Contents
- General Question Time
- First Minister’s Question Time
- Highly Protected Marine Areas
- Entrepreneurship
- Online Safety Bill
- Parliamentary Bureau Motions
- Decision Time
- Action Mesothelioma Day 2023
- Drowning Prevention Week 2023
- Correction
First Minister’s Question Time
Sam Eljamel (Public Inquiry)
At the weekend, members of the Scottish National Party met in Dundee to have an independence conference. During Humza Yousaf’s speech, a brave woman spoke out. Theresa Mallett protested on behalf of herself and a group of more than 100 other patients of the disgraced surgeon Sam Eljamel. Dr Eljamel left NHS Tayside patients who came for help scarred, broken and devastated. Theresa wants answers, and she is demanding a public inquiry. When Humza Yousaf was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, he refused to grant one. Can he tell Theresa and all of the victims of Dr Eljamel why he refused to grant that public inquiry? (S6F-02283)
I have agreed to meet Ms Mallett—I believe that I am due to meet her early next week. When I was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care I also met a number of other victims of Professor Eljamel. I start by reiterating just how much sympathy I have for the trauma that they have undoubtedly suffered at the hands of Professor Eljamel. I also put it on record that a number of MSPs from across the back benches, including Douglas Ross’s colleague Liz Smith, have raised issues on behalf of their constituents who have been traumatised by the disgraceful actions of Professor Eljamel.
I, as First Minister, and Michael Matheson, as Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care, will not just continue to engage with all those who have been affected by Professor Eljamel’s disgraceful actions; we will seek to get the answers that they want. That goes to the heart of why a public inquiry has not been completely ruled off the table. The reason why we have not committed to a public inquiry on the issue of Professor Eljamel’s actions is twofold. First and foremost, all of us in the Parliament know that a public inquiry can take some years—rightly and understandably so. Is there a way of getting the answers that the victims of Professor Eljamel want? Can we get those quicker, as opposed to the years and years that it can often take for a public inquiry? That is the first reason why we have not instructed a public inquiry.
The second reason, of course, is that Professor Eljamel is not in this country; he is practising—I believe as a doctor—abroad, and I think that the likelihood of Professor Eljamel co-operating with any public inquiry is very low. Would a public inquiry therefore be able to get the answers that victims such as Ms Mallett and others are seeking?
I will end where I started. A public inquiry has not completely been ruled off the table, but we are seeking to ascertain whether we can get all the victims of Eljamel the answers that they deserve in a way that is quicker and more expeditious than going through a public inquiry.
I will address the two points that the First Minister has made, starting with the pace of a public inquiry. Surely the quicker a public inquiry is actioned and starts, the quicker we can start to get answers for victims such as Theresa and so many others. Secondly, we should not be letting Dr Eljamel off by assuming that he will not respond or co-operate. He is a key part of this matter, but there are others at NHS Tayside, as well as the victims, that we need to hear from. Ms Mallett told the First Minister on Saturday that she wants the people responsible to be under oath, so that victims might finally get answers, which the First Minister and I agree they deserve.
The First Minister also mentioned the cross-party group of MSPs that has actioned the matter with the current health secretary. The group met Michael Matheson in April. He promised an update by the end of May, but we are now at the end of June. My colleague Liz Smith has written to him twice in the past week seeking an update. This morning, Mr Matheson responded to say that he is currently too busy to meet the cross-party group of MSPs but that he will look to do so in the coming weeks. However, surely, given that the allegations came to light more than a decade ago, we cannot wait any longer. Can the First Minister ensure that his health secretary responds immediately to all MSPs who are concerned about the matter?
As Douglas Ross referenced in his question, Michael Matheson has engaged with cross-party MSPs. I have engaged with the issue, as have health secretaries before me; we have engaged with cross-party MSPs as well as the victims of Professor Eljamel. It would be fair to say that a range of actions have been taken to try to learn the lessons from what happened in those traumatic and tragic cases and, I hope, to prevent other cases from happening. It should be made clear that the responsibility for Professor Eljamel’s actions sit with him—a disgraced surgeon. Therefore, it is right that NHS Tayside looks to learn lessons, but I do not think that we should ever look to absolve Professor Eljamel of responsibility for his actions, although I know that Douglas Ross is not doing that.
Undoubtedly, Douglas Ross will be aware that a review was commissioned by the Scottish Government, which included detailed reviews of the care that was received by a couple of the victims of Eljamel: Mr Kelly and Ms Rose, who have spoken out very publicly. I applaud them for doing so. That was undertaken by two independent consultant neurosurgeons and their recommendations have been accepted by NHS Tayside. I mention that review because there may be an option that is short of a public inquiry that will allow an independent review of cases to look at and explore what more can be done and what lessons can be learned from what has been a tragic episode for all those who have been affected.
In terms of Douglas Ross’s direct question, Michael Matheson will respond. I know that this is the last First Minister’s question time before the recess, but I suspect that we will all continue to work throughout the summer. I expect that Michael Matheson will make himself available, where he can, to continue to engage with cross-party MSPs as well as the victims of Professor Eljamel.
It is indeed the last FMQs before the recess and there are many members who are keen to put questions to the First Minister.
I stress again that this is an issue that Scottish Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP members met the health secretary about in April. We were promised an update in May and have been told this morning that it will now be several more weeks. There is an urgency here. I hope that the health secretary and the First Minister can agree to update the concerned members today before we leave for the summer recess—then there can be further updates throughout the summer. There are so many unanswered questions.
The First Minister mentioned two victims and said that NHS Tayside had accepted the outcome of the independent review of their cases. However, the victims have not. One of the patients, Jules Rose, who the First Minister mentioned, said:
“I have still not got answers two years on from the independent review of my case commissioned by the Scottish government, so how can I be reassured that this new independent review will help patients?”
That is what patients are saying about the current process that is being suggested by the First Minister.
A reply to a freedom of information request that was published by the Scottish Government this morning contains minutes of a meeting that was held between NHS Tayside and Dr Eljamel on 3 June 2013. During that meeting, Dr Eljamel seemed to have been let off practically scot free. Junior doctors were blamed for his mistakes and the health board seemed to accept his heartless promise to
“maintain the quality of his service.”
That is just scandalous. When he was health secretary, did Humza Yousaf demand to know from NHS Tayside chiefs what they knew and when they knew it?
I had a range of conversations with NHS Tayside, including with the chief executive and chair about the issue of Professor Eljamel. Douglas Ross will be well aware of the actions that were taken forward by NHS Tayside, and I am happy to ensure that he gets a written update on that.
I am not standing here and saying—and I know that the chair and the chief executive of NHS Tayside would not say this—that there were not lessons to learn from this tragic case, which has affected many victims, including Ms Rose and Mr Kelly, who are two patients I have met and will continue to engage with.
On the specific issues of engagement with patients, there has been an established process for former patients of Professor Eljamel to contact NHS Tayside. An independent mediator has been appointed to work with NHS Tayside and two former patients, whose experiences were reviewed by the Scottish Government and two independent consultant neurosurgeons. Such engagement with patients absolutely will continue.
As I said, there are outstanding questions that I know that patients want answered. We can work with NHS Tayside to try to get those answers.
A number of MSPs, including Douglas Ross, have requested a public inquiry. That has not been taken off the table, but there may be other ways to get the answers that Ms Mallett, Mr Kelly, Ms Rose and many other victims of Eljamel deserve.
The freedom of information response that the Scottish Government published this morning shows that, although complaints were mounting from victims, they were dismissed in many cases. Complaints were also growing from NHS Tayside staff, who appear to have originally raised the alarm back in 2009. However, healthcare professionals say that they were warned not to speak out. One whistleblower said:
“I did raise concerns at the time but I was shut down ... It went all the way up to the board. They all knew about it.”
The First Minister says that a public inquiry is not off the table, but he needs to be clearer—he needs to say that it is on the table and that it will happen. Dr Eljamel’s actions ruined people’s lives, but the health board’s actions suggest a cover-up at the highest level. Does that not demand a full public inquiry?
I will take in turn the points that Douglas Ross raises. By any objective observation, there have been improvements in the whistleblowing processes since 2009. When I was the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, I met whistleblowing champions in our territorial health boards. There have been improvements in the whistleblowing process since 2009—since the period that the member of staff made their statement about.
I reiterate that, as my predecessor often said when she stood here, whistleblowers can and should go through the appropriate whistleblowing route but, if they ever want to contact the Government directly about their concerns, they can absolutely do that, too. We take whistleblowing issues extremely seriously, regardless of which health board is affected.
I end where I started in responding to Douglas Ross’s questioning. The issue is incredibly serious, and individuals have been left utterly traumatised. We will work with those individuals—the victims and survivors—to try to get them the answers that they absolutely deserve. A public inquiry is not ruled off the table, but let us look at how we can get those people the answers that they deserve as quickly as we possibly can.
Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry
This week, the United Kingdom Covid-19 inquiry has started to take evidence from Scottish Government witnesses. This is the first time that we have heard from the Scottish Government in any public inquiry about its response to the Covid pandemic. Three years on from the start of the pandemic, bereaved families are still waiting for answers. Here in Scotland, families will have to wait even longer, because the chair of the Scottish Covid inquiry and its legal team walked out last year. We still have little idea of when that inquiry will begin questioning ministers and officials, let alone of when it will conclude. Will grieving families get the answers that they deserve by the end of this parliamentary session?
I thank Anas Sarwar for raising an incredibly important issue. He will be observing the UK Covid inquiry, which has a number of Scottish witnesses in front of it today. As an experienced member of this Parliament, he will know that it would be deeply inappropriate for me as the First Minister to interfere or intervene in an independent public inquiry.
Of course, we want the Covid inquiry to be delivered at speed, but I say to Anas Sarwar that, having met the bereaved families, I can completely understand why they want the Scottish Covid inquiry to move at pace. It is so important that the Covid inquiry takes the necessary steps that it has to to get those answers in a transparent manner.
The final thing that I will say to Anas Sarwar, which I am happy to repeat time and again, is that whatever the Scottish Government can do to co-operate with the inquiry, we absolutely will do that.
I hear what the First Minister said, but this is important to thousands of families who have lost a loved one, to national health service and care staff and to everyone across Scotland who will be frustrated by the Scottish inquiry running behind, because we must learn the lessons of the pandemic.
The inquiry’s conclusions will be only as good as the evidence that it receives. Over the past few weeks, people have been horrified by the UK Government’s decision to withhold evidence from the UK inquiry. In Scotland, the Scottish inquiry team issued do not destroy letters to public bodies, including the Scottish Government, last August. It made clear that all documents, including emails, texts and WhatsApp messages, should be retained and that any destruction of such messages is a criminal offence.
Will the First Minister confirm that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy instruction? Will he give a guarantee that all requested emails, texts and WhatsApp messages will be handed over in full to the inquiry?
Yes, they will. It is important that I abide by the rules of the UK public inquiry and the Scottish public inquiry. Section 17 of the Inquiries Act 2005 gives the chair alone the responsibility to decide how an inquiry should operate. It is therefore a matter for the independent inquiry chairs to make decisions as to what material they request from the Scottish Government or other participants. Both inquiries have taken the decision—again, it is an independent decision; not a decision that I interfere in whatsoever—not to publish details of the requests that they are making of participants. All participants, including the Scottish Government, have been asked by the inquiry not to share the content of requests that they receive. Of course, the Scottish Government will comply with the request.
However, to ensure that there is simply no doubt whatsoever, any material that is asked for—WhatsApp messages, emails, Signal messages, Telegram messages or whatever—will absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full.
That is really significant. To confirm, the First Minister has told us that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy instruction, and that all ministers and officials, past and present, will hand over all evidence in full without omission and evasion. That is a really significant intervention from the First Minister.
Covid took a heavy toll on everyone in this country, and we continue to feel its impact. The least that we can expect is that, when grieving families come looking for answers, this Scottish National Party Government provides them. We know, sadly, that this is a Government that is famed for its culture of secrecy and cover-up.
Last week, Aamer Anwar, a lawyer for bereaved families across Scotland, said this at the UK Covid inquiry:
“No person, no institution, no matter how powerful, whether it be in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, Westminster or Holyrood, can obstruct this search for truth.”
Will the First Minister commit to writing to me and other members of this Parliament outlining what steps the Scottish Government has taken to 0ensure that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy order, how that data is being retained and how it will be handed over to the inquiry?
I think that Anas Sarwar has asked that question because he did not expect me to say that I would fully comply with the Covid public inquiry. He was not able to adapt his second question as a result of the answer.
I am happy to reiterate what I have already said to Anas Sarwar. [Interruption.] This is a really important issue, so the Labour members may not want to heckle at this point.
Members!
It is really important for me to reiterate that, of course, we have—and have had—a long-standing policy on retention not just of documents but of written correspondence, including email and social media messages. I am more than happy for that guidance to be shared and I am more than happy to write to Anas Sarwar or any other member who has an interest around how we comply with those various guidelines that are very much in place.
I also say to Anas Sarwar that this is absolutely about the bereaved families. That is why the Government has met the families who have been bereaved by Covid. We will co-operate fully with the inquiry. Anas Sarwar suggests that we are not transparent, but I remind him that it is this Government that instructed that public inquiry. I also remind him that it was my predecessor who stood up every single day during that pandemic to face questions from the press, in order to communicate as openly and transparently as possible. We are transparent as a Government and we will continue to be transparent—[Interruption.]
First Minister, if I could stop you there.
Members, could you please stop having conversations across the aisles? It makes it very difficult to hear.
We will continue to co-operate fully with both public inquiries.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-02291)
We will meet a few times throughout the course of the summer recess.
I am very grateful for that reply.
Reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete is a light and bubbly material that was used in public sector construction for decades. If you think of the inside of an Aero bar, you will get the idea. In February, NHS Scotland issued a safety action notice. It warned that roofs, walls and flooring made of that material are at risk of
“catastrophic structural failure”,
which could occur suddenly and
“without warning”.
A school roof has already collapsed in Kent. Now, Liberal Democrat research, published in The Times, has established that that concrete has so far been found by at least four Scottish health boards and in 37 schools up and down our country, so it is above patients and above pupils.
I am not trying to frighten people, but we need to identify the buildings that are at risk and fix them. That could cost tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. Will the First Minister establish a national fund to help hard-up health boards and councils to make those buildings safe?
I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for raising an important issue around aerated concrete. Before discussions on any fund that might or might not be necessary, it is really important, as Alex Cole Hamilton alluded to in his question, that we understand the scale and scope of the problem and the challenge that we face. I am happy to write to Alex Cole Hamilton in more detail, but I will give him one example in relation to health boards: NHS Scotland assure is already conducting quite an intrusive review into that issue, to understand the nature and scope of what we are dealing with.
Alex Cole-Hamilton is absolutely right to raise a very important issue. I will give consideration to the matter that he raises around a fund but, before doing so, it is really important—in fact, imperative and vital—that we understand the scope and nature of what we are dealing with. Thereafter, I am happy to give consideration to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s suggestion. I will write to him with details of the reviews that we are conducting in buildings that we are responsible for.
Stem Cell Donation
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to help to raise awareness of the importance of stem cell donation in the treatment of blood cancer and blood disorder. (S6F-02297)
I thank Bill Kidd for raising that important issue. I fully agree that increasing awareness of the importance of stem cell donation is absolutely vital, especially among groups from which more donors need to sign up, including men and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. I have been on the register for stem cell donors for nearly two decades.
The Scottish Government recognises the importance of stem cell donation and continues to promote it, alongside key partners such as the Anthony Nolan charity, through a number of initiatives. We have included information on our Organ Donation Scotland website, which provides the public with information on how to register as a stem cell donor. I encourage everybody to look at that website and to register.
Last year, we also launched our updated school resource to educate children and young people about organ tissue and stem cell donation. Nationally, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and Police Scotland have partnered with Anthony Nolan to promote stem cell donation and to encourage staff, young people and school pupils to register as potential donors.
Lastly, our new cancer strategy will work towards improving cancer survival and providing excellent equitable access to care.
I join the First Minister in welcoming the partnerships with Anthony Nolan.
I note that the First Minister mentioned the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Will he join me in congratulating the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on its receipt of the Shirley Nolan special recognition award for its efforts to raise awareness and inspire others to sign up to the Anthony Nolan stem cell register? [Applause.]
I absolutely will do that. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service deserves every bit of credit for the excellent partnership work that it does with Anthony Nolan. I echo Bill Kidd’s words and again congratulate the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on its well-deserved award.
I also take this opportunity to recognise the tireless work of Bill Kidd in highlighting the importance of stem cell donation. He was rightly recognised as political supporter of the year at the Anthony Nolan supporter awards, which is well deserved indeed. [Applause.]
“Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review”
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recommendations in the report, “Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review”, by Professor Alison Britton. (S6F-02285)
First, I put on record my thanks to Jackson Carlaw and others for what they do in this area. It is important to recognise Jackson Carlaw’s tireless efforts in standing up for and advocating on behalf of women who have suffered as a result of transvaginal mesh implants.
I am grateful to Professor Britton and her team for undertaking what I do not doubt for a minute is a very thorough and insightful piece of work. I also express my thanks to the patients who took part in the review. I sincerely hope that they found it to be beneficial. I do not need to say to Jackson Carlaw or anybody else in the chamber how traumatic and retraumatising it can be for the survivors to continue to tell their stories.
We have taken many steps already that address a number of Professor Britton’s findings. We have introduced new training on mesh for general practitioners, we have improved information for patients about the specialist mesh removal service in Glasgow, and the chief medical officer continues to champion shared decision making through his realistic medicine initiative.
We will now study the report in great detail and consider what further steps have to be taken.
I thank the First Minister for that answer and for his engagement on the issue. Will he commit to holding a full chamber debate on the issue in the autumn, after the Government has responded in full to the report, so that we can consider it?
Can I ask him for his reaction to an observation by Professor Britton in the introduction and overview to the report, where she comments on a parallel report that she was invited to undertake by the now Deputy First Minister in 2017 and which was published in 2018? Professor Britton says that the report
“highlighted a number of failings and made recommendations on how independent reviews should be conducted in future. Despite being well received, to date, none”—
I repeat, “none”—
“of the 46 recommendations have been implemented by the Scottish Government.”
The First Minister has referred to the work that colleagues across the chamber have done over the past decade with the women. Does he understand their dismay and frustration that none of the 46 recommendations that were made five years ago have been implemented? What will he do to rectify that?
I am very happy for the Government to commit to bringing a debate to the chamber to discuss and engage again on this important issue, once we are ready to respond to the latest review.
With regard to the 2018 investigative review, we did accept and agree with the vast majority of Professor Britton’s conclusions. Those recommendations have actually already been reflected in a number of inquiries and reviews that have been established in recent years.
We are also developing guidance to support inquiries and reviews that will very much build on Professor Britton’s recommendations, and we hope to publish that shortly. I am happy to communicate directly with Jackson Carlaw and Professor Britton, and with anybody else who has concerns about the recommendations. I can give an absolute commitment that not only have we agreed with those recommendations, but a number of them have already been implemented in reviews that we have taken forward.
There will be a brief supplementary from Stuart McMillan.
The First Minister will be very aware of my support for a number of my constituents who have suffered the horrors of transvaginal mesh implants. The women have my unwavering support in their efforts—first, to have the mesh removed and, secondly, to seek answers as to why NHS services have often seemed to work against them, instead of for them. Notwithstanding what the First Minister has said today, I ask him to ensure that the report is considered and responded to as soon as possible, given the continued difficulties that many women in my constituency and across Scotland are facing, and because of the lack of trust that many women have in the NHS—in particular, with regard to mesh services.
I thank Stuart McMillan and again acknowledge his tireless advocacy on behalf of constituents who have been affected by implantation of transvaginal mesh. For me, it is incredibly important to reiterate that I pay tribute to the women who have bravely come forward over the years to tell their stories. Stuart McMillan is absolutely right: many of them have used words such as “gaslight”—they have not been believed. They do not trust the authorities in the NHS or various processes that we have brought forward.
It is very important that, in everything that we do, we bear in mind that lesson and ensure that we give survivors trust in the processes that we introduce. I have met many women—constituents of mine and others from right across the country—who have suffered as a result of transvaginal mesh being implanted. We will respond, as Stuart McMillan asks, as soon as we can. As I said in my response to Jackson Carlaw, it would be a good idea to do as he suggests and bring a debate to Parliament so that we can have a full and frank discussion of the matter.
Jackie Baillie has a brief supplementary.
The review also recommends that all information on mesh be drawn into a single website to keep patients informed. Will the First Minister commit to publishing waiting times on the website to inform patients about how long it will take to get their treatment, given that some are being forced to wait as long as 448 days? Will he take action to end those unacceptable waiting times, as a matter of urgency?
First Minister, concisely.
I am more than happy to look at what more we can do in order to be as transparent as possible around waiting times. When I look, for example, at the Glasgow mesh service, I see that there is simply no doubt but that it has been affected by the pandemic. Surgery was paused for a time due, in particular, to Covid and winter pressures.
However, I have looked at the Glasgow mesh service’s latest data on surgeries since they have been restarted. That service will soon be able to operate within 12 weeks of a patient and their clinician deciding on the course of treatment. We are making progress on some of the treatments that are available, but I will look into the issue of transparency around waiting times and report back to Jackie Baillie.
Universal Free School Meals
To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s commitment to roll out universal free school meals, in light of reported concerns that there will be further delays to the expansion of universal free school meal provision for primary 6 and P7 pupils, and that no progress has been made on its commitment to establish a secondary school pilot scheme. (S6F-02299)
I am very proud of the progress that the Scottish National Party-led Scottish Government has made on the universal roll-out of free school meals for P1 to P5. There might be a lesson for other political parties right across the United Kingdom if they look towards Scotland to see what we have done.
I can give a commitment to Monica Lennon and all who are interested that we are absolutely committed to roll-out of universal free school meals in primary schools. As we have set out previously, the next phase of expansion to universal provision will be to extend them to all P6 and P7 pupils who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment. We are also committed to delivering a pilot of universal free school meals for secondary schools. We continue to work closely with our delivery partners, including local authorities, on our expansion programme, which includes consideration of the appropriate timescales for the roll-out.
The Scottish Government was leading the rest of the UK on universal free school meals roll-out, but the work has stalled and we are falling behind.
Under Nicola Sturgeon, the P6 and P7 expansion was delayed. Last year’s announcement to pilot the provision in secondary schools has amounted to nothing. Close working would suggest communication; however, although I have made freedom of information requests of every local authority, there has not been even one phone call from the Scottish Government to any school or council about them.
Instead of prioritising hungry children, the Government approached the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at the start of this month to broker further delays. Astonishingly, councils are now being warned that full roll-out in primary schools might not happen in this session of Parliament. Children are going hungry today and cannot wait until 2026—
Can I have a question, please, Ms Lennon?
Will the Scottish Government keep its promise to Scotland’s children? Can the First Minister guarantee that the roll-out will be delivered by the end of this session?
I would love to see evidence for Monica Lennon’s claim that we are falling behind other parts of the UK, which is simply untrue. Indeed, we are leading the rest of the UK when it comes to provision of free school meals. On uptake in 2022, more than 215,000 free school lunches were provided to children and young people, which is an increase from the previous high in 2016 of 194,000 free lunches being provided. Registrations for free school meals have reached their highest-ever level as our free school meals expansion programme continues.
Yes—there are challenges in relation to roll-out. We know that challenges exist around, for example, the capital infrastructure that is required in order to ensure that we can progress with universal roll-out.
When it comes to ensuring that we tackle poverty, and child poverty in particular, I remind Monica Lennon that it is the Scottish National Party-led Government that introduced the Scottish child payment. It is estimated that, through the actions that we have taken within that limited measure of self-Government, we will lift 90,000 children out of poverty.
The SNP-led Government scrapped tuition fees—something on which the Labour Party has U-turned. However, the Labour Party in the UK has said that it will not progress free school meals provision in the rest of the UK, so instead of chiding the Scottish Government for what it is actually doing, Monica Lennon might want to speak to her own party and get it to follow the SNP’s lead.
I will take Brian Whittle for a brief supplementary. We will then move to constituency and general supplementaries.
Does the First Minister agree that, if we were to offer activities before school along with a healthy breakfast, we would directly tackle the attainment gap, poor behaviour in class, hunger and poor mental and physical health? Does he agree that that kind of intervention would be a proactive step in tackling real issues that have not been efficiently dealt with for many years?
Again, we have already made provision when it comes to children’s activities. We have also committed to developing plans to offer free breakfasts to all primary and special school children. We are absolutely committed to progressing those measures as fast as possible, which is why we have increased our funding to local authorities this financial year. What makes that job remarkably more difficult is the UK Government continuing to cut our budget.
We move to constituency and general supplementaries.
Minimum Unit Pricing
I am sure that the First Minister will agree that this week’s report from Public Health Scotland, which states how beneficial the minimum unit pricing of alcohol has been and says that lives have been saved, is welcome. Is he able to say anything about increasing the minimum unit price from 50p to, perhaps, 65p, or does he think that the United Kingdom Government might veto such an increase under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?
John Mason makes a very good point. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that if the 2020 act had been in place when we first introduced minimum unit pricing, the UK Government would have struck it down. There is simply no doubt whatsoever that that would have been the case.
In response to John Mason’s first comment, I am really pleased to see the progress that has been made with the introduction of the minimum unit pricing, which is quite literally saving lives. The only tragedy—my goodness—is how many more lives could have been saved, had we been able to implement the policy earlier and had it not had to be dragged through the courts.
John Mason will be aware of the review work that is under way. Given the legal challenges that we have had previously, it is so important that we allow the review work to take place so that we have a robust evidence base for decisions that are made on any increase in the minimum unit price.
Education Budget Cuts (North Lanarkshire Council)
The First Minister will be aware of the recent decision taken by North Lanarkshire Council to let go of 130 teachers before the summer holidays. Education chiefs emailed 80 primary and 50 secondary teachers last Friday to tell them that they could no longer offer them temporary or fixed-term contracts from August. The Educational Institute of Scotland has rightly condemned the decision, as many teachers will be looking for jobs over the summer holidays. The council has responded, saying that Scottish Government funding for teacher recruitment has fallen substantially. Indeed, in the past two years alone, there has been a £1.8 million reduction.
Cuts to education budgets mean cuts to teacher numbers. What reassurance can the First Minister provide to the 130 teachers who will be really concerned and upset by the decision that has been taken by North Lanarkshire Council?
I am, of course, happy to correct the record if I am wrong, but I believe that that council is being propped up by the Conservative Party, so Meghan Gallacher might want to have a word with her Conservative colleagues about their abysmal decision to let teachers go.
From a Scottish Government perspective, we are increasing the resources that are available to local government by more than £793 million, which represents a real-terms increase of £376 million, or 3 per cent. I urge any local authority, regardless of which political party is in the administration, to engage with schools and teachers in relation to their employment.
As I have already said to Brian Whittle, what has not helped is our public finances being decimated by the Westminster Government. That will not help us to fund local government by one penny.
Rubbish.
I ask Stephen Kerr to please resist any temptation to contribute, particularly when his contribution is not necessarily courteous.
College Sector Redundancies
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of Unison Scotland.
Unison is outside the Parliament today, because the college sector is in crisis—and that crisis is being felt most deeply by the staff facing compulsory redundancy at the City of Glasgow College. After meeting the principal last week, I remain deeply concerned about the cuts and the process for coming to the decision to make redundancies. Will the First Minister personally intervene and encourage more scrutiny of the decision, and will he meet union members outside the Parliament today to hear directly from them how bad things have got for colleges, staff and students?
I have already met trade unions, including the University and College Union, representatives of which were at a round-table discussion that I, the trade unions and the Scottish Trades Union Congress co-chaired. I have already engaged with trade unions and I know the situation that Pam Duncan-Glancy has described. The Minister for Higher and Further Education wrote to college principals, reminding them of the fact that, although these are decisions for the colleges to take, it is so important that fair work is the guiding principle in these discussions.
I will receive an update from the minister. Again, although these are decisions for colleges, I publicly remind them that fair work must be at the heart of every decision that they take.
Fire Hazard Sites (Promat)
A recent serious fire at the abandoned Promat factory in Springburn left local communities enduring stifling smoke and fumes for two days, with firefighters putting their lives at risk. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service informs me that the site is a major hazard and a danger to anyone who enters it and that, given its scale, it cannot possibly be made safe. Given that there might be insufficient powers to allow the local authority to intervene effectively and get the site owners to make the complex as safe as possible and, ultimately, to clear the site itself, will the Scottish Government meet me to discuss what powers might exist—or what further powers might be required for the Scottish Parliament—to take action on sites such as Promat in Springburn and better protect our communities?
I am grateful to Bob Doris for raising the issue of the Promat site in Springburn. I will await further details from him, but, in response to his direct question, I am more than happy for the relevant minister of the Scottish Government to engage with him on whether there is anything further that we can do to address the issues that he has, quite rightly, raised.
Edinburgh Tram Inquiry
It is now more than nine weeks since the Edinburgh tram inquiry report was sent to the printers, more than nine years since the inquiry was announced and three years since it stopped hearing evidence. It has cost Scottish taxpayers more than £13 million, which includes the chair being paid more than £1 million.
I know that the First Minister cannot comment on the inquiry’s findings today, but will the Scottish Government agree to Parliament debating the inquiry’s findings, in Government time, when they are published? What review will be undertaken of the delivery of the inquiry—it is vital that lessons are learned for future public inquiries—and of what has gone so wrong in delivering this one?
I remind Miles Briggs of the fact that the Edinburgh tram inquiry is an independent public inquiry, so I am not able to interfere with or intervene on its timescale. I have seen the same press reports that Miles Briggs has seen, and all I would say is that, when the tram inquiry report is ready to be published, there will be no objection from the Scottish Government or from me, as First Minister, to its being published as soon as possible. I think that it should be published as soon as it is ready for publication. It is so important that, when it comes to that independent public inquiry, neither me nor anyone in the Scottish Government is seen to interfere or intervene in any way whatever.
Orthopaedic Waiting Times
My constituent Wendy, who has struggled with joint pain for several years now, was finally added to the orthopaedics out-patient waiting list in June 2022. Last month, it was confirmed that she was on the waiting list for a knee replacement. The wait is currently two and a half years, which could take Wendy’s overall waiting time to more than five years. Wendy is in constant pain and her quality of life has been seriously impacted. Does the First Minister think that her wait time is acceptable? What is the Scottish Government doing to achieve its legal guarantee of 12 weeks for in-patient treatment under the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011?
I say directly to Foysol Choudhury that the wait that he has described is not acceptable, and I am more than happy for him to contact me to find out whether anything further can be done in Wendy’s case.
I also say to Foysol Choudhury—I know that he understands this well—that there is no doubt at all that health services across the United Kingdom, Europe and, indeed, the world have all been affected by the shock of the global pandemic, which I suspect is the biggest shock that the national health service has faced in its almost 75-year existence.
As for what we are doing to make improvements in relation to waiting times, I am more than happy to write to Foysol Choudhury in detail about the many actions that we are taking. It is fair to say that, when it comes to waits of more than two years, we have made significant improvements in a number of cases. For example, with in-patient day cases, the number of people who have waited for more than two years for in-patient day-case treatment has reduced by 27 per cent since targets were announced. With regard to out-patients, the number of people who have waited for more than two years is down by 19 per cent on the most recent quarter.
Therefore, we are making progress, but I am happy to look at the case that Foysol Choudhury has raised to see whether there is anything that we can do to help his constituent.
Court of Appeal Ruling
The First Minister will be aware of this morning’s ruling by the Court of Appeal that the United Kingdom Government’s plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda to make their applications while being held in detention centres are unlawful. The plan to remove some of the most vulnerable people, women and children among them, was always immoral and unjust. Today, we have learned that it is also illegal. Does the First Minister agree that that means that the Home Secretary, who has dreamed of such flights to Rwanda, must resign?
The Parliament’s standing orders provide that First Minister’s question time gives members the opportunity to put questions to the First Minister on matters that fall within the responsibility of the First Minister and, of course, the responsibilities of the Government. I am not entirely clear that that question met the requirement of standing orders.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will now be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so before the next item begins.
12:49 Meeting suspended.12:51 On resuming—
Previous
General Question Time