We move to topical questions, which are unaffected by random picking.
Primary Care Out-of-hours Services
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report by the independent review of primary care out-of-hours services, “Pulling together: transforming urgent care for the people of Scotland”. (S4T-01197)
The Scottish Government welcomes the report of the national review of out-of-hours services, which was published on 30 November. I thank Professor Ritchie for all his hard work in preparing such a wide-ranging and comprehensive report. Given the complex issues that are involved, we have asked all key delivery partners, including health and social care partnerships, to set out how they propose to deliver the recommendations locally. We will then use those local plans to inform a detailed national implementation plan, which we will publish in the spring of 2016. To ensure that we see action immediately, I have announced £1 million to begin testing the new urgent care hub model that is recommended in the report.
One of the recommendations involves effective workforce planning and calls for a national primary care workforce plan—something that I and many of my colleagues on the Labour benches have suggested before. Does the cabinet secretary now agree with Sir Lewis Ritchie that workforce planning should be taken forward urgently? What is her timescale for that?
Workforce planning is and always has been fundamental, and of course we accept all the recommendations in the report. I set out in my initial answer that the detailed national implementation plan will bring together all the elements of the report and how they will be implemented by the Scottish Government, boards and partners, and I said that I would bring that forward in the spring of next year.
In the meantime, though, it is important that we get on with elements of the report. For example, the testing of the new urgent care hub model is important. We want to get on with identifying test sites for that, and we are going to do that immediately.
We very much welcome the £1 million of funding that has been put in place for the testing of the pilot hub model, but the cabinet secretary will know that the out-of-hours service across the country is struggling, with reports of as few as two general practitioners covering whole regions, and real problems in Lanarkshire. The cabinet secretary says that in the spring she will bring forward information on how her Government will implement the recommendations, but what will she do now about the pressure on our out-of-hours service in Scotland?
I would not have commissioned the out-of-hours report from Sir Lewis Ritchie had I thought that there were no challenges in the out-of-hours services. That is why I commissioned him to do the report. It is excellent and it sets us on the right path to transforming our out-of-hours services. There are short, medium and longer-term aspects to the report, as Sir Lewis lays out, but we will get on with the job of transforming the out-of-hours services.
In the meantime, of course, out-of-hours services form an integral part of the winter plans, and there is £10.7 million for those plans to ensure that there is resilience in all our services. That includes making sure that the out-of-hours services are robust over the winter. Then the transformation will begin, and the report that sets out how that will happen will be published in the spring, as I said.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the different terms and conditions that different health boards are offering to general practitioners who provide out-of-hours services. She will know that, while some areas are able to provide GPs for their doctors-on-call services, other health boards, such as NHS Ayrshire and Arran, are moving towards providing them through the welcome services of advanced nurse practitioners. How does the cabinet secretary view that change in provision? What, if anything, is she doing about it?
One of the proposals in the report is for a national GP performance list for Scotland. However, the member has highlighted an important issue, because boards often compete with each other for the same GPs. That is why the recommendation that there be a GP performance list, along with many others, will be so important in bringing together the out-of-hours services in a more coherent way that avoids having boards competing with one another. As we work through the recommendations, we will expect boards to look at their own local plans to ensure that they reflect the recommendations about those plans in the short term and then to get on with the job of implementing the recommendations. That will make a big difference to out-of-hours services across Scotland, including in the member’s locality.
The review points out that people in remote and rural locations are more likely to report negatively about out-of-hours care and that there is concern among people living in those areas about the distance from access to out-of-hours care. With more than 100,000 patients being treated outwith their health board area in 2014, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give to people living in remote and rural areas that they will have the care that they need when and where they need it?
Jim Hume talks about people being treated outwith their board area, but what he is referring to is the fact that many people are treated at centres such as the Golden Jubilee centre, which is a national resource. I am sure that he would not think that it was a bad thing for patients from across Scotland to go to that centre for excellent treatment.
Sir Lewis Ritchie spends a good deal of the report looking at the remote and rural challenges. As we move forward with the recommendations, I am keen to test how the new urgent care hub model will work both in urban and in remote and rural contexts. Without a doubt, there is a reliance in remote and rural areas on the local assets of the community, such as first responders, who have a very important role, as do the ambulance service and the primary care out-of-hours services. I am very keen that we test the new model in a remote and rural context for its application more widely.
I agree with the cabinet secretary that the report is worthy and that we need to make progress on it. The cabinet secretary has mentioned the GP contract for 2017 and the implementation plan for 2016. The report highlights that deprived communities are losing out now and could benefit now, so can beneficial elements of the report be rolled out and implemented prior to those dates in deprived neighbourhoods and communities, such as those in Inverclyde?
Duncan McNeil will be aware that the publication of the report coincided with the publication of research commissioned by the Scottish Government that highlighted some of the issues that Duncan McNeil has referred to. He will also be aware that, within the existing GP contract, there is an element of funding for deprivation: the 100 deep-end practices receive a total of around £5.4 million. However, as he will know—and as I have said before in the chamber—we need to go further than that, and the new contract offers the opportunity to do so.
We will have a transition year for the new contract in 2016, with large elements of the quality and outcomes framework being dismantled to remove bureaucracy. If there is anything that we can move on earlier with regard to that or, indeed, aspects of Sir Lewis Ritchie’s recommendations, I will certainly look at it. Perhaps for some of the modelling and testing, we can have a focus on testing in some of the more deprived communities to see how the model can work to best effect.
Given the report and the research, does the cabinet secretary think that it would be appropriate for NHS Lanarkshire to go ahead with a plan to provide a centre just in South Lanarkshire and not to have a centre at all in the North Lanarkshire area?
As I have said before—there is no change on this—we would expect NHS Lanarkshire to look at the report and apply what it says to its services. If the board moves to any permanent change in its out-of-hours provision—it is an interim service that it has at the moment—that issue would, of course, come to the Scottish Government, but I would expect NHS Lanarkshire and all the other boards to make sure that their services are in line with the report’s recommendations, as I have said previously in this place.
Police Scotland (Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office Review)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it will take in response to the recent report on Police Scotland by the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office. (S4T-01191)
On learning of the breaches in the summer, the Scottish Government contacted Police Scotland to seek reassurance that it would co-operate fully with the IOCCO investigation and that it would take any necessary actions that might result from it.
That reassurance was given and, since July, Police Scotland has been working on a robust action plan to ensure that there has been no repeat of those incidents and that they cannot happen again in the future. However, it is clear that Police Scotland’s actions in accessing communications data have fallen short of the standard expected, and I welcome last week’s announcement by the Scottish Police Authority that it would ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland to review the robustness of the procedures around Police Scotland’s counter-corruption practices.
I can reassure the chamber that that will be an independent, thorough and in-depth review. In order to provide assurance to the public and this Parliament, it will focus on operational effectiveness and efficiency, the independence of the internal investigation function, governance and accountability, and training and guidance for officers and staff. The review will be submitted to the Scottish Police Authority and laid in the Parliament in the spring, and I expect any HMICS recommendations for improvements to be implemented in full.
Any breach of the “Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice” is unacceptable. A free press is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and we are committed to protecting the privacy of all law-abiding members of the public, including journalists.
In his statement on spying in September, the cabinet secretary told the chamber that he had “no idea” who the police in Scotland were spying on. That is unlike the First Minister, who knew about claims that the police had recklessly used illegal surveillance on repeated occasions almost five months ago. It appears that only the public and the Scottish Parliament were kept in the dark.
Was the cabinet secretary kept in the dark as well? If he was not, how does he explain his previous answer to the Parliament? Will he now take personal responsibility for ensuring that the numerous failures that there have been will not occur in the future on his watch?
As ever, the member has got a bit confused on these matters, because the response that I gave to Neil Findlay in September related to covert surveillance matters, which are entirely different from the issue that we are discussing and relate to historical matters as well, as the member will be aware.
In relation to his specific point about this matter, when we became aware of it in July of this year, we asked Police Scotland for assurances that it was complying with the investigation that IOCCO was undertaking. What is important is that we recognise that IOCCO is the independent judicially led body that is responsible for the oversight of this area of policing not just by Police Scotland but by all police forces across the UK and all public bodies that can exercise the powers in question.
What the investigation by IOCCO has demonstrated is that that oversight mechanism has identified failings in Police Scotland in making sure that it went through the proper process for undertaking such acquisition of communications data. IOCCO recognises that Police Scotland has put in place a robust process to ensure that this type of thing cannot happen again. A thorough process has been gone through. I recognise that what Police Scotland did in breaching the code was unacceptable, but we now have an assurance from IOCCO that it has a procedure in place that can prevent that from happening again in the future. It will clearly continue to keep that under review as it reviews the way in which such procedures are used by Police Scotland and every other police force in the United Kingdom.
I accept that IOCCO has done its job thoroughly. For years, in this Parliament, I have asked the cabinet secretary to ensure that proper governance, accountability and oversight are in place for the new national police force. However, that has been rebutted by the Government with some energy. Will he now accept that there is not sufficient governance in place and ensure that it occurs?
The member seems to be getting himself even more confused on the issue. The governance and oversight of this area of reserved legislation is with IOCCO, which was put in place by a Labour Government to ensure that the public bodies that had these powers were being held to account. That is exactly what IOCCO is there for.
I do not know whether the member is suggesting that we should get rid of IOCCO. If so, it is for the UK Government to get rid of IOCCO and replace it with something else. There is currently a proposal for a new investigative powers framework that could include the merging of the different inspection and oversight regimes that we have in the UK. However, the oversight mechanism for this is not peculiar to Police Scotland, which is the impression that the member would like to give; it has applied to all police forces in Scotland. It is a robust mechanism that has identified failings and has put measures in place.
Given the member’s policing experience, I would not have thought that he would be as confused about the issue as he clearly is.
Five members wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary. I recognise that time is moving on, but I fully intend to take them all. I would be extremely grateful if members kept their questions as short as possible.
It is worth noting that the code of practice that was breached does not relate to the interception of communications nor to the acquisition or disclosure of the contents of communications. Therefore, it is more a technical breach. Notwithstanding that and the cabinet secretary’s comments, how can the public be reassured that the HMICS review will be both vigorous and independent?
As the member correctly points out, the case is to do with communications data rather than the interception of communications, which has ministerial oversight and requires ministerial authorisation.
The Scottish Police Authority has asked HMICS to undertake a review of the practices that are being followed by Police Scotland’s counter-corruption unit. As I have mentioned, that independent, thorough, in-depth review will look at operational effectiveness and efficiency, the independence of the internal investigation function, governance and accountability, and the training and guidance that is provided to staff. The review will be laid before the Parliament for all members to consider and I expect any recommendations to be fully implemented by Police Scotland.
What is still missing from the case is a proper explanation of who did this and why. We need a proper explanation to get the transparency that members of the public seek. Rather than reopen the investigation, Police Scotland tried to find the source of the leak, and I think that we need a proper explanation as to why that was allowed to happen. When does the cabinet secretary think that that explanation will come?
The breaches have been identified and IOCCO has written to the individuals who have been affected by them, informing them that they can now take the matter to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The tribunal will be responsible for looking at the extent of what the breaches implied for the individuals on whom they impacted and whether any recourse should be applied in those instances.
The member is right to say that it is important that the public—indeed, all of us—can have assurance about how the procedures have been implemented. IOCCO has accepted the action plan that has been taken forward by Police Scotland to prevent this from happening again and it will continue to have oversight of that. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal will now be responsible for deciding the extent of the breaches, how they applied to the individuals’ circumstances and on any compensation or other matters that should be applied as a result of the breaches.
I accept that the interception of communications is reserved. However, does the cabinet secretary share my despondency that the SPA, despite being responsible for the oversight of Police Scotland, has yet again been caught on the back foot and is reduced to admonishing Police Scotland after the fact and then asking HMICS to undertake an assurance review?
It is important to understand the process that investigatory powers legislation puts in place. The oversight function for the use of investigatory powers is a matter for IOCCO in this type of issue; it is not a matter for a third party such as the Scottish Police Authority.
When IOCCO identifies a breach in procedure, it is extremely important that the SPA considers what measures should be taken to address deficiencies. IOCCO confirmed that robust measures have been put in place to address the failings in Police Scotland in this instance.
What HMICS will now do, at the request of the SPA, is look at the wider issues to do with practice in the counter-corruption unit. That is exactly the area that is the SPA’s responsibility, and in undertaking the assurance review HMICS will look at the wider issues. It will not take over IOCCO’s oversight function, which involves reporting to the Prime Minister on issues for all forces in the United Kingdom.
Public concern is about a much wider issue than communications. The last time I asked the cabinet secretary whether undercover officers were spying on activists, he said:
“I have no idea.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2015; c 4.]
Given the revelations in the Sunday Herald over the past two weekends, will the cabinet secretary instruct a full independent inquiry into the role of undercover policing in Scotland? If not, are Scots the only people in mainland UK who are to be denied information and justice on an extremely important issue?
That is a different matter altogether. Labour members might be a bit confused about the issue. As I made clear, issues to do with covert surveillance are not a matter in which Scottish Government ministers are involved. In addition, the issues that the member raised relate to matters that involved officers in the Metropolitan Police Service and their work.
As I said to the member, if he has clear evidence of officers in Police Scotland or any of the legacy forces not complying with the procedures for the use of covert surveillance, I will be more than happy to consider it. However, as yet I have not received concrete evidence from the member that sets out breaches in relation to specific officers in Police Scotland or the legacy forces.
The Scottish Police Authority is the disciplinary authority for chief officer rank in Scotland. I welcome the inquiry and I do not doubt the impartiality of HMICS. Will the cabinet secretary tell us what status it will have in respect of discipline?
In relation to Police Scotland, the disciplinary authority for ranks below chief officer is the deputy chief constable. Does the cabinet secretary think that there is a conflict of interest in that regard if a misconduct or indeed a criminal inquiry is under way in relation to the matters that we are considering?
The member raised a number of interesting points, which are part of the reason for the HMICS review of how the counter-corruption unit has been operating in relation to accountability and oversight of mechanisms. The review could pick up on points that the member highlighted.
However, the matter will also go to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which will consider the extent of the impact on the individuals concerned—for those who choose to take the matter to the tribunal—and whether compensation should be provided to individuals. When that process has been completed, I expect the SPA and Police Scotland to consider whether further action is necessary. Given that a process is now in place and we know that one affected party has indicated a wish to take the matter to the IPT, we need to ensure that due process is completed and the issues fully investigated before further decisions are taken on disciplinary matters.
However, the member raised important points, which no doubt HMICS will consider in the course of its investigation.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Under the standing orders, will the minister correct the record? More than a week ago, 10 members of this Parliament wrote to him to raise specific concerns about the activities of undercover police in Scotland. Perhaps the minister’s civil servants have not advised him of that yet, but it has happened.
Secondly, any undercover operations in Scotland must be authorised by senior officers in the force area in which they are operating. I would have thought that the minister would have known that.
As the member knows, that is not a point of order. What the minister says is entirely a matter for him.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On 4 November, I wrote to you about the abuse of points of order by Neil Findlay and, on 18 November, you wrote back to me. It seems to me that if one member continues to abuse the system in this way, unless action is taken against that member, it just encourages all other members to do the same.
That is not a point of order.
Previous
Presiding Officer’s Statement