Chamber and committees

Not for the first time, Presiding Officer, I cannot allow Mr Findlay’s remarks about the under-25 sentencing guidelines to stand. It is misleading to say to members of the public that there are no consequences for criminal activity by those under the age of 25, because there are. There are very serious consequences, which involve imprisonment. We cannot have messages being issued from this Parliament that indicate that there are no consequences for serious criminal activity, because there are, no matter the age of the individual who is involved. We as a Parliament cannot have a situation in which we do not properly represent what the law and the sentencing guidelines state, because people could take the wrong conclusions from that.

Mr Findlay has made a number of remarks about the shootings that took place in Spain in recent days. Those are live police investigations, so I am not able to comment on the particular issues that are being pursued by the Spanish authorities. However, I say to Parliament that any individual who is involved in criminal activity, no matter their age, must be aware of the severity of the punishments that exist. That is the right position for people to hear from this Parliament.

I take issue with two points in the description that Mr Sarwar has put to the Parliament today. The first is the suggestion that this is somehow my personal, individual view. The Government has sought expert clinical opinion. This has not been conjured up by the Government, having considered the issue on its own behalf. We have sought expert clinical opinion, and I have put on the record where it has come from. On other occasions, members of the Parliament take the Government to task for not following expert opinion, but, in this case, Mr Sarwar wants me to ignore expert clinical opinion, which has led us to the conclusions that we have arrived at.

My second point is about the future of the Wishaw unit. The unit at Wishaw will continue, but it will be recommended that the very small number of babies who need expert specialist care to maximise their chances of survival should be treated in a different way. That is the expert advice that the Government has received.

The first thing that I want to say is that there is nothing in the proposal about Wishaw general hospital that is about saving money. It is about maximising the chances of saving babies’ lives. That is what the proposal, which was informed by expert opinion, is about.

On the question of cancer care that Mr Sarwar raised, I indicate to him that, in relation to the 31-day standard, the performance at the most recent stage of reporting was that 94.7 per cent of patients were treated within 31 days of a decision to treat. The median wait for treatment was just four days—at least half of those patients are being given treatment within four days of being referred in relation to the 31-day standard.

I appreciate that there are pressures on cancer services and wider healthcare services across the country. That is why the Government has introduced measures that are strengthening the NHS. For example, we committed to providing an additional 64,000 appointments and procedures by March of this year. However, we did not deliver 64,000; we delivered 105,500. The Scottish Government is putting in investment to strengthen delivery so that we reduce waiting times and improve access to the NHS, and that will dominate the Government’s approach to the NHS in the period to come.

We are committed to seizing the significant opportunities to grow our screen sector and have increased the budget for Screen Scotland, our dedicated public agency for screen, by £2 million in the current financial year to £11.25 million. That will allow Screen Scotland to continue to nurture locally originated content, develop skills and training opportunities and education for the next generation, and increase inward investment. An ever-increasing number of productions are choosing Scotland, such as the latest Netflix drama “Dept Q”, which was supported by Screen Scotland and filmed on set and in studios in Edinburgh.

Given that the proposition was put to me in such a constructive fashion, I will heartily agree to do that. If Sarah Boyack would like to furnish me with the detail—which I am sure that Mr Robertson will be close to—I will have a close look at it.

The Filmhouse is a magnificent asset in the city of Edinburgh. I remember the rite of passage that I went through in my youth in being able to see films at the Filmhouse, so I am very supportive of it. We will see what the Government can do to help.

The report highlights the difference in the approaches that are taken in Scottish Government policies and United Kingdom Government policies, which has resulted in a situation where child poverty rates are lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. There are interesting and powerful observations in the report.

The Scottish Government is taking forward work to remove the two-child limit, which is a step that should have been taken by the Labour Government. People in Scotland can be assured that the Scottish Government is getting on with doing what a Labour Government is not doing properly for Scotland, and that we will be lifting children out of poverty as a consequence.

There is an interplay of different factors that have to be considered in relation to fisheries management and the sustainability of our oceans. The Government’s policy framework aims to do that and to reconcile some of those tensions and challenges. We will take that forward through engagement with different communities and stakeholders and by ensuring that we fulfil our statutory obligations.

I am sorry to hear of the experience of Mr Ross’s constituent, and I wish Sarah Beaton well in her recovery. The circumstances that Mr Ross has set out are unacceptable. The health service should be able to address those issues faster, which is why the Government is concentrating on work to reduce long waits and investing to ensure that more procedures are undertaken.

In an answer to Anas Sarwar earlier, I cited that, during the early part of this year, we were able to exceed the targets that we expected to meet on early intervention through procedures. That underpins the approach that the Government is taking to address the situation. We have allocated more than £8.8 million to health boards to target long waits for gynaecology, in particular, to avoid the situation that Mr Ross recounted.

ScotRail has taken forward a development, which I understand has caused some controversy, and I am sure that ScotRail is engaging constructively with all concerned. Sometimes, these things need careful handling, and I am sure that ScotRail will do exactly that.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has just told me that they are fixing it—so they will be fixing it.

What is absolutely honking is Mr Cole-Hamilton’s attempt to conflate the situation in Scotland—and the operation of one of the strongest assets in our country in our publicly owned water network—with that of Thames Water. The privatisation of water in England has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of England and Wales, and I thank our predecessors for not taking such a foolish decision in the first place.

We operate in a situation that is not perfect, but in which we have a high level of performance in relation to the quality of our natural environment. I do not think that it is a good advert for Mr Cole-Hamilton to undermine the strength of the natural environment of Scotland when we are spending £500 million on improving water quality in Scotland, and then to compare Scotland’s water—an asset to our country—to the folly that is privatisation in England and Wales.