting to all members of this Parliament, general practice will not be able to flourish in Scotland.

I move amendment S5M-17011.2, to insert at end:

“; and to take consideration of the concerns of rural GPs with the GP contract as well as allowing them flexibility to provide vaccination services”;

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I believe that we all appreciate the hard-working staff in our NHS, and because we appreciate them, it is incumbent on all of us to address Scotland’s GP recruitment and retention challenges. I am grateful not only to Alison Johnstone for bring

ing the debate to the chamber, and to the Royal College of General Practitioners and the BMA for their briefings ahead of the debate, but to the many members of the public who get in touch with me, my colleagues and us all to share their views and experiences.

It is right that we show our appreciation in debates such as this one but, at the end of the day, it is action that counts, and the role of general practice in our NHS cannot be overstated. It is on the front line of healthcare, with GPs carrying out the majority of patient contacts and acting as gatekeepers to other parts of our health service. GPs dedicate their working lives to the health and wellbeing of others. It is an admirable commitment but, with our NHS facing crisis, a challenging one, and increasingly so. GPs tell us that they are under unprecedented pressure amid GP shortages and that they face increasing levels of stress and burn-out. That should worry us all.

The evidence that GP recruitment is in crisis is clear and is mounting. There has been a failure on the Scottish Government’s part to address workforce planning properly. Steps to remedy the challenges are welcome, but we know that change will not happen overnight and, in the meantime, GPs and their patients are paying the price. In the past three years, more than 200 doctors have chosen to leave general practice due to significant workload pressures. It is a sad fact that our valued GPs feel that way and one that is difficult to accept. The bottom line is that Scotland cannot afford for it to continue.

Out-of-hours GPs provide an invaluable service in all our communities that has the potential to ease the pressure on A and E departments. Cuts to out-of-hours services and a shortage of GPs mean that more people have to take themselves to A and E, putting more pressure on the service. However, hospitals and medical centres in Glasgow were left without staff covering emergency out-of-hours GP services more than 200 times last year. Easterhouse, which has high levels of deprivation, has had a shocking 977 per cent increase in the number of shifts that were not covered. Before 2017, there were no examples of shifts that were left unstaffed in Glasgow, so those figures require further scrutiny and attention.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am not about to disagree with Monica Lennon about the challenges that we face in our out-of-hours services, but does she recognise that it was the 2004 GP contract, not one that was negotiated by this Government, that removed the requirement on GPs to provide out-of-hours services and that means that the participation of GPs in those services is now voluntary? As GPs retire and with many of the newer GPs wanting a different kind of work-life balance, as a member said earlier, we are seeing fewer GPs volunteering for out-of-hours services, so we need to think differently about how we provide them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will give you your time back, Ms Lennon.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that input and commentary, but I do not think that it really cuts it when we have people in Easterhouse and other deprived parts of Glasgow who are wondering why they had

out-of-hours access before 2017 and now have problems with it. We have to deal with 2019 and, as we heard from Neil Findlay, the challenges that his constituents face in Stoneyburn.

The GP contract that was introduced last year was meant to ensure that GP recruitment and retention problems were alleviated, but its implementation has been criticised—it has been slow, and the BMA has called for an increased pace of change.

The Scottish Government has had difficulty with regard to rural GPs. Last month, Dr Hogg, vice-chair of the Rural GP Association of Scotland, walked away from the Scottish Government’s task force due to a lack of progress, saying that it had

“fallen by the wayside”.

That is another cause for concern. I welcome some of the action that the cabinet secretary has outlined, but we need to see promises being delivered—that has not always been the case under this Administration.

The Scottish Labour Party supports the Scottish Green Party motion and we can support the Scottish Conservative Party amendment. We cannot support the Scottish Government’s amendment, because we do not believe that it adequately addresses the concerns of rural GPs, and because it fails to acknowledge the serious issues with GP recruitment.

We must value and support GPs across Scotland, because a robust, well-resourced GP service will ease pressures on other parts of the NHS and, ultimately, provide people in Scotland with a better health service. We must all value GPs and look out for their health and wellbeing; we cannot have GPs experiencing burn-out. We are highly concerned about the increasing problems with out-of-hours GP provision across Scotland and the particular challenges in our rural communities. For those reasons, we call for any review of GP resources to include a specific focus on out-of-hours coverage and rural service provision.

I move amendment S5M-17011.1, to insert at end:

“; is concerned about the increasing gaps in out-of-hours GP service provision across Scotland, given the value of this service to local communities and its importance for relieving pressures on A&E departments; acknowledges the significant challenges faced by rural GPs and their critiques of the new GP contract, as stated by Dr David Hogg when he resigned from the Scottish Government’s Remote and Rural General Practice Working Group, and believes that any review of GP resources should include a specific focus on out-of-hours coverage and rural service provision.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I thank the Greens for securing time for today’s debate. We do not discuss this matter enough in this place, but it is of great importance. I was appointed as my party’s health spokesperson on my second day here and within hours I became aware of the breadth and depth of the crisis. GPs are often our first port of call but so often are the last to be given consideration in this place. That has to change.

On the metrics of the crisis, by the end of this decade we may have 800 fewer GPs than we require as a country. A freedom of information request by my party has revealed the depth of the recruitment crisis. In NHS Forth Valley, a post has gone unfilled for the past few years; on Shetland, a position has been advertised eight times with only one application; and Dumfries and Galloway NHS has had a 22-month wait for a post to be filled. Those stories are replicated the country over, with many reasons for them. In my constituency, in west Edinburgh, we have not had a new doctors’ surgery established for 45 years, despite a year-on-year proliferation of new homes and populace. All the GP surgeries in my communities are on their knees; some have had to restrict their lists or close them entirely. That is down to the fact that while housing development in the constituency proliferates, no consideration is given to who will treat patients. Thousands upon thousands of new homes are on stream right now, with no thought being given to whom the patients will turn to when they fall ill.

We are not promoting general practice to our medical students as they progress through their degrees and we are not recognising the pressures on general practice that we could easily alleviate right now. I have raised time and again the fact that one quarter of all appointments made with our GPs are for an underlying mental health condition and that GPs are ill equipped, or do not have the time, to bottom out the psychological reasons for the appointments being made.

We know that there are workforce planning problems. It takes seven years to train a GP, but workforce planning cycles in Scotland happen only every five years, which, in turn, leads to a problem of attrition, where we fail to plan effectively for the cohorts of retiring GPs by backfilling them with new GPs coming up through the ranks.

I believe that retired GPs offer part of the solution. In my constituency surgery, I have visited retired GPs who said that they would be very happy to undertake one or two sessions a week if it was made easier for them to come back into general practice and keep their hand in. We need to box clever and listen to the good will of our retired general practitioners.

I commend the Government for the new contract; aspects of it have proved to be elegant and have been well received by the community. The issue around premises was a particular millstone around the necks of new entrants to general practice partnership—the idea that people would have to take on a mortgage of £80,000 just to become a partner in a GP surgery was an inhibiting factor for many; and the solution that the Government, along with the BMA and the RCGP, has offered to address that issue is very elegant. However, some issues around the contract will begin to bite only as phase 2 comes in at the start of the next parliamentary session. In particular, there are issues around financial recompense for GPs in areas of profound rurality—areas that, as I said at the beginning of my speech, are struggling to recruit GPs first and foremost.

As I said at the start, GPs are the first port of call for many of our constituents when they fall ill but, all too often, are our last consideration in the Parliament. That needs to change.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is clear from members’ comments in the debate that the GP crisis continues to have a big impact across Scotland. Just this week, the

Dunfermline Press and West of Fife Advertiser

reported on a local father who had to phone his surgery more than 100 times in one morning to get an appointment.

Of course, it is not only primary care services that have been impacted by the GP shortage: delivery of out-of-hours care has been limited by a lack of GPs and the contractual changes that have taken place over a number of years. In my region, two NHS boards—Forth Valley and Fife—have been carrying out major service changes to out-of-hours primary care. Their approaches have been very different, however, and there are serious lessons to be learned for other NHS boards.

In 2017, NHS Forth Valley implemented interim measures by concentrating its out-of-hours service in one location, at Forth Valley royal hospital in Larbert. Understandably, that caused concern and disruption for many people, especially people in rural Stirlingshire, who were facing journeys of up to 40 miles to access services.

On the back of that measure, NHS Forth Valley instigated a recruitment drive for a significant team of allied health professionals to complement and support GP provision, including the out-of-hours service. Earlier this year, 80 new advanced nurse practitioners, prescribing pharmacists, paramedics and other health professionals joined the NHS Forth Valley team—the first of more than 200 new staff who will deliver a multidisciplinary model of primary and out-of-hours care at locations across the area. I emphasise that the model continues to be led by GPs. It is important that GPs display strong leadership and are supported by those multidisciplinary teams, which they, in turn, support.

In contrast, NHS Fife implemented emergency out-of-hours provision last year, limiting services to just two locations—in Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy. That was followed by a consultation that proposed a very limited set of options and no discussion about the role of GP-led multidisciplinary teams.

It has taken two participation requests by communities under the community empowerment legislation and a whole new series of consultation workshops for a new option to be developed in Fife that uses the same multidisciplinary model that Forth Valley and other NHS boards have been adopting. The latest proposals that have come out of that participation will see the retention of an evening and weekend service at St Andrews community hospital, using a mixture of GPs and health professionals, with home visits to the most vulnerable and remote patients. Work is—I hope—on-going to design a similar model for Glenrothes.

I have serious concerns about the ability to deliver an effective multidisciplinary model with the current staffing levels in Fife. There has been no recruitment drive comparable to that in Forth Valley NHS, and there are only five urgent care practitioners and 5.4 full-time equivalent advanced nurse practitioners in the training pipeline. There are 10.5 staff for Fife, versus 300 for Forth Valley. That is a worrying difference in our workforce planning, and I am deeply concerned that it will put our GPs in Fife under further pressure. Meanwhile, what was supposed to be a temporary centralisation in Kirkcaldy has continued for more than a year, with no date set for the new model to be rolled out.

I have raised that issue in the chamber before, and was heartened by the cabinet secretary’s response that specialist funding is available for training advanced nurse practitioners and prescribing pharmacists.

As today’s motion states, we need

“an urgent review of GP recruitment, resources and funding.”

That has to include health professionals, who are so vital to delivering a successful multidisciplinary model for primary care. Multidisciplinary team models are popular: patients report high satisfaction levels, and communities such as Bridge of Earn in my region are lobbying their local health boards to have multidisciplinary health and wellbeing centres built in their communities. However, the inconsistency and lack of staff recruitment in some NHS boards needs to be addressed right now.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am pleased to speak in the debate as a nurse with more than 30 years’ experience, and as the deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee.

The new GP contract for Scotland, which came into force in April 2018, aims to cut doctors’ workloads, provide a minimum income guarantee for GPs and allow general practice to become a more attractive career. The contract is still in its infancy—we are now embarking on year 2 of its implementation. In 2018-19, the Scottish Government invested more than £110 million to support the new GP contract and wider primary care reform, which was extremely welcome.

Last year, I attended the Royal College of General Practitioners’ annual conference in Glasgow, where I spoke to GPs including Dr Carey Lunan, who is the RGCP Scotland lead, and heard first hand about apprehensiveness about whether the contract will work for rural GPs. Following those conversations, and after discussions with former colleagues in the primary care sector, I wrote to all GP practices in the NHS Dumfries and Galloway area to ask for feedback on the contract and on any other issues that they wanted me to relay to the Government. I am pleased that, to date, more than six practices have responded. I am in the process of meeting them to hear their thoughts about how we can further improve the contract.

Last week, I met staff at the Charlotte medical practice in Dumfries. It was clear to me that the GPs there agree with much of what the contract has to offer, but they made clear their concerns about some of its timescales, including in respect of the length of time that it might take to integrate pharmacists into practices.

It was clear that many of the GPs whom I met at the RCGP conference and locally believe that the way to recruit GPs, particularly to rural areas such as the south-west, in my South Scotland region, is to improve road and rail transport infrastructure. I am sorry that this is Ms Harper harping on again about the A75, A76 and A77, but the GPs said that if people who have studied in the central belt and who live and have families there could have easy access to Dumfries and Stranraer—and all the places in between—by fast train or road links, they might be more inclined to work in bonnie Galloway.

I am aware that the Government is working on recruiting and, indeed, retaining our GPs. In 2018-19, it invested £7.5 million on that, which included £850,000 for remote and rural areas. For all 160 remote and rural practices, the Scottish Government has made available “golden hello” payments for GPs who are taking up their first post in a rural practice, and relocation packages of up to £5,000.

GP recruitment concerns are not unique to Scotland. However, this Government’s commitment, which includes expanding the remote and rural incentive scheme and relocation funds, should have a real impact. The investment of £7.5 million has allowed the Scottish Government to invest in the ScotGEM programme, which will benefit NHS Dumfries and Galloway in my South Scotland region and is the result of a partnership between the University of St Andrews, the University of Dundee and NHS Scotland. The course is oriented towards current NHS Scotland workforce requirements, particularly in remote and rural GP practices.

In August 2018, a total of 55 students were matriculated with St Andrews university. I am pleased that the first group of second-year students will arrive in Dumfries and Galloway in August this year. Happily, five GP practices across Dumfries and Galloway are set to take part in the pilot year of the project. I look forward to seeing its outcomes.

I thank the exceptional specialist GPs across Scotland and welcome the positive steps that are being taken by the Scottish Government to help with recruitment and retention of GPs.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

General practice is the front line of the NHS, but it has been seriously let down by the SNP. After nearly 12 years in charge of Scotland’s health service, GP recruitment and retention are only getting worse. We know that there is a longstanding problem, about which the SNP has repeatedly been warned.

Demand on the health service is growing and the role of GPs is becoming more important. As the Royal College of General Practitioners points out,

“General Practice is the frontline of the NHS ... carrying out the vast majority of patient contact”.

GPs act as gatekeepers to the entire NHS. Despite that, the Royal College of GPs has estimated that there will be a shortfall of 856 GPs by 2021. More than 500 GPs have taken early retirement since the SNP came into power, and the number of doctors in training in Scotland has sunk to a five-year low.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will Annie Wells cite the evidence that she has for the assertion that the number of doctors in training has sunk to a five-year low? Those are not the figures that I am working with.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will send the figures over to the health minister.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Do that.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will.

The Scottish Government has highlighted the measures that it has taken to combat the crisis. However, although I welcome schemes such as ScotGEM, it is concerning that it has taken so many years to reach this point—even more so given that in 2008 the BMA warned of severe GP shortages.

When it comes to retention, talks about the new GP contract between the SNP Government and rural GPs have revealed on-going tensions. The contract is still widely opposed by rural doctors, who state that due to its focus on workload, it unfairly benefits practices in wealthy urban areas in which there are large elderly populations. Only last month, Dr David Hogg, the vice-chair of the Rural GP Association of Scotland, resigned from a working group that was set up by the Scottish Government because of what he sees as a failure to suggest any pragmatic and realistic proposals to counteract the impact that the contract will have on rural services.

The Scottish Conservatives have repeatedly made calls to counteract the problems that general practice is facing. We have called on the SNP to spend more of the NHS budget on the GP front line, and to meet the 11 per cent target. Our save our surgeries campaign makes clear the importance of properly funding general practice. As we have heard, in recent years, Scotland’s general practice has continued to face considerable underinvestment, having fallen from its 9.8 per cent share in 2005-06. The latest figures show that general practice in Scotland receives just 7.35 per cent of NHS funding, which is the lowest share of NHS spend in the UK.

The additional funding that we have called for would equip general practice for the future, allow surgeries to invest in improved IT systems and help GPs and patients to save time and resources. It would also allow surgery premises to modernise and become fit-for-purpose buildings that act as community hubs in which social prescribing becomes the norm.

The Scottish Conservatives have also called for more medical school places to be made available to Scotland-based students, and for GPs to be given more time for appointments—up from 10 to 15 minutes—to assist patients who have more complex needs. Those changes can be made only by properly funding general practice.

I reiterate our calls for the SNP to spend more of its NHS budget on the GP front line. At a time when demand on the health service is greater than ever, it is vital that general practice receives the correct level of funding. It acts as the gateway to the entire NHS, and it is in dire need of our support.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

General practice, and the relationship that patients have with their doctor, is key to the way our NHS operates and the trust that we place in it. People—including me—have great respect for and show great deference to their doctor, and anything that negatively impacts on general practice ripples across the rest of the NHS, resulting in more and longer delays at A and E, treatment time guarantees being breached, delayed discharges, more pressures on staff, fewer students entering general practice, greater reliance on locums, which costs the NHS more, fewer appointment times, closed lists and, ultimately, poorer patient care. All that is happening in Scotland now.

General practice is therefore crucial to the wider NHS, and it is being failed by poor planning and financing and mismanagement at the governmental level.

Over the past decade, the number of people entering GP training has fallen; it is down to around 300. The Royal College of General Practitioners has said that we are 850 short.

Two years ago, I held a drop-in session for GPs in my area in the summer. I spoke to people from 14 different practices, and all of them raised with me the crisis in recruitment. The crisis is worse now than it was then. Some of them said that they were a resignation away from closure. They are long-established practices that sit in communities in which doctors are highly valued. Others were completely reliant on locum GPs just to keep the doors open.

Across Scotland, locums claim up to £1,400 a day. In Lothian, locums claim over £500 a day. Also in Lothian, around 50 practices are operating restrictions on their waiting lists. I say to the cabinet secretary that that is not good enough. A quarter of practices have reported vacancies and a third of advertised GP posts took six months to fill.

Only last week, NHS Lothian announced that, this May, nine out of 23 days cannot be covered at the St John’s hospital out-of-hours GP service because of staff shortages.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does Neil Findlay accept that, as I said to Ms Lennon, the reason why there are those challenges in out-of-hours services is the 2004 GP contract, which was not negotiated by the SNP Government?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Come on.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

It is not a matter of saying, “Come on.” That is the case. Ask the British Medical Association, the

Royal College of General Practitioners and Sir Lewis Ritchie. They will all point to that and to the removal of the requirement of GPs to undertake out-of-hours services. That plus the cohort who are ageing and retiring have combined to produce the problem. Rather than rehearsing the problem, will Neil Findlay say where Labour’s solutions to it are? I am still waiting.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Mr Findlay, I will give you extra time.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The SNP has been in power since 2007, and it is getting round to addressing the problem only now. I do not think that the cabinet secretary will get away with that one.

The NHS could not staff the children’s ward at my local hospital for six years, and we are now told that it cannot staff the out-of-hours GP service. I do not know what the cabinet secretary finds amusing. There was turmoil there for six years, with three closures. The cabinet secretary should look at the record. Given the closure of the out-of-hours GP service, patients are being advised to contact NHS 24. That is not good enough. Patient care will be compromised.

On several occasions, I have raised the situation at Stoneyburn health centre. The community has had a GP since the creation of the NHS in 1948, but it no longer has one thanks to the crisis that is taking place on the Government’s watch. That must be a proud achievement for the cabinet secretary. The elderly, the unemployed, the disabled and the low paid now have to use a very poor public transport system to travel to appointments. For a young mum with two children, the minimum cost of travel is almost £7. Previously, she would have been able to walk up the street to her local surgery.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Come to a close, please.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

What does the cabinet secretary say to the young mum who came to me and said that she struggled to take her children to the doctor because of the cost? That is the health service of the 19th century, not the 21st century.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I begin by reflecting on the general state of the national health service

in Scotland. I suggest that we have a health system to be proud of. Since I became an MSP in 2011, the NHS budget has gone from £10 billion to more than £13 billion. Unlike those who like to complain, particularly in the chamber, we get on with the day job and resolve issues through local health boards, not in the chamber.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

No, I have no time.

Like many others in the chamber, I have constituents who come to my surgeries with health inquiries, which we resolve. Yes, with any organisation there will be delays and complaints, but it is solving each and every complaint that gives me satisfaction. That is what we do for constituents.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

No, I do not have any time.

Our health service has to cope with many issues, too numerous to mention in the time that I have available. The health service deserves more credit than it gets, and I regularly contact my local GPs when required. I get annoyed because, time and again in the chamber, there is political criticism of our health service. Rather than trying to get resolutions at local level through the health boards, some of the main parties maximise their opportunity to take a pop at the Government or the cabinet secretary.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I have no time.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

You do have time.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

No, I do not have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It is quite clear that Mr Lyle is taking no interventions.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The

SNP has the most significant investment plans for the NHS. The other parties have no answers to the recruitment and retention of GPs, which is what we are discussing today.

I value each and every one of our GPs. I had the good fortune of having a part-time job as an out-of-hours driver for NHS 24 before I became an MSP. I drove doctors, who worked at night and at weekends, to house calls and saw how they coped with the health needs of the population. I saw at first hand the work that GPs do and the work that goes on in our local hospitals.

To be clear, the SNP greatly values the contribution that GPs make to the nation’s health, and I am sure that the Government wants to ensure that GPs have the support that they need. That is why the new GP contract for Scotland, which came into force only in April 2018, helps to cut doctors’ workload, ensures a minimum income guarantee for GPs and makes general practice an even more attractive career.

In its briefing, the BMA states that there has been considerable progress over recent times. Indeed, we are now embarking on year 2 of the implementation of the new GP contract. Figures from 2018-19 show that the Scottish Government invested more than £110 million to support the new contract and wider primary care reform. Dr Andrew Buist, the chair of BMA Scotland’s Scottish general practitioners committee, has said:

“At the heart of the new GP contract introduced last year was a clear aim to make becoming a GP a more attractive career choice and encourage more people into working in this part of the profession.”

That is absolutely correct, and that commitment has been matched by the Scottish Government’s announcement that GP premises will be able to access loan funding of £50 million through the GP premises sustainability loan scheme over the next three years.

The scheme, which is in direct response to concerns raised by the BMA, aims to ease the financial burden that is associated with owning a practice and will, in turn, help improve recruitment and retention. GPs who own their premises can apply for long-term interest-free loans worth up to 20 per cent of the practice's value, thus reducing the risk of premise ownership, which has been raised by GPs as a common concern. It is all part of a move towards ensuring that GPs are no longer required to own a property. A total of 172 practices—or around 50 per cent of the total that are eligible—have successfully applied for loans, and I am delighted that a number of them are in Uddingston and Bellshill and elsewhere in Lanarkshire.

The Scottish Government has committed to recruiting 800 GPs over the next decade. By the end of this session, it will be investing an additional £500 million in primary care. I believe that the SNP Government has a record to be proud of, and the political parties opposite should stop carping from the sidelines.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to closing speeches. I point out that we have no spare time left.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, congratulate Alison Johnstone and the Green Party on securing this afternoon’s important debate on Scotland’s GP recruitment and retention challenges.

This has been, in my view, a well-informed and insightful debate about crucial players in the delivery of primary care—our GPs. As the BMA has rightly argued, problems with GP recruitment and retention are deep-seated, and there is no quick fix for them. According to current surveys of GPs, about one in four practices are reporting vacancies. As many members, including Neil Findlay, Miles Briggs, Monica Lennon, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Mark Ruskell and Annie Wells, have argued, increased workloads have certainly been to blame for some of the vacancies. Excessive workloads have been cited as a major reason for some either leaving the profession or—which is equally important—not entering it in the first place. In the 2018 BMA survey, over 70 per cent of GP partners said that they work substantial hours per week beyond their surgeries’ opening times.

Many members have also spoken of the risks that are associated with working as a GP, including in respect of owning the practice premises and employing staff. In fairness, I say that the GP premises sustainability fund, which is intended to make general practice more workable, is a good concept and is designed to reduce the risk to which practice partners are exposed.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will give way very briefly, because I am quite tight for time.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Does David Stewart recognise that there is a place for the introduction of salaried GPs, as has happened in my region?