Scottish Parliament, 10 October 2019

349 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Good morning. We begin with consideration of business motion S5M-19378, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to today’s business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 10 October 2019—

delete

followed by

Members’ Business

delete

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

followed by

Stage 3 Debate: Transport (Scotland) Bill

and insert

1.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

1.30 pm Portfolio Questions:

Education and Skills

followed by

Stage 3 Amendments: Transport (Scotland) Bill

followed by

Stage 3 Debate: Transport (Scotland) Bill

followed by

Stage 1 Debate: Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.15 pm Decision Time.—[

Maurice Golden

]

The Presiding Officer

Murdo Fraser has indicated that he wishes to speak against the motion.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I wish to oppose the business motion. I do so in the knowledge that it has been agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau and by my own party’s business manager. My opposition is on the ground that the time allowed for this afternoon’s debate on the Non-domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 has been reduced to one hour and 25 minutes. I understand that speakers’ times in that debate have also been reduced. The bill is an important one for the Parliament to consider and it will have consequences for the business community, which is looking with great interest at how we deal with the business rates regime. It also has implications for independent schools and other areas. It is extremely unfortunate that the debating time for such a vital piece of legislation is to be constrained to less than an hour and a half and that, as I understand it, speakers are to have their times restricted to no more than four minutes.

This is a Parliament, the primary function of which is to debate legislation. We spend a lot of time debating very worthy subjects in Government business, but priority must be given to legislation. I am extremely concerned about the situation that developed last night, about which members raised points of order at the time, when the Parliament sat for so long. Quite rightly, it was dealing with legislation, but the Parliamentary Bureau needs to look at the amount of time that is being allocated to deal with the making of law, which is our priority. The Parliament is simply not being well served by the way in which business is currently being timetabled.

The Presiding Officer

I thank Murdo Fraser for making those points. Normally at this stage I would ask the Government’s business manager to respond. Maurice Golden or any other business manager may respond if they so choose to do so. I usually chair meetings of the Parliamentary Bureau. Unfortunately, I did not do so this morning, but I can say that the matters that Mr Fraser has raised are the very ones that the Bureau discusses every time that it meets. Does Mr Golden wish to say anything in response?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

This week, out of necessity and because of the length of members’ contributions, decision time has had to be changed twice, which is unfortunate. The Parliamentary Bureau attempts to manage such situations as best it can. As the Presiding Officer made clear last night, the bureau will consider setting parameters so that, in future, we can do our best to avoid having late decision times and can prioritise legislative business.

The Presiding Officer

I add that the reason for the bureau’s bringing the motion to the Parliament is that although the bureau represents all parties when it meets, it is up to the Parliament and individual members to agree to its timetabling.

The question is, that motion S5M-

19378 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 10 October 2019—

delete

followed by

Members’ Business

delete

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

followed by

Stage 3 Debate: Transport (Scotland) Bill

and insert

1.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

1.30 pm Portfolio Questions:

Education and Skills

followed by

Stage 3 Amendments: Transport (Scotland) Bill

followed by

Stage 3 Debate: Transport (Scotland) Bill

followed by

Stage 1 Debate: Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.15 pm Decision Time.

Thank you, Mr Fraser. Your point has been noted.

As members might have noted from the business motion, there will be no members’ business debate at lunchtime today. This afternoon’s business will start with portfolio questions at 1.30 and decision time is scheduled to take place at 5.15. It is also worth highlighting that although the schedule contains timings, they all follow on from the preceding business. Members should therefore keep an eye on the time. If they are due to be in the chamber to move amendments they should not rely on the preceding business taking the full amount of time that has been allocated to it.

Miscarriage (Support)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what support is available for women who have been affected by miscarriage. (S5O-03659)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

All health boards provide treatment and support to women following a miscarriage. Health boards will provide information and will often signpost women to third-sector partners for further support. I thank James Dornan for raising this question during baby loss awareness week, which we are supporting in a number of ways, including by lighting up Scottish Government buildings in pink and blue to show our support.

Yesterday, I visited the offices of SANDS Lothians to hear more about this important subject, and to talk to members of the charity and bereaved parents. I was very impressed with the commitment and level of support that Nicola Welsh and her team provide to parents who have sadly experienced the loss of a pregnancy or a baby.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Many of those who have contacted me on this matter are concerned about having to walk through existing maternity departments where new mothers

are either going through successful pregnancies or have just given birth. That can often cause great upset for parents who are still in mourning for their lost child.

Can the minister therefore provide an update on the progress of the national bereavement care pathway? Can he tell us whether there is a provision in it to ensure that those who are suffering such a loss do not have to walk through maternity wards, with all the reminders of what they have just lost, when they are going for support?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I understand the stress that that can cause. We would of course expect that, wherever possible, hospitals treat women with compassion and understanding and continue to look at and improve their services to meet the needs of all maternity service users.

The development of the five different bereavement pathways that James Dornan mentioned is progressing well. SANDS UK is leading that work, in collaboration with other baby loss charities and health professionals, to ensure that the pathways are suitable for Scotland. I expect the pathways to launch in the five early adopter sites in the first quarter of 2020.

Black History Month

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it is marking black history month. (S5O-03660)

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

The First Minister and I

both attended the launch of black history month in Parliament on 24 September, hosted by the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights. Tomorrow, I will be participating in a black history month tour of Glasgow, exploring the city’s historical ties with slavery.

Scottish Government race equality officials will also be attending black history month events during October. The Scottish Government race equality staff network also has a series of internal events planned to mark the month. Just last week, I met with the African Council in Aberdeen to discuss many issues facing our citizens, and how it uses black history month to tackle racism.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

There is a rich and long black history in Scotland, with some sources stating that the first man who was arrested for wearing a kilt after Culloden was a black man. Does the minister agree that black history is Scottish history, and that we should not only celebrate it for one month a year, but do all that we can to integrate it and learn about it all year round?

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

Yes—I am delighted to agree absolutely with my colleague Ruth Maguire on that point. We are a culturally enriched nation; some of the colours of our tartans express the fact that we have a very rich and colourful cultural background.

I will give Ruth Maguire a wee bit of an update. Race equality officials and I have on-going meetings with many organisations. In 2019-20, we have allocated more than £2.3 million to fund those organisations to advance race equality all year round, not in black history month alone. In February 2019, the Respect Me anti-bullying service published an anti-racist bullying resource that addresses inclusion and how to challenge racism in schools effectively. We continue to support and fund Respect Me to do that work.

In “A fairer Scotland for all: race equality action plan and highlight report 2017-2021”, the Scottish Government committed to increase the number of teachers from underrepresented groups at all levels of Scottish schools. I hope that that will encourage and reassure Ruth Maguire that we take our cultural enrichment from black history month and promote it all year round, in every single month of the year.

National Thrombectomy Service (NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde)

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government what contribution NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will make to the proposed new national thrombectomy service. (S5O-03661)

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

B

efore the introduction of the thrombectomy service, it is imperative that proper clinical planning for such a highly specialised intervention is undertaken. The programme for government commits to ensuring that a national planning framework is in place in order to provide a high-quality and clinically safe thrombectomy service.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde sits on the directors of planning thrombectomy advisory group. The group is currently developing a national framework for the introduction of the service. Once the framework is finalised, appropriate thrombectomy service sites will be approved. It is currently anticipated that the service may be available in at least one board area by 2020.

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

I recently met a constituent of mine whose husband is making a strong recovery from a stroke thanks to a thrombectomy procedure that is not, as we know, available in Scotland as yet. He underwent that procedure while on holiday in Majorca. I understand that the national planning board may sign off a national service imminently, but I seek reassurance that the Scottish Government will ensure that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will offer that service as soon as possible, as concerns have been raised with me that it could be another year before it is implemented.

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

The Glasgow and Clyde area, which is covered by that health board, is certainly a significant area in respect of the incidence of strokes. The west of Scotland is one of the areas in which there are the highest incidences of strokes. Our intention is to provide a

thrombectomy service that covers the whole of Scotland, including the north in particular, and we will work to ensure that when the service is introduced, it will be on a phased basis, as it is being introduced in England. At this point, it is not possible to say which part of the country will be in the initial phase but, once we have clearer information on that, we will certainly ensure that Mr Doris is advised.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Can the cabinet secretary give a commitment on when

thrombectomy will be available to patients in every health board area, including Lanarkshire, and say whether funding for each health board has been identified yet?

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

The national planning framework is, of course, part of the overall stroke pathway and the additional work that has been committed to in the programme for government, which includes the appointment of a clinical medical specialist on stroke to look at the whole pathway across Scotland. Until the planning framework is finalised, it will not be possible to give a commitment on the final date when it will cover the whole of Scotland or to know what the additional resource will be. However, we have made the commitment to deliver that service, so the resource will be made available to deliver it once the planning framework is in place. At that point, we will know the timescale for the phasing in of

thrombectomy across Scotland. I will ensure that, like my colleague Mr Doris, Ms Lennon is aware of how that will be phased in across Scotland.

Tobacco (Joined-up Approach)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the call by ASH Scotland for a joined-up approach to services relating to tobacco and other health-harming substances. (S5O-03662)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

We welcome the fact that ASH Scotland continues to raise awareness of the fact that smoking remains the single biggest avoidable cause of death in Scotland, killing more than 9,000 people each year. Through the partnership approach that we take to tackling the use of and harm from tobacco in Scotland, that figure continues to decline each year.

In June 2018, we published our public health priorities. They include a joined-up priority of reducing the use of and harm from alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. It is the responsibility of health boards and integration authorities to decide how best to join up their services to deliver on that priority. The Scottish Government continues to encourage boards and authorities to take a joined-up approach to services that are aimed at tackling the effects of health-harming substances.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I note my interest in the subject as a British Lung Foundation smoking cessation champion.

According to data in the 2018 Scottish health survey, smoking prevalence rates across Scotland have flatlined, and there has been a concerning increase in the number of smokers in Scotland’s most deprived communities. What new steps are in the respiratory care action plan to increase the number of people quitting smoking?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Obviously, Alexander Stewart is aware that the action plan will be published in due course and that it continues to be worked on. However, I will talk about some of the actions that we are taking.

This week, we launched a consultation that paves the way for removing smoking outside hospital buildings. Later this year, we will consult on restricting the advertising and promotion of electronic cigarettes. Those are the kinds of actions that we will take.

We are keen that overall smoking trends continue to decline. I am aware of the statistics that Alexander Stewart mentioned, which we need to be mindful of. However, the trend continues to be down, and it is particularly good to see the level of smoking among the youngest remaining at a historic low. We need to see about the slight blips, but it looks like there has been an increase in adult smoking from 18 to 19 per cent. I think that rounding largely accounts for that—18.4 was rounded down and 18.7 was rounded up. We need to keep looking at that, particularly in deprived communities, where there has been an increase in uptake of services for cessation. That is a good thing and we need to keep working on it. I appreciate Alexander Stewart’s continued support on that matter.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister share ASH Scotland’s assessment of the link between smoking and health inequality? Does he agree that we need a national strategy that tackles smoking cessation and poverty alleviation?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

David Stewart makes an important point, which he has made many times before. The Government will not argue against the link between health inequality and poverty and deprivation. We need to continue to work on that. The member will continue to get my support for his interventions in the matter.

Gourock to Dunoon Ferry Service

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any planned upgrades to the Gourock to Dunoon passenger ferry service. (S5O-03663)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

We have started a project that will consider the long-term requirements of the Gourock to Dunoon passenger ferry service, including vessel and infrastructure upgrades. We will also consider opportunities for shorter-term improvements in passenger facilities.

The recent linkspan issues at Gourock and the inconvenience that has been caused to passengers are regrettable. However, that challenging situation has been managed effectively by Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and CalMac Ferries, with minimal disruption to passengers using the Gourock to Dunoon service.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister might be aware that recent media reports revealed that, since they came into service, the two vessels that currently operate the route have racked up over 2,000 cancellations. Given the unreliability of those ferries, does he agree that the people of Dunoon and the Cowal peninsula deserve an urgent and effective solution to a situation that has gone on for too long, rather than to see it kicked into the long grass yet again?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Donald Cameron will accept that, in the engagements that I have had with him, I have recognised that there have been challenges in the Gourock to Dunoon service. As he knows, we are trying to move to a position where we have longer-term stability and reliability for the service.

I have frequent discussions with Mr Cameron and others who have an interest in the route, such as Mike Russell, who is one of the constituency members affected. I hope that Mr Cameron welcomes the fact that there has been an increase in passenger traffic on the service, notwithstanding the disruption. We recognise that the vessels are not ideal for the route. Through the project that I outlined in my first answer, we are working with CalMac, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and Clyde Marine Services to make sure that the necessary arrangements are put in place to support the revised service timetables that have been used recently. We will also make sure that the project takes on board the views of passengers who use the Gourock to Dunoon service, the trade unions and the local authorities in relation to the harbour facilities. As we take the work forward, I am happy to engage with Donald Cameron and other members who have an interest in that issue. We recognise the challenges, but we are working on providing a long-term solution for the service.

Housing (Kirkcaldy)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how many local authority and affordable houses have been delivered in the Kirkcaldy constituency since 2012. (S5O-03664)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Since 2012, through our affordable housing supply programme and open-market shared equity programme, the Scottish Government has delivered 893 local authority and affordable houses in the Kirkcaldy constituency. Our support aims to deliver a range of housing in a mix of affordable tenures, primarily focusing on social rented housing. That is a key Government priority. As part of our 50,000 affordable homes programme, which is backed by record investment of £3.3 billion, we aim to deliver 35,000 social rent homes in Scotland.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Does the minister agree that Brexit will have a devastating impact on the availability of skilled workers in the construction industry and could damage the good results that the Scottish Government has achieved in delivering new housing programmes?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I agree with David Torrance. I am concerned that a no-deal Brexit could undermine all our good work on increasing Scotland’s housing supply. In 2017, 7,000 European Union nationals were employed in the Scottish construction sector. A no-deal Brexit would pose a significant risk to the Scottish construction workforce and to builders’ supply chains.

The United Kingdom Government’s immigration plans will be disastrous for keeping and attracting people with the necessary skills and will have a huge impact on the availability of the EU-national workforce in the construction and house building industry. Private house builders are particularly vulnerable to the implications of Brexit, because, in 2018, 60 per cent of construction materials were imports from the EU. Members should be in no doubt that a Tory no-deal Brexit would be a disaster for many areas of life in Scotland; that is just one of them.

Reaching 100 Per Cent Programme

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government when it expects to set out a clear timetable for the delivery of the R100 programme. (S5O-03665)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Our £600 million R100 programme is a vital investment in our digital infrastructure. It will help to deliver a future-proof network, making Scotland one of the best-connected places anywhere in Europe.

Procurement for R100 has been split into three lots, covering north, central and south areas. Final tenders were submitted on 23 August, and detailed evaluation is currently in progress. I can confirm that BT was the only bidder for the central and south lots and that, subject to due diligence and governance, we intend to proceed to contract with BT as soon as possible. More than one bid was received for the north lot, and we will announce a preferred bidder for the north lot in due course.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In September 2018, Audit Scotland told the Scottish Government that it needed to publish clear timetables by summer 2019. A year on, in the programme for government statement, the First Minister conspicuously dropped the earlier 2021 deadline for delivery of R100. When can my constituents in Orkney, which still has the lowest coverage rates in Scotland, expect to get access to long-awaited and much-needed high-speed broadband?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Just before the recess, we set out a timetable, which we are trying to stick to, to achieve the securing of contracts to be signed by the end of this calendar year, and we are still on course to achieve that. That will provide certainty for all areas that are affected by R100 as to the degree of coverage to be provided under the programme and as to those properties that may need to be picked up through aligned interventions.

I would stress this to Mr McArthur. I appreciate that there are still customers in Orkney waiting to have a service. As Mr McArthur knows from correspondence, this is a reserved matter, but we are making great progress in delivering for Orkney. For example, in January 2014, only 12 per cent of premises in Orkney had access to fibre broadband; by February this year, that figure was up to 81.9 per cent. That is an increase of 69.9 percentage points, and there has been an increase of 54 percentage points in superfast access over the same period.

I hope that Mr McArthur will welcome the progress that has been made. We need to work together to deliver for those remaining properties—I recognise that. I hope that he will soon see progress from R100 that will benefit his constituents.

Transvaginal Mesh Implants (Removal)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. Does the First Minister agree that, in Scotland and beyond, mesh has become the greatest medical scandal of modern times?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

In general terms, yes, I share the concern that Jackson Carlaw has articulated today and on previous occasions.

There have been two on-going priorities for the Scottish Government, which I hope have the support of members across the chamber. The first was to ensure that there was a halt to new mesh procedures. Earlier this week, we saw statistics that show that there have been no such procedures in Scotland since the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport took action to draw a halt to them.

The second priority, which is certainly on-going, is to ensure that women who have suffered complications from mesh procedures that were done in the past get the care and treatment that they need and to which they are entitled. The Scottish Government takes that extremely seriously, and will continue to take the appropriate steps.

The wider matters around mesh that we have discussed in the chamber previously—approval of the particular procedures and of what is used in those procedures—are governed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. They are not within the responsibilities of the Scottish Government. However, with the support of members from across the chamber—including, I think, Jackson Carlaw—we have urged action at United Kingdom Government level.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The First Minister is right. There has been an heroic and successful effort by Scottish mesh survivors to secure a moratorium on the practice. We were delighted by the action of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, and by the fact that statistics this week show that there no further procedures have been done.

We had hoped that Scotland would, for the women who are in desperate need of mesh removal surgery, welcome the pioneering American surgeon Dr Dionysios Veronikis to undertake mesh removal, which would change hundreds of lives. We now learn, however, that Dr Veronikis has called off—mostly, it seems, due to a co-ordinated attempt to block him by powerful people within the national health service and the medical hierarchy.

My constituent Lorna Farrell raised thousands of pounds to travel to the United States to be operated on privately to have her mesh successfully removed by Dr Veronikis. Surely the First Minister will agree that it is unacceptable that women who have been harmed, however inadvertently, by our Scottish NHS, should have to raise thousands of pounds to undergo a horrendous journey, while enduring severe pain and difficulty, in order to have that wrong righted privately in the United States.

The First Minister

I have enormous sympathy with the sentiments that Jackson Carlow expressed on behalf of his constituent. Of course, those sentiments could be expressed on behalf of any woman who has suffered complications, and who is suffering from a mesh procedure.

Let me address very directly the issue of the specialist from the United States, Dr Veronikis. It remains the case that the Scottish Government wants him to come here. However, if he is to be able to treat patients here, certain General Medical Council requirements must be met, which the Scottish Government has no discretion to waive.

One of those requirements is the need for a contract of employment from the national health service, which necessitates clinicians from here going to see him in the United States. Although we had hoped that that would happen in August, it had to be postponed because of the clinical commitments of clinicians here. Clinicians will visit the United States in November—next month—and remain willing to meet Dr Veronikis, if he agrees to reconsider his position. I respectfully concede that that is entirely a matter for him.

Jackson Carlaw talked about efforts by senior influential people. Let me make it very clear that I am not aware of any such efforts. It would not be acceptable for anybody in the medical community here to seek to block Dr Veronikis. My understanding is that that is not the case; indeed, the chief medical officer personally invited Dr Veronikis to come to Scotland. As I said at the outset of my answer, it remains our wish that that will happen.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The clear suspicion of many people is that there is a professional

and institutional campaign to frustrate Dr Veronikis’s involvement. It is the view of many people that establishment figures in the NHS are trying to protect their own backs. I exclude from any blame or suggestion of it the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport.

Last night, I contacted Dr Wael Agur, who is the leading mesh expert in Scotland, and one of my constituents. This is what he had to say about Dr Veronikis’s visit:

“I can confirm that surgeons here felt deeply threatened by Dr Veronikis’ offer to visit Scotland. No doubt there is a professional conspiracy against his visit. The surgeons suggested another US surgeon instead: Howard Goldman—who is one of the most prominent proponent of the continuing use of mesh. In addition, he promotes partial (rather than total) mesh removal, the complete opposite of Dr Veronikis. Inviting Dr Goldman would undoubtedly support the local surgeons in their efforts to reintroduce mesh procedures in Scotland.”

If that is true, it is an outrage. Will the First Minister now personally intervene?

The First Minister

As Jackson Carlaw and others would expect, I have already looked very closely at the matter. If there is the suspicion that Jackson Carlaw described, I will not stand here and second-guess it. If that is what people feel, it is a suspicion that requires to be addressed.

However, I say genuinely to Jackson Carlaw that I am not aware of evidence that backs that up. If there is evidence, I certainly want to see it, and to be in a position to take action on it.

I have set out—I have tried to do so very clearly and calmly—the requirements that need to be met before somebody from outside the UK can treat and practice in the UK. They are set not by the Scottish Government but by the General Medical Council. Those requirements require clinicians from here to go the States. It is regrettable that the visit that was planned for August had to be postponed. However, a visit will take place, and if Dr Veronikis is prepared to reconsider his position, it will be an opportunity for that requirement to be fulfilled.

I want—as everybody wants—patients to have the treatment that they need. Let me make the point very clearly that that means treatment that is considered to be clinically right for them, in which they have confidence, and of whose efficacy they can be assured. As First Minister, I am prepared to consider all options to make sure that women get that treatment. We will continue to do that, because I do not underestimate in any way, shape or form the suffering, stress, pain and anxiety that many women have suffered as a result of mesh.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I thank the First Minister for that. I can say that the women have complete confidence in Dr Agur, who is acting in the Scottish Government’s review group. The women also have complete confidence in Dr Veronikis—especially my constituent, who is a living example of the success of his mesh-removal procedures. Her life has been transformed, and it is hugely emotional to meet her and see that.

My principal concern remains firmly the women who have been affected. The moment for a public inquiry might, depending on events, be coming. However, during this decade-long scandal, many of the affected women feel that they have been unable to meet and discuss their experience directly with the First Minister. They feel that the urgency of their situation now needs the direct support and engagement of the head of their Government. So, will the First Minister agree today to meet, together with MSPs from across the chamber, the affected women directly in early course, to listen to them and to give them the personal commitment, leadership and attention of the First Minister to get their lives sorted?

The First Minister

Yes, I will. However, in doing that, I also want to make it very clear to the women who have been affected that the matter has my personal attention and the close personal attention of the health secretary. That has been demonstrated by the actions that have been taken; it will continue to be demonstrated by actions that will be taken.

I obviously understand the deep emotion that many people feel about the issue. Obviously, the women who have been affected do, but so do people who have been in direct contact with the women.

I also understand the scepticism and concerns about how it is perceived that elements within the medical community in Scotland are addressing the issue. We must tackle that and take action systematically to ensure that that perception is not the case.

I want any patient who considers it best—and where there is a clinical view that it is best—to be treated by somebody like Dr Veronikis to have that available. I obviously cannot stipulate that he agree to come here, but if he is willing to reconsider his position, steps are in progress to fulfil the requirements that would allow that.

Beyond that, we will openly consider any other options to ensure that women get access to the care and treatment that they need. That is a commitment that the health secretary and I have given previously, and which I have no hesitation in giving again today.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. I remind the First Minister that the mesh-injured women have suffered years of pain and injustices, so when she meets them, will she apologise to them? One woman who contacted us spoke of having six surgeries, including a hysterectomy. She states that the surgery was necessary to

“rid me of the daily pain. I now live with a prolapsed bladder, bowel and vaginal vault. I need to take a cocktail of medication daily—18 tablets.”

She contacted us this week because she was so deeply upset to learn that Dr Veronikis is not coming to Scotland. She is concerned that without his treatment she may lose her job. What does the First Minister have to say to her?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As I have said in the chamber previously, I, as First Minister, apologise to any patient who suffers in the national health service—people have a right to expect such an apology. There is a long history in terms of mesh procedure, some of which we have often rehearsed in the chamber. The approvals for the procedure and the equipment used are matters that are outwith the Scottish Government’s responsibility, but we have come together as a Parliament to demand action where it can be taken.

However, on the treatment that is provided in the health service and the actions that we have taken, first, the moratorium to halt mesh procedure is, in itself, an indication of how seriously we treat the issue. Secondly, on the issue of women who are suffering from complications, in the interests of time I will not run through again all the requirements around the doctor from the United States coming here, but I stress again that it is my desire to enable him to come here to allow patients to have access to his specialism without having to travel. Beyond that, we remain open to any options that are right for women both clinically and in order to give women the peace of mind that they want.

One of the things that distresses me when I read the material and the personal testimonies is that, as First Minister, I have been advised that full mesh removal has been carried out on many patients in Scotland.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

It has not.

The First Minister

I am about to address the very point that Neil Findlay seems to be making.

I also understand that many women believe that, although they were told that they were to have full mesh removal, that was not undertaken. There are real issues that we need to get to the heart of; I am determined to do that and so is the health secretary. Many members of the Parliament have been incredibly constructive in their approach to this issue. I hope that, together—taking the full responsibility of Government, as it is incumbent on me to do—we can ensure that some of the historic issues are fully looked into and that, in the here and now, women who are suffering get access to the treatment that they need.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

There was indeed cross-party support for the moratorium and this week’s figures are welcome.

Earlier, the First Minister spoke of looking for evidence of obstruction. In a letter to Labour’s Neil Findlay, Dr Veronikis explained why he has rescinded his offer. He cited

“delays and disrespectful behaviours”.

However, he also raised a matter of serious concern that reflects the point that the First Minister has just mentioned. He said:

“The Scottish mesh injured women are vindicated in what they presented to Minister Freeman in March 2019. What has been recorded in their medical records as a ‘full removal’ was not. It was a partial removal.”

Why have those women been misled and what will the First Minister do about it?

The First Minister

I alluded to that point very openly—it causes me deep concern and we are determined to help women get to the bottom of that. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that last night, at the cross-party group on chronic pain, an issue was raised about access to scans for women who feel that they have not had the full mesh removal that they were told that they had had. That is one of the things that we want to consider fully. We are determined to ensure that, as far as we can, we get to the bottom of where women have been given treatment that has damaged them, or where treatment that was meant to rectify that damage was not what they were told it was and to explore where they can get access to the treatment that they need now.

I have set out clearly and openly some of those issues. I regret the delays around trying to meet the requirements to have Dr Veronikis come here, but the Scottish Government was not able simply to waive those requirements—they are the requirements of the General Medical Council. However, clinicians from Scotland will be visiting the United States next month. If Dr Veronikis is willing to reconsider his position—that is entirely a matter for him, although I would very much welcome it if he were to do so—those requirements can be met and I still hope that he will come to Scotland.

Dr Veronikis has also written to the health secretary. If there is information in the letter that Richard Leonard has referred to that we do not have, I would be very happy to look at that—Richard Leonard could pass that letter on to us, if he has not already done so.

I cannot stress enough the determination on my part, and on the part of Jeane Freeman and the entire Scottish Government, not just to get to the bottom of why women are in this position, but to ensure that we are giving women access to the treatment that will bring an end to the pain and suffering that they are so unjustly experiencing.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is such an important issue. Dr Veronikis offered those women the first glimpse of hope that they might get their lives back. The fact is that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport looked Scotland’s mesh-injured women in the eye and gave them a commitment to a course of action that could give some of these women their lives back. The world-leading, pioneering surgeon, whom the health secretary invited to come here, now feels that officials and senior surgeons in Scotland—working for our NHS and accountable to the Scottish Government—obstructed that course of action. At the centre of all that are women who have been left languishing in pain.

The Government has lost the confidence of the mesh-injured women and the health secretary appears to have lost control of the situation. Will the First Minister now step in and take the decisive action that is needed?

The First Minister

I am closely involved in ensuring that we take the action that we are required to take, as is the health secretary. It is because of Jeane Freeman’s action that the moratorium or halt was put in place and that no more of the procedures are taking place. It is not because of Jeane Freeman that Dr Veronikis is not coming to Scotland. I have set out the requirements that have to be met, which are not Scottish Government requirements, and how we are trying to meet them. I am more than happy to speak to the doctor personally. I say openly that, if anybody has evidence of the kind of obstruction that is being talked about, I want to know about that. However, based on the information that I have, attempts to get the doctor here have been and will continue to be made, if he remains willing.

I cannot be any clearer. There is an absolute determination to ensure that we take the necessary action. I hope that we continue to have the constructive support that we have had in the past from members from across the chamber, including Jackson Carlaw and Richard Leonard, because this is not a matter of party politics; it is a matter of doing the right thing, and we are all determined to do that.

Her Majesty’s Prison Inverness (Staff Safety)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The new Highland prison has been delayed for years and the current prison is no longer fit for purpose. It is overcrowded, and 200 prisoners from the Highlands and Islands have been dispersed elsewhere. Seizures of drugs, weapons and mobile phones have increased. Today, thanks to the work of

The Press and Journal

, we learned

that key areas of the prison are without closed-circuit television, which endangers prison staff. Is it not time that the safety and welfare of our Highland prison staff was made a top priority? Will the First Minister or her Cabinet Secretary for Justice meet me and prison staff to try to resolve the safety issues at HMP Inverness?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice would of course be happy to meet members to discuss issues in our prisons. We are committed to on-going investment in our prison estate and to modernising and improving it. Security, not just in terms of prisoners but for the staff who work in our prisons, is extremely important. CCTV is important, but the Scottish Prison Service has measures beyond that for the staff and people in the service’s care in HMP Inverness in particular. We will continue that work, and we are happy to discuss the plans in more detail.

We will also continue to take action to reform our justice system to tackle the fact that, although crime levels are among the lowest for 40 years or more, we have proportionately the highest prison population in the western world. That is why we are taking action to introduce a presumption against short sentences and more alternatives to custody, which are better for rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. To the best of my memory, the Conservatives have opposed every single one of those reform proposals. The issue is serious and, if the Conservatives were to engage with it a bit more seriously and constructively in the round, we might make more progress than we have to date.

Gambling Advertisements (Glasgow)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The First Minister will be aware that Glasgow City Council has expressed concern about the level of gambling adverts that young people in particular are exposed to. Has she had discussions with the council about that, or will she do so?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is an important issue. I am aware of recent discussions in Glasgow City Council about problem gambling in the city and the impact that advertising is having on it. I understand that the council plans to hold a summit to develop plans to ensure that people are aware of the risks and harms that are associated with gambling. Although advertising is the responsibility of the United Kingdom-wide Advertising Standards Authority, we are committed to exploring what more we can do to help deal with the problem of gambling. Of course, it would be more effective if all powers associated with gambling were devolved to the Parliament so that Scottish solutions could be taken forward more quickly.

Her Majesty’s Prison Barlinnie (Overcrowding)

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

This week, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Colin McConnell, told the Justice Committee that a replacement for Barlinnie prison in Glasgow will not be operational until 2025, which is six years later than planned.

Audit Scotland deems the building “high risk”. Barlinnie is 50 per cent over capacity, with many prisoners having to share cells. Of the cells that are shared, 92 per cent were designed for single occupancy. The chief executive also stated that current contingency plans in the case of an emergency involve simply moving prisoners to another location, with mattresses on the floor, which is unacceptable and unsustainable.

What steps will the Scottish Government take to address the chronic position of Barlinnie prison? What plans will the Scottish Government put in place to address the overcrowding, underfinancing and staffing crises of the Scottish Prison Service?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Those are serious issues to which the Government pays close and regular attention at Cabinet level. A replacement for Barlinnie prison is one of our key infrastructure priorities. The SPS is progressing with plans for the development of the new prison in Glasgow, and negotiations for the purchase of an identified site are under way.

However, we acknowledge that, as a result of the recent rise in the prison population, interim measures are needed to improve current conditions at Barlinnie. Action will be taken in that regard. We are working closely with the Scottish Prison Service to ensure that robust measures are in place to ensure the safety of staff and the prisoners who are in the care of Barlinnie.

In addition to my point about investment in our prisons being important in response to an earlier question, it is worth pointing out that we have a challenge as a country to rebalance our justice policy, so that we do not have as many people going into our prisons when more effective sentences are available that could be served elsewhere.

It is also worth pointing out that, since 2007, the Scottish Government has invested almost £600 million in the prison estate for three new prisons—Low Moss, Addiewell and Grampian—and the refurbishment of the existing prisons at Polmont, Edinburgh, Glenochil, Shotts and Perth. We will continue to ensure that such investment is made, so that we ease the pressure on the prison estate overall and, in particular, on Barlinnie.

Lord Provost of Glasgow (Expense Claims)

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Scottish National Party’s Lord Provost has ripped off the people of Glasgow. Is it not time that she went?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Eva Bolander, who is an excellent Lord Provost for the city of Glasgow, has rightly and frankly reflected on some of the expense claims that she made. All the claims were within the rules; nevertheless, she has reflected on them and decided that she should not have made certain claims. I think that that was the right decision.

As elected politicians, we all have to be careful and considered about our expense claims, but none of us wants a situation in which the only people who can take on roles—in particular, roles such as Lord Provost, which require attendance at a lot of formal functions—are those who can afford to equip themselves.

The Lord Provost has herself reflected, and I think that she was right to do so.

Prestwick Airport Service Fees

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

3. I hope that the whole chamber will join me in expressing solidarity with the Kurdish people, who have been betrayed and abandoned by the US, and are now enduring an assault by Turkey, which is a NATO member. I hope that the First Minister will join me in condemning those actions.

Ministers have been aware for more than a year that the US military is getting a seven-figure discount to refuel at Prestwick airport, which is owned by the Scottish Government on behalf of the public. It is a growing scandal, and there is already a US Congress inquiry into the relationship. If the First Minister is against Scotland being used as a nuclear submarine base for the United Kingdom, why should we be any happier about being used as a cut-price petrol station for the US Air Force?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Earlier this week in the chamber, in response to a topical question, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity outlined the position with regard to Prestwick airport.

Prestwick airport is state owned, but it runs commercially completely independently of the Scottish Government. That is the case not just for convenience; it is essential that there is an arm’s-length relationship for us to be compliant with state aid rules. If we were to interfere in the running of Prestwick airport, we would put in jeopardy the future operation of the airport. For those who want to see the airport continue and have a future, and for those who want to see the jobs that are dependent on the airport continue, I think that that is the right and responsible thing to do.

In terms of Patrick Harvie’s question about Syria, I say very clearly and strongly that I and the Scottish Government are deeply concerned about and are strongly opposed to Turkey’s unilateral military action in northern Syria. We are also extremely concerned by Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw support and leave Kurdish allies to the mercy of whatever Turkey chooses to do. That is particularly reprehensible, given the sacrifices that Kurds have made in helping to defeat Isis.

I hope that there is a very strong response from the international community to the action that Turkey has taken—we have seen on previous occasions the consequences and implications for Kurds of Turkish action of this nature. I therefore hope that there is strong opposition to Turkey’s action, and that there is strong international support for Kurds as well.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The First Minister is keen to tell us about the arm’s-length relationship with Prestwick airport, but the Prestwick governance structure clearly shows that two of the First Minister’s officials sit on the board of the holding company. That is supposed to provide a line of democratic accountability, so that we are not reliant on investigative journalists to uncover the facts of what is going on. The Scottish Government should be giving us updates.

Will the First Minister update us now? Is there any business plan for Prestwick, other than to provide a bargain service for Trump’s military and book its taxis to Turnberry? Will the Scottish Government and the First Minister stop ignoring the nature of the scandal, accept responsibility for ensuring that our public assets are not used to support the military operations of a dangerous, far-right regime, and end the relationship between Prestwick and the US military?

The First Minister

I have set out the situation in terms of state aid requirements. If we want to ensure that Prestwick airport has a future, we have to comply with those requirements.

The sources of revenue for Prestwick airport are laid out in the accounts that Prestwick airport publishes. The last set of accounts cover the period to the end of March 2018, and the accounts are published annually. Beyond that, with regard to the future for Prestwick airport, as we have always said, we want to return it to the private sector as soon as we are able to do so.

The senior management team at the airport has continued to engage with potential buyers and investors, and we will continue to take the action that we require to take to ensure that the airport has a future. That is what is important for the economy in that part of Ayrshire and for the many jobs that depend on Prestwick airport having a future.

National Health Service (Waiting Times)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

4. A year ago, the Scottish Government published its waiting times plan. It said that nothing that had happened before should count against its record now, and the Parliament swallowed that. Since then, accident and emergency targets have been missed every week—all summer, performance was worse than last year. There are more young people waiting more than a year for mental health treatment. We have seen the worst ever performance against the treatment time guarantee and, this week, we learned of a patient who waited four years for dental surgery.

The situation is causing people pain, anxiety and suffering. Will the First Minister take the opportunity to apologise to them?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Our national health service is seeing and treating more patients than ever before. If we take accident and emergency, for example, this year, more than 1.5 million patients have been treated within the four-hour target, which is the highest number in any year since 2012. We are seeing more cancer patients treated within the target times, and our investment in the waiting times improvement plan is helping to ensure that the investments are in the right places in order to see waiting times continue to come down.

Demand in our NHS is rising, which is why we are building the capacity to meet that additional demand.

Although there remain big challenges for our national health service, not least at the front line in our accident and emergency units, Scotland’s core A and E service performance was 10.5 percentage points higher than that of A and E units in England and 17.6 percentage points higher than in Wales. There are big challenges for everybody’s NHS, but the evidence suggests that this Government is making the investments and taking the actions that are right for patients across the country.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am sure that the comparison with other nations is cold comfort to people who are waiting, and those people are still waiting. In fact, the Government is not even meeting the one cancer target that it was meeting before the recovery plan any more. The reason why those people are not being seen is that there is nobody there to see them. In mental health, psychiatry vacancies hit crisis levels this week and the workforce plan has been delayed yet again by the Government; it is nearly a year late. When will we see it? When will A and E targets and mental health targets start to be met? On world mental health day, is the First Minister really going to tell those patients to sit back, shut up and wait for another year?

The First Minister

No; I would never tell anybody to do that. I should, of course, have welcomed Alex Cole-Hamilton to his place for First Minister’s questions. He is covering for Willie Rennie, who is on holiday.

Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned a number of areas in the health service, including psychiatrist vacancies. I point out to him that, since we put additional funding in place, the number of child and adolescent mental health service psychiatrists has increased by 15 per cent, our accident and emergency departments are performing better than any others in the United Kingdom and we are investing to make sure that across our national health service we are building the capacity to meet the increased demand. Cancer has been mentioned, too, and we are seeing more cancer patients within the target times than previously. We will continue to make those investments so that we have a health service that is delivering the excellent treatment for patients that the vast majority of patients across the country already consider that our national health service is delivering.

The Presiding Officer

There is not much time today, but I will squeeze in a couple of constituency questions.

No-deal Brexit (Medicine Supplies)

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This weekend, I received at my home a handwritten note from an elderly constituent who is deeply worried about the impact of Brexit on her health. I kept her informed of the ministerial statement on Tuesday and hope that she takes some comfort from the work that the Scottish Government is doing to mitigate any circumstances. However, is the First Minister aware of the comments of Dame Sally Davies, the outgoing chief medical officer of England, who this morning said of medicine supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit that

“there may be deaths, we can’t guarantee there won’t”?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have seen the comments that Dame Sally Davies made this morning. They are absolutely horrifying. She said that lives are at risk and it cannot be guaranteed that people will not die because of potential medicine shortages and the impact of a no-deal Brexit. If nothing else that has been said over recent weeks and months about the consequences of a no-deal Brexit has made any difference to the United Kingdom Government, I really hope that those comments today will make that difference.

I know that Michael Gove is in Scotland for meetings later today and the question for him has to be: do people have to die before this UK Government comes to its senses and rules out a no-deal Brexit completely? It is absolutely unconscionable that it is still being contemplated and that at times it appears to be the desired policy of the Prime Minister and others. It is beyond belief, particularly in light of the comments from Dame Sally Davies, that Jackson Carlaw and the Scottish Conservatives seem happy to back Boris Johnson in taking the UK out of the European Union with no deal. I do not think that people in Scotland will readily forgive them for that.

Alesha MacPhail

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On 11 September, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice tweeted that he would meet Alesha MacPhail’s family to discuss their concerns with the justice system. As of yesterday, the family was very upset that they have had no contact, not even a phone call. Will the First Minister tell her justice secretary to get in touch with the family without further delay?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will continue to support my justice secretary in taking the appropriate, sensitive and right action that he is taking. I make it clear that the justice secretary made a commitment to meet Alesha MacPhail’s mum before meeting any other members of the family. Unfortunately, for entirely understandable reasons, that meeting had to be postponed by Alesha’s mum.

The justice secretary will honour that commitment to meet the little girl’s mum and, when he has done so, he will—as he said he would—meet other members of the family. I honestly do not think that we should be trying to make party-political points on such a tragic case.

Challenge Poverty Week

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

5. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is marking challenge poverty week. (S5F-03635)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Challenge poverty week is very important. It is a reminder that we must continue with the actions that we are taking to tackle poverty. Our current actions are supporting low-income households. Last year, we provided targeted support of £1.4 billion. In addition, we have delivered more than 87,000 affordable homes since 2007. Our increase in early learning and childcare will be transformational in supporting parents, and we are investing in new parental employment support. Through our new Scottish child payment, we will lift 30,000 children out of poverty.

Of course, it is clear that the biggest danger as regards increasing poverty is presented by the UK Government’s continued welfare cuts and the risk of a no-deal Brexit, which could push 130,000 people in Scotland into poverty.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Parliament will be aware that, last week, the United Nations special rapporteur said that Scotland is on “a very different trajectory” from the rest of the United Kingdom. He also said that the spirit of the welfare state is “alive and humming” in Scotland but is “waning” elsewhere.

The introduction of the new Scottish child payment shows that this Scottish National Party Scottish Government is determined to do things differently in Scotland. The policy will be transformative.

What impact could the Scottish Government make if it did not have to spend millions mitigating the most harmful UK Government policies, such as welfare cuts and a no-deal Brexit?

The First Minister

Right now, even before we contemplate a no-deal Brexit, we are spending £100 million every year to protect people from the UK Government’s welfare cuts. The UN special rapporteur described that as an outrageous situation, and I thoroughly agree with that. I think that all of us would rather be investing those funds in our own policies to tackle poverty.

We are taking bold and radical action. The new Scottish child payment was described by poverty campaigners as “a game changer”. We will continue to take such action to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to tackle poverty.

The continuation of the seemingly rapid acceleration towards a no-deal Brexit makes it all the more obvious that we need to get powers out of the hands of Boris Johnson and his ilk and into the hands of this Parliament so that we do not have to put up with Tory welfare cuts any more, because we can take the right decisions here in the first place to help to lift people out of poverty and to create a better, fairer country for everybody.

Psychiatric Services (Staffing)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the reported staffing shortfalls in psychiatric services, particularly those for children. (S5F-03631)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are investing £54 million in a package of support to improve access to mental health services for adults and children, providing funding for additional staff and workforce development. In 2018, there was an improvement in recruitment to psychiatric specialities. There has also been an increase of 15 per cent in the number of child and adolescent mental health services psychiatrists since additional funding was put in place in March 2016. In addition, we have provided funding of more than £12,000 to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for its choose psychiatry campaign to promote psychiatry as a career in Scotland.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I was interested to listen to the First Minister’s answers to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s questions, because I received correspondence from the

Royal College of Psychiatrists that stated that more than one in six consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist posts are vacant. To compound that pressure on services, according to the report on CAMHS, it is anticipated that 40 per cent of child and adolescent psychiatrists will retire within five years. It takes six years’ training for a junior doctor to gain consultant status, and a decrease has been reported in the number of people who are choosing to progress from core to higher psychiatric training.

We have a growing demand and an already high vacancy rate compounded by a large number of psychiatrists approaching retirement age. When will the Government produce a realistic workforce plan that can meet those escalating challenges and ensure that our children receive the mental health care that they deserve?

The First Minister

We are already taking action and, as I am about to set out, that action—although there is still work to do—is already having an effect. There are challenges in recruiting to a number of medical specialties, which are not unique to Scotland—they are experienced in other parts of the United Kingdom and, indeed, other parts of Europe and the world—and those challenges are not made easier if we make it harder for people to come here as a result of Brexit or Tory crackdowns on immigration. Those are points that we should not stop making.

On psychiatry, as I said in my original answer, we have seen an increase in the number of CAMHS psychiatrists since we made additional funding available in 2016. Consultant psychiatrist vacancies remain unfilled in a number of health boards, but over the past five years, we have increased the number of psychiatric posts by 8.5 per cent. In 2018—this is important—we saw a significant improvement in recruitment to psychiatric specialties, with a fill rate of 72 per cent compared with 55 per cent in the year before that.

Those are important steps, but there is still work to be done and we remain focused on ensuring that the investment and plans are in place to do that work and to make sure that we have the right medical specialists in place where they are needed.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s questions. There is no members’ business today, so I suspend the meeting. We resume at 1.30.

12:46 Meeting suspended.

13:30 On resuming—

Education and Skills

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Good afternoon. Our next item of business is portfolio questions. I remind members that questions 4, 5 and 7 will be grouped together.

Dyslexia (Learning Support)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting learners who have dyslexia. (S5O-03651)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We want all children and young people to get the support that they need to reach their full potential. We support education authorities in meeting their duties under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 to identify, provide for and review the additional support needs of their pupils, including pupils with dyslexia.

We have provided free professional learning opportunities for practitioners that support them to further develop their knowledge, understanding and skills in supporting learners with dyslexia. Those include the refreshed addressing dyslexia toolkit and the dyslexia and inclusive practice online professional learning modules.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

It is estimated that around one in 10 of us have dyslexia in some form, making it crucial to ensure that there is appropriate support. As this is dyslexia awareness week, does the cabinet secretary agree that businesses and employers must also take proactive steps to implement policies and practices that ensure that employees with the dyslexia have the support that they require?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with Emma Harper’s point. It is important that individuals with additional support needs are able to make a full contribution to our society. That may, in certain circumstances, require adaptations in educational practice and support;

equally, it may require adaptations and revisions in the world of work. That aspiration will certainly be reflected in the approaches to employment support that are available through Skills Development Scotland and other organisations, including our college sector. There are obviously opportunities for us support that work through dyslexia awareness week.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Learners with neurodevelopmental conditions such as dyslexia, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

have particular support needs, and teachers need skills to support them. The National Autistic Society Scotland recently suggested that there should be a minister for neurodiversity. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that suggestion, and will he consider it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will certainly consider the suggestion but, as Mr Johnson will appreciate, ministerial responsibilities are not entirely my responsibility—the First Minister has a very significant say on those questions. I will reflect on what is an interesting and helpful

suggestion. I reassure Daniel Johnson that the neurodiversity issues that he has raised are very much uppermost in ministers’ minds as we try to ensure that practice is in place to support individuals and that the appropriate training and education are in place for staff to deliver that support. However, I will consider his suggestion as part of our on-going dialogue about meeting the needs of individuals with additional support needs.

I was very pleased to be able to appoint Angela Morgan to lead the review of additional support needs provision. I had the pleasure of meeting her yesterday to discuss how she intends to take forward the review.

Teacher Reductions (Impact on Curriculum for Excellence)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that reductions in teacher numbers have impacted on the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. (S5O-03652)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am pleased to advise Mr Balfour that the Government’s actions to boost teacher recruitment are working. There are now more teachers than at any time since 2010, and the pupil teacher ratio is at its lowest since 2013. Primary teacher numbers are now at their highest level since 1980. Schools and local authorities continue to ensure that curriculum for excellence, in both the broad general education and the senior phase, is delivering the best possible opportunities for young people. I welcome the fact that, last year, a record proportion of pupils went on to positive destinations such as work, training or further study.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

If the cabinet secretary looks at the Scottish Government’s recent headteacher survey on implementing the senior phase of the curriculum for excellence, he will see that 75 per cent of respondents said that the availability of teaching staff was a factor that limited headteachers’ ability to ensure a broad general education at the senior phase.

Is it not the case that Scottish National Party cuts to teacher numbers in previous years have prevented headteachers from being able to successfully implement the curriculum for excellence?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not accept that view. Over the past few years, we have worked hard to boost teacher numbers, and the data speaks for itself—teacher numbers are rising. I accept that there were challenges in relation to teacher numbers, and we have acted to address that issue.

We must ask why there was such pressure on teacher numbers. A lot of that was down to the financial constraints within which we have had to operate as a consequence of the austerity that we have had to endure under the Conservative Government since 2010.

We have worked hard to boost teacher numbers. I am delighted that they are the highest that they have been since 2010, which is enabling our headteachers to make choices about how they can deliver an effective education for young people across our country.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

One consequence of reduced teacher numbers is the systematic use of multilevel teaching in the senior school. What is the cabinet secretary’s response to evidence that was published in

The Ferret

this week that that is more prevalent in schools serving poorer communities, and that, in some schools, most senior classes are taught using multilevel teaching?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There will be a variety of factors that lead to the existence of multilevel teaching. Some of that will involve the number of pupils who have a desire to take particular courses and the desire of schools around the country, which I recognise, to ensure that provision is as broad as possible.

Mr Gray will realise that, in some schools that operate in deprived areas, the cohort size may be smaller than it is in other parts of the country. In general, pupil numbers in secondary schools in deprived areas result in generally smaller cohorts than in other secondary schools. Those factors will obviously have an effect on the provision of particular courses.

What I do not think that schools and headteachers should be criticised for is trying to maximise the opportunities that are available to young people, which is what they are doing. That might contribute to the use of multilevel teaching, which, of course, as Mr Gray knows, has long been a feature of Scottish education.

School-based Counsellors

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government, further to the commitment in its 2017-18 programme for government, what progress it has made with the appointment of school-based counsellors. (S5O-03653)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is taking forward its proposals on child and adolescent mental health, which we take seriously, and the investment in providing access to counsellors in every secondary school is part of a package of measures to ensure that children and young people get the support that they need.

We are delivering the commitment in partnership with local authorities, which are responsible for the recruitment of counsellors. To support local authority partners, we have agreed the distribution of funding to implement the service, a set of aims and principles to underpin development and delivery and a process for local authority reporting on implementation and progress.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Constituents have raised with me concerns about the number of young people who have considered, attempted or completed suicide, and there is disappointment at the fact that the planned roll-out of school-based counselling in South Lanarkshire has been delayed. Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment at that, and can he outline further what steps the Scottish Government will take to support councils across Scotland to ensure that the commitment to school-based counselling is being fully fulfilled?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I want to reassure Monica Lennon that we are taking forward our proposals in partnership with local authorities. We have gone through the process of agreeing the distribution arrangements. In 2019-20, South Lanarkshire Council, which Monica Lennon mentioned, will receive £709,000 from the Scottish Government to support the school counselling service, and that will rise to £961,000 in 2020-21.

Obviously, we want to make swift progress on the issue, and a lot of good work is going on in individual schools around supporting the mental health of young people. I completely accept the importance of the issue that Monica Lennon raises.

This morning, I visited the Royal high school of Edinburgh, where young people have been involved in a bibliotherapy exercise, which is about identifying works of fiction and other books that can help young people who are wrestling with mental health challenges to find empathy and support when they participate in reading exercises. The approach has borne significant fruit in the school. It is the product of a lot of welcome collaboration with City of Edinburgh Council library services and it is supported by the Government’s school library improvement fund.

Schools are taking a variety of steps—not to mention what is being done through pupil equity funding—to provide mental health support. I completely accept the importance of the issue that Monica Lennon raised and I assure her that, with our local authority partners, we are pursuing the implementation of the commitments that we have made to the Parliament.

The Presiding Officer

Questions 4, 5 and 7 are grouped. I remind members that if they want to ask a supplementary on any one of those questions, I will take their supplementary after question 7.

Additional Support Needs

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides for pupils with additional support needs. (S5O-03654)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We want all children and young people to get the support that they need to reach their full learning potential. Under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act (2004), education authorities have duties to identify, provide for and review the additional support needs of their pupils.

The Scottish Government funds a number of services to provide advice and support to children, young people and their families, to ensure that they are fully informed of their rights to additional support and can access support and guidance that enables them to be involved in any decisions that are made about that support.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

This year, the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition highlighted a fall in the number of specialist teachers who support young people with additional support needs. A decline of something like 403 over the past six years takes the number of specialist teachers to a new low.

I welcome funds being made available for pupil support assistants, but will the Deputy First Minister say how much money the Government is allocating to plug the hole in the number of specialist teachers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A range of specialists provide support and assistance to young people with additional support needs, and although teachers make a huge contribution, I think that, in her question, Jackie Baillie acknowledged the importance of other members of staff who contribute to the process.

On financial support, the most recent data that is available shows that local authorities have increased the amount that they are spending on education in general. There is a real-terms increase of 1 per cent, or 3 per cent in cash terms. On additional support for learning, local authorities have increased the support that they make available by 0.9 per cent in real terms, or 2.9 per cent in cash terms.

In addition, the Government has made available an extra £15 million in this financial year to expand the range of pupil support assistants. When I discussed the issues at a gathering on additional support needs that the Government convened in Edinburgh last week, the Government’s initiative to support provision at local level received a warm welcome.

Children with Additional Support Needs (School Location)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether children with additional support needs should be educated at the nearest appropriate school to their home. (S5O-03655)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Children and young people should learn in the environment that is best suited to their individual needs. It is for education authorities to determine the most appropriate provision for children and young people with additional support needs, taking account of their legislative responsibilities and the individual circumstances and wishes of children, young people and their families.

Guidance for education authorities is provided through the statutory code of practice on supporting children’s learning. Authorities are further supported in their decisions by the refreshed guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming, which was published in March 2019.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his comprehensive answer. Does he agree that local authorities should be flexible enough to allow children to be educated near their home, even when that means going to school in a neighbouring local authority?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Such a circumstance might well be appropriate for a young person. I certainly do not think that local authorities should feel constrained by a necessity to operate within their electoral boundaries in the context of provision to meet the needs of young people with additional support needs; nor should a local authority feel obliged to move outwith its area. The key decision making should be about the needs of the child, after good dialogue with the child and their family. I encourage local authorities to exercise their legislative responsibilities in the context of understanding and accepting the important point that Mr Gibson made.

Additional Support Needs Assistants

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that assistants in schools for pupils with additional needs have the appropriate training or qualifications. (S5O-03657)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In line with legislation, education authorities must ensure that they have appropriately trained and qualified staff in place to support pupils in their learning.

We are exploring with key stakeholders how we can further enhance the support that is offered to wider education staff, including classroom assistants, to ensure that all children and young people get the support that they need to reach their full learning potential.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will appreciate that assistants who support pupils with ASN are not general classroom assistants and that supporting ASN pupils requires specialist knowledge and training; we do not leave it up to individual local councils to manage the registration of ASN teachers and having 32 different registration schemes would not be feasible. Will the Government step in to ensure that ASN assistants are properly supported to assist pupils in order to make sure that the highest standards apply across Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will certainly consider the issue that Alison Johnstone has raised and feed it into the review of ASN provision that Angela Morgan is leading for the Government. I accept the principle that it is vital that the needs of young people are appropriately met and that the training of staff is effective in ensuring that that is the case

.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Last year, there were almost 200,000 pupils with additional support needs in Scotland’s schools. Although training for classroom support staff is important, teachers are crying out for specialist ASN teachers after their numbers fell by over 10 per cent between 2012 and 2018. What action is the cabinet secretary taking to address that reduction in specialist ASN teachers, especially as the identification of special needs is improving all the time?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

From the data that I have, there are 51,253 teachers—forgive me, I will leave that point; I misread the column in front of me.

On the point that Alison Harris raises, there is a fundamental issue around the principle of mainstreaming—our mainstream teaching population must be able to properly support young people in their requirements. Local authorities must make a judgment about whether they have all the teaching complement in place to adequately meet a young person’s needs. A young person should not be placed in mainstream education unless the local authority is satisfied that there is appropriate trained support available for the education of that young person.

Fundamentally, it is the responsibility of local authorities to make that judgment and to ensure that the appropriate support is in place for a young person. We are seeing a growth in the number of staff supporting pupils with

additional support needs. That number will be boosted by the announcements that were made in the programme for government. That is the route that we are taking to ensure that the needs of individuals are met appropriately.

Modern Apprenticeships

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what schools are doing to encourage fifth and sixth year leavers to pursue modern apprenticeships, particularly in more affluent catchment areas. (S5O-03656)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Apprenticeships are promoted to teachers, young people and their influencers through a range of regular campaigns and activity across digital channels, social media, events and traditional media, as well as through careers information and advice.

The introduction and promotion of foundation apprenticeships embeds the apprenticeship offer into the senior phase of secondary schools and further supports career paths into modern and graduate apprenticeship jobs.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

In my constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, a high proportion of school leavers go on to university, which of course I welcome. Does the minister agree that apprenticeships and skills training is an equally positive destination and should be encouraged by all schools?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I welcome the fact that so many young people go on to university across Scotland. We will continue to support that opportunity; we provide over £1 billion to the higher education sector. However, I agree with Rona Mackay on that point; we are working to try to get parity of esteem between vocational and academic education. We are doing that through the developing the young workforce initiative.

We will provide 29,000 apprenticeship opportunities this year. I am sure that Ms Mackay will welcome the fact that, last year, approximately 400 apprentices started training in East Dunbartonshire, the local authority area in which her constituency is located. Skills Development Scotland reports that it expects to see a significant increase in the number of foundation apprenticeship starts this year.

Much is happening in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, and much is happening across Scotland, and we will continue to promote apprenticeships as an invaluable part of Scotland’s skills and training system.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-19379, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

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

Groups 23 to 26: 1 hour 15 minutes.—[

Maurice Golden

.]

Motion agreed to.

Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 (Day 2)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is continuation of stage 3 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I will not repeat the procedural advice, because I think that members are familiar with it. However, the division bell will sound before we have the first division of the afternoon and Parliament will be suspended for five minutes to allow members to come to the chamber.

The Presiding Officer

Group 23 is on the workplace parking levy and the application of net proceeds. Amendment 171 is the only amendment in the group.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will try to be brief and use the notes that I abbreviated at 9 o’clock last night.

As it is drafted, section 58 requires local authorities to apply proceeds from the workplace parking levy only for the purpose of facilitating local transport policy. The purpose of amendment 171 is to require the proceeds that are raised under the levy also to be used for supporting local business improvement districts, including town centre and high street regeneration projects in the local authority area.

The Scottish Conservatives fundamentally disagree with the workplace parking levy, but if it is to be introduced, the proceeds should be used in a way that directly benefits our high streets and town centres. High streets across Scotland are facing unprecedented pressure, with an average of five shops closing each week according to a recent survey. Parliament needs to take action to revive our high streets. Ring fencing the proceeds from the levy for investment into high streets would be a positive first step.

I therefore encourage members to support their local high streets and support the amendment.

I move amendment 171.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendment 171 concerns the application of net proceeds from a workplace parking licensing scheme. As drafted, the bill requires funds that are raised to be used for activities to achieve policies in a local authority’s local transport strategy, or in the strategy of local authorities with which it is working jointly for transport purposes.

The local transport strategy will be developed to address local circumstances, and may, at the local authority’s discretion, include transport-related policies to strengthen business improvement districts or any other locally significant initiatives. Rather than seeking to determine the initiatives to be supported at national level, it is appropriate to allow local authorities to determine how funds are allocated through their transport strategies. As a result, I do not support the amendment and I ask members to reject it.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary is keen to increase funding for transport, especially given the dismal performance of ScotRail. However, Scotland’s high streets face unprecedented pressure from increasing business rates and a stagnant economy under the Scottish National Party. Amendment 171 would give the high street a much-needed boost, and it would give local authorities full discretion over how to use the money for the benefit of town centres.

I therefore encourage members to support their local high streets, and to support amendment 171.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 171 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

This is the first division of the day, so I suspend the meeting for five minutes while we summon members to the chamber.

13:54 Meeting suspended.

13:59 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 171.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment

171

disagreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 disagreed to.

Section 58M—Accounts

Amendment 110 moved—[Michael Matheson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 110 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 76, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment

110 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Section 58N—Penalty charges

Amendment 111 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

Section 58O—Evidence from approved devices

Amendment 15 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The Presiding Officer

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Section 58P—Enforcement powers

Amendment 16 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

We turn to group 24, which is on enforcement powers: workplace parking levy and road works. Amendment 112, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 113, 115 to 118 and 177.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendments 112, 113 and 115 to 118 seek to tidy up the bill’s provisions on the issuing of warrants to access private premises for the purposes of enforcing the workplace parking levy and conducting inspections relating to road works. At points, those powers seem unnecessarily broad, so the amendments in my name would add small but useful caveats.

Amendments 112 and 117 clarify that warrants should be obtained only where attempts to enter the premises with permission from the owner have been unsuccessful. The bill as it is currently drafted says that a warrant can be granted if the sheriff reasonably expects to be denied entry. It is not clear what that means or what purpose that provision serves, so I do not see any reason to have it in the bill.

Amendments 113 and 118 place a time limit of 28 days on the execution of warrants. Warrants should not be open ended, so those amendments simply clarify the timeframe within which they should be used. I believe that 28 days is a reasonable period of time for that purpose.

Amendments 115 and 116 clarify that the inspection powers in relation to road works, which the bill introduces, must be used only within reason. Specifically, those amendments would make it clear that the person undertaking the inspection could retain relevant information only for as long as they reasonably consider necessary, and could require the provision of facilities and assistance only as they reasonably consider necessary. Those are small but important changes that make it clear that the powers granted under this part of the bill are not without restriction.

I move amendment 112.

The Presiding Officer

I call Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 177 on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

As you said, Presiding Officer, I speak on behalf of the committee.

Section 58N(1) was inserted at stage 2 and provides the Scottish ministers with the power to make provision to impose penalty charges connected with workplace parking licensing schemes. As the bill is currently drafted, such regulations would be scrutinised by the Parliament using the negative procedure. The Government has said that that form of procedure would be appropriate as the power is procedural and technical in nature. It added that it is equivalent to other powers relating to the penalties in the bill on low-emission zones and the parking prohibitions that are also subject to the negative procedure

The committee agrees with the Government that much of the detail of the power, which relates to

“the notification, payment, adjudication and enforcement of penalty charges”,

is better suited to the negative procedure.

However, part of the power in section 58N extends beyond merely technical and procedural matters; it includes the power to define the circumstances in which a penalty charge may be imposed. The power is therefore wider than the powers relating to penalties in respect of low-emission zones and the parking prohibitions, for which the circumstances in which a penalty would apply are set out in the bill. The ability to define in regulations the circumstances in which a penalty is payable is a substantive power, and as such it requires enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. The committee considers that the affirmative procedure is the most appropriate vehicle for this part of the power.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

We had some reservations about Colin Smyth’s amendments 112 and 113, and his amendments 117 and 118. In the beginning we were unsure, and we were hoping that Colin Smyth would clarify exactly why those amendments are important. I am open to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about the matter. However, my concern is that, if we start to shift the terms of warrants that are issued under this legislation, it may have a knock-on effect on other pieces of legislation with regard to the enforcement of other types of offences.

To be fair, if it is deemed to be of merit to access a property for which a warrant is required, those in enforcement should be afforded all due law to enable them to carry out that act. I have slight worries about the consequence of Colin Smyth’s amendments altering the terms of such warrants. However, we are pleased to support amendments 115 and 116, which insert an element of protection for the general public in respect of what is, and what may not be, reasonable.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am happy to support amendments 115 and 116, which make it clear that enforcement officers must act reasonably in the exercise of their enforcement function in respect of road works. Although, in my view, the amendments are not strictly necessary, I am happy to make that requirement explicit in the bill.

I am also content to support amendments 113 and 118. In practice, warrants for the exercise of enforcement powers in relation to workplace parking and road works are unlikely to be needed for more than 28 days, so the amendments would cause no practical difficulties.

However, I cannot support Colin Smyth’s amendments 112 and 117, which would undermine the effective exercise of workplace parking and road works enforcement functions. By requiring enforcement officers to apply to gain entry to the premises, even in cases in which they know that the application will be refused, the amendments would effectively offer organisations under inspection a window during which they could take action to frustrate the inspection. Powers of this kind are commonly found in comparable statutory enforcement regimes, and a warrant is granted only where a sheriff is reasonably satisfied, on the basis of evidence, that entry will be refused.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 177 would change the procedure under which certain regulations on penalty charges, in association with the workplace parking licensing scheme, are made. Although I appreciate the point that Graham Simpson has made, the approach that amendment 177 takes would potentially give rise to confusion as to when the affirmative procedure was applicable and when it was not, and would lead to very technical provisions being subject to an inappropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 177.

I urge members to support amendments 113, 115, 116 and 118, but I ask Colin Smyth and Graham Simpson not to press amendment 112 or move the other amendments in the group. Otherwise, I ask members to reject them.

The Presiding Officer

I call Colin Smyth to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 112.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

My amendments all make what I believe are relatively simple but important changes to the bill’s provisions on warrants and inspections. I think that we all recognise the need for those enforcement powers, and I am not looking to hinder them in any way. Rather, I am looking to clarify in law the expectation that they will be used in a responsible and reasonable manner. On that basis, I am happy to press amendment 112.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 23, Against 78, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 112 disagreed to.

Amendment 113 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Neil Bibby].

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

Section 58R—Enforcement powers: further provision

Amendment 18 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 56, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

Section 58S—Power of entry: Crown land

Amendment 19 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 56, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

Section 58T—Interpretation of Part

Amendment 20 moved—[Neil Bibby].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20 disagreed to.

Group 25 is on the recovery of unpaid parking charges. Amendment 172, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 173 and 114.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Amendment 172 would leave out section 58U(2), which says:

“It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked)”.

Amendment 173 would leave out the word “conveniently” from section 58Z1.

I have concerns about the precedent that is being set in the parliamentary process, because there was no committee scrutiny of this part of the bill. I acknowledge that it began as one of many members’ bills and that it had a consultation, but it probably passed many members by because they were busy with their own bills. I agree with many aspects of what Murdo Fraser has tried to achieve here, but I am concerned about the practice of inserting members’ bills into bills at stage 2. I note that only 35 per cent of the respondents to his consultation were in favour of the concept of keeper liability. There did not seem to be a majority for it.

It is extraordinary that the Government was prepared to accept the concept lock, stock and barrel, on the basis that it already exists in this form in England and Wales. That is not a satisfactory test. England had wheel clamping, which we did not have in Scotland. England has trespass laws, which we do not have in Scotland. There is a debate to be had about whether Scotland has been getting things right while England has been getting things wrong. That also concerns me. There is also a debate to be had about access by private companies to car registration information, but that might be for another day.

I am grateful to Paul Wheelhouse, who wrote to me after stage 2, on behalf of Michael Matheson, in an attempt to clarify the points that I had raised. Section 58U, which is in part 4B, states that

“It is immaterial for the purposes of this Part whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked ... on the land.”

It makes it clear that the keeper liability provisions are to apply irrespective of whether the vehicle was permitted to be parked on the land or whether the driver of the vehicle had a contract in place with the landowner. That creates a clear liability on the keeper of the vehicle. If there is a contract in place, surely the driver should have the permission of the landowner.

In his letter, the minister gave the example of non-residents in a parking bay in a residents-only parking area. Does that mean that, if a person has rights over a parking bay, they cannot let their son or daughter use the space that is allocated to them? If a person owns a parking bay in a residents-only parking area, why would we need a subsection that says that it is “immaterial” whether permission was given? We should strive for clarity in the law and not confusion. Having read this subsection several times, I am confused as to why it is needed.

Another example is that owners of flats in city centre developments with parking spaces find it impossible to enforce their rights. However, if a city centre owner wants to give their friend the right to park in their parking bay, I do not see why it should be “immaterial” that that permission was given. If I have misunderstood that, I will be glad to be corrected.

Amendment 173 deals with the word “conveniently”. That is where my more serious concern lies. It clarifies that the keeper of the car can be held liable for charges incurred by the driver only where

“the creditor does not know ... the name of the driver”

and either the driver’s address or

“an address at which the driver ... can conveniently be contacted.”

That provision is in place to facilitate options for the driver to be pursued before the creditor moves to pursue recovery from the vehicle keeper. I seek to remove the word “conveniently” because I am not clear why it is there.

In essence, my concern is about the meaning of “conveniently”. Does “conveniently” mean that the creditor attempted to contact the driver, or the person who was allegedly driving at the time? Does it mean that they knocked on the door of the driver or turned up at the driver’s place of work? Of course, there are huge issues about that concerning data protection.

I must draw Parliament’s attention to my serious concerns. I know that members have dealt with the overexuberance of private companies that have issued parking notices unfairly and unlawfully, and we do not even know about the code of practice, which is not in force yet. We do know, however, that the issuing of parking notices is of great interest to some overexuberant private companies. My experience of that has not been good.

We should not let the provisions pass without further scrutiny, or at least without accepting these amendments. Let us not forget that, when a parking notice is issued—I am not talking about a parking offence—it is only an allegation that the person was in breach; they might not have been. We are giving huge powers in this part of the bill to private companies that will go after the keeper of the car, not the driver. Lots of ordinary people will be caught out by that. At the very least we should pass my amendments so as to clarify the law, but I am unhappy about the whole matter.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

Could Pauline McNeill confirm for the Parliament that the word “conveniently” is not at all defined in the bill?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

My understanding is that it is not defined. That is what my concern is. What the bill is driving at, as I read it, is that, if it is convenient to go and find the driver, the creditor should go and do that. However, we do not know what that means.

I honestly do not trust these private companies to use the legislation. They will go after the keeper, because we have made it easy for them to do so. I do not know whether the bill goes even further than the English and Welsh legislation, because we have not had a chance to test it.

I move amendment 172.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendment 172 seeks to remove subsection (2) from section 58U. The removal of that subsection

would significantly limit the reach of the keeper liability provisions, as it would leave considerable doubt about whether they apply to instances of drivers parking in parking areas that they are not permitted to park in and to instances where an allocated parking time has been exceeded. Those practices are precisely the sorts of irresponsible parking that the keeper liability provisions attempt to address.

Amendment 173 seeks to amend the first condition that must be met before a creditor can rely on the keeper liability provisions in the bill. Creditors have the right to enforce against the driver, but they cannot, as they do not know the driver’s name or address. The bill says that the latter is

“an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted.”

In this context, the word “conveniently” limits the potential addresses that can be caught by the provision. If the word is removed, the potential addresses at which the driver could be contacted could be very far reaching. That amendment could also lead to confusion as to what addresses could be caught, and it could ultimately reduce a creditor’s ability to rely on the keeper liability provisions.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

I pose the same question to the cabinet secretary that I asked Pauline McNeill: how do we define “conveniently” in the law?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The point that Pauline McNeill did not refer to is that the provisions of this element of the Transport (Scotland) Bill tie into the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, which was taken through the UK Parliament by Greg Knight, and the statutory code of practice, which sets out that any company using the process must apply the rules, including on how it would see “conveniently” applied to an address. For the first time, there is a statutory code of practice that deals with the type of rogue companies that are misusing the system as it stands. The new arrangements make it more suitable to prevent those types of rogue companies from exploiting the loopholes that we have in the law at present.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm to whom it is convenient?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

In law, it is convenient in that it does not allow them to look for any address that relates to the particular person. The statutory code of practice will set out how it is to be applied in order to obtain the information.

Amendment 144, in my name, relates to section 58Z4. It sets out the circumstances under which the keeper of a vehicle may be contacted if a fine remains unpaid by the driver of a vehicle. As it is currently framed, the keeper may be contacted

“within the period of 28 days beginning within the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.”

That is not quite how the provision should operate. Instead, in line with the provisions that have been made in England and Wales, it should operate so that it is only once the driver has been given a period of 28 days within which to make payment but has not done so that the notice to the keeper may be issued. The purpose of amendment 144 is, therefore, to give effect to that intention.

Finally, keeper liability is not a new process in Scots law. It is presently used in Scots law in a number of areas, including in road traffic legislation. Therefore, it is important to recognise that the provisions help to address loopholes in the law that can be used by unscrupulous companies that seek to exploit individuals.

As each of Pauline McNeill’s amendments is significantly detrimental to the success of the operation of the keeper liability regime, I urge members to reject amendments 172 and 173, and to support amendment 144.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will speak in support of amendment 173, in the name of Pauline McNeill. It is worrying that there has been little scrutiny of this particular issue, which is a point that also applies to other parts of the bill. Giving more power to private parking companies to track people down is not

something that I would support. Many of those companies operate deeply concerning practices. As far back as 2009, I lodged a motion about their charges, which I entitled “Highway Robbery”. I spent a lot of time challenging the so-called fines that they hand out to my constituents, particularly elderly and disabled constituents, who feel threatened and worried by the aggressive letters that they receive—often for simple errors such as displaying their disabled badges upside down. Many of my constituents simply cannot afford the exorbitant charges.

I wrote to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to ask why it sells driver information to those private companies, and—indeed—about how the general data protection regulation affects that practice. What it said is very relevant to the word “conveniently”, which Pauline McNeill’s amendment seeks to remove. It said:

“Information about the registered keepers of vehicles can be released by the DVLA under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 and does not require the consent of the individual concerned. This legislation allows vehicle keeper details to be disclosed to third parties who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it. Although reasonable cause is not defined in legislation, the Government’s policy is clear. Requests should relate to the vehicle or its use following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the driver.”

As Pauline McNeill said, how do we even know that there is liability?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Greg Knight bill that was taken through the UK Parliament is about tackling specifically the issue that Elaine Smith highlighted. That is why the provision that is created in this bill is about hooking it into that legislation in order to deal with those companies that might misuse the system. As part of that, the DVLA will provide information only to companies that have signed up to the statutory code of practice and apply the rules, which will prevent rogue operators from getting access to the information.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

Although the letter goes on to say some of that, it still says what I read out—that is, that there has to be “reasonable cause”, which is not defined in legislation. Therefore, no matter the code of practice, the companies can still be given the information.

I am sure that nobody in the chamber condones irresponsible or selfish parking, but there is no doubt that some private companies harass and frighten vulnerable people, which certainly should not be condoned. Amendment 173 would at least assist in ensuring that some protection exists for keepers of cars. We should have further debate and discussion about the provision in section 58U and it should not be rushed through the parliamentary process. I support amendment 173.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I support Pauline McNeill’s amendments 172 and 173. If we do not support them, we will give a free hand to owners of private parking facilities to pursue the owner of a car, rather than the driver at the time of an offence, for the value of a fine. The driver at the time of the offence could be a family member, friend, colleague or anyone else who was insured and had permission to drive the car. Their deliberate or inadvertent parking on a site might result in a parking ticket being issued. However, if the perpetrator could not be identified, the vehicle owner would cop for the cost of the fine.

No one is saying that no one should be held accountable for an infringement, but the right person has to be held accountable. If it is not the right person being held accountable, that is fundamentally wrong. It is like saying that we could not identify the bank robber but we know who owns the getaway car, so they are going down for the crime. That is fundamentally wrong.

The cabinet secretary rightly complained about Jeremy Balfour not lodging his amendment at stage 2, but the provision in section 58U did not exist at stage 1, but came absolutely out of the blue through Murdo Fraser introducing a members’ bill into this bill with no scrutiny whatsoever, which is ludicrous.

I ask members to support Pauline McNeill’s amendments to remove a potentially bad piece of law from the bill. If we do not, all MSPs will be approached by constituents with cases of their being held liable for offences that they have not committed.

I ask Scottish National Party members in particular whether they will join the Tories today to give the power in question to owners of private companies. Will they support—of all people—Murdo Fraser? That is what they are being asked to do. I ask them to support the amendments in Pauline McNeill’s name and to throw out the provision in section 58U.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I, too, support amendments 172 and 173, because section 58U of the bill will give effect to a members’ bill from stage 2 that was not scrutinised by the committee or Parliament at stage 1, which means that there might be unintended consequences, as has been illustrated by Pauline McNeill.

Members have addressed the substance of section 58U, but I want to consider the process, because the Scottish Government has created a precedent in something that it usually resists vigorously. Should a back-bench member of a different party, or even of the same party as the Government, attempt to bring to Parliament, for consideration, a proposal that was not included at stage 1 of a bill, they are shouted down by Government ministers and its party’s MSPs. However, lo and behold, the Scottish Government is now guilty of not practising what it preaches, and SNP members are silent about the matter.

Many members will note the precedent that is being created today by the Scottish Government. Henceforth, it will not be able to use that position as an excuse to thwart members’ ambitions in forthcoming bills. This is not a party-political issue; it is about good parliamentary practice, with which we should not be so cavalier.

We do not have a second revising chamber, so we need to be careful about the scrutiny that we undertake. However, the current process falls well short of what is required.

The other point of note is that the provision that has been transposed into the bill relates to an English act and code of practice. Far be it from me to second guess the cabinet secretary, but I hope that he has had that tested against Scots law.

Pauline McNeill was right to point to the potential for confusion and to the lack of certainty and clarity. All law that we pass should be clear, but the provision in section 58U is not clear, and might therefore have unintended consequences, despite the cabinet secretary’s good intentions.

I urge the cabinet secretary to support Pauline McNeill’s amendments 172 and 173.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was not intending to speak on group 25, but such has been the sound and fury—and wilful ignorance—of Labour members on the issue, that it is worth making a brief comment on it.

I do not need any lessons about dealing with unscrupulous car parking companies—hundreds of constituents have contacted me about the issue over the past four or five years, which is what led me to run a member’s bill consultation on how the law in that area might be improved. The consultation suggested five reforms, all of which had majority support from all those who responded. I welcomed the opportunity to work with the Scottish Government to insert some of the reforms into the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which is the appropriate vehicle, given that the public had already been consulted on the issues.

What Pauline McNeill seems to have missed—the point was made by the transport secretary a moment ago—is that in tandem with the bill, we have Sir Greg Knight’s private member’s bill at Westminster, which has become the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. That act had unanimous support at Westminster—including from the Labour Party—and has introduced a statutory code of practice for private car parking companies. That means that, for the first time, private companies that do not adhere to the statutory code of practice will not be able to access from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency the records that they require to enforce notices. That is the important and essential point.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

If I heard Murdo Fraser correctly, he said that the “majority” of respondents were in favour, but at stage 2, he said:

“In the consultation that I ran as part of my member’s bill proposal, 35 per cent of respondents were in favour of keeper liability, 33 per cent were opposed”.—[

Official Report, Rural Affairs and Connectivity Committee

, 26 June 2019; c 8.]

It is not the case that a majority of respondents were in favour of the proposal. I understand why: people are not in favour of keeper liability because they are frightened of what it actually means.