Official Report 203KB pdf
14:04
The next item of business is general question time. As always, I ask for short and sharp questions and answers.
Question 1, in the name of Marie McNair, has been withdrawn. An explanation has been given.
Question 2, in the name of Holly Bruce, was not lodged. An explanation has been given.
I am pleased to say that Murdo Fraser did, indeed, lodge his question.
Universal Library Offer
To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to implement a universal library offer, as recommended by the Scottish Library and Information Council in its report on how public libraries are supported, measured and funded. (S70-00303)
Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there is adequate provision of library services for their residents, aligning library provision with the specific needs of their communities.
In addition to record funding of £15.7 billion for local authorities in this financial year, the Scottish Government provides more than £1 million to the Scottish Library and Information Council, which includes £550,000 for the public library improvement fund. For members who are interested, in this financial year, the fund is supporting innovative projects that promote reading for pleasure among children with additional support needs, tackling digital exclusion, reducing inequalities and welcoming new Scots, including refugees and asylum seekers.
I thank the cabinet secretary, but I did not actually hear an answer to the question that I asked. Let me try again.
Across Scotland, local libraries are well used, supported and loved by local communities, including in the area of Perth and Kinross, which is part of the region that I represent. However, they have had an axe hanging over them for years due to local government funding cuts. They are looking for some central assurance about the nationally defined minimum library offer, so that those vital local resources can be protected.
Given that the report was published in February, when will we get an answer from the Scottish Government about whether it will accept the report’s definition?
I want to re-emphasise that, as I consider the report’s recommendations, I recognise the absolutely vital role that public libraries play. I used my initial answer to speak about some of the investment that we are putting into them. However, Mr Fraser is quite right—the Government is still considering the recommendations, and I will respond to them and to the Parliament as soon as I can.
As the cabinet secretary has pointed out, reading for pleasure is one of the strongest indicators of children’s future success and life chances. In recognition of that, the Government has delivered the bookbug programme and recently provided additional funding to school libraries.
However, will the cabinet secretary explore working with the Libraries for Primaries programme, which is run in partnership with the National Literacy Trust and Penguin Books, in order to build on the good work to promote literacy that is already being undertaken and strengthen outcomes by ensuring that every state primary school has a library or dedicated reading space?
Since 2010, the Scottish Government has funded the Scottish Book Trust, which Patricia Gibson has rightly spoken about. We do that so that it can deliver the bookbug programme. In this financial year and in the previous financial year, the programme was included in our fairer funding pilot, which meant that it was awarded a two-year grant of £1.8 million per year, offering continuity for planning and for the roll-out of services. I state that to the chamber in order to emphasise the importance that we place on that.
Ms Gibson also raised an additional proposition, which I am very pleased to take up and discuss with her.
As has been acknowledged, local authorities are mandated to deliver library provision. However, they are mandated only to provide one library per local authority. Can the Scottish Government look at mandating a higher number of libraries in local authorities, based on population and geographical spread?
Ms Black is quite right that there is no definition of “adequate” when it comes to the provision of services in the statute that underpins this work. The statute’s flexible approach was intended to allow local authorities to respond to their local needs and to match provision with their communities’ requirements. However, as I said to Mr Fraser, I am conscious of the report’s recommendation about clarifying “adequate” library services. I am considering those recommendations and will be sure to keep Ms Black and other members up to date.
Group-based Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (Public Inquiry)
To ask the Scottish Government what information it holds regarding when the public inquiry into the response to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation will begin. (S7O-00304)
The formal establishment of the inquiry is one of my top priorities, and work has been undertaken at pace to develop the terms of reference and finalise operational arrangements.
In August, I met the chair of the inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, to discuss the terms of reference. Professor Jay has emphasised that the inquiry must proceed in a timely manner while retaining flexibility to investigate all areas that it considers necessary.
I also attended the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group earlier this month, to engage with expert stakeholders on that matter and on aligning work with the inquiry. I will consider the finalised terms of reference in due course, and Parliament will be updated in the near future.
So, there is still no clarity for the victims. I will move on. There are reports that women are being sex trafficked and forced into pop-up brothels in my home town of Dumfries as we speak. What is the Scottish Government going to do to directly tackle that issue and protect those victims? Or will it fail them in the same way as it is currently failing the victims of grooming gangs?
In response to the first question, I put it on the record that the establishment of an inquiry into group-based child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation is a top priority for me and for the Government. Likewise, the matters that Senga Beresford raises are a top priority for Police Scotland. A significant amount of work is currently under way. We have the expert group that I spoke to, the inspectorate review—the “National review of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation and child criminal exploitation”—which we have had the phase 1 report from, the truth project, Lady Smith’s inquiry and a forthcoming inquiry by Professor Jay, all of which indicate the seriousness with which the Government treats these matters.
We have a number of supplementary questions.
Here we are, a year after the Scottish National Party and the Greens voted down Liam Kerr’s amendment to set up a grooming gangs inquiry, and this review—a multi-agency review—says that we still do not have accurate data and that there is not even a requirement to collect or report the data that is necessary for such an inquiry to take place. It is shameful. It was a mistake not to vote for Liam Kerr’s amendment to set up a grooming gangs inquiry last year, was it not?
That is a confused account of the processes that have led us to where we are. Where we are, as I said in response to the initial question, is that a significant amount of work is under way and a concerted effort is under way to make sure that the abhorrent crime of child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation is well understood in our country, is identified wherever it is taking place and is rooted out. I want to make it absolutely clear, from the action that is under way, that there is no place for that abhorrent crime in Scotland, and the Government is attending to that.
It is hugely important that efforts to safeguard children can meet the evolving dangers that we see today. Ensuring that technology cannot be used for exploitation must be a priority. What engagement is under way with the United Kingdom Government to strengthen protections against online harms?
The online world is a new and ever-developing forum. We must be continually curious about its impact on children and young people, and that is absolutely part of what the Government is taking forward. The regulation of technology is, of course, a matter for the UK Government, so my colleagues and I are in contact with it frequently. Indeed, by way of example, we are supporting efforts to implement new powers through the UK Crime and Policing Act 2026 to tackle online child sexual abuse and exploitation in Scotland. Under those measures, it is illegal to possess, create or distribute artificial intelligence tools that are designed to create child sexual abuse materials. We have also outlawed possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse, including AI-generated abuse. We are working with the UK Government on that. All the while, we are using every tool at our disposal within devolved powers to protect children from online harm. We are clear-eyed about the fact that that is another frontier for the potential abuse of children, and we want to shut it down.
Scotland still has no clear national picture of the scale of group-based sexual abuse and exploitation, partly due to the lack of an agreed definition and the inconsistent approach to data collection. As has been said, the “National review of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation and child criminal exploitation” urges Scottish ministers to deliver a national definition outlining reporting requirements and to set clear data collection standards by updating national child protection guidance. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Scottish Government will enact those recommendations ahead of the public inquiry?
It is always worth pointing out that the Scottish Government commissioned the inspectorate review in order to get absolute clarity on the extent of the issue throughout Scotland and on local responses to it. There are things that I welcome in the report, including the confidence in public protection arrangements and the points about strong safeguarding in education and effective multi-agency and contextual safeguarding. The review also highlights the value of existing national initiatives that the Government supports, such as the roll-out of the bairns’ hoose and the Scottish child interview model. However, the review goes on to raise matters that we know require to be addressed, including on information sharing, multi-agency approaches and, of course, the matter of a definition, which I expect will form part of what Professor Jay considers in her inquiry—although, of course, that is up to her.
The minister might be aware of ongoing petition PE1979, which the Public Petitions Committee recently agreed to keep open and write to the Scottish Government about. Does the minister agree with the petition’s proposition on setting up a national whistleblowing officer to scrutinise public body failures that have enabled historical child abuse to take place and to prevent them from happening in the future?
I must apologise, as I did not catch the exact reference to the petition that the member spoke about, so I will have to get back to her in writing once I have clarity on that.
However, on the question of whistleblowing, I absolutely support the point that nobody anywhere should feel that they can or should fail to disclose any concerns about a child. In our programme for government, the Government supported the bringing forward of mandatory reporting, which will be a strong provision to say that child abuse, wherever it is happening, must be disclosed by responsible adults.
Health Boards (Proposed Replacement)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of its plans to replace the 14 territorial national health service boards with two strategic health boards on healthcare provision in Dumfriesshire, including access to locally delivered services. (S7O-00305)
The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that people in Dumfriesshire have access to safe and high-quality healthcare as locally as possible. The proposed reforms are about the strategic governance and planning of NHS services and simplifying access to care and how it is delivered. They do not determine where individual services will be delivered.
We are not taking a one-size-fits-all approach. Local needs will be central to our planning, and we will work closely with local authorities, NHS partners, communities and stakeholders to ensure that future arrangements reflect local circumstances and support services being delivered as locally as possible.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that rural communities, such as those in Langholm and Gretna in my constituency, fear that reorganisation will inevitably mean centralisation. However, given the proximity to the border, many of my constituents travel to Carlisle or Newcastle for local healthcare and specialised treatment, not north towards the central belt. As part of the reform process, will ministers look to remove the administrative, structural and funding friction so that patients who travel south to access medical treatment in England find the process as seamless and safe as possible?
We move to supplementaries. I bring in Calum Kerr. Oh—sorry. I will bring in the cabinet secretary.
I am happy to answer Mr Hoy’s supplementary question. He raises the important issue of cross-border transfers. We know that that works both ways. There are patients south of the border who come to Scotland and, of course, there are constituents of his who go south of the border.
I will say one thing about our reforms. For too long, people have had to fit into the system, and I do not want that for anybody, irrespective of whether they live in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Mr Hoy’s constituency or our remote and island communities. We have to design systems that, first and foremost, work for people. That is what I am committed to doing, and I am more than happy to engage further with any members on the detail of that.
As he suspects, I am going to call Calum Kerr for a supplementary.
I would have been happy to answer Mr Hoy’s question, too.
I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary agrees that we must look at robust evidence on how we reform our health boards and how that will improve services for patients and increase capacity. What discussions will be had between the Scottish Government, wider health board staff and unions ahead of the changes? We must ensure that we bring them with us in the transformation in order to meet care requirements in our communities.
I assure Mr Kerr that the reform process must be done with, and not to, the workforce. The Scottish Government is engaging first and foremost with our workforce and, as part of that work, we will set out an agreed process with trade unions to ensure that the workforce is able to help to shape the plans. Those in the workforce—the people who are on the front line and in crucial roles that support those who are on the front line—often have some of the most informed views about how to reduce duplication and improve services.
Has the cabinet secretary consulted each of the NHS territorial boards, noting that some boards are performing better on particular issues? For instance, NHS Fife’s record on drug deaths, which decreased in the area by 13 per cent last year, shows that best practice can be shared out from that area rather than lost.
The whole purpose of the reform programme is to ensure that there is not unwarranted variation. I am not talking about a one-size-fits-all approach; I am talking about reducing unwarranted variation in access to healthcare and reducing health inequalities in this country. If there are interventions that work well in one area—whether that is on reducing drug deaths, improving waiting times, improving access to orthopaedics or discharging our old people—and there is no reason why they could not be applied elsewhere, it is beyond me why we would not ensure that that happens, because doing so is in the interests of the health of the nation and the overall health of our population.
My constituent Victor King has spent a year in hospital after a stroke because not one care provider covers his rural address in Kirkpatrick Durham in Dumfriesshire. NHS boards often cite social care shortages as the main driver behind delayed discharge, yet social care is a council responsibility. What assessment has the cabinet secretary made of how the reorganisation of health boards and councils will affect locally delivered care for people such as Mr King in Dumfriesshire?
I am very concerned to hear about the experiences of Mr Dunlop’s constituent Mr King. Mr Dunlop touches on important matters regarding the locally available capacity of care home provision, on which we need to work hand in glove with care providers. I would be happy to receive more information on Mr King and on the solutions that we will all need to work together to bring to bear on the issue.
Local Government Restructuring (Costs and Savings)
To ask the Scottish Government what estimate it has made of projected costs and savings associated with its proposed restructuring of local government. (S7O-00306)
The proposals that were set out by ministers on 21 September are intended as a starting point for discussions on local governance reform with those who deliver and use our public services. That dialogue will help us to develop a shared vision for reform and better understand the full implications of change, including the financial impacts. That will ensure that any future projects are aligned with the fiscal challenges that we face while delivering improved outcomes for our people and communities.
Yesterday, it became clear that the Scottish National Party is hiding whether its £1.5 billion public sector savings plan is on track. John Swinney has repeatedly failed to explain the detail of his public service reforms. Does the Deputy First Minister think that the current local government proposals will cost more or less than the £556 million that the 1994 local government reforms would have cost today?
It is fair to say that the Government has been up front about the quantum of savings that are required through the portfolio efficiency and reform plans. Together, those plans will help to deliver £1.5 billion of recurring annual savings by 2028-29. I am sure that there will be further questions on that when I attend tomorrow’s meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
More broadly, it is important to set out that, at the current time, local government reform is in a consultative period, and we are engaging with our local government partners on the future shape of local government. I invite Alexander Burnett and his party colleagues to be part of that dialogue to help us to arrive at a shared consensus on the future for local government in Scotland.
Rural Communities (Empowerment)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to democratically empower communities across rural Scotland. (S7O-00307)
Thriving rural communities and empowering communities are priorities for the Scottish Government, which is why we have taken steps to empower communities to participate in decision making. We have reviewed the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and introduced new land reform legislation that favours community buyouts. We have published proposals for the reform of local governance, which we will discuss later today. In addition, through our islands programme, we provide new funding for infrastructure projects that will help to boost employment, empower communities and ensure a sustainable future for Scotland’s islands.
A constituent recently listed to me some of the consequences of having a one-size-fits-all approach to policy, including the closure of the Inverness control room, more patients having to travel outwith Highland for care, and rural fire station appliances being off the run. What works in the central belt will not always work for rural and island communities. The Parliament endorsed that principle when it created the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, but it must now answer the question for rural Scotland, too. Former SNP MSP Gail Ross recognised that when she championed the case for a rural-proofing bill. Does the minister agree that Gail Ross was right to do so?
Mr Green is as committed to and passionate about the strength and diversity of rural and island areas as I am. Our Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 is a landmark piece of legislation for this Parliament. I want it to be used further, and I want island communities to use it further. I look forward to working with Mr Green on that, and I am sure that he will be very engaged in the debate that is coming up later this afternoon.
Disinformation (Government Response)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will develop a strategy to respond to disinformation. (S7O-00308)
Misinformation and disinformation represent a growing risk for all societies. The Scottish Government is working to consistently identify and, where we can, counter suspected misinformation, and we are active in United Kingdom and international information networks. We are developing an action plan to supplement our existing work.
The First Minister has spoken out against rumours and false narratives on social media and he has written to tech companies about that issue. He has also highlighted Police Scotland’s warnings that provocative online misinformation that contains incendiary language can cross the threshold into criminality, and he condemned the deliberate setting on fire of a Glasgow apartment block following false online rumours.
I recognise that, incident by incident, there can be individual responses, and I welcome the Government’s decision to be proactive in relation to health disinformation. However, this is a much broader issue, whether it is about the targeting of asylum seekers, migrant communities and LGBTQ+ communities or about the chilling rise of far-right violence and intimidation on our streets. Does the Government recognise that disinformation, including deliberate disinformation from some Governments and major corporations, is now one of the most profound threats to our society? Will it consider developing a cross-Government strategy and consider whether legislative change is needed?
I fundamentally agree with the premise of the questions that Mr Harvie poses. We are all concerned about those things. We brought a debate on health misinformation to the chamber and I was glad to see the Parliament overwhelmingly agree on that.
As I mentioned, we are developing an action plan on these areas, and we will be happy to consider further what more we can do. In some areas to do with the spreading of misinformation and disinformation online, there is a limit to what we can do, because the powers are reserved. However, we will of course always be willing to consider what more we can do.
That ends general question time. I apologise to the members I could not call to ask supplementaries.
Previous
Business Motion