Scottish Parliament, 21 November 2019

236 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Point of Order

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I know that you are aware that there are 10 questions for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body this afternoon, because I have been in correspondence with you about the matter. Under standing order 13.9.3, it is permitted for only 15 minutes to be allocated for SPCB questions, and it is quite clear that we will not manage to get all the questions asked today.

My personal interest is that I have question 10, which draws the attention of members to a very serious matter, which is that there is no scheme in Parliament for people who are employed by MSPs who retire on the grounds of ill health. I can raise that matter on another occasion, but I want to ask whether any thought has been given under similar circumstances to having two sessions of SPCB questions. That would appear—imaginatively—to be within the rules but, equally, it may be time that the rules are revisited. I would be interested to hear your views on the matter.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Thank you, Mr Stevenson. Thank you also for your note this morning, to which I have replied—I hope that you have received my reply. There is no procedure for what you ask. Standing orders make it very clear that SPCB question time will last 15 minutes, and to extend it at short notice would disrupt every other item of business this afternoon, which I do not think would be fair to other members.

Your point about whether there should be two question sessions is for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to consider. I highlight that, although there are 10 questions this week, that is a very rare occurrence. We usually struggle for questions at SPCB question time, rather than having too many. However, that is a trend that we will encourage and see whether it develops.

I thank the member for raising that point of order. I highlight, as I did in my letter, that he will receive a written response to his SPCB question, which he has taken the opportunity to highlight now.

Benefit Eligibility (Scottish Child Payment)

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to reports that around 58,000 children will not be eligible for the Scottish child payment benefit when they turn six. (S5O-03797)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

When the Scottish child payment was first announced, we were clear that, although the payment would be fully introduced by the end of 2022, early, stand-alone payments would be made for children under six. Those early payments will benefit up to 140,000 families, with investment of up to £70 million. Of all children living in poverty, almost 60 per cent are in a household in which the youngest child is aged six or under.

In order to introduce this game-changing new payment early—two years ahead of the timetable in the tackling child poverty delivery plan—we have had to work within certain technical parameters. We do not have the data for the over-sixes from the Department for Work and Pensions that would allow us to keep making payments, and we need it to agree to a timetable for giving that to us. We have asked the DWP for early delivery of the data, but we are reliant on it to make that happen.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Of course Scottish Labour supports a significant investment in reducing child poverty in Scotland. However, a number of concerns have been raised by third sector organisations. One is that children fall out of eligibility from the age of six, and another is that parents have to reapply because of the chaotic fluctuations that are caused by universal credit. What progress have the cabinet secretary’s officials made to resolve those underlying issues?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I said very clearly in my original answer, we have to have the data in order to verify that a client is entitled to that benefit, and that relies on data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the DWP. I hope that Scottish Labour will work with us to encourage the DWP to let us have early sight of that, so that we can find a solution to the problem. We are obviously also very concerned about the workings of universal credit and the fact that they may have implications for people. We are determined to do everything that we can, within the limitations of the constitutional set-up, to ensure that we have maximum flexibility.

As I have often said, I am very happy to work with stakeholders, as we do regularly, and with other political parties to find out what we can do within the powers that we have to unpick the problems and challenges, so that the Scottish child payment works as successfully as possible, which is what we all want.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the cabinet secretary remind the chamber how many children will benefit from the Scottish child payment? Does she share my disappointment with the somewhat curmudgeonly approach of Labour, which last year, as I recall, asked for only £5 per child? Rather than welcoming such a positive initiative, which has been called a “game changer” by the Child Poverty Action Group, Labour chooses to carp from the sidelines.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Once it is rolled out fully, the Scottish child payment will benefit up to 410,000 children in low-income families and will lift 30,000 children out of poverty. We are introducing early payments at a speed that is unprecedented not just at a Scottish but at a United Kingdom level. The speed with which we have gone from the discussions on the new benefit to its introduction is unprecedented.

It is disappointing that the Labour Party is not fully supportive of what we are doing with the Scottish child payment. That was seen again yesterday during the debate on universal credit. However, it is very important that we work together as much as possible to ensure that this game-changing payment—as it has been described by leading charities—works well and produces the results that the Government would like to see.

Transport Connections (Remote and Rural Areas)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve transport connections in remote and rural areas. (S5O-03798)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Scottish Government is already investing to support strategic transport connections to, through and within remote and rural areas. That includes our ambitious £376 million programme of enhancing passenger experience and cutting journey times on the Highland main line and Aberdeen to Inverness rail routes; our commitment to road improvements such as the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness; support for regional air routes to island and rural airports; support for bus services; and investment of £1.9 billion in lifeline ferry services since 2007. Our draft national transport strategy recognises the challenges that remote and rural communities face and sets out our vision for Scotland’s transport system over the next 20 years.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister mentions bus routes, but he will be aware that the financial pressure on a lot of Scottish local authorities has led to the number of services on some bus routes being reduced and to some services being lost entirely. In my Highlands and Islands region, more and more communities are without viable bus routes. For example, in Elgin, the 340 service faces the axe after funding ran dry. In the light of recent Government announcements, will the minister confirm whether support will be made available for such routes in rural areas, or is a decline in services simply to be expected?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The member raises important points. I recognise the challenges in sustaining public transport in rural areas. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity is very supportive of efforts by rural local authorities to maintain and enhance bus services. Although, ostensibly, it might look as though the £500 million investment in the bus partnership fund, which was recently announced in the programme for government, is predominantly about relieving congestion, that could benefit bus passengers on rural routes, particularly as they access urban areas, by relieving congestion at the end of their journeys and improving the reliability of their journey times.

We recognise that the erosion of bus services is a challenge for rural authorities, and I am sure that Mr Matheson will be keen to engage with Jamie Halcro Johnston on the particular issues that he has raised. I highlight that the Scottish Government continues to provide more than £250 million of support for bus services through the bus service operators grant and the national concessionary travel scheme. We continue to support services in rural areas, but I recognise the challenges that have been raised.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Following a notice from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the MV Eynhallow has been prevented from carrying high-sided vehicles to Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre, which has created serious and wide-ranging problems for all three communities. Will the minister ask his officials to provide whatever support to Orkney Ferries is necessary to address the MCA’s concerns? Does he accept that the situation further illustrates the urgent need for the Scottish Government and Orkney Islands Council to agree on a way forward on the funding of replacement vessels for our lifeline internal fleet?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

On his latter point, I reassure Mr McArthur that we are engaging with Orkney Islands Council and—for the benefit of other members in the chamber—Shetland Islands Council and Argyll and Bute Council on the future of their internal ferry services. I take entirely the point that we need to work together closely on that.

The specific issue that the member has raised has not yet come in front of me. I undertake to investigate whether we can give any help either by offering advice to Orkney Islands Council to alleviate the issue or by engaging with the MCA. I will come back to Mr McArthur on that with anything that it has been suggested would be helpful.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Question 3 has not been lodged.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rate)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on Scotland’s local authorities of the increase in the interest rate charged by the Public Works Loan Board. (S5O-03800)

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

Any increase in the interest rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board will impact local authority plans if those plans are to be financed by borrowing. The scale of the increase—1 per cent—may affect the affordability of local authority plans and could lead to investment being scaled back or delayed in key areas such as housing or transport infrastructure. That may well include local roads.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Was the cabinet secretary given any notice of the increase by the United Kingdom Government? Does he agree that the increase could put at risk the delivery of crucial infrastructure projects across our communities, such as affordable housing, schools and roads, and that, in effect, it is nothing more than an additional Tory tax on local councils?

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

I am not aware of there being any notice from the Treasury to the Scottish Government—or any local authorities, for that matter. Keith Brown is absolutely right to say that the increase will have an unfortunate impact on the investment propositions of local authorities that will affect quality of life and local authorities’ plans to boost productivity and invest in local infrastructure. It is an unwelcome increase and it is indeed a Tory tax on local councils. It is unfair on Scottish local authorities. It is not in line with prevailing interest rates, it will lead to councils scaling back some of their investment plans, at a time when the Scottish Government has increased capital support to Scotland’s local authorities, and it shows that the Tory party cannot be trusted with local investment.

Fuel Poverty (Remote and Rural Areas)

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what support it gives to organisations and public sector bodies to mitigate the effects of fuel poverty in remote and rural areas. (S5O-03801)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Since 2013, we have provided £373 million in grant funding to councils to deliver area-based energy efficiency schemes targeting fuel-poor households. That includes more than £91 million to councils serving remote and rural areas. Households in those areas also benefit from an uplift in funding to reflect higher costs of delivery. Our investment in area-based and national schemes, such as warmer homes Scotland, has helped more than 135,000 households make their homes warmer and reduce their energy bills.

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

My constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Ross has the highest fuel poverty rates recorded in Scotland, and many areas are classed as “remote rural”. Does the cabinet secretary agree that any new Government in Westminster must urgently consider its policies and practices in relation to remote rural poverty? Will she assure my constituents that she will work with the UK Government to highlight and resolve the crippling effects of fuel poverty in remote rural Scotland?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I give that commitment to Gail Ross and I understand fully the points that she has raised. As a representative of a rural constituency—although it is not as remote as the one that Gail Ross represents—I understand the challenges that are faced by rural communities. We want to put an end to fuel poverty in every part of Scotland and we will do all that we can to do so.

The Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed unanimously by Parliament. Wherever people live, it is unacceptable that they cannot afford to heat their homes and cook their dinner.

Let us not forget that all poverty, including fuel poverty, is down to a lack of adequate income. It is important to remember that we are continuing to fight all poverty with one hand tied behind our backs, following the cruel and callous welfare cuts and reforms made by the UK Government. We will continue to press the UK Government to follow our example by investing in practical solutions to improve energy efficiency and reduce fuel poverty, as recommended by the independent UK Committee on Climate Change. The previous UK Government chose neither to listen to the advice nor to devolve to Scotland the powers necessary to allow us to take further action.

City Region Deal Projects (Climate Change)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that city region deal projects tackle climate change. (S5O-03802)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Scottish Government is committed to its target of net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2045—five years ahead of the United Kingdom. Our support for city region and growth deals aims to drive inclusive and sustainable economic growth at the regional level in line with Scotland’s economic strategy, which has a clear focus on supporting our net zero ambitions. Many of our city deals include projects that will contribute to advancing Scotland’s transition to a carbon-neutral economy, including provision for new energy-efficient housing, and a range of low-carbon and active travel interventions.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

New road projects clearly have the potential to make climate change worse, and any that are proposed under city deals should be backed by robust evidence.

Unfortunately, such evidence has not been provided by South Lanarkshire Council for its proposed road widening in order to dual Stewartfield Way in East Kilbride. Trees will be uprooted and green space next to the popular James Hamilton heritage loch will be built on, although there is no obvious traffic problem there to be solved. The council is now consulting the public, but its online questionnaire does not even provide people with the option to say whether they are for or against the project. It is a sham.

Will the minister agree to discuss the plans with South Lanarkshire Council, and can he confirm that, if the plans are changed, East Kilbride will not lose out on the £62 million investment?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I hope that Graham Simpson will accept my apology for not promising on behalf of Michael Matheson to meet South Lanarkshire Council, but I will raise the issue with Michael Matheson when he is available.

The important point is that the city deals are about empowering regions to make their own decisions—they are about localism—and we believe that our regional partners are best placed to know what is needed to drive regional economies. However, decisions that relate to the infrastructure investment fund are in the remit of the Glasgow city region cabinet, and we expect the cabinet to take decisions that are in the best interests of the regional economy.

We have made it clear that we expect the cabinet to have a continued focus on testing the infrastructure investment programme for quality impact and continued appropriateness in the light of changing economic circumstances, both at an individual project level and as an aggregate programme. The climate emergency qualifies as a change to economic circumstances, so it is open to local authorities to come together to decide if they want to change a project.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Does the minister agree that, in light of both the Scottish Government and South Lanarkshire Council making climate emergency declarations, it is appropriate to reconsider long-standing projects under the city deal, and to use that opportunity to properly consider innovation in public transport solutions?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I absolutely agree with Linda Fabiani. I will give more detail on what I started to outline in my response to Graham Simpson. The city region deals are about empowering the local partners to make their own decisions. If a governing body said that it wanted to change what was included in its deal, perhaps in the light of the climate emergency, which Linda Fabiani referred to, we would be open to having a conversation with that body. Nothing is future proof, and it is reasonable to allow some flexibility in the deals.

The deals that we have in place are long term—they span between 10 and 20 years—so we recognise that there is a need to be flexible and responsive to changes in the economy and in the wider context, which includes responding to the climate emergency. Michael Matheson would be happy to engage with the partners on that.

Pension Credit (Mixed-age Couples)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the potential impact on households in Scotland, what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding reinstating pension credit for mixed-age couples. (S5O-03803)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I remain deeply concerned about the UK Government’s decision to change entitlement to pension credit. The Scottish Government estimates that the change could lead to an annual loss of as much as £7,000 per household, and by 2023-24, it could affect as many as 5,600 households in Scotland.

After the announcement, I wrote to the UK Government on 15 May, to make my opposition clear and to outline the impact that the change will have on the people of Scotland. The response that I received did not address the concerns about the increased risks of pensioner poverty or the loss of passported support.

The Scottish Government will continue to urge the UK Government to reinstate pension credit for mixed-aged couples.

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

Given the significant concerns about the impact of UK Government cuts to pension credit, I was worried to hear that the UK Government also intends to incorporate housing benefit in pension credit from 2023. Changes can be used as a cover for UK cuts and trust is at an all-time low. Does the Scottish Government know how many pensioners might be impacted by the changes, and will the cabinet secretary urgently seek an absolute assurance that no pensioner will be worse off due to those UK changes?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Our most recent figures are from August of this year and show that there are 123,000 households in Scotland that claim housing benefit and could be impacted by the change. I will continue to raise many issues with the UK Government after the general election, and I can reassure Bob Doris that I am happy to follow up on the issue that he has raised.

Broadband (Reaching 100 per cent Programme)

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to announce any further delays to the R100 programme before the end of the current parliamentary session. (S5O-03804)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I can confirm that, following detailed evaluation, moderation and governance procedures, BT plc has been selected as the preferred bidder for the north lot of the R100 procurement, and that, subject to due diligence and further governance, we intend to proceed to contract with BT as soon as possible. This is further to my announcement on 10 October, in which I outlined that BT plc was the sole bidder for the central and south lots of the R100 procurement.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The minister will be aware that Aberdeenshire is still the second-worst area on the mainland for broadband connectivity, with 18 per cent of homes still unable to access high-speed internet. Will the minister reassure me that the first priority of the R100 programme will now be to bring rural areas in Aberdeenshire to the same proportion of access that is seen elsewhere in mainland Scotland?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

On the principle of Mr Rumbles’s question, the R100 programme is setting out to deliver superfast access to 100 per cent of communities in Scotland. I assure him that Aberdeenshire is very much part of our plans for R100.

I highlight that, in Aberdeenshire, the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme has been particularly successful. Between its start in January 2014 and September 2019, we increased the proportion of premises with access to superfast services in Aberdeenshire by 65.8 per cent. I accept that there is still 18 per cent to go, but I reassure Mr Rumbles that dealing with that is what we intend to do with R100.

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. This past weekend, we learned about the tragic death of another child—a three-year-old boy—at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital campus in Glasgow. That is in addition to the death of 10-year-old Milly Main. On Monday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport was asked directly on BBC Radio Scotland whether she knew about the boy’s death and the subsequent investigation. The health secretary replied claiming that she did not know, but yesterday in Parliament she said that she did. How does the First Minister reconcile that?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Before I answer that question, I will take the opportunity to do in the chamber what I have done in media interviews over the past few days, and express my deepest condolences to the families of the children to whom Jackson Carlaw referred. It is impossible for any of us to imagine what a parent goes through when they lose a child in any circumstances. That pain is, of course, compounded when they lose a child in circumstances such as those that we are talking about.

I also take the opportunity to reiterate the health secretary’s apology of yesterday—particularly in the light of the families’ feeling that they have not had, from the health board, answers to the questions to which they want answers, and that they have not been given the information that they have been seeking.

The Scottish Government is determined that they will get answers to their questions, and a range of work is on-going to ensure that that is the case. That work involves Health Protection Scotland, the independent review that is currently under way and, of course, the public inquiry that was announced by the health secretary, the chair of which we hope will be announced before Christmas.

On the specific question that Jackson Carlaw asked me—which is on a point that the health secretary covered in the chamber yesterday—when the health secretary answered “No” on the radio, she was referring to the investigation. It was a two-part question, in which the latter part was about the investigation. There was no notification of the investigation to the Scottish Government by the board or, indeed, of the referral to the Scottish fatalities investigation unit. However, the cabinet secretary had previously been in correspondence with the family and their representative about the loss.

Let me be absolutely clear: the Scottish Government is determined that we will, on behalf of the families concerned, get to the bottom of all their questions. We will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to do so.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I endorse the First Minister’s opening comments. However, on the substance of the question, I think that many people will find it extraordinary that the First Minister is endeavouring to back up the current version of events.

Let me refer to the exchange from Monday’s “Good Morning Scotland”. The presenter specifically asked:

“Did you also know about the death of this three-year-old and the subsequent investigation?”

The health secretary replied: “No, I didn’t”. There was nothing else—just “No, I didn’t”.

Would not every person listening understand from that exchange that the health secretary was saying that she did not know about that child’s death? Is the First Minister seriously trying to tell us that that is not the case, nor would it be a reasonable conclusion?

The First Minister

I say to Jackson Carlaw in all sincerity that I am sure that we have all been in situations in which we have answered a question in an interview, and have gone back to look at the text, when we thought we had answered the question honestly.

I do not want to minimise in any way the seriousness of the issues. The health secretary corresponded with the family of the child, so I simply ask Jackson Carlaw to reflect on why she would then have sought to say that she did not know about the matter. There is correspondence in existence that shows that she did.

The important thing is that the health secretary has all along acted to make sure that the right actions are being taken to ensure that the services at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital are safe, that remedial action is taken in the wards in question, and that there is full and transparent investigation of all the issues involved.

Health Protection Scotland has been involved for some time, there is an independent review under way, which we expect to report next spring, and there will be a full public inquiry. That is because we are determined that all the questions be addressed, and that families feel that they have the answers that they want and the information that they require. As First Minister, I am serious about our determination to achieve that.

Questions were asked yesterday about escalation of oversight of the board, and the health secretary set out the process that is under way to address that. There is a strong case for such escalation, and the Scottish Government’s health and social care management board will meet tomorrow to consider the matter. I expect those processes to be completed as speedily as possible.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Have we been in a position, as politicians, where we think we have been asked a different question? Yes. However, the specific question was:

“Did you also know about the death of this three-year-old and the subsequent investigation?”

I do not understand where the ambiguity lies in that question.

We know now that, in this case, the health secretary received correspondence from the family and from local MSPs in November last year advising her of the child’s death. Last week, when she was pressed on her handling of the scandal, she asked us to judge her on her actions. In that case, what actions did she take after learning last year of the tragic death of that three-year-old boy? What has been done in the 12 months since she was first told about it? There is one very specific action that could have been taken. As soon as the health secretary learned about it, should not she have demanded that a report be delivered to her desk by the end of that week? Is not that the very least that should have been done?

The First Minister

In my view, the health secretary took appropriate action. When correspondence of that nature is received, proper investigation and discussion with the health board take place. As we have discussed in the chamber before, and as the health secretary has set out in some detail, a range of remedial actions have been taken to address the underlying issues at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. When we reached the point at which there was no confidence that the remedial actions had been sufficiently effective, the wards in question were closed, and remain closed. Health Protection Scotland has been actively involved with the health board: actions have been taken to ensure that the issues are addressed.

People generally and—very understandably—the parents have a number of questions, which is why we have also set in train the independent review and the public inquiry. I hope that they will be up and running as soon as possible. We are determined that there will be full transparency, discussion and interrogation of all the issues, because the parents deserve nothing less. The public more generally, who rely on our national health service, in particular in respect of care and treatment of children, also deserve nothing less. As I said earlier, the Scottish Government, including the health secretary—especially the health secretary—is determined to leave no stone unturned to get the answers.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

At the heart of the matter is the death of young children, but it is increasingly about trust. As more details of the scandal grudgingly emerge, the Scottish National Party Government is leaking trust by the minute. Ministers go on the radio to say that they do not know about deaths that have taken place, but it is only when MSPs bring evidence to the chamber that ministers suddenly admit that actually they did know, and give frankly ludicrous explanations for the change of position.

Last night, Charmaine Lacock, the mother of a child who has received treatment for cancer at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital said:

“We have no trust in the health board, we have no trust in any of the information coming out of the hospital and we have very little trust that she”—

the health secretary—

“is actually listening to us.”

Given that the health secretary’s story about what she did and did not know keeps changing, is not Ms Lacock right to say that?

The First Minister

That last characterisation of the health secretary is not the case. The health secretary is determined that the parents get the answers that they deserve and understandably have asked for.

After the health secretary met the parents, she appointed Professor Craig White to be a direct point of contact, because there was a very clear lack of trust in the information that was coming from the health board. Professor White has been tasked with ensuring that every question that comes from the parents is properly addressed. We will continue with that process. Following the initial meeting, a large number of questions were recorded and worked through in relation to getting answers to the parents.

There will, of course, be issues that we cannot address until we have the independent review’s report and the report of the investigation by the public inquiry. However, we are determined that every question that has been raised here will be answered. They will be answered for the parents concerned and for the sake of the wider public, who have a right to expect that the services that a hospital provides are safe and of high quality.

National Health Service (Use of Private Sector)

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. Yesterday, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing told Parliament:

“This Government is absolutely committed to a publicly owned, operated and commissioned NHS in Scotland.”—[

Official Report

, 20 November 2019; c 70.]

Does the First Minister agree with her minister?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The uncomfortable truth is that private firms are being brought in by this Government to carry out routine operations at the heart of our public health service. Last night, I spoke to a national health service clinician. He had contacted us to raise his concerns about a plan to contract out to a private healthcare provider knee and hip operations at Gartnavel hospital in Glasgow. He told me that the hospital’s own clinicians have been cut out of the planning of that, that the health board has presented it as a “fait accompli” and that it was “directed from Edinburgh”.

There is anger among NHS clinicians and local NHS staff who work at Gartnavel. They are concerned that they have not been involved in the setting of clinical priorities or in carrying out those procedures. However, if there are complications, they will be expected to step in. Continuity of care is critical. No wonder the clinician to whom I spoke said to me last night that he was “deeply uneasy” about this. Is the First Minister at all uneasy about this?

The First Minister

I will point out some facts to Richard Leonard. First, we listen to the concerns of clinicians whenever they express them and we act on those concerns. However, I will address the issue of spend on the use of the private sector in NHS Scotland. In Scotland, that spend represents right now 0.6 per cent of the front-line health budget; in England, the corresponding figure is 7.3 per cent. The independent private sector is used in Scotland at the very margins; that is fully set out transparently in our waiting times improvement plan.

It was the case, if memory serves me correctly—I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong about this—that the independent private sector was used in NHS Scotland to a greater extent under the previous Labour Administration. Further, I heard Jeremy Corbyn and the shadow health secretary of United Kingdom Labour say that they would continue to have that kind of approach in NHS England.

How do I know about the record of the previous Labour Administration in Scotland? That, of course, is because I was the health minister who nationalised Stracathro hospital, which had been earmarked for use by the independent sector by a Labour health minister in the previous Administration.

I will take no lectures from Labour on those issues, particularly after last night. Richard Leonard wants to talk about what happened in the chamber yesterday, so I point out that, last night in the chamber, Labour voted with the Conservatives against an NHS protection bill that would safeguard our NHS from trade deals with Donald Trump. Shame on Labour for that.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The First Minister said that she would use the so-called independent sector in a structured way based on clinical priorities. How can she do that without the involvement of the clinicians in the hospital where the procedures are being carried out?

That is not the only example of a private company being brought in regularly to carry out clinical procedures at Gartnavel hospital. Medinet, which is a business that is funded by venture capitalists, is also used to carry out operations there. The First Minister must take responsibility, because that is a result of failures in resource and workforce planning. It is nobody else’s legacy—it is the First Minister’s legacy. It is a legacy that has led to private not public provision.

It is a matter of record that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has been allocated £34 million of Scottish Government funds to bail out the Government’s waiting time failures. For the record, will the First Minister today tell us how much of the £34 million for the NHS is being hived off to private sector providers, their profit margins and their shareholder dividend payments?

The First Minister

In my answer to Richard Leonard’s previous question, I said that total spend on the use of the private sector in NHS Scotland is 0.6 per cent of the budget. If that answer is not good enough for him, here is another piece of information: in 2018-19, the most recent year of data, the number of procedures undertaken by non-NHS providers represented less than 0.3 per cent of all recorded NHS Scotland procedures.

Will I take responsibility for the fact that, in Scotland—in sharp contrast to England under the Tories and the previous Labour UK Government—less than 1 per cent of the spend goes to the private sector, and less than 0.5 per cent of procedures are done by the private sector? Yes, I will take responsibility for that, because I am committed to a publicly owned, publicly delivered health service, and Scotland now has one of those far more than when Labour was in office in Scotland or the UK. I am proud of that, and Richard Leonard still has to explain why he voted with the Tories against an NHS protection bill.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

There are some constituency supplementary questions.

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (Admissions Closure)

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

One of my constituents recently raised the case of Sam, a 13-year-old who, tragically, has been diagnosed with leukaemia.

Due to the children’s ward admissions closure at Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth university hospital, Sam was transferred to Edinburgh’s Royal hospital for sick children. His parents were told that he got the last bed and that if he had not, he would have been transferred to a hospital in Aberdeen or even Newcastle.

How many children are in that situation? Are parents now having to cross the border to get urgent cancer care?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I convey my best wishes to Sam and his family.

The wards are closed at Queen Elizabeth university hospital because of the issues that Jackson Carlaw and I just spoke about. Those wards will be reopened only when it is safe to do so. In the meantime, children will be given the best care in the hospitals that they go to. Of course we want those hospitals to be as close to their homes as possible, which is why all the work that I spoke about earlier is under way to open the wards at Queen Elizabeth university hospital as quickly as possible. We will continue to take forward that work, which is led by clinicians, infection control staff and the greater Glasgow health board.

Homelessness Services (Glasgow)

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister will be aware of the tragic death of a homeless man in Glasgow at the weekend. He was found dead in a car park in freezing conditions. That was reported on the day that Shelter Scotland took out a full-page advert on the front of the

Herald

newspaper, highlighting the deaths of 47 homeless people in Glasgow over the past year.

This is a scandal that shames Scotland and shames Scotland’s largest city.

Shelter Scotland is taking court action against Glasgow City Council because it is ignoring its legal requirement to find accommodation for homeless people. As a Glasgow MSP, does the First Minister support Shelter Scotland in its action to ensure that Glasgow City Council does not ignore homeless people and leave them to sleep on the streets of Glasgow, which is a scandal?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

For reasons that I know that James Kelly will understand, I will not comment on on-going legal action, but I will say that I expect all local authorities, including Glasgow City Council, to meet their legal requirements.

The Scottish Government is absolutely determined to ensure, working with local authorities, that no person has to sleep rough on the streets. We are investing heavily in improving and expanding homelessness services. That includes the provision of support for rapid rehousing and the housing first approach.

With regard to the tragic death of the individual James Kelly spoke about, although this in no way takes away from the tragedy of that death, my initial information is that that person was not homeless. However, a police investigation is under way that will require to establish the circumstances fully.

Since that incident, my officials have been in touch with stakeholders locally to look at what more we can do. We have offered to increase Glasgow City Mission’s funding so that the winter night shelter can be opened earlier. Those discussions are on-going. We have also provided funding for more outreach services.

The Scottish Government is determined to work with local authorities to tackle the issue. I make no bones about this: in Scotland or any other country, as long as one person is homeless or sleeping rough on our streets, we have more work to do to make sure that we have the services in place to ensure that that is not necessary. We will continue that work.

Concessionary Tram Fares (Edinburgh)

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the First Minister agree with the removal of concessionary tram fares for over-60s and disabled people, which is being considered by the City of Edinburgh Council?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As far as I am aware, that is a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council. I am happy to look into it more and to correspond with the member when I have more information about it.

Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (Capacity)

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Because of the ban on new admissions to the children’s cancer wards in Glasgow, it is true that there is not enough paediatric intensive care unit provision in Scotland. I know that because of one family who have let me hear about their experience. They have a very ill child who is in a hospital in England and has been there for more than a month because there is not enough safe in-patient care here in Scotland.

That is an absolute disgrace. Were the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport aware of that situation? What are they doing to increase PICU capacity here in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

With any sick child, the most important thing is that they get the best-quality clinical care. We want that to be provided close to home, which is why the health board is working so hard to get to a position in which the affected wards—not just wards 2A and 2B, but ward 6A, which was the ward that was used when those wards closed but which is currently closed to readmissions—can be reopened. Work is under way as we speak to get those wards reopened as quickly as possible, but

I hope that all members would agree and accept that the clinical safety of those wards is absolutely paramount.

Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action (Budget)

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action, a charity in my constituency and the wider north-east region, does an incredible amount of work to support the third sector. It says that the Scottish Government has frozen its budget for 10 years, and now it is facing cuts. Why is that necessary when the Scottish Government’s budget is increasing?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I wish that we were not in a position in which we had to freeze budgets, to use the member’s term. We have sought to protect funding for third sector organisations, and we will continue to do so.

However, because, over the lifetime of the Conservative Government, the resources available to the Scottish Government have been reduced as a result of Tory austerity, unfortunately difficult decisions require to be taken. Perhaps the member would like to direct at least some of his comments to his party colleagues and express his disappointment to them about the austerity that they have inflicted on Scotland over the past number of years and urge them, as I do today, to bring an end to austerity once and for all. That might be a helpful thing for a Tory member to do.

My final point, which I know that the Tories hate hearing, is that, if we had followed their advice and opted to give tax cuts to the richest in our society, as the Tories urged us to do, there would be £500 million—or, probably, more than that—less in our budget, so Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action would perhaps be facing not a freeze in its budget but something much worse, because of the Tory policies.

Hunting Wild Animals

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

3. Two years ago, the First Minister told us:

“I have always been an opponent of fox hunting and I remain so.”—[

Official Report

, 18 May 2017; c 19.]

We have had plenty of talk, but hunting continues in Scotland, 17 years after it was meant to have been banned. Unbelievably, the Tories now appear to have a stronger position on this issue than the Scottish National Party does, as they have dropped their opposition to the Hunting Act 2004 in England, which put in place a ban that is slightly less flawed than Scotland’s.

I have consulted on a bill that would deliver a real ban, and almost 10,000 people have responded. That shows the enormous public interest in the issue. Can the First Minister give me a clear assurance that a real fox hunting ban will be introduced by the end of this parliamentary session?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Of course, our proposals to further reform the law were set out in the chamber by the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment in January. When she did so, those proposals were welcomed by Alison Johnstone, who said that she welcomed the minister’s intention to improve the Protection of Wild Animals (Scotland) Act 2002 and looked forward to working with her to deliver what she described then and describes today as a “real ban”.

We intend to introduce legislation. As Alison Johnstone said, she has consulted on a member’s bill, and we want to fully analyse the consultation responses to that and reflect that analysis in the legislation that we introduce. All those matters will be fully considered by the Government and Parliament will be able to fully scrutinise the legislation when we publish it.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

That announcement was made 11 months ago. It did not even merit a mention in the programme for government. Therefore, I am delighted to hear the First Minister’s words today. However, the SNP has been in government for 12 years, and what it is doing is at odds with what it is saying. Instead of action, we have endless reviews and delays, which have become a hallmark of this Government’s approach to wildlife protection and more. More than a year and a half ago, in this chamber, I raised the issue of the mass killing of mountain hares on Scotland’s grouse moors. The First Minister agreed that that was unacceptable. However, more than 40,000 hares will have been killed since the First Minister pledged to take action.

The blood sports lobby will be jumping for joy at the endless delay, but the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland want an end to that indiscriminate slaughter. Is the First Minister too timid to stand up to those vested interests?

The First Minister

No. To complete the point on fox hunting, I would have hoped that Alison Johnstone would have welcomed the fact that, in the

legislation that we have

made a commitment to introduce, we want to take fully into account the consultation responses to her member’s bill. We look forward to continuing to work with members across the chamber who have an interest in these matters.

On the issue of grouse moor management, of course, we established the Werritty review. We received its report on Monday, and we hope to publish it before the end of the year, and also to set out our response to it and how we will take forward its recommendations.

There is absolutely no justification for the large-scale culling of mountain hares that threatens their conservation status. Of course, Scotland has already taken action that has not yet been taken in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, we are the only country in the UK to already have a close season for brown hares and mountain hares.

We will continue to take the right steps to protect wildlife, and will do that without fear or favour with regard to any vested interests or other interests.

Nuclear Weapons

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

I will ask the First Minister the same question that Jo Swinson answered so disgracefully this week. Would she ever be prepared to use nuclear weapons?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

No, I would not. I think that, whenever that question is asked, it should be pointed out that anybody who used nuclear weapons would be doing something that would potentially lead to the death of millions or perhaps tens of millions of people. I think that nuclear weapons are immoral, ineffective and a waste of money, and I would not countenance their use. I look forward to the day when not only Scotland is free of nuclear weapons but the world is, too.

Student Accommodation (Fire Safety)

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister will be well aware of the horrific fire that occurred this past weekend in student accommodation in Bolton. Students across Scotland are now deeply concerned regarding the safety of their accommodation, particularly those in the unregulated privately owned and purpose-built student accommodation sector. The National Union of Students Scotland and students across the country have called on the Scottish Government to lead on a review of the regulation of such accommodation. Will the First Minister commit her Government to that review to ensure that there is no room for complacency when it comes to the safety of our students?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I think that I can. Certainly, there is absolutely no complacency and no room for complacency. In the light of the dreadful tragedy at Grenfell, we set up a task force, and since then we have been working on many of the issues, such as cladding and regulations. Of course, the dreadful incident that happened last week is a further reminder that we cannot be complacent. If there is a feeling that a further review of regulations is needed, I am happy to give the undertaking that the Government is open to doing that.

Poverty

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, has claimed that the

Government is not responsible for poverty. Does the First Minister agree that every Government, including hers, has a responsibility and duty to end poverty? Will she outline our responsibilities and the action that the Scottish Government is taking to address poverty here in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I think that every Government, including the Scottish Government, has a responsibility to tackle poverty. The Scottish Government takes that responsibility seriously. For example, we are spending more than £100 million a year to mitigate the worst impacts of Tory welfare cuts and taking a range of actions to get money into the pockets of the lowest paid and the poorest in our society. Most recently, we have announced plans for the Scottish child payment. We have set up the new social security system, which is putting more money into the pockets of carers and low-income families and which has dignity at its heart. Of course, Angela Constance is to be credited for a great deal of work that led to that.

On the current United Kingdom Government, the point is not just that it has a responsibility to help tackle poverty; it has a responsibility to acknowledge that it is responsible for an increase in poverty in this country because of its austerity and welfare cuts. Everybody should reflect seriously on that. I think that most people will be wondering what on earth Priti Patel was talking about when she made that ridiculous and completely outrageous comment.

NHS Lothian (Nursing Agency Use)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

NHS Lothian is predicting a £90 million budget deficit, yet it is paying up to £1,700 a shift to a private nursing agency to cover staff absence. Why?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We encourage health boards to use nursing banks when they need temporary staff cover, and national health service boards indeed do that. Obviously, where there are short-term issues of staff absences or recruitment, the priority is to ensure that wards are properly staffed. However, we have a long-standing determination to ensure that we minimise the amount of money that is spent on agencies as opposed to nursing banks, and, with health boards, we will continue to prioritise that action.

Scots Language

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

As this is Scottish book week, does the First Minister agree that Scots is a living language? For example, my favourite Scots word is “boorach”, as in “Brexit boorach”. In that vein, what is her favourite Scots word?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Och, Ah can’t—I will have to get back to Christine Grahame on that, because I am scared that I will accidentally use a word that might be a bit rude. I like “boorach” as well, because it sums up a lot of what the current UK Government has been presiding over in the past wee while.

I agree with Christine Grahame on the importance of the Scots language and its living nature. I will take this opportunity to promote Scottish book week. As a book lover and a lover of reading, I think that we should all take the opportunity to encourage people, particularly young people, to read more in whatever language they choose. That is why I am so proud of the First Minister’s reading challenge, which tries to do that in schools across the country.

Carers’ Rights Day

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

4. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is recognising this year’s carers’ rights day. (S5F-03741)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Carers’ rights day is an opportunity for us to recognise the importance of carers across the country and the huge contribution that they make to our communities and our society, day in and day out. It is also an opportunity to help carers to understand their rights and access the support to which they are entitled.

Today, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing marked carers’ rights day at the launch of the triangle of care toolkit in Glasgow. That provides a helpful framework for mental health professionals to involve carers in decisions about the care and treatment of their loved ones. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People also announced today that the next payment of the carers’ allowance supplement will be paid to Scotland’s carers before Christmas, and, through that supplement, carers in Scotland get £452 more a year than those outwith Scotland.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Each day, thousands of people across Scotland and the wider United Kingdom become carers. Few will have been able to plan for that. Whether they need to talk to health and social care providers, negotiate with their employers, or deal with the intricacies of the benefit system, it is no wonder that caring can feel overwhelming and stressful. Can the First Minister set out how her Government is supporting Scotland’s nearly 800,000 carers—including 44,000 who are under the age of 18—to feel empowered and how it is ensuring that they are treated with the dignity, fairness and respect that they deserve.

The First Minister

I thank Tom Arthur for raising this issue. First, I take the opportunity to thank everybody who undertakes caring responsibilities across our country. We can never repay them in full, but we have an obligation to provide them with the help and support that they need.

Alongside the action that I have already mentioned, we are focusing on embedding carers’ rights under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016, and developing a national marketing campaign to raise awareness of rights. We continue to fund and promote the carer positive employer accreditation scheme. Over 400,000 people across Scotland now work for organisations that are committed to helping staff who are juggling work and caring responsibilities. We are also consulting on our carers strategic policy statement, which maps out how those and other policies contribute to improving the way that carers are listened to and supported.

Finally, I am proud that Scotland is the first place in the UK where young carers are able to get financial support, through our young carer grant, which is a £300 annual payment for carers aged 16 to 18.

Shipbuilding

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is supporting shipbuilding in Fife and across Scotland. (S5F-03732)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scotland has a rich shipbuilding heritage. It is an industry that continues to demonstrate its expertise, which was recognised last week with the award of the contract for the first five type 31 frigates to Babcock, and I am delighted that that announcement will bring security to the skilled workforce at Rosyth. We look forward to working with Babcock to maximise the benefits for Scotland, for Rosyth and for our supply chain. We also continue to support shipbuilding more generally across Scotland, and will continue to do so.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister referenced the award to Babcock in Rosyth of the £1.25 billion contract to build five new frigates for the Royal Navy, securing hundreds of jobs in Fife and elsewhere in Scotland for many years to come. In addition to the two recently completed aircraft carriers, that brings the total number of British navy vessels that are being built in Scotland to 18, including 13 frigates. The whole chamber should welcome that news, but can the First Minister tell us how many frigates would there be in the navy of an independent Scotland?

The First Minister

The flaw in Murdo Fraser’s supposedly really clever attack is that we only have to look at many small independent countries across the world to find that they have shipbuilding industries that flourish even more than any in the UK.

Scotland, as an independent country, will support our shipbuilding industry and will do so because of the expertise here. Nobody needs to do our shipbuilding industry any favours. It wins contracts because it is the best at what it does, and that will continue to be the case—whatever Scotland’s constitutional future.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The 15-year delay in decommissioning the nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyard has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. What more can the Scottish Government do to free up the yard for low-carbon shipbuilding, while removing those weapons from Jo Swinson’s reach?

The First Minister

The first issue raised by Mark Ruskell is unfortunately not a matter for the Scottish Government, but for the UK Government and the Ministry of Defence, although we want to see Rosyth flourish. In addition to the issues that I talked about in response to Murdo Fraser, there is great potential in low-carbon work in the future.

On nuclear weapons, I have made my view clear. I want to see Faslane, for example, be a conventional naval base. I do not want to see it continue to host weapons of mass destruction, because I think that all of us should be determined to see a nuclear-free Scotland playing its full contribution in a nuclear-free world.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the First Minister agree that it is a bit rich for the Tories to come to this chamber and claim credit for the shipbuilding industry after the devastation that they have wrought on many shipbuilding communities across Scotland, including my own in Greenock and Inverclyde, and that it was the decisive actions of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work, Derek Mackay, in saving Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow, that saved jobs and provided a future for the yard?

The First Minister

I could not agree more with Stuart McMillan. There are, of course, remaining challenges at Ferguson’s, but it would no longer be open right now were it not for the action that this Government has taken. Before the boundaries changed, I used to represent Govan shipyard in this Parliament—that honour now lies with Humza Yousaf—so I have seen over the years the broken Westminster promises to our shipbuilding industry, time and time again. Westminster Governments—not just Tories, but of all colours—have not treated our shipbuilding industry in the way that they should have. I look forward to a thriving shipbuilding industry in Scotland because the people who work in our shipyards are the best at what they do. They deserve to flourish.

Food Bank Use (Household Incomes)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to reports that one in 20 households that use food banks has an unstable income due to self-employment or being on a zero-hours contract. (S5F-03736)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

No one should go hungry or have to rely on food banks in Scotland. The Scottish Government is taking action to tackle insecure work as part of our fair work agenda. Through fair work first, we are extending fair work criteria to as many funding streams as we can by the end of this parliamentary session. Those criteria include no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts and payment of the real living wage. Of course, legislation related to zero-hours contracts is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, and we have made very clear our opposition to the inappropriate use of those and other types of employment that offer workers no job security. In the three years to June 2019, the proportion of people in employment on a zero-hours contract in Scotland fell from 3 per cent to 2.6 per cent, but we want to see further progress in the months and years to come.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We have seen a 10 per cent rise in the number of people employed on zero-hours contracts, and that is now 70,000 people. It is simply not enough to promote fair work; the Government must act on it. Public procurement is one of the opportunities that the Government has to end insecure work in Scotland. Will the First Minister act now and outlaw zero-hours contracts when she is procuring services from the public sector?

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

“Outlaw”, she says.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

In procurement.

The Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

If the First Minister is really serious about tackling poverty, that is something that she can do right now.

The First Minister

First, let me point out, as I did in my original answer, that the proportion of people in employment on a zero-hours contract has fallen. I want to see it fall further. The fair work first approach is important and we will take that forward in relation to procurement and Government funding streams more generally. Rhoda Grant says that that is not enough and, on a point of consensus, I agree with her. I would much prefer to be in a position in which we can legislate to do what she said and ban inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. There is one slight problem with that: legislation on employment matters is reserved to Westminster and, time and time again, Labour has opposed the devolution of employment law to this Parliament. If Rhoda Grant is signalling a change of heart on that, I am delighted. I have made this kind of offer to Richard Leonard before in the chamber: I will sign a letter to the UK Government with him this afternoon, demanding the immediate devolution of employment law and then we can get on with doing exactly what Rhoda Grant is asking us to. The offer is open.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. Before we move on to the next item of business, we will have a short suspension to allow some visitors to come into the gallery and members to change seats.

12:44 Meeting suspended.

12:46 On resuming—

World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Day

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

I ask members of the public who are leaving the gallery to do so quietly—Parliament is in session.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-18735, in the name of Annie Wells, on world chronic obstructive pulmonary disease day. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Day on 20 November 2019; notes that this year’s theme is All Together to End COPD; notes that COPD is a group of conditions, including bronchitis and emphysema, that make it difficult to empty air out of the lungs because the airways become narrowed; understands that COPD is a progressive and long-term lung condition without a cure, which currently affects a recorded 141,140 people in Scotland, with many more people who are undiagnosed; believes that up to two-thirds of people with COPD remain undiagnosed and, without optimal treatment, progressive lung disease reduces their quality of life; recognises the need for early diagnosis and screening to ensure that those affected by COPD receive the treatment that they need; notes that, with the right support, it is possible to live well and self-manage the condition, and commends the British Lung Foundation for the work that it does to raise awareness of COPD and help to ensure that people across Scotland get the treatment and support that they deserve.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

I thank members from across the chamber for signing my motion, which has allowed us to debate an important issue.

Today marks the 18th annual world COPD day. Its main goal is to raise awareness of COPD worldwide. This year’s theme, “All Together to End COPD”, highlights the fact that many people are involved in the fight to end the disease.

At every stage, and at any age, there is an opportunity to prevent or treat COPD. From care providers and patients, to family members and employers, everyone can make an impact. That is vital because there are 300 million cases of COPD in the world, and the disease is the third-biggest cause of death globally. Closer to home, records show that COPD affects 141,110 Scots, with many more still undiagnosed.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—to use its formal name—is a progressive long-term lung condition without a cure. Patients suffer from conditions such as bronchitis and emphysema, which make it difficult to empty air from the lungs because the airways have narrowed. Exposure to tobacco smoke and other inhaled toxic particles and gases is the main risk factor in respect of COPD.

Treatments for COPD include inhalers, tablets and, for a small number of people, surgery or a lung transplant. Unfortunately, it is estimated that up to two thirds of people with COPD remain undiagnosed. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of early diagnosis and screening in order to ensure that people who are affected by COPD receive the treatment that they need.

Last year, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland published a report that showed the variable levels of support and treatment that are available to people who are living with chest conditions such as COPD. The report focused on pulmonary rehabilitation. That treatment helps to improve people’s physical and mental health, and saves the national health service money by reducing hospital admissions and halving the time that is spent in hospital.

CHSS found that an estimated 69,000 people would benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation, but that provision of the service is a “postcode lottery”. We supported CHSS’s “Right to pulmonary rehab” campaign, which called on the Government to ensure that people across Scotland get the treatment and support that they deserve.

I will also tell members about a group that is often unseen in the patient community—bear with me while I get the name right. They are people with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, which is more commonly known as alpha-1. We will go with that.

Alpha-1 is a rare inherited condition that makes people susceptible to developing COPD. It is thought that about 25,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from it. People with alpha-1 lack a particular protective enzyme, which makes them more vulnerable to the effects of inhaling smoke or toxic materials including dust, fumes and chemicals. Patients are often misdiagnosed and receive treatment for other respiratory conditions, such as asthma. Around a third of patients experience a delay in diagnosis of more than seven years after the onset of their symptoms.

In 2012, the alpha-1 community established the Alpha-1 Alliance, which is a group of patients and doctors from across the UK. It works to raise awareness of the unmet medical needs of alpha-1 patients, and it campaigns for better healthcare services. We should all work towards ensuring that those patients receive adequate healthcare.

On a personal note, l understand too well the effects that COPD can have on a person’s life and on their family. About 15 years ago, my dad was diagnosed with COPD. We did not know what it was, so I googled it. At the time, it seemed to be all doom and gloom. It was not until I had researched it more that I understood that he, his general practitioner and my family could do things to help him. Eventually, my dad had to be on oxygen for 24 hours a day, but that did not stop us doing family things together—trips to the shops and going into town or to family events. My dad is no longer with us, but I want to make sure that, during my time in Parliament, I do all that I can to highlight how to prevent and manage the condition.

I commend the British Lung Foundation in Scotland for its work to raise awareness of COPD and to help to ensure that people across Scotland get the treatment and support that they deserve. In recent years, it has had many achievements and has championed many causes, including smoking bans in public places, better oxygen services for patients and greater provision of pulmonary rehab.

Efforts to reduce the burden of COPD are also taking place worldwide. Although there is currently no cure for COPD, in many types of settings and at any stage of the disease, a variety of people take actions, including in smoking cessation programmes and fighting against indoor and outdoor air pollution.

In my area, I have visited groups that encourage people to go to singing classes and to do minimal exercise. I sang a lot with my dad when he was not well. I do not have a great voice, but he did.

Again, I emphasise the need for early diagnosis. There are treatments to help patients to breathe more easily and to have an active life. In order to access them, it is vital that people get early diagnosis.

World COPD day gives us a chance to highlight a condition that affects too many patients and families like mine. We should evoke this year’s world COPD day theme and work together to help patients to get the recognition, support and treatment that they deserve.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Yesterday—20 November—was world COPD day. I am pleased to speak in this chronic obstructive pulmonary disease debate, and I congratulate Annie Wells—the Parliament’s COPD champion—on lodging the motion.

As convener of the cross-party group on lung health and still a registered nurse, I am passionate about policy on raising awareness of and promoting respiratory health. My big sister, Phyllis Murphie, who is a nurse consultant in respiratory medicine, suggested that a cross-party group on lung health should be created. Who is going to argue with their big sister? Since the CPG’s inception, she has been an active, supportive and crucial member. Much of her professional work is with people who have COPD.

I thank the organisations and individuals who have provided briefings for the debate. I also thank Kathryn Byrne from Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and the BLF’s Frank Toner for excellent CPG support. He has been invaluable; the BLF has promoted lung health champions: we now have 10 MSP champions in Parliament.

COPD is a progressive and long-term lung condition with no cure. The umbrella term “COPD” is used to describe several lung conditions, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Cigarette smoking is recognised as a primary cause. The condition affects 141,000 people in Scotland, with many more not yet diagnosed.

One way to describe how COPD feels is that it is like trying to breathe through a straw. Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale—it is hard work to breathe efficiently through a wee straw, and that is how folk with COPD feel. The increased work to move air in obstructed lungs causes breathlessness, tiredness, coughing and, often, other symptoms including depression and social isolation.

During my first year as an MSP, I led a debate on world COPD day in November 2016. I started with the words of Sir Michael Marmot, who was at the forefront of the research that was behind the British Lung Foundation’s “The Battle for Breath—the impact of lung disease in the UK” report. He said:

“Breathing is something we all do, day in, day out, every day of our lives. It is so innate that most of us rarely stop to think about it.”

In the debate in 2016, several asks were made of the Scottish Government to take seriously the recommendations of clinicians and patients.

I am pleased that, since that debate, the Scottish Government has been delivering. Better lung health for people in Scotland is high on the health agenda, and it is worth noting the steps that have been taken since the 2016 debate.

One of the CPG asks was for a respiratory quality improvement plan. In 2017, the Government announced a lung health task force, to be led by NHS Tayside consultant Dr Tom Fardon. I acknowledge the work of Dr Ian Small and Phyllis Murphie ahead of the announcement. Dr Fardon engaged with NHS expert clinicians, patients and stakeholders. I am aware that a Scottish respiratory care action plan will be presented imminently. I am looking forward to seeing the plan’s contents, including recommendations for people with COPD. I will welcome Dr Fardon to the next meeting of the cross-party group on lung health, which should happen around February next year. I encourage the Parliament’s lung health champions to join us.

South-west Scotland has one of the highest rates of COPD in the country. In 2017, I had the privilege of launching BREATH—the borders and regions airways training hub project—which is led by Dr John Lockhart and Dr Lochlan McGarvey. BREATH is an ambitious collaborative research partnership between the Dundalk Institute of Technology, the University of the West of Scotland, Queen’s University Belfast, NHS Dumfries and Galloway and NHS Ayrshire and Arran. The cross-border project has secured €7.7 million Interreg European funding, and has a mission to investigate causes other than smoking, and treatment and prevention of COPD. I am due to accompany Dr Lockhart to a primary school in February so that we can teach young folk the best ways to prevent lung ill health in the first place.

I welcome today’s motion by Annie Wells. I was going to touch on pulmonary rehab, but time is running short. I thank the Scottish Government for taking forward the respiratory action plan and I look forward to its content and delivery.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am delighted to take part in this members’ business debate and I congratulate Annie Wells on bringing it to the chamber. As we have heard, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, consists of a number of conditions, including

bronchitis and emphysema, that make it difficult for individuals to breathe. The condition is unfortunately progressive, long term and without a cure.

We have heard that more than 140,000 individuals in Scotland have it. However, those figures could be even higher, because many people do not know that they have it—they are undiagnosed. Without optimal treatment, progressive lung disease reduces the quality of life for those individuals.

I am honoured to have been recently nominated by the British Lung Foundation as smoking cessation champion at the Scottish Parliament. Although it is widely accepted that not everybody who is living with more than one COPD condition has been a smoker, if someone has been a smoker, that has a massive impact on their condition.

I am delighted to be co-convener, along with Emma Harper, of the cross-party group on lung health, which is a progressive group that has done a huge amount of work in the Parliament over the past year or two, and that work continues. I have met many individuals and members of organisations who have come to the group’s meetings.

I pay tribute to the fantastic work of Linda McLeod, who got her British Empire medal for her involvement with breathe easy Clackmannanshire, which is a support group in my region. I also pay tribute to the people who are involved with breathe easy groups in Perth, Fife and Tayside, which do tremendous work in supporting individuals who have breathing conditions and their family members. It was fantastic to find out that breathe easy Clackmannanshire has been nominated for a Queen’s award for volunteering, and I wish the group all the best as its nomination progresses. The breathe easy Clackmannanshire group has done so much to involve people and to get them to participate.

Recently, the group and I joined the British Lung Foundation in its call for NHS Forth Valley to guarantee the future of pulmonary rehabilitation services in Clackmannanshire.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I want to bring up a really important point. My constituent Jock Shiells, who is from Eyemouth, lives with COPD and has set up a fantastic exercise and social group at the Eyemouth community pool. I mention him because he has done such good work and is doing so much for hundreds of people across the Borders who suffer from COPD.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I concur with what Rachael Hamilton said. As we all know, many individuals across our constituencies and regions go the extra mile to ensure that support is available. As I said, breathe easy Clackmannanshire is a group that offers such support.

It was with great sadness that we learned that the pulmonary rehabilitation unit at Forth Valley royal hospital was to be relocated. That has caused real issues for individuals who live with the disease across Clackmannanshire. The relocation of the unit has meant that the videoconference service is no longer available, which has led to some difficulties. It is estimated that more than 3,000 people in the Forth Valley area could have benefited from the pulmonary rehabilitation service.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is cost effective for the NHS, because it reduces the risk of hospital admissions. On average, pulmonary rehab costs about £130 per patient, whereas a person being hospitalised costs in excess of £2,600. I am deeply concerned about the relocation of the unit, and I pay tribute to Linda McLeod and others who fought valiantly to try to ensure that that did not happen.

Last year, 6 per cent of deaths in Scotland were attributed to chronic lung diseases, and individuals’ quality of life has been impaired, so it is crucial that pulmonary rehabilitation centres are used to give people opportunities.

I very much welcome this year’s theme: “All Together to End COPD”. It is vital that healthcare providers, families, patients, policy makers, employers and employees work together to make a positive impact on patient outcomes, so that we end COPD for good.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am really pleased that Annie Wells has secured so much support for her motion; about 40 MSPs have signed it, which gives me a lot of heart. This year’s theme for world COPD day is “All Together to End COPD”, and I hope that that strength in numbers is a sign that we are committed and that we will remain united even after today’s debate is finished.

I know that Annie Wells has a close personal interest in the subject. It was lovely to hear her talk about her dad, and I am sure that he is very proud of her—even if she cannot sing. We have not heard her singing yet, but maybe we will at another time.

COPD is a chronic condition that narrows the airways, and there is no cure. People who live with the condition often feel very excluded and find it difficult to hold down a job and enjoy leisure time with friends and family. I was concerned to learn from Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland that the number of people who are living with COPD in Scotland has increased by a staggering 26 per cent since 2011. That increase could partly be down to better diagnosis. However, almost 140,000 people are living with COPD in Scotland, which is a big number.

We know that current treatment is focused on controlling symptoms through exercise and inhalers, which can provide temporary relief from the worst symptoms. However, I am also pleased that the British Lung Foundation continues to do excellent work to understand more about the disease. Its current research is looking at how to prevent the advance of COPD. I was pleased to sponsor an event for the British Lung Foundation in Scotland a few months ago.

Emma Harper said that there are 10 lung health champions in the Scottish Parliament; I am proud to be one of them. The cross-party group on lung health is doing great work. Again, I thank Emma Harper for bringing her expertise and her passion on the issue to the Parliament.

Members have already talked about the benefits of pulmonary rehab, which consists of a combination of exercise, education, advice and support. We know that it helps people in a clinical sense and that it is cost effective, because it helps to reduce hospital admissions. We need to really get behind that and ensure equal access to it across Scotland.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Monica Lennon mentioned pulmonary rehab. Does she agree that singing or joining a choir is also a great way to improve lung health? Two lung-health choirs have performed in the Parliament in the past couple of years.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. It is important that people know what options are available in their communities, as they will be easy for them to get to. It is great to hear of those examples.

In Lanarkshire, more than 9,000 people live with COPD. They would benefit from pulmonary rehab, but it is not available—I stress that point to the minister. We agree with Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland that the upcoming respiratory care action plan should make that commitment.

Lots of points have been well made, so I will move on. There are about four times as many hospital admissions for COPD among Scots from the most deprived areas as there are among those from the wealthiest areas. It is a huge issue of inequality and the NHS needs more investment to deal with it.

I finish by agreeing with Jane-Claire Judson, the chief executive of Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, who said:

“We need to see urgent reform to help people breathe better and really live life to the full with COPD.”

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I am delighted to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Government. I thank Annie Wells for lodging the motion and all those who signed it, which enabled us to secure time to debate the topic in the chamber. I also thank the members who spoke in the debate, particularly those who shared their personal experiences.

As we have heard, the debate allows us to recognise world COPD day, which took place yesterday. This year’s theme, “All Together to End COPD”, emphasises the fact that so many people are involved in the fight to end COPD. I am delighted that we have joined across the Parliament today to raise awareness of COPD.

At every stage and at any age, there is an opportunity to prevent or treat COPD. Everyone can make an impact, including care providers, families and patients, politicians, policy makers and the third sector. In particular, I commend the work of charities, such as the British Lung Foundation, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and others, for the important work that they do to support people with COPD, their families and friends.

We all recognise that prevention and early intervention are key to minimising the prevalence and incidence of respiratory conditions, including COPD. Since I was appointed as the minister responsible for public health, I have learned a great deal from speaking to health professionals and patients with COPD about the challenges that patients and their families face. I have also learned a great deal about the underlying causes of COPD.

My approach is to make public health, and the health of the nation, relevant and essential to all parts of the Government’s work.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I want to raise with the minister briefly the issue of people who live with COPD but who also have an alcohol or drug addiction, or both. Sometimes, we do not see a whole person-centred approach, and that was a factor in my father’s death. Is the Government doing any work around that?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Monica Lennon raises a very important point: very often, people have a range of co-morbidities, so when they come in for one condition, it is important that we look at all their conditions and support them fully. That is how they will make a full recovery, or get the best results if full recovery is not possible.

It is important that we look at all the underlying causes of COPD. Emma Harper mentioned the British Lung Foundation’s report, “The battle for breath”, which highlights the strong links between lung disease, deprivation and health inequalities. The report also outlines the main environmental drivers of lung disease—smoking, air pollution and occupational hazards—and explains how socio-economic status affects exposure and outcomes.

We know that the vast majority of COPD cases are smoking related. Our tobacco control action plan, “Raising Scotland’s Tobacco-free Generation”, which was published in June 2018, sets out our five-year plan to address the on-going harm that smoking causes in Scotland. We are determined to tackle the inequalities of smoking, prevent the uptake of smoking among young people and provide the best possible support for people who want to give up.

We have introduced a 2034 tobacco-free target. Our aim is to reduce smoking rates to 5 per cent or below by 2034, thereby creating a generation of young people who do not want to smoke and who are protected from the harms of smoking. I am pleased that we are making real progress in that regard: fewer than one in five adults now smoke. Over time, we expect the reduction to have an impact on the prevalence of COPD.

As Annie Wells said, it is important that we do not forget that there are other causes of COPD. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency is one such cause—I think that we discussed the research in that area in the other debate that has been mentioned. The research will provide us with a better understanding of why some people are more likely to develop conditions such as COPD. We know that COPD may develop due to long-term breathing in of harmful substances, such as fumes or dust, but the research will give us a better understanding of the condition.

Absolutely everybody who spoke in the debate—Annie Wells, Emma Harper, Alexander Stewart and Monica Lennon—mentioned pulmonary rehabilitation. In the past six months, we have had three debates on respiratory conditions, and pulmonary rehab has been central to them all. We have discussed raising awareness of the conditions, diagnosis, education, e-learning resource, data, special nurses, research and much more.

In all our discussions, improved pulmonary rehabilitation is the one issue that has come across as a priority. I have said many times that we recognise the importance of pulmonary rehabilitation in helping to support self-management. It is already a key recommendation in national clinical guidelines, but we want boards to increase patients’ access to that important programme, and we need to understand where there are gaps across the country as part of that. We also want to identify examples of best practice and test them in areas where improvement is required. We will do that through the implementation of Scotland’s first-ever respiratory care action plan.

As promised, the draft plan will be published for consultation before the end of this year. We know that true change will happen only through working with others: hearing from their experiences, good and bad, and learning about what we could do differently and what we must do better to make the difference that people need. That is why I encourage as many people as possible, once the draft plan is launched, to respond to the consultation.

The draft plan has been developed in collaboration with clinicians and others who work in the area, including in the third sector. It is already in good shape, but it is really important that we hear people’s thoughts directly about whether we have got the plan right. It is a genuine consultation and my huge gratitude goes to everyone who has already offered invaluable contributions to developing the draft plan, and everyone who I hope will give us their input during the consultation. I am sure that that will include the cross-party group—it will be able to discuss the draft plan in February.

I reassure everyone in the chamber and the cross-party group that it is a genuine consultation and that we will listen to all views and input as we take the plan forward to final publication. For now, I thank everyone for their contributions to this very important debate.

13:15 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. I will try to get as many members in as possible, but we have a lot of questions.

Wi-fi Service (Access)

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it is taking to ensure that there is access to the wi-fi service across all of the estate. (S5O-03813)

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body supports the growing requirement for wi-fi in Holyrood and is constantly looking to improve the coverage, capacity, security and performance of our wi-fi network across the campus.

We have recently implemented a widely available Scottish Parliament corporate wi-fi network, which will allow us to prioritise the wi-fi traffic of members and staff and improve security and speed. Next year, we will look at refreshing the wi-fi infrastructure around the building. That will involve replacing the 169 access points that are currently used to deliver wi-fi, as well as conducting a survey to identify and address areas of the building where there might be gaps in wi-fi coverage or a weak signal.

Due to the layout of the building and the high proportion of concrete, it has always been a challenge to ensure good coverage everywhere. In the meantime, if members come across any area where they believe that there is limited coverage, they should please let the IT helpdesk know so that the issue can be investigated and resolved.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Given the steps that have been taken to improve wi-fi coverage across the parliamentary estate, will any work be done to improve mobile phone coverage?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Because of the poor mobile signal that is available within the Holyrood building, additional infrastructure has been installed to enhance mobile coverage for the Parliament’s mobile network provider, EE. Although that set-up does not provide blanket coverage, it enhances the mobile signal in key areas, such as the garden lobby, members’ offices, the ground-floor meeting rooms and the car park. In addition, improved wi-fi coverage within the building will limit the impact of the reduced mobile signal, as Parliament-provided phones, as well as phones from many other network providers, support wi-fi calling, which allows calls and other data services that have traditionally used mobile networks to instead use wi-fi networks.

Remote Voting and Videoconferencing

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

2. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it has given to introducing remote voting and videoconferencing options for members. (S5O-03810)

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Those are two distinct but connected issues. On voting, chapter 11 of the Parliament’s standing orders sets out arrangements for voting in the chamber and in committees. Any proposal to change those arrangements is a matter for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to consider in the first instance.

Videoconferencing is used by the Parliament’s committees to allow witnesses to participate in meetings remotely, and facilities are available in committee room 1. In addition, a variety of other options are available to individual members, ranging from room-based options at Holyrood to applications on mobile devices.

If the member has particular technical requests, the business information technology office would be happy to discuss the best options to meet her specific concerns.

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We pride ourselves on being a family-friendly Parliament. In reality, it is only family friendly if a member lives close enough to go home after decision time.

During the summer recess, I was asked by a constituent why I have to spend so long in Edinburgh during the week—sometimes, as with this week, from Monday to Friday—and I was unable to give her a satisfactory answer.

Will the members of the corporate body agree to explore options for how members can spend more time in their constituencies, representing people in the manner that they rightly expect?

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

We certainly understand the challenges that face members who live a long way from Edinburgh.

I reiterate that participation in parliamentary business in committees and the chamber is covered in chapter 11 of standing orders, so issues in that regard would be more appropriately addressed by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments committee. However, the corporate body stands ready to assist in any way that it can in providing resources to support members to participate in parliamentary business.

I acknowledge what the member says. There might be ways—for example, by approaching committee conveners—of making particular arrangements for members to contribute remotely. However, that is a matter for committees. Wider matters relating to parliamentary business are for standing orders.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is a short supplementary from Jenny Marra.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The House of Commons has put in a system for proxy voting. I am thinking of the votes that I and a member of the corporate body lost while we were on maternity leave. All being well, I have another of those periods of leave coming up. Will the corporate body consider a proxy voting system for the Scottish Parliament?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was not directly related to the question, but Mr Wightman may give a very short answer.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Again, that is related to voting, which is a matter for the Parliament’s standing orders and, as such, not for the corporate body.

Parliamentary-funded Publications (Rules)

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

3. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, with reference to its policy that does not permit parliamentary-funded publications to be issued within three months of a United Kingdom parliamentary general election or referendum, and, in light of the frequency of such events since 2015, whether it plans to revise its rules in this regard. (S5O-03807)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The corporate body has considered its policy twice during this session of Parliament in relation to UK general elections and the issuing of publications, most recently prior to issuing the current guidance to members in relation to the use of resources during a UK election. The corporate body does not currently have any plans to further review its rules in that regard.

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

That is a disappointing answer. In 2015, we had a general election; in 2016, we had a Scottish Parliament election and the European Union referendum; in 2017, we had a UK election and local elections; and, in 2019, we have had a European Parliament election, and now we have a general election. If I multiply four times three, that is 15—sorry, 12; I beg your pardon—months. Strike that from the record. I will never live this down. If I multiply four times three, that makes 12 months in purdah. It is only six weeks in Westminster, so why do we not make it six weeks here and be sensible?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I confirm that I share Christine Grahame’s sense of exasperation at the number of elections and referenda that we have gone through in recent times. It is such that it has knocked her off kilter in terms of her mental arithmetic.[

Laughter

.]

The corporate body recognises that it is important for constituency and regional members to be able to communicate with their constituents. There are a wide variety of ways in which members can do that.

Concerns have been raised about complaints being made about MSPs and their use of parliamentary resources during election periods. However, it is important to point out that members are still able to issue to a defined list of constituents specific communications of local interest on urgent or time-sensitive matters that are not part of any wider political campaign.

It would probably be sensible to avoid making too many direct comparisons between the arrangements at Westminster and those at this Parliament, because this Parliament has a very good track record in supporting and, indeed, funding communications that MSPs send out to their constituents.

Cross-party Groups (Support)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what arrangements are in place to allow cross-party groups to access support such as British Sign Language interpreters or translation services for meetings. (S5O-03812)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

The SPCB is committed to providing support for people requiring BSL or other language interpreters or translation services for parliamentary business. However, cross-party groups, despite their importance, are not a formal part of parliamentary business, and the SPCB’s responsibilities to ensure the provision of resources for parliamentary purposes do not currently extend to CPGs.

Section 6 of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament” makes it clear that CPGs may use the Parliament’s facilities only where those

“are available for public use”.

It also says that

“Groups may not draw on the resources of the Parliamentary staff to service meetings other than to book meeting rooms”.

If approached, the public information office can provide guidance and advice for members or the groups themselves on how to contact potential providers, including advice on points to note when arranging translation or interpretation.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My office has sought advice from the Parliament a number of times on the issue, and I accept that the Parliament does not provide support for cross-party groups and that I cannot use the members’ allowance scheme. However, one of the cross-party groups that I convene required the services of a BSL interpreter and we had difficulty in securing support for that, meaning that a member of the group was potentially excluded from attending the meeting. Will the corporate body consider whether that is appropriate for an open and inclusive Parliament? Will it perhaps reflect on and consider the provision of services that support access and whether to allow extending them in exceptional circumstances to cross-party groups?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

I agree with the member that CPGs do excellent work. We seek to have the widest possible inclusion in those groups, but to change how they are staffed and provisioned would require a change to the code of conduct. Any changes to the code of conduct are a matter for the whole Parliament, subject to a report and a recommendation by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

If the member wants to pursue that route, she should take the matter up with the convener of the SPPA Committee in the first instance. She may wish to note that, during the previous session, the SPPA Committee considered the issue of resources for CPGs and consulted the SPCB—albeit in a different iteration from the one that sits before members now. The SPPA Committee then agreed that it did not wish to extend the provision of services to groups.

Flu Vaccinations (Contractor Staff)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what plans it has to make provision in future years to offer the flu vaccination to its contractor staff. (S5O-03772)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As part of the initiative to promote a healthier workplace, the SPCB offers staff and MSPs’ staff the opportunity to be vaccinated against seasonal flu, free of charge. The service is provided through our contract with the Parliament’s occupational health provider, and is in line with good employment practices adopted by many public and private organisations. The service is also offered to MSPs, for which there is a charge.

Although the SPCB can encourage good employment practices by its contractors through its procurement frameworks, it is not for the SPCB to determine those or to interfere in the employment relationship that contractors have with their staff. Accordingly, there is no plan to offer flu vaccination to contractor staff based in the Parliament.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Dave Stewart, as a member of the Health and Sport Committee, will know the importance of herd coverage when it comes to flu vaccinations. Many people working in the Parliament are contractor staff. In order to progress the issue, is there the potential to undertake a review, to look at whether they can access the service in the future?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Miles Briggs makes a reasonable point about herd immunity, and it is in everyone’s interest that we work in a healthy environment. I think that I can offer to undertake that we will have discussions with contractors, but I do not think that we can move away from the responsibility of employers towards their staff; I also think that there would be strict limitations in the terms of our procurement contract.

I certainly give an undertaking to explore the issue further, to ensure that we have the best possible working environment.

Two-factor Authentication System (Disabled People)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what provisions have been made for disabled people who are unable to use the fingerprint scanners that have been installed as part of the two-factor authentication service at the entrances to the complex. (S5O-03811)

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

The two-factor authentication system involves users presenting an authorised identification card and matching it to an encrypted finger template—not a fingerprint—that is held on the card.

On accessibility, the security and maturity programme team consulted ParliAble, the Parliament’s disability staff network, as part of the project to introduce the two-factor authentication system. The network assisted by raising awareness of potential adjustments that were required prior to roll-out. Those adjustments were accepted and acted on before the system was fully installed. The team also carried out an equality impact assessment.

As new groups of passholders have been rolled on to the system, the programme team continues its approach of asking any staff or any members who have accessibility issues to be early adopters. Once issues have been identified, the team will work with individuals to establish what reasonable adjustments can be made to facilitate their entry into the building, while, of course, maintaining the security of the building perimeter.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I give credit to the programme team for the consultations that it has had with me. Does Andy Wightman agree that the policy should be to have an entrance available for disabled people who cannot go through that process? Perhaps the Canongate entrance is the most obvious one to use—where no reasonable adjustments can be made—as we do not want to discourage people with certain disabilities from joining this Parliament for whatever reason.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I welcome the fact that the member has had very constructive engagement with parliamentary staff. The member is correct. The Canongate accessible entrance is available to anyone with accessibility issues. It was recently modernised. It is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is always there.

However, I stress that, on future proofing the two-factor authentication system, reasonable adjustments have to be made in the context of the individual needs of members and staff, and that will be the principal focus. As a fall-back, members for whom a reasonable adjustment cannot be made will continue to be able to use the existing system to get into the building. That is always available as an option for members, where reasonable adjustments cannot be made.

Two-factor Authentication System (Use by Members)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

7. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how many members have had their fingerprints taken for the two-factor authentication system for access to the complex. (S5O-03808)

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

First, the members have had their fingerprints taken for the two-factor authentication system, but the fingerprints are not stored on the card. A template is used, and a low-resolution aspect of that is stored on the card. It is important that those fingerprints are not stored by Parliament or anybody else.

In answer to John Mason’s question, I confirm that, as of 19 November, 52 members have had their finger templates taken and been enrolled in two-factor authentication. A further six members are booked to enrol.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the member for that answer. Can he assure us that members will be treated as strictly as staff? If staff are expected to fit in with the system, members should be, too.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Yes, I can give him that confirmation. At a recent corporate body meeting, it was agreed that Easter recess in 2020 will be the cut-off date for building users to enrol in two-factor authentication. Subject to what I said to Jeremy Balfour about particular circumstances, after that date, single-factor entry to the Parliament building via the external turnstiles will not be permitted. All staff and members will be treated equally and will require to use the two-factor authentication. If any member or staff member chooses not to, they will have to use the public entrance.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I cannot call any more questions, but Ruth Maguire could ask a supplementary question, which relates to John Mason’s question—

the question that Ms Maguire was going to ask could be seen as a supplementary question to the question that we have just had.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Okay. I will give it a bash, Presiding Officer.

My question related to accessibility and people participating in parliamentary processes. Recently, at a committee meeting, I had difficulty in obtaining an electronic note taker for a witness. I was fortunate that a clerk was able to step in. Will the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body consider what more can be done to make sure that we do not exclude potential witnesses from our Parliament?

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I thank Ruth Maguire for that supplementary question.

The corporate body is committed to meeting the needs of all its users and has access to a range of communication support, such as British Sign Language interpreters. For example, if someone is required to give evidence to a committee, we will ask in advance whether they have additional communication needs, because we want to make it easy for everyone to engage in this Parliament. We continue to work hard to improve accessibility.

We are constrained by the fact that there is a finite skills pool of BSL interpreters, palantypists and electronic note takers. It is not always possible to secure them, particularly at short notice. The Parliament wants to fulfil its duties to make sure that everyone can communicate effectively with it. In the instance that the member talked about, a member of staff stepped in as a replacement for a professional note taker. Although that was not ideal, I hope that it was a useful effort.

Health and Sport

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

We move on to portfolio question time. In order to fit in as many members as possible, I ask for succinct questions and answers, please. Question 1 is from Maurice Corry.

Flu Vaccine (Supply)

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of shortages, what action it is taking to ensure that there will be ample supply of the flu vaccine over the winter to meet demand. (S5O-03789)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I hope that the Presiding Officer will accept that this answer will be slightly longer than the rest, given the public interest.

I am aware that there have been process issues within Movianto UK—the supplier that has been contracted to store and distribute the flu vaccine—that have resulted in some national health service boards experiencing a delay to their delivery of adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine, or aTIV, which is one of the flu vaccines for over-65s. We are assured that there is ample supply of flu vaccine within the system, that the majority of delays have been resolved and that the remaining delays will be resolved by the end of this week. We are also aware that for all areas of the United Kingdom there will be a delay for a proportion of the children’s flu vaccine Fluenz Tetra.

We are working closely with Public Health England, who purchase the children’s flu vaccine on behalf of all areas of the UK, to understand the impact of those delays. In the meantime, we are working with Health Protection Scotland, NHS boards and other relevant partners on plans to ensure that all eligible children get their flu vaccine as soon as possible. I reassure parents and families that we are doing everything possible to minimise any disruption caused by the delay and we anticipate that the full allocation of Fluenz Tetra for Scotland will be received over the course of the season. The delay is completely outwith our control, but we would continue to urge eligible people to be vaccinated, as we know that that is the best protection against the flu.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

We are now one month into a flu vaccination programme that is experiencing disruption to the provision of vaccinations for primary school-aged children. A number of health boards including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which is based in the region that I represent, have reported delays due to supply issues. Last year there were supply issues with vaccines for the over-65s, and this year there are issues with vaccines for primary school children. What reassurances can the minister give the chamber that those issues will not become an annual occurrence?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I think that I answered the member’s question, specifically about the child flu vaccine. It is a UK-wide problem. The vaccine is purchased by Public Health England for the whole of the UK and, as I said, we expect the vaccine to be distributed across the UK during the course of the flu season.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The most recent uptake figures show that only 2.5 per cent of pre-school children have received a flu vaccine compared to 18.6 per cent at the same point last year. What assessment has the Government made of the possible impact that that could have over winter and what advice is the Government giving to parents who have not yet had their child vaccinated?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

We are absolutely determined to do everything that we can to make sure that the flu vaccine is available for children across Scotland. I encourage everyone who is entitled to the flu vaccine, whether a child or an adult, to please go and get vaccinated, because it is the best protection against the flu.

National Health Service (Ageing Workforce)

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking given the warnings from NHS Grampian about its ageing workforce. (S5O-03790)

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

In NHS Grampian, there have been increases in whole-time equivalent staff numbers of people who are aged 50 and over, but those are partially offset by increases in the younger age bands, from 20 to 29. Of the three key care providing staff groups that are featured, only nursing and midwifery has a profile of notable increases in older age bands. We are increasing the number of training places for medics, nurses and midwives in the north-east. The 2019-20 intake of nursing students at the Robert Gordon University and the University of the Highlands and Islands was increased by 9.7 per cent. All of that means that we will be progressively growing more of our talent in the north-east. Recent media coverage has highlighted the positive working partnership between NHS Grampian and developing the young workforce Moray, including an event that took place on 8 November to encourage young people to consider a career in NHS Grampian.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I call Mr Chapman again, I point out that quite a few people have pressed their buttons. I remind members who have pressed their buttons that their supplementary question should be about NHS Grampian.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Given that Dr Gray’s hospital has already experienced downgrades in women’s and children’s services due to a shortage of doctors, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give to patients that that will not happen to other services at hospitals in NHS Grampian?

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

The issue at Dr Gray’s hospital is slightly more complex than Mr Chapman has said. I am very happy to write to him in detail about that, bearing in mind the Presiding Officer’s wish for short answers.

Work has been undertaken at Dr Gray’s in phase 1 of the plan to return services to their full capacity. Phase 2, which I have signed off, is also on track, but there has been an additional complication in relation to guidance on anaesthetics, which means that the board is undertaking more work at Dr Gray’s.

I noticed that NHS Grampian has undertaken a very important initiative with colleagues in the housing sector and in other public services. Housing provision is being looked at in order to encourage the workforce to stay in NHS Grampian, particularly around the Moray and Elgin areas, and to attract new members of the workforce who might, for limited periods of their career, want to experience the significant services that Dr Gray’s offers. That is a good thing, and it is much better to get young talent to come to NHS Grampian in that way. If housing is part of the barrier, all credit to NHS Grampian, the local authority and others for taking forward that initiative.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

We debated our NHS workforce on Tuesday, and I understand that Mr Briggs will raise the issue in a later question. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Conservative plans to cut immigration and end freedom of movement could send Scotland’s working-age population into decline, which might cause staffing shortages in NHS Grampian and other boards in the future?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That question was loosely related to the topic. I ask for a very quick answer, please, cabinet secretary.

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

I will be very brief, Presiding Officer.

I agree with Emma Harper. It is important for our NHS, as well as for the rest of our public services in Scotland, that we have full control over immigration powers, so that we can tailor policies and practices to meet Scotland’s needs.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be well aware that allied health professionals are a key group in NHS Grampian and beyond, but the Scottish Government has no direct involvement in their training. Will the Scottish Government re-examine that area in relation to workforce planning?

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

We have a creative group of MSPs in the chamber, Presiding Officer.

I absolutely agree that allied health professionals are key, particularly but not exclusively to primary care. They also have a big role to play in secondary care and in social care. We have had discussions with the representative bodies, and I am sure that David Stewart knows that we have recently appointed, at Government level, a professional lead for allied health professionals, who is working in the chief nursing officer’s directorate. That is an important step forward for us and an important indication that we want to look at what we can do to ensure that we train and upskill all our allied health professionals, including those who are currently in post.

Breastfeeding

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to encourage and support new mothers to breastfeed. (S5O-03791)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Since 2011, we have provided more than £18.1 million directly to national health service boards for the implementation of the maternal and infant nutrition framework, of which breastfeeding support is a key component. More recently, we have provided an additional £3.7 million to NHS boards, the third sector and other partners for breastfeeding projects.

This year, we launched the breastfeeding friendly Scotland national campaign to positively influence attitudes to breastfeeding. Scotland was the first country in the United Kingdom to achieve 100 per cent accreditation in maternity and community services by UNICEF UK’s baby friendly initiative.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thank the minister for outlining the Government’s desire to encourage as many new mums to breastfeed as possible. However, I want to flag up some issues in the north-east, where the number of mothers who breastfeed compared with the number of those who use formula is not ideal. I raise the issue particularly because a constituent who wished to breastfeed her baby, but whose milk was not coming in quickly, told me at a recent advice surgery that she felt pressured into using formula in a maternity ward in Aberdeen, despite her desire to persevere with breastfeeding. There are demands on maternity nurses’ time, and breastfeeding support can be resource intensive. Will the minister agree to look into the breastfeeding rates in the area and to investigate the reasons behind them, so that they can be addressed?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

It is important that mothers do not feel pressured in any way; they should feel supported. Breastfeeding rates across Scotland are rising steadily.

The latest statistics show that, in the NHS Grampian area, a higher percentage of babies—45.7 per cent—are being exclusively breastfed at the first health visitor visit than the Scottish average of 37.4 per cent. As I mentioned, we are also getting close to the point of having 100 per cent accreditation by the UNICEF UK baby friendly initiative. However, we need to continue to do everything that we can to ensure that mothers feel supported throughout the period that they are breastfeeding.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the Scottish Government give an update on training existing national health service staff to perform procedures for tongue-tie in order to improve the capacity of services to breastfeeding mothers?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

We expect health boards to ensure that their staff are appropriately trained and developed for their roles, as per the staff governance standard. That standard complements the training expectation that is set out in individual, professional and regulatory regimes.

Cancer Care (Diagnostic Workforce)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the cross-party group on cancer recent report on the priorities for the future of cancer care, which highlighted concerns regarding gaps in the diagnostic workforce. (S5O-03792)

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

As I did earlier this week, I put on record my thanks to the cross-party group on cancer for its helpful report and recommendations, which set out the key challenges that we face and the work that we need to do.

As part of the waiting times improvement plan, more than £8.2 million has been made available to date for cancer diagnostics for the financial year 2019-20. That funding supports radiology and endoscopy services, enabling health boards to create additional capacity through the provision of additional sessions, increased reporting and workforce expansion. That will ensure that those who are on the urgent suspected cancer pathway receive key tests to rule cancer in or out as quickly as possible.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Last year, more than 32,000 Scots were diagnosed with cancer. Projections show that, by 2035, the number of people who are diagnosed with cancer is expected to increase to more than 40,000. Will the Scottish Government take the necessary steps to adapt and trial a model of long-term national planning for our national health service, in anticipation of projected patient need for the diagnostic workforce?

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

I am happy to say that that is part of our integrated workforce plan—members will be able to judge that when the plan is published before the Christmas recess. Work is under way to consider longer-term projections of 10 to 15 years to try to understand not only expected demand, but how the successful integration of health and social care impacts that and produces additional demand in the community-based setting. All of that is factored into a question that will be answered later, which relates to a redesign of the cancer treatment pathway to ensure that we can bring more of that closer to home than is currently the case, by taking advantage of new technologies.

Cancer Treatment (NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde)

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde initiative, moving forward together, which includes a review of how certain types of cancer treatment will be administered. (S5O-03793)

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

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s plans for cancer services are being taken forward as part of a regional approach for the west of Scotland, which involves a tiered approach to care, from specialist cancer provision at the Beatson to local outreach centres such as that proposed at the new Stobhill hospital. That reflects significant changes in service requirements and delivery, coupled with the introduction of new diagnostic and treatment technologies that have been developed over recent years.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

My constituent from Lenzie, Tom Herbert, has been campaigning for treatment for certain types of cancer to be brought closer to home, specifically in Stobhill hospital, for more than a decade, following the passing of his wife. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the plan will mean that patients can avoid a tiring journey to receive treatment and that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board should be congratulated on that forward-thinking initiative?

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

I agree. Mr Herbert, who has campaigned assiduously on this important issue over several years and has made strong representations to several health secretaries, should be congratulated on and thanked for the work that he has done on that. I hope that he feels that his hard work has been responded to effectively.

That is not only happening at Stobhill—I am very pleased to say that the Vale of Leven hospital will also be part of the network. It is just the kind of service development that we have always whole-heartedly supported: patients can be treated safely, effectively and timeously in their local community, closer to their homes—as they should be—so as to avoid some of the additional stress relating to journey times and travel.

Post-Brexit Trade Agreements (Drugs)

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

6. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the potential impact on NHS Scotland, what its response is to concerns that the United Kingdom might reach trade agreements following Brexit that could lead to an increase in the price of drugs. (S5O-03794)

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

It should be deeply concerning to every member in the chamber, as it is to us in Government, that a future trade deal by the UK Government with either the USA or anyone else could increase drug prices in Scotland.

Research by Dr Andrew Hill of the University of Liverpool has observed that, if we had to pay for medicines at the same per capita rate as the USA, medicines prices could more than double.

Given the damage that could be done by the dilution of arrangements to manage medicines costs in the national health service by future trade deals, it is very disappointing that Labour and Conservatives members voted yesterday against the protection of the NHS through an NHS protection bill.

The next Westminster Parliament needs to pass the protection bill as a matter of urgency—u

nfortunately, the powers to do so still reside with it—and all parties need to support the bill and stop working across their unionist ideologies in order to prevent it.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We know that Brexit is by far the biggest threat to our NHS and that the Tory-Trump trade deal risks opening it up to unprecedented levels of private involvement. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if parties are really genuine in their commitment to keep the NHS out of trade deals, no party should be unable to back an NHS protection bill that is put forward in the UK Parliament, which would give the parties in this Parliament a second bite at the cherry?

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

I absolutely agree with Gil Paterson. NHS protection legislation is self-evidently the right thing to do, and it is genuinely beyond my understanding that those who constantly thank our NHS staff and tell us that they will protect the NHS are not willing to offer their support for something so straightforward, which would protect our NHS from trade deals that could undoubtedly damage that national service.

This Government and this party, which I am proud to belong to, will always support our NHS, and we will do everything that we can to protect it. We will continue to press hard for that legislative protection, and I really hope that other members in the chamber will reconsider their positions and join us.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Neurological Conditions (National Action Plan)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish the national action plan on neurological conditions, which was first announced on 14 September 2017. (S5O-03796)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Over the past two years, we have engaged extensively with the neurological community to identify its needs, wishes and priorities. That has enabled us to develop commitments that aim to ensure that everyone in Scotland with a neurological condition can access the care and support that they need to live well on their own terms. By the end of this year, we will publish a five-year framework for action, setting out those ambitious commitments for the future of neurological care and support in Scotland.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Is the minister confident that, as a result of the plan, people with neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, especially those who are under the age of 65, will no longer be placed in older people’s care homes or spend long periods of time in hospital unnecessarily? Will they instead have proper specialist care in their own home, or in a specialist residential centre if they can no longer live at home?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The plan will look at a range of ways in which we can support people with all forms of neurological conditions. I look forward to publishing the plan before the end of this year, to show how we can take forward the actions and priorities by working across a range of policy areas, such as mental health, dementia and strokes.

Television Licences (Over-75s)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-19967, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on television licences for the over-75s.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In 2015, during the funding negotiations that took place as part of the BBC charter renewal, the United Kingdom Government, in a callous and irresponsible act, transferred responsibility to support older people by shifting the responsibility for funding the cost of providing free TV licences for people over 75 directly on to the BBC’s shoulders. That move was about the UK Government cutting its funding to the BBC and finding a means for the latter to take the blame for those cuts.

In June this year, the BBC announced that it would scrap free TV licences for over-75s, except for those households with one person in receipt of pension credit. Means testing eligibility for the concession will result in 3.7 million older people having to pay for their TV licences from June 2020.

Access to free television programming for the over-75s through free TV licences was a welcome announcement by the then Labour Government in 1999. Continued by successive Governments, such free licences were seen as an important welfare action. They enabled older people, who frequently spend more time at home, to be kept informed and entertained and to be treated with empathy and understanding.

The UK Government is playing games with welfare and public service broadcasting. On 26 August this year, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:

“The BBC received a settlement that was conditional upon their paying for TV licences for the over-75s. They should cough up.”

Now that a general election looms, Boris Johnson has changed his mind. The Prime Minister is quoted in

The Sun

of 4 November, which said that

“he was working hard to thrash out a solution so that no elderly viewers had to pay.”

On numerous occasions, the UK Government has stated its disappointment with the BBC’s decision, saying that it clearly wants and expects the BBC to continue the concession—one that the UK Government used to fund from the Department for Work and Pensions grant.

Where does the UK Government actually stand on the issue? The Conservative Party manifesto for 2017 said:

“We will maintain all other pensioner benefits, including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.”

In 2015, the UK Government did not want to continue to pay for free TV licences; in 2017, it said that it would continue to pay for them. In 2019, the Prime Minister said that the BBC should “cough up” for TV licences. The Conservatives are all over the place on the issue and cannot be trusted by pensioners, who deserve better. The UK Government should never have foisted responsibility for funding this welfare initiative on to the BBC in the first place.

The Scottish Government has repeatedly made its views known on the issue. In July 2015, following the decision, I wrote to the then UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale, expressing my disappointment that the decision was made with no consultation with the Scottish Government. As the Deputy Presiding Officer will be aware, that is a clear breach of the Smith commission agreement on the BBC. As recently as 13 June, my colleague the Minister for Older People and Equalities, Christina McKelvie, wrote to the UK Government urgently requesting that the decision be reconsidered.

The UK Government has shamelessly pushed welfare policy on to the BBC, with scant regard to the consequences. Of course, this is not the first failure of the UK Government to consider the welfare of people across the UK and in Scotland. This year, the Scottish Government has continued to invest more than £100 million to mitigate the worst impacts of UK Government welfare reforms. That is part of the £1.4 billion that we have spent to support low-income households in 2018-19.

I fundamentally disagree with the UK Government’s refusal to support people who are over 75 to have free TV licences and its refusal to shoulder its responsibility. I am not alone in that view: recent reports from committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords state that welfare policy is not the responsibility of the BBC. There have been two petitions upholding that view. The UK Parliament debated the issue on 15 July after a petition reached almost 172,000 signatures, but the UK Government did not alter its position and continues to blame the BBC. On 1 August, Age UK handed a petition to 10 Downing Street in which more than 630,000 people voiced their disapproval of the policy.

It is interesting that the Office for Budget Responsibility has also raised concerns about the policy. In July, it published its annual “Fiscal risks report”, in which it said:

“shifting the burden of a welfare benefit ... to the BBC to reduce the deficit appears likely to have fiscally costly unintended consequences”.

The fiscal risks report highlights that pension credit claims increased in the four weeks immediately following the BBC’s announcement. The Scottish Government wants older people to claim what they are entitled to, having worked all their lives, but it is not the BBC’s role to become involved in welfare policy and encourage people to sign up for the pension credit to which they are entitled.

The UK Government’s actions to evade its welfare responsibility will result in greater costs to the public purse. Linking the free TV licence to pension credit might actually increase the uptake of that benefit. We want eligible people to take up their benefits, but I point out, as the OBR pointed out, that if even 250,000 out of the 1.3 million people claim pension credit who did not previously do so, it will cost the Treasury an estimated £745 million. There is, therefore, not just a moral case but a strong financial case for reversing the policy.

Pension credit uptake is further impacted by the changes that the UK Government implemented on 15 May, which affect mixed-age couples where one partner is of pension age and the other is of working age. Pensioners will no longer be able to apply for pension credit if their partner is of working age. Instead, they will need to apply for the now notorious universal credit until the partner reaches state pension age. Our Scottish Government analysis has shown that that could lead to an annual loss of as much as £7,000 for affected couples, because pension credit entitlements are typically higher than universal credit. Our estimates indicate that in 2023-24 around 5,600 Scottish households could be affected by the policy.

Of course, women have been affected by other changes made by the UK Government. More than 2 million WASPI women—women against state pension inequality—paid their national insurance contributions in the full expectation that they would receive their state pension at a certain age, only for the goalposts to be moved by the UK Government. They will now be forced to work longer and they will be doubly affected by the changes for mixed-age couples.

Ultimately, all those welfare changes impact on people’s lives: those aged over 75 will now have the automatic benefit of a free TV licence ripped away. Some might be able to afford to fill the gap every month, but many thousands will be worrying about the choices that they will have to make when it comes to their monthly outgoings if they have to pay the licence fee. Forcing people to make difficult choices about what they can and cannot afford is not right.

For many people, TV is a lifeline. We know that older people in our society are at greater risk of social isolation and loneliness, as the Labour Party amendment, which we will support, points out. They might not be able to get out and about as much. TV provides a link to what is going on in the world. It offers people the chance to be entertained and to escape. Viewing figures from Ofcom show that people over 54 watch the most TV of any age group in Scotland—around five and a half hours a day on average. Access to television allows older people to enjoy educational documentaries, listen to news and current affairs, hear stories and see images of countries that they have never visited. TV can expand people’s knowledge and horizons. It can provide shared experiences, connection and entertainment for people to talk about with their families. There is a need for companionship, friendship and connection and older people need that as much as anybody else.

Destructive policies such as the one that was proposed and is being implemented by the UK Government will cause only harm to people who are trying to enjoy their retirement after a long working life.

In Scotland, the largest increase in population over the past few years has been in the over-75 age group, and the numbers are projected to further increase. It is inexcusable to allow or support policies that disadvantage our older people, who have already contributed so much and continue to contribute.

The Scottish Government supports our older people, yet our ambitions are negatively impacted by Westminster, time and time again. The UK Government’s social policies should be funded by the UK Government. Licence fee funds should be devoted to delivering the BBC’s public purposes, including the purpose to

“help people understand and engage with the world around them”,

which is vital for older people.

Public service broadcasting should be universally accessible, and older people should not be denied their part in that. Let me be absolutely clear—in the 2015 BBC charter renewal settlement, the UK Government gave the BBC a Trojan horse, paving the way for public service broadcasting to be undermined by creating conditions that weaken the public broadcasting model.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that when that agreement was made between the BBC and the Government, the BBC accepted it without complaint?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The BBC has made many complaints about the Government’s policy, which was about tying the BBC’s hands behind its back and telling the BBC to take it or leave it.

At a time when the BBC faces unprecedented competition in a rapidly changing communications environment, it is important that the public service model is properly funded so that it can be healthy and competitive.

I think that the UK Government knew exactly what it was doing when it made sure that the BBC would carry the can for its unpopular policy. It is difficult to comprehend the UK Government’s position. We should be celebrating our older people. We should be thankful that people are living longer, healthier lives and we should be allowing them to enjoy the third age. The UK Government’s policy is a colossal failure in social policy making. The issue is rightly being debated in the Scottish Parliament. We must stand up for the over-75s and demand that the UK Government pay for the free licences once again.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the UK Government’s decision to stop funding free TV licences for people over 75 was wrong; considers that the BBC should not be expected to use the licence fee to fund a welfare policy and calls for the UK Government to fully fund free TV licences for all over 75s; notes that the decision to shift this cost to the BBC was taken in secret discussions by the UK Government on the setting of the licence fee; believes that the licence fee should be set independently of the UK Government to decouple the setting of the fee from any undue influence that links it to wider funding of initiatives that should be the responsibility of government; commends the importance of universal access to publicly-funded public service broadcasting, and deplores the impact that this decision could have on older people’s lives.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will set some background first. Television has the wonderful ability to transport us from our sitting room to anywhere around the world. It has the power to inspire people to see things differently and to question the norm. Let us face it: for £154.50, the BBC does offer good value and every service that it provides is valued by someone across our society. Television also has the ability to shape public opinion: consider how influential the vivid and resplendent images of David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet” have been. They have enacted societal change in how we view our planet and plastic pollution. That a TV series has achieved such a large shift in public opinion on an issue is colossal.

For most of us, television is an important connection with the outside world that informs and entertains. It is not just a medium for keeping abreast of the latest developments across the UK and the world but an important social tool. That is why we have some sympathy, and empathy, with Claire Baker’s amendment for Labour. We know that television can tackle social isolation, as Fiona Hyslop, the cabinet secretary, said, especially for those who cannot socialise outside the home due to mobility issues. Some 100,000 Scots experience social isolation, so a TV licence is very important in their day-to-day lives. Those people enjoy watching the energetic dancing in “Strictly Come Dancing” on a Saturday or the roaring engines in “Top Gear” and such programmes not only provide entertainment but help tackle social isolation.

Fundamentally, television should be accessible to all. That is why we Conservatives are frustrated at the decision to remove the free television licence, as we expected the BBC to continue that important concession. Lord Hall said in July 2015 that the deal would give the BBC “financial stability”. He said, to counter criticisms of the deal, that it had to be seen as an entire package: the modernisation of the licence fee, the removal of part of the top slicing and a commitment to the licence fee going up alongside inflation. He said that those things and one or two other things meant that the BBC could plan with a sense of “financial stability.”

There is consensus across the chamber that the UK Government should get round the table with the BBC to find an appropriate solution.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Rachael Hamilton accept that the cost to the BBC’s budget of the over-75s licence fee was estimated to be £745 million, and for the BBC to continue with that policy would mean a huge drop in the income that it must use to deliver for everyone?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I accept that. I also accept that the financial stability that Lord Hall talks about equates to approximately £700 million. We support the position that the BBC must find a way through that with the package that it was given in the BBC charter renewal.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will Rachael Hamilton take an intervention?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Not just now.

From the off, let us get the facts straight on where the responsibility lies for TV licences for the over-75s.

To better understand the crux of the matter, we must go back to July 2015. A funding deal was agreed between the Government and the BBC as part of the charter renewal, the key element of which was that the BBC would take over funding of free TV licences for the over-75s in return for certain concessions. For example, the Government agreed to close the iPlayer loophole—the cause of significant income loss for the BBC—and said that legislation to that effect would be brought before Parliament in the near future.

The BBC agreed

in 2015 to take on the cost of funding

the over-75s licence fee

and, at that time, Lord Hall said that it was the “right deal”.

However, the BBC should have communicated earlier the likelihood that it would not be able to carry on the concession from 2020. The UK Government has guaranteed that the level of the licence fee will increase with inflation until 2022, which will ensure that the BBC continues to deliver high-quality, distinctive content for all audiences. None of us disagrees with that.

Under the BBC’s current plans, the poorest pensioners will continue to be helped, as the BBC stated that those who are eligible for pension credit would still receive a free TV licence. We are unhappy that the BBC’s decision does not cover all over-75s, and it concerns me that 12,000 over-75s in my constituency will be affected by the loss of the exemption.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Does Rachael Hamilton feel that it is right for a UK Government—in this instance, a Tory UK Government—to hand responsibility for administrating part of the benefit system to a non-Government body, which, in this case, is the BBC?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I have already cited Lord Hall’s quote on financial stability. The BBC agreed to the package at the time of the renewal of its charter.

Members will be aware that the BBC is operationally independent. Taxpayers want the independent public service broadcaster to use its substantial licence fee income appropriately to ensure that it delivers for UK audiences. In 2018, the BBC received more than £3.8 billion in licence fee income—the highest ever amount—and it receives more than £1 billion a year from commercial work, such as selling content abroad. That income must be reinvested appropriately. As I said, people want the BBC to use its substantial licence fee income in an appropriate way to ensure that it delivers for UK audiences, which includes showing restraint on salaries for senior staff.

Although the BBC has a responsibility to ensure that it manages its budget appropriately, it announced the most narrowly defined option for reform of the over-75s concession. It is important to note that that was the BBC’s decision and not that of the Government, because Parliament legislated to give the BBC full responsibility for that from 2020. I understand that there are members who do not agree with it, but perhaps I did not agree with them on the occasions that they did not support institutions with the word “British” in them.

My UK Government colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, have already pressed the BBC to consider what further help it can provide in the light of the decision. We want the secretary of state to continue to push the BBC to continue to support free licences. My colleague Jackson Carlaw was explicit in his opposition to the BBC’s decision when he met the Prime Minister a few months ago.

I reiterate my dismay and the dismay of other Conservative members at the BBC’s decision. Television is important to many people, but especially older people. The TV not only offers light entertainment; it can also be used to tackle social isolation.

In the motion lodged by the cabinet secretary, it is clear that the SNP would rather blame the UK Government instead of working constructively. That motion just kicks the can down the road when it comes to finding a resolution for those over-75s who must have a free TV licence.

The SNP’s announcement is simply a rehash of Jeremy Corbyn’s policy. Last year, the Labour leader announced plans for an independent body to set the licence fee. I believe that he has made such a commitment in his manifesto, which was published today. When it comes to its separatist agenda, the SNP has failed to explain what would happen to the BBC in Scotland. Only Conservative members will continue to work with our colleagues and ensure that we see real action, by getting the BBC to find a viable solution.

The ball is firmly in the BBC’s court in relation to responsibility; the BBC director general made that clear in 2015, when he said:

“the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”

We want the BBC to honour that, and we join the call by the UK Government for the BBC to find and support a resolution to the matter, in order to keep licences for over-75s free.

I move amendment S5M-19967.2, to leave out from “UK Government’s decision to stop” to end and insert:

“decision of the BBC to cease funding free TV licences for people aged over 75 is regrettable; recognises that, in 2015, a new funding deal was agreed between the UK Government and the BBC, which the BBC Director General, Tony Hall, acknowledged as a ‘strong deal for the BBC’; recognises that a key element of the deal was that the BBC would take over funding of free TV licences for people aged over 75 in return for certain concessions; acknowledges that, as an independent public service broadcaster, it is the responsibility of the BBC to ensure that its substantial licence fee income is used effectively to ensure that it fully delivers for UK audiences; believes that taxpayers want to see the BBC using its licence fee income in an appropriate way; notes that disadvantaged older people will continue to be helped, as Pension Credit recipients will receive a free TV licence; believes that television is an important educational and entertainment medium for all age cohorts, and, while repeating calls from the UK Government for the BBC to support free TV licences for people aged over 75, calls on the UK Government to find and support a resolution on the matter.”

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Free TV licences for the over-75s were introduced by a Labour Government under Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1999, with the cost being covered via general taxation. The move, which was part of action to help reduce poverty among pensioners, involved the BBC being paid directly by the Government to replace the income that was being lost from licences. The concession was broadly understood as a top-up entitlement for the over-75s that sought to deliver improvements via universal benefits for older people.

The introduction of the free TV licence came alongside expanded social care access. It was part of a balance between means-tested benefits such as pension credits and universal benefits, all of which sought to prevent older people from experiencing poverty. It was introduced as a social benefit.

When the Conservative Government said that it would no longer fund the scheme and that support would be phased out by 2020, leaving the BBC to take on the cost of £745 million a year, that went completely against the basis of the funding of free licences as a welfare policy. Labour was and is completely opposed to that decision and firmly of the belief that the Conservative Government was wrong to outsource social policy in that way.

The deal that was struck in 2015 between the then Chancellor, George Osborne, and the BBC was arrived at behind closed doors and in a very short timescale. Such discussions should not be backroom deals and they should not be forced at short notice by the Government, with no attempt at transparency or consultation.

Setting the licence fee should not be the sole responsibility of Government. The process must be transparent, and there needs to be clear accountability for the decisions that are taken. The viewers’ voice must be heard. Negotiations should no longer take place behind closed doors, with little input from the BBC and none from viewers.

The BBC is going through an exciting time. Here in Scotland, we have the new channel, there has been an overhaul of the iPlayer and there are more co-productions and international collaborations, but it is also a challenging time, as there is an increasingly varied and competitive market. There is a lot of public support for the BBC and its role as a public sector broadcaster, but the viewer needs to feel greater ownership of the BBC and must be able to express that value. The setting of the licence fee must be free from Government social policy and must be done in the interests of the viewer and the listener.

While today’s debate is focused on the licence fee for the over-75s, the Tory Government has previous form in this area. In 2013, it was announced that the funding for the BBC’s valued World Service would transfer from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the BBC licence fee. At the time, Peter Horrocks, the director of the World Service, said that the service was

“determined that this unexpected cut should not damage existing services to audiences”,

and that although the BBC would protect and continue the service, it would

“not be able to invest in new programmes and platforms as planned.”

Again, there was no consultation and no dialogue. That funding had existed for decades, and although the service had changed significantly, the Government had given no indication that it expected it to end; it simply withdrew its support.

The BBC’s announcement that, from June 2020, only people over 75 who were in receipt of pension credit would be entitled to have their licence fee paid for by the BBC was a direct result of the Conservative Government’s decision. The fact that the Conservatives sought to frame it as some fault of the BBC—they continue to do that this afternoon—rather than accept it as their responsibility is disgraceful. The BBC is responsible for the decision only in so far as the Conservative Government forced it to make it. That the Conservative amendment continues to insist on calling it a BBC decision, with no context, is at best disingenuous and at worst shameless.

The subsequent position that was taken by the BBC followed a consultation that closed earlier this year and involved research with stakeholders and members of the public. What emerged from that consultation was the difficulty of the choices facing the BBC in taking the decision with regard to balancing the impact on older people against its responsibility to delivery programmes and services for everyone.

To fully fund the continuation of the full exemption would cost the BBC £745 million of its budget—around a fifth. According to the BBC’s annual report and accounts for 2018, that equates to the amount that is spent on all of BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, the BBC News channel, CBBC and CBeebies. To put it another way, it equates to the amount that is spent on all its sport, drama, entertainment and comedy programmes. That would represent a dramatic change in the BBC’s income, and I find it difficult to understand why the Conservatives have dismissed the importance of that figure this afternoon and have not recognised the impact that fully funding what was previously a social policy would have on the BBC.

In Scotland, the number of households that are expected to lose their free TV licence next year approaches 250,000. I welcome the briefing that Age Scotland provided for this debate. It highlights research showing that half of over-75s say that their main form of company is the TV or a pet, and that 100,000 older people in Scotland feel lonely all or most of the time. The risk of isolation and loneliness is compounded for many who are already taking difficult decisions on which bills they can afford. A petition by Age UK to save free TV licences for everyone over 75 attracted more than 630,000 signatures, all demanding that the Government take back responsibility for the funding of free TV licences. Research that Age UK carried out found that more than 40 per cent of over-75s in the UK would not be able to afford a TV licence without cutting back on essentials such as heating or food.

The decision to change entitlement to free TV licences means that pensioners will be required to prove receipt of pension credit in order to get the exemption. It is estimated that around two fifths of those eligible for pension credit are not currently claiming it, some because they do not know that they can claim or how to claim and some because of the stigma that is attached to it. In Scotland, it is estimated that more than 122,000 entitled households are currently not receiving pension credit, and, as the cabinet secretary highlighted, there are further issues around the rules for mixed-age couples and for those who are marginally above the threshold for the benefit.

On wider impacts, there is the potential for increased strain on public services if vulnerable people become more isolated or have mental health issues as a result of a loss of the companionship that TV can provide. There are also particular concerns regarding older people with dementia and how they will be affected. Although some will receive pension credit and thus be eligible for a free licence, an estimated 553,000 older people with dementia in the UK are expected to lose their free licence, including more than 140,000 who are aged over 90.

The Labour amendment seeks to highlight the impacts that the decision will have on older people, many of whom already live in relative poverty. The additional economic and social pressures that they will face as a result of the Conservative Government’s action should be recognised. A Labour Government would restore free TV licences for all over-75s, and I hope that we can reach a consensus this afternoon that that matter is the responsibility of Government, and that free TV licences should be restored. Universal access to publicly funded public service broadcasting has many benefits, particularly for older people, and must be maintained.

I move amendment S5M-19967.1, to insert after “public service broadcasting”:

“; recognises research from Age Scotland that 100,000 older people in Scotland feel lonely all or most of the time and that, for around half of over 75s, TV or a pet is their main form of company; highlights the additional financial strain that this decision places on older people, including those already living in relative poverty”.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

For some time now, we have been promised the end of austerity by the UK Government yet, this summer, another cut was announced, this time to TV licences for the over-75s—[

Interruption

.]

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

I am sorry to say this but, because it is a quiet chamber today, I can hear everything that the members at the back of the chamber are saying, even though they are having quiet conversations, and I am sure that they do not want me to.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

As we have heard, that cut had been explicitly ruled out by the UK Government in its 2017 election manifesto, but it was passed on to the BBC, and the BBC had to make that difficult announcement.

Older people will be forced to pay an additional £154 a year for their TV licences. That may not be much to some people but, for the poorest households, it is a significant proportion of their income. The BBC’s analysis suggests that, for the poorest 10 per cent of households, it is as much as 2 per cent of annual income. In looking at that fact, we should not forget that, as Age Scotland tells us in its briefing,

“The UK has the lowest State Pension of all the most advanced economies in the world.”

That is woeful and not something that we should be proud of, and this further cut beggars belief.

We also know for a fact that poverty among older people is rising, not falling. Since 2014, relative poverty among pensioners in Scotland has jumped by 3 per cent, so the last thing that they need is to have to pay for their TV licence. It is no wonder that a survey conducted by Age UK has found that, if the concession is scrapped, more than 40 per cent of people aged over 75 either will not be able to afford a TV licence or will have to cut back on essentials to pay for it. Of those who said that they would have to cut back, a quarter plan to reduce spending on heating and a fifth plan to reduce spending on food.

As we have discussed, the latest figures show that, across the UK, 60 per cent of those who are eligible for pension credit receive it, and the figure is as low as 50 per cent among couples. According to estimates by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, around 130,000 Scots would be eligible for but would not receive the TV licence under the proposed scheme. In a system that is based on pension credit passporting, 600,000 UK households that are eligible for but not claiming pension credit would not get the free licence.

The plans are based on 75 per cent take-up of pension credit, which would be a considerable improvement, but there is not a sufficiently robust plan to achieve that. The BBC has said that it will contact all older people who are impacted by the change to advise them to apply for pension credit. However, as a member of the Social Security Committee, which is midway through an investigation into benefit take-up, I know that it is a very complex area and that older people in particular can be extremely reluctant to claim benefits even when they are entitled to them. It simply makes no sense to put that work on to the BBC. It requires skill sets that a public service broadcaster might not have, and why should it have them?

We have heard that the change will be particularly unfair for older people with younger partners, who can no longer claim pension credit as a result of further changes that the UK Government introduced this year. A couple with one person over 75 and one under 65 would lose £7,000 as a result of being forced to claim universal credit and an additional £154 as a result of having to pay for a TV licence.

The point has been well made that TV is a vital lifeline for many older Scots. According to Age Scotland, half of over-75s say that their main form of company is the television or a pet. That is sad and, as a Parliament and a nation, we should strive to address it. One good thing about this debate is that it is raising that issue. We know that 100,000 older people in Scotland feel lonely all or most of the time and that 200,000 can go half a week without a visit or call from anyone. The proposal will mean that many older Scots who cannot afford to pay will lose what is, sadly, their only source of company for large parts of the week.

Annabelle Ewing raised the issue of accountability. The free TV licence for the over-75s is in essence a social security benefit, albeit in kind. The UK Government introduced that benefit and should remain responsible for it. However, the Government has outsourced responsibility for that benefit to the BBC. That sets a worrying precedent, as it is Governments that should make and be accountable for social security policy, rather than a public body that is not elected and is not directly accountable to the public. Frankly, that is a bizarre move, and I have to ask: whatever next?

Rachael Hamilton began by speaking for more than a minute about the importance of TV. Frankly, I find it baffling that there is not more of a concerted effort among the Scottish Conservatives to get the UK Government to change its policy, which is simply wrong-headed. I will close by reiterating the fact that

“The UK has the lowest State Pension of all the most advanced economies in the world”,

so the proposed change to the TV licence is the last thing that our over-75s need.