Contents
- General Question Time
- First Minister’s Question Time
- Young Voters and School Debates
- National Marine Plan
- Community Charge Debt (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
- Community Charge Debt (Scotland) Bill
- Decision Time
General Question Time
Insult to Injury Campaign
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will respond to the insult to injury campaign and ensure that war pensioners are treated fairly. (S4O-04021)
We are exploring with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities options to create a fairer system for charging for social care, and we will look at the matter as part of that work. Scottish Government officials are also in close contact with officials in the United Kingdom Department of Health on the issue.
Does the minister agree that it is entirely unfair that we treat veterans who were injured before 2005 in a different manner from those who were injured after 2005? What work is the Government doing to explore how much it will cost to rectify the anomaly?
I thank Ken Macintosh for bringing the issue to the chamber. We owe all our veterans a debt of gratitude, and particularly those who have been injured in the line of duty.
I will take Ken Macintosh’s second question first. The Government is undertaking work to assess the financial impact on local authorities of a number of proposals around care charges, including this issue.
On the differential treatment of veterans who have been injured in battle, I make the point that the change came about not as a consequence of a decision by this Government but through a decision by the last Labour Government, which changed to the new scheme from the previous scheme. That is not something that this Government has control over.
The minister will be well aware from my correspondence to him and from others of the unfairness in the financial treatment of those who were wounded in the service of their country before 2005 and those who were wounded after 2005, which is clearly in breach of the armed forces covenant. What discussions has he had with the British Government, COSLA and armed forces organisations such as the British Legion? If he is minded to address the situation, when will he be able to do so?
I go back to my initial answer to Mr Macintosh. We are actively exploring the issue with COSLA and we will be happy to speak to a range of stakeholders. I recognise the concerns that have been raised by the British Legion and Poppyscotland.
I go back to the point that I made earlier. The change was not a consequence of a decision made by this Government; it was the UK Government that changed the terms of support for those who have been injured in the line of duty.
Protecting Vulnerable Groups Scheme (Applications)
To ask the Scottish Government what information it has on the average length of time taken to process applications for protecting vulnerable groups scheme membership for people seeking employment in the care sector. (S4O-04022)
Mr McDonald asked specifically about the care sector. Information about the sectors from which PVG applications are submitted is not gathered by Disclosure Scotland. PVG applications are processed as they arrive and no application is given priority over any other.
Disclosure Scotland’s service level agreement is to produce 90 per cent of all types of disclosures, for correctly completed applications with no further inquiries, within 14 calendar days. That is measured from the day when the application is received to the day of dispatch. For the week ending 15 February 2015, Disclosure Scotland processed 99.9 per cent of applications within 14 calendar days.
Some organisations in the care sector in Aberdeen, which I represent, have indicated that the length of time that is being taken to process PVG applications can lead to individuals seeking alternative employment, perhaps in an area where a PVG is not required. Will the minister examine whether there are issues that are affecting the care sector specifically and whether some form of fast tracking may be appropriate, particularly in areas such as Aberdeen, where there are difficulties in recruitment and retention in the care sector?
In some instances, it is necessary for Disclosure Scotland to contact other agencies to determine whether there will be any inclusions on the individual’s PVG scheme record from those sources. When that happens, the period of time to process a PVG disclosure can be longer. Disclosure Scotland closely monitors the performance of external information suppliers and works to ensure that such requests are fulfilled as quickly as possible in the interests of both the applicant and the prospective employer.
If Mr McDonald wants to get in touch with me with the numbers from particular organisations in his area, I will inquire further.
NHS Lanarkshire (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Lanarkshire and what matters were discussed. (S4O-04023)
Ministers and Government officials regularly meet with representatives from all health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire, to discuss matters of importance to local people.
I am concerned about both the proposals and the quality of current consultation being conducted by NHS Lanarkshire in relation to general practitioner out-of-hours services, which will see the end to the use of them at the Victoria infirmary in Glasgow.
Can the minister confirm that new health board boundaries need not be a barrier to the continued use of the Victoria infirmary? Although I personally would urge NHS Lanarkshire to reconsider its current proposals, does the minister agree that any final decision by NHS Lanarkshire should be delayed until the Scottish Government has completed its national review of out-of-hours services?
I appreciate that there is concern locally about the board’s review of out-of-hours services. All health boards keep their services under review to ensure that they are of the highest quality. I am aware that NHS Lanarkshire is carrying out a review of out-of-hours services, which started on 6 January and is due to conclude on 6 April. I have been assured that all stakeholders will continue to be fully engaged and involved as that important work is taken forward.
The Scottish Government is liaising with NHS Lanarkshire and is being kept up to date with the progress of its review. I would expect that the outcomes of the review to be in line with any recommendations arising from the Scottish Government’s recent out-of-hours service review.
River Beds (Assistance to Farmers)
To ask the Scottish Government how it assists farmers who wish to remove silt from river beds. (S4O-04024)
The Scottish Government and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in association with NFU Scotland, have been proactive in developing guidance to inform farmers what actions can be taken on removal of silt from river beds. That guidance is available.
I have been contacted by a number of east Perthshire farmers—I know that theirs is a view reflected in other parts of the region that I represent—who have been affected by flooding. They are concerned that water courses are silted up and they have great difficulty when it comes to removing the silt and other debris. They feel that the approach used by SEPA is still overly bureaucratic. What more can the Scottish Government do with SEPA to simplify that process?
I would urge the farmers in Perthshire to meet the local SEPA officials to discuss their concerns. The guidance that was issued early last year was intended to address those very concerns and to explain that action can be taken without applying for a licence, although there are some rules that have to be adhered to. That is clearly laid out in the guidance that was made available to all farmers and that NFUS has distributed to its members.
If there are on-going issues, of course I am happy to listen to what they may be. I would ask in the first instance, though, for the farmers to meet the local SEPA officials to take those issues forward. I can assure Murdo Fraser that I am very familiar with the issues from representing my own constituency, which has had a number of flooding issues over the years. Farmers there likewise have welcomed the guidance that was issued.
Hospitals (Minimum Staffing Levels)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the implementation of minimum staffing levels for all professions in hospitals, as recommended by the former chief nursing officer, Anne Jarvie, and Professor Derek Bell.
We are absolutely clear that quality of care for Scotland’s people comes first. As a demonstration of our full commitment to achieving the best possible healthcare outcomes, Scotland’s people benefit from a national health service workforce of the highest quality and from higher staffing levels across our NHS than ever before.
To ensure that enough professional staff at the right levels are available when and where they need to be, NHS boards in Scotland are required to have workforce planning arrangements in place. In doing so, they are required to use evidence-based workload and workforce planning tools rather than fixed staffing ratios to assess numbers of nurses and where they should be deployed most effectively.
Will the minister consider seriously all the recommendations in what I think was a very important editorial in the Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh? One of the central recommendations of the editorial was that there should be minimum staffing levels, based upon best evidence, for all professions within hospital settings and that those staffing levels should cover all hours of the day and night.
I think that there is a consensus among many health experts that that is the way forward. Will the Government give serious consideration to it?
The Scottish executive nurse directors endorse the view that is taken in Scotland, as do other healthcare professionals including Sir Robert Francis, Sir Bruce Keogh and Professor Berwick, who all believe that evidence-based tools are the best way.
In Scotland, we do not talk about minimum staffing levels; we speak about safe staffing levels. We do not speak of nurse-to-bed ratios because nurses do not nurse beds—they nurse patients. Staff numbers are determined according to the clinical need of patients, not according to ratio level or numbers. As I said, in Scotland we use evidence-based tools to determine that need, not a one-size-fits-all fixed staffing regime.
Given the commitment to preventative measures, is the hope in the long term to move resources less into hospitals and more into the community?
That is the Scottish Government’s policy and, with the integration of health and social care, that is entirely the way in which we want to move.
Given the doubling of the number of children who are being admitted to hospitals for self-harm in some parts of Scotland—a situation which is often compounded by the missing of the 18-week child and adolescent mental health treatment target—what action is the minister taking to administer NHS staffing resources for CAMH services effectively and efficiently?
As the member knows, that is the responsibility of my colleague Jamie Hepburn, who has recently announced £15 million of extra resources for mental health issues.
National Health Service Central Register (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (Privacy Concerns)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the privacy concerns raised by the Open Rights Group regarding the proposed amendments to the National Health Service Central Register (Scotland) Regulations 2006. (S4O-04026)
The Scottish Government has an unequivocal commitment to protecting and respecting individuals’ privacy. The Government opposes identity cards and does not propose to introduce any new national database.
The measures on which we are consulting, which would result in limited additional verification and sharing of data from the national health service central register, will improve the accuracy of key statistics on Scotland’s population and on migration; ensure that public sector organisations can verify whom they are dealing with in order to deliver the right services to people; support the tracing of missing persons; ensure that individuals who wish to do so can securely access online public services through the myaccount initiative; and accurately identify Scottish taxpayers, which is relevant to protecting Scottish tax revenues and so protecting the delivery of public services.
We will consider the responses to the consultation to ensure that the measures that are implemented, which Parliament will scrutinise, adhere to our commitment to protect the personal data and the privacy of individuals.
I welcome the tone of the Deputy First Minister’s opening comments. In opposition, the Scottish National Party rightly joined others in campaigning against the proposed ID cards legislation, which would have seen every citizen given a unique reference number linked to a central database that would have been linked to a card scheme, controlling access to public services and sharing data across Government. Why, then, are we now seeing a proposal for a system that will give every citizen a unique reference number linked to a central database that will be linked to a card scheme that will share information across Government and control access to public services? Furthermore, why is that the subject of a low-profile consultation rather than a national debate?
The proposal is the subject of a consultation exercise that will conclude in about a week’s time, after which the Government will consider the consultation’s outcome. I am glad that Mr Harvie welcomes the tone of my remarks, because they were designed to reassure Parliament that the Government’s position is crystal clear: we oppose ID cards and we do not propose to introduce any new national database.
The national health service central register has existed in Scotland since the 1950s. Every citizen has an individual national health number—a community health index number—that is viewed internationally as one of the strengths and foundations of the management of clinical care in the national health service. The Government is consulting on a number of limited additional verification conditions. I assure Patrick Harvie, Parliament and any concerned members of the public that the Government will test any reactions against its fundamental opposition to ID cards and its determination not to create any new national database.
Many people have concerns about the civil liberties implications of the proposals to change the register. However, most people, including me and—I suspect—many in the chamber, do not know enough about the issue. Will the minister bring forward a debate in Government time so that we can discuss the proposals in full?
Mr Findlay will forgive me if I do not prescribe reading material to him on a weekly basis, but the Scottish Government’s consultation has been available for the public and members of the Parliament to contribute to. It closes on 25 February. If he wishes to make a submission to the consultation, we will happily consider the issues.
As for a debate, we must get the order of these matters correct. We are having a consultation whereby we are inviting people to give their opinions, and any regulations that come forward will have to be scrutinised by Parliament, which will have its opportunity to consider all the questions. If members have any concerns, I encourage them to engage with the issues that have been raised in the consultation, which are fundamentally about ensuring that we can support the direction of public services to those who require them and ensuring that the national health service register, which has existed since the 1950s and which is a strength in our ability to deliver the administration of clinical care to individuals, is enhanced in any way that we can do that. The tests about protecting and respecting individuals’ privacy are at the heart of any decisions that the Government will take on the matter.
Police Scotland (Merger)
To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was first aware that Police Scotland intended to consult on a possible merger of A and B divisions. (S4O-04027)
I was briefed on the proposals in early December. I will expect Police Scotland to take full account of the views that are expressed during the consultation and to reflect on the proposals in the light of those views.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that A division of Police Scotland is responsible for policing not only Scotland’s third city but the entire offshore oil industry across the North Sea. Will he, as the responsible minister, reject any change proposed by Police Scotland that could leave Aberdeen as the only major city in western Europe without a dedicated police division or any responsible senior police officer of the rank of chief superintendent or above?
As the member is aware, Police Scotland has undertaken an extensive consultation on the issue. An element of consultation has also been taken forward by the Scottish Police Authority, which is responsible for scrutinising Police Scotland’s actions. I discussed the issue this week with the chief constable, who assured me that he will consider the views that have been submitted to Police Scotland as part of the consultation process. Likewise, I would expect the Scottish Police Authority to scrutinise fully the proposals that Police Scotland takes forward and to consider how to respond to the consultation results.
NHS Borders (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when ministers last met representatives of NHS Borders and what issues were discussed. (S4O-04028)
Scottish ministers regularly meet representatives of Borders NHS Board to discuss matters of interest to the people of the Borders.
I very much welcome the Scottish Government’s recent decision to increase national health service spending by £282 million. Of course, that was made possible only by spending decisions made by the Conservative-led United Kingdom Government, which resulted in the Scottish National Party Government having £300 million extra to spend in 2015-16. Although the average increase for boards across Scotland is 3.4 per cent, NHS Borders is getting only 2.4 per cent. Will the minister explain why NHS Borders has been short-changed by £1.7 million?
Mr Lamont needs to get his figures correct. The increase that the Deputy First Minister announced for the NHS was £383 million, not the figure that Mr Lamont quoted. I am delighted to report that NHS Borders is already ahead of parity in its funding by 2.7 per cent, or £4.8 million. The Government is delivering a fair funding deal for NHS Borders.
I recently met NHS Borders, which is very satisfied with what is going on. Will the minister visit Hay Lodge community hospital in my constituency to see the good work that it is doing despite the scaremongering by my colleague Mr Lamont, who seeks to leave the Scottish Parliament and go to Westminster and who will try any trick in the book?
I will leave the local fracas to Ms Grahame and Mr Lamont. However, if Ms Grahame writes to invite me to visit her constituency, I will be delighted to consider that.