Official Report 937KB pdf
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (Independent Audit)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that then health secretary, Shona Robison, U-turned on a promise to carry out an independent audit of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital before it opened to patients. (S6T-02862)
Once again, I pay tribute to the patients and families at the heart of the inquiry, who have already faced immense pain and trauma. I also commend the work of the inquiry team and Lord Brodie. It is vital that we allow the inquiry to deliberate and consider its findings, which we will respond to in full.
The Scottish Government provided all relevant evidence to the inquiry, which is being considered by Lord Brodie in advance of his final report and recommendations later this year. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.
However, I note that it is a matter of parliamentary record that Ms Robison responded on the matter via written correspondence to Jackie Baillie as a member of the Health and Sport Committee on 24 February 2015. I refer Ms Baillie to the parliamentary record.
In the light of the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry, which was chaired by Lord MacLean, I asked Shona Robison at the Health and Sport Committee on 24 February 2015 whether an independent audit of the new hospital had, in fact, been carried out. After some pressing, she said:
“If it has not taken place, it will. We will check that.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 24 February 2015; c 32.]
A week later, Shona Robison did a complete U-turn. The result? No independent audit of the hospital took place before it opened its doors to staff and patients. Does the cabinet secretary understand that the failure to carry out an expert, independent investigation cost lives?
I have set out that the matters that are before us are the subject of an independent, judge-led public inquiry. It is important that that inquiry is allowed to carry out its business without interference from any politician and that it does so with the full evidence before it. The Scottish Government has provided all relevant material that has been asked of us by Lord Brodie’s inquiry, and we intend to continue that co-operative approach. We resolve to respond to the recommendations when that inquiry concludes.
The cabinet secretary did everything but answer my question. Frankly, I find the response extraordinary. The evidence is there in black and white: there is no getting away from the fact that people died as a result of this Government’s incompetence. Senior Government ministers chose not to have the new hospital inspected, which had deadly consequences.
Shona Robison told the committee:
“The new hospital’s facilities are second to none and state of the art, and all the processes and procedures will be tested before staff and patients migrate to the site from April onwards.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 24 February 2015; c 30.]
Given what we know now, does the cabinet secretary agree that she did not tell the truth and that the Government now stands accused of criminal negligence?
Jackie Baillie knows full well that, while those live inquiries are on-going, it would be completely inappropriate for Scottish ministers to intervene or comment. She also knows that it is a matter of public record from evidence led at the inquiry that information was withheld from the Government by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Given the evidence that is before the inquiry, it is important that it is allowed to pursue its deliberations free from political interference. That is the tenor of a public inquiry, as it should be, and we will obviously take the inquiry’s recommendations seriously.
At the centre of all this are the families, to whom my heart goes out and who should be, above all else, at the forefront of our considerations. We instigated this independent, judge-led public inquiry so that the families’ questions could be answered. I believe that, as a result of the evidence that is being led through the public inquiry, we are getting to the truth of the matter.
The cabinet secretary is absolutely right that patients and their families are at the heart of this inquiry. I pay tribute to him and to the whistleblowers who have campaigned tirelessly. The cabinet secretary will know that this Parliament enshrined in legislation the independence of inquiries through the Inquiries Act 2005, and it is vital that members in this chamber remember that.
For the benefit of the chamber, will the cabinet secretary again outline the importance of ensuring that Lord Brodie, as chair of the inquiry, has the space to consider all the evidence and get to the truth for families and patients?
Rona Mackay is absolutely right. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, this Parliament put in place a range of powers that are available to any established public inquiry. Those wide-ranging powers, which include powers to compel witnesses and the production of all relevant information, are extensive, and they enshrine the independence of the public inquiry. They ensure that any inquiry is protected from any undue influence. It is therefore right that we allow Lord Brodie the time and space to deliberate fully on the evidence before the inquiry, and we look forward to responding to its findings in due course.
The continued obfuscation of the facts by this Government is leaving the confidence of patients, NHS staff and the public in the management of the NHS at an all-time low. Does the cabinet secretary not realise that, to rebuild trust, it is crucial that the Scottish Government and NHS boards are transparent and honest with the public?
Transparency has been an issue in this place since I first arrived here, and the Scottish Government needs to learn that lesson. When will the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary stop hiding behind endless inquiries and face up to the fact that there is a real culture problem in NHS management?
I hope that we all agree that the independence of public inquiries must be protected from any influence by politicians. I respect that independence. This is not about hiding behind the inquiry; it is about allowing the inquiry to carry out its business free from political interference.
We established the public inquiry because we want to give the families at the centre of this answers to the legitimate questions that they have raised. Lord Brodie has the opportunity to call witnesses and garner evidence. We have fully co-operated with the inquiry and have been fully transparent in relation to all the requests for information to be supplied to the inquiry. It is important that Lord Brodie and the inquiry team are allowed the time and space to come to their conclusions, which we will respond to imminently.
Licensed Premises (Non-domestic Rates)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take in response to the finding from UKHospitality Scotland that licensed premises face, on average, an 86 per cent increase in non-domestic rates as a result of the current revaluation. (S6T-02861)
Although we appreciate the concerns that businesses have raised, particularly after the United Kingdom Government’s choice to increase employer national insurance contributions last year, we do not recognise the figure that Murdo Fraser has quoted.
For example, public houses are expected to see an average increase in their overall rateable value of 15 per cent over the three-year period following the 2026 revaluation, while hotels are expected to see a 29 per cent increase over that three-year period. Gross bills are set to increase by less than that, due to a decrease in the basic, intermediate and higher property rates in 2026-27. If we include properties that are eligible for 100 per cent relief, such as small business bonus scheme relief, we estimate that net bills in 2026-27 will rise by significantly less than has been claimed, once all reliefs are taken into account. In fact, total NDR revenue is now 6 per cent less in real terms, using the consumer prices index, than it was before Covid, despite the increase in the number of businesses.
I dare say that the minister can engage directly with UKHospitality Scotland in disputing its figures. It says that the average pub in Scotland will see an increase of £36,523 over three years and that the average hotel will see an increase of £68,007 over the same period. Whatever the detailed figures might be, the fact is that any increases will simply not be affordable. Such businesses are currently struggling with high costs and flat customer demand, so more businesses will simply close.
We expect the Labour Government in London to announce a U-turn today on rates relief for pubs in England. In the past, the Scottish National Party Government has not passed on Barnett consequentials from rates announcements down south. Will it do so this time so that pubs in Scotland do not lose out once more?
An extensive amount of data regarding the revaluation was published at the time of the budget, so Murdo Fraser can and should look at that data, which is set out by sector, to understand what it tells him.
We will continue to engage with business organisations on any specific concerns that they want to raise. However, I again draw Murdo Fraser’s attention to the point that, despite the growing business base, total NDR take is now 6 per cent less in real terms, using CPI, than it was before Covid. We are taking less money in real terms from businesses through NDR than we were previously.
With regard to UK consequentials, we have already made a commitment that we will pass on in full any additional reliefs for businesses that the UK Government announces. We have already had discussions with the NDR consultation group and organisations that represent businesses about how that would take place.
Overall take might well be down, but it is undoubtedly the case that some sectors, including hospitality, are really suffering at present due to the increases.
At the root of this is the methodology that is being used for the current revaluation. The increases will come in from April and, unless something is done, more businesses will fold. What is the minister doing about engaging with the assessors on the methodology that is being used? If there are issues with the methodology, will he agree not to implement the increases that are coming as a result of the current revaluation until the methodology issue is resolved?
The average increase for pubs over a three-year period is 15 per cent. The reliefs that are in place—there is £320 million over the three-year period for the transition reliefs, and next year’s estimated relief package is £864 million—will make a significant impact on the bills that businesses pay. We appreciate that some businesses are in a difficult position, but that is why those significant relief packages are in place to support them.
With regard to the valuation methodology, the member should know that, as requested by the business community, B J Gill has already started to conduct an independent review of the valuation methodology for licensed premises. That work is on-going, and we will review its findings when it reports later this year.
Tourism, hospitality and self-catering businesses in particular have been absolutely clear with us as MSPs that they believe that the methodology behind the revaluations has hit some sectors hard. They are looking not at averages but at the massive spikes that some sectors are facing. They have been clear that some businesses will go bust as a result. I do not think that any of us wants that, so surely the cost of doing something will far outweigh the cost of doing nothing.
The best course of action would be a complete postponement of the new rates, to give businesses some breathing space for a year. If that cannot happen, will the minister at least agree to continue to work with me as part of our budget negotiations to put as much support as possible back into these much-needed businesses? None of us wants any business to close as a result of business rates going up through revaluation.
The member makes a valid point. The self-catering sector has seen an average increase of 88 per cent, which is significant. Not all businesses will pay that—far from it—because of the relief package that is in place, but there has been a change in the methodology that assessors use in the sector.
I have met representatives of the sector and the assessors to discuss the issue. We will continue to engage with the sector to take into account the points that the member has raised.
The Scottish Government’s small business bonus scheme and the business growth accelerator reliefs are the most generous of their kind in the United Kingdom. Will the minister say any more about the total support that is available across revaluation to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in Scotland?
The Scottish budget for next year reduces the basic, intermediate and higher property rates, which will ensure the lowest basic property rate since 2018-19, and it supports a package of reliefs that will be worth an estimated £864 million in 2026-27. It offers more than £320 million of support through transitional relief schemes and retail, hospitality and leisure relief in the next three years.
We estimate that more than 100,000 properties will remain eligible for our small business bonus scheme, which will remain the most generous of its kind in the UK. We will continue to offer the most generous relief package for renewable energy generation in the UK, and unique reliefs such as day nursery relief, our business growth accelerator and fresh start reliefs will also remain the most generous in the UK.
Scottish Information Commissioner Legal Action
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Information Commissioner taking legal action against it in relation to its missing deadlines to produce documents regarding James Hamilton’s investigation into alleged breaches of the ministerial code. (S6T-02866)
The First Minister has made it clear that the Scottish Government will comply with the Information Commissioner’s decision on the case as soon as possible. Court orders make it clear that those who complain of sexual assault must have their identities protected. We cannot release information that would breach those court orders, as it would amount to contempt of court. Accelerated work—I stress that it is accelerated—is under way to consider each document for release. The assessment is complex, given the need to avoid jigsaw identification.
The freedom of information request was made in October 2024. Following both a review and an investigation, the Information Commissioner ruled that the Scottish Government had wrongfully withheld information and that that information should be released by 15 January. Ministers failed to comply with the 15 January deadline and then failed to comply with another deadline on 22 January—only notifying the Information Commissioner of that decision just minutes before the deadline.
The Information Commissioner is clear that he is asking the Scottish Government not to break the law but to comply with it. Does the minister believe that the Scottish Government’s actions so far have been in compliance with freedom of information law?
The Scottish Government has a responsibility to act responsibly. I recognise the point that Katy Clark has made, but I draw her attention to the fact that Scottish Government officials wrote to the Information Commissioner on both 16 and 22 January to confirm that the Scottish Government will comply with the decision as soon as is practically possible. I am sure that Katy Clark would understand the need to look very carefully at the information that is released, for reasons of which she is well aware.
The Information Commissioner has never before reported a public authority to the Court of Session for non-compliance, which means that the legal action that is now being taken against the Scottish Government is unprecedented. He is clear that, if there is a jigsaw identification issue, ministers have the opportunity to make that case. Has the Scottish Government made that case? Has it responded to the applicant to explain the position? Will the minister provide the Parliament with a timetable—a date when the information will be published?
I would be reluctant to provide a date, because I am sure that, if that date slipped by a day, we would be criticised for it. I genuinely offer Katy Clark the assurance that the matter is being worked on at pace. I hope that she would also accept that there is a real need to be extremely careful to ensure that the information—which will be released—does not inadvertently provide jigsaw identification of any of the individuals.
I am sure that, if the Government was to commit a contempt of court, it would be criticised by members for doing so. I hope that reasonable-minded members will recognise the need to exercise care in fulfilling the commitment that we have given to release the information.
Several members have pressed their request-to-speak buttons. Concise questions and responses would be appreciated.
The Scottish Government has previously acknowledged using artificial intelligence to answer FOI requests from the Scottish Conservatives. Did using AI filtering have any impact whatsoever on the Government’s assessment of and/or release of the documents in this case?
I have to be honest—I do not fully understand the question that the member is asking. This is a simple and straightforward case; we have committed to releasing the information, and we are undertaking a detailed process to ensure that we do not commit contempt of court.
Did AI have—
I hear the member speaking from a sedentary position, but I cannot make out what he is saying. I offer him the assurance—as I have done to Katy Clark—that the Government is working at pace to provide the release of the information while acting responsibly.
When Alex Salmond defeated the Scottish Government in his court case, the judge in the case, Lord Pentland, said that the Government’s actions were “tainted with apparent bias”. The dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop, in advice to the Government, said that, thankfully, an affidavit by a senior civil servant was not lodged. Leslie Evans, the then permanent secretary, said on the day after the verdict that the battle may be lost, but not the war.
The incontrovertible inference is surely, to paraphrase Shakespeare, that there is something rotten in the state of Scotland. Will the minister consult the permanent secretary to get fresh advice with a view to opening up the books and making public all the redacted and withheld documents from that period?
I do not in any way accept Fergus Ewing’s characterisation of the matter. We are content with the advice that we have received.
Civil servants are impartial of the Scottish Government. As has been said today, it is an unprecedented move for the Information Commissioner to make a referral to the Court of Session. Do apparently impartial civil servants support the Government delaying the release of the information? If not, why are Government ministers going against them? If they do support that, does the minister accept that that puts into question their impartiality?
If the minister will not provide a specific date, will he at least assure the Parliament that the information will be released ahead of the Scottish Parliament election purdah period, so that the Parliament can receive it before the election?
The intention is to release the information as soon as it is practical to do so.
In Douglas Ross’s central point, he appears to suggest—I absolutely refute this—that it is a deliberate act to delay the release of the information. I could not have been clearer that that is not what is happening here. Surely even Mr Ross would accept that we have a responsibility to the individuals who are captured by the contempt of court protections to act responsibly and carry out due diligence to ensure that, in complying with the commissioner’s instruction, we do not inadvertently create another problem, particularly for those individuals.
The minister has talked about this not being a deliberate act, but it must be, because the Government is withholding the information while it scrutinises it. The Government seems to be caught between the risk of a contempt of court and a statute. What advice was given as to which legal obligation it was not going to comply with?
This is not about not complying with a legal obligation. I do not expect to receive sympathy in the chamber, but the Government is between a rock and a hard place on the issue. On the one hand, the commissioner is threatening contempt of court because we are not complying with the timescale that he would like. On the other hand, if we rushed to do this and made an error, we would fall foul of contempt of court in another regard through the courts.
It is not a deliberate act to delay issuing the information, because we intend to issue it. We are simply taking the appropriate time to ensure that we comply with the ruling of the commissioner in a way that does not create difficulties for the individuals I have referenced.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Business Motion