Official Report 979KB pdf
Scottish Information Commissioner (Decision 193/2024)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Information Commissioner letter to it expressing “disappointment” in the way that it complied with decision 193/2024, regarding legal advice that it received. (S6T-02254)
These matters were the subject of a recent statement by the First Minister, in which he clearly set out that the Scottish Government had complied with the commissioner’s decision within the required timescale and had taken the highly unusual step of releasing legal advice.
The Scottish Information Commissioner’s letter to the Scottish National Party Government is absolutely damning. When a freedom of information request was submitted to the Government about the ministerial code investigation into Nicola Sturgeon’s conduct, the Government refused to disclose it, saying that it did not hold that information.
The information commissioner disagreed with the Government, as did the courts, but, regardless, the Government wasted taxpayers’ money on the legal fight. A subsequent request for information was sent to the Government, asking for the legal advice that it had received in relation to the case. After much delay, the Government finally released it.
The First Minister told the Parliament:
“The legal advice was unambiguous. It supported challenging the commissioner’s decision”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2024; c 10.]
However, the information commissioner states in his letter that the Scottish ministers’ chances of success in the case were “substantially diminished”. Can the minister tell us with a straight face that the First Minister was being fully candid when he told the Parliament that the legal advice was unambiguous?
Yes.
We are all too used to the secrecy and spin of the SNP Government, but the public are fed up of it. Judging by his letter, so is the commissioner. He highlights factual discrepancies submitted by SNP ministers in this case and says that there was a “misrepresentation” of the facts about their “prospects of success”.
There is a running theme in the SNP Government’s handling of the Salmond saga and its fallout, and John Swinney’s fingerprints are all over it. The Government has consistently tried to dodge scrutiny, conceal information from public view and obfuscate when questions about its conduct have been asked. What is it about the scandal that the Government is trying to hide?
As I have already laid out, these matters were the subject of a recent statement by the First Minister. He has laid out the Scottish Government’s perspective. The commissioner is entitled to his perspective. We have always operated in line with the FOI law. As I said, the First Minister has made his statement and he has laid out the Government’s position.
The First Minister confirmed in his letter to me, dated 6 November, that there remain five extant FOI cases relating to the evidence to James Hamilton’s investigation. Does the minister accept that, although there has been significant improvement in reducing the backlog in FOI cases, it is in these highly political situations with ministerial involvement that requested information is being withheld?
We will respond to any request from the information commissioner in line with FOI law. I welcome the fact that Ms Clark at least acknowledges the part of the information commissioner’s letter in which he recognises the Government’s improved performance.
Despite what the minister says, and despite all that the First Minister said previously, the information commissioner is still angry. He is making some pretty strong statements about factual inaccuracies and the fact that it is
“not a true or transparent reflection”.
Does the minister understand that trust is at the heart of this? What lessons has he learned from this episode, and what will he change?
I have already made the point that we have released a significant volume of information—everything is available for people to look at. The First Minister made his statement, and our position stands as set out by the First Minister in the statement that he made on 29 October.
This case arose from a request for information that was made in April 2021, which is more than three and a half years ago. The Scottish Government believes profoundly in freedom of information, but that delay is surely tantamount to an abuse of process and a thwarting of the law to which the Government is subject. Therefore, will the material that has been requested be released forthwith, and will the minister agree that no further delay is conscionable?
I recognise that Mr Ewing has corresponded with the Scottish Government on some of these matters. He can look forward to a response in due course.
Nurses (Recruitment and Retention)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the recruitment and retention of nurses, in light of recent reports that the number of students accepted on to nursing courses remains below its targets. (S6T-02253)
I greatly value the contribution that our nurses make to Scotland’s national health service. The Scottish Government is committed to attracting more people to study nursing, which is why we continue to provide the highest student bursary for nursing degrees in the United Kingdom.
However, I recognise that there is more to do to make the role attractive to new entrants and to retain our current workforce. That is why I chair the nursing and midwifery task force, which will publish its report and recommended actions early in the new year.
This is the third year in a row in which Scotland has failed to fill places on nursing courses. There are currently 2,380 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery vacancies in Scotland and we know that there has been a reduction in the overall number of nursing posts advertised here. What is the Government doing specifically to ensure that those studying nursing are guaranteed a job when they qualify?
Some of those issues have been explored by the nursing and midwifery task force. I am very grateful to all those who provide training, including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the chair of the Council of Deans and a range of others who sit on the task force, for the recommendations that they are providing and for the report that will be published in the new year.
It is for health boards to determine the levels of employment that will meet the needs in their areas. I will continue encouraging them to ensure that they take up the nurses who come through training courses. I will also ensure that we all express the opportunities that are out there in our higher education institutes to take up nursing training places and to embark on fulfilling careers in nursing and midwifery that can help to change, and save, people’s lives.
The cabinet secretary is correct that the Government-led nursing and midwifery task force should play an important role in improving recruitment and retention of the workforce.
However, there is little clarity in the proposed budget about how the task force’s recommendations will be fully delivered. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me on that, and can he confirm that he is committed to fully resourcing the delivery of those important recommendations?
Yes, I am. We have provided an increase in the proposed budget and I encourage colleagues across the chamber to support that because it will allow us to take steps such as implementing some of the recommendations in the task force report. We need support from across Parliament in order to pass the budget, which also provides increased resources for our health boards, gives a record level of funding to health and social care and gives us scope to improve the situation our staff are working in. They are currently working under pressure and we know that changing that will be a defining feature in making the role attractive. We want to improve performance for the people of Scotland and for those who seek to serve our communities in the nursing and midwifery professions.
I make a declaration of interests, as I am a practising NHS general practitioner.
There is a staffing crisis in nursing and midwifery. We have heard of mothers and babies in Edinburgh being harmed by a shortage of staff. By submitting a freedom of information request, we have discovered that NHS health boards in Grampian, Highland and the Western Isles do not currently have midwifery workforce plans in place. Does the cabinet secretary find that lack of a plan acceptable?
To answer the first point in Mr Gulhane’s question, I note that, under the SNP, overall nursing and midwifery staffing is up by 18.1 per cent since September 2006. It has increased by 10,288 whole-time equivalents to 67,071 whole-time equivalents. There has been a substantial investment in the nursing and midwifery workforce under this Government, and that continues. Over the past year, there has been a 4 per cent increase in the number of whole-time equivalent nursing staff and midwives working in NHS Scotland, and there has been an 11.6 per cent increase in the past decade. We will of course work with the boards that Mr Gulhane referenced to ensure that they have robust plans in place so that we continue to have services that meet the needs of the communities that they seek to serve.
I recognise that the nursing and midwifery task force is working to consider the attraction and retention of students in the sector. Will the cabinet secretary advise when the task force’s recommendations will be published and what it is expected to advise?
The task force has concluded the first phase of its work. We met last week to conclude the report and the recommendations that have been made, and the recommended actions and the report will be published early in the new year. The task force will recommend a number of actions based on the feedback from staff and the listening exercise that we embarked on, and it will include a number of measures to support staff wellbeing and improve attraction to the role and the alternative delivery routes, such as part-time distance learning and earn-as-you-learn programmes, that will increase and widen access to nursing studies.
I thank all the nursing and midwifery staff and all the other staff who work in our health and social care services for the work that they do, particularly at this time of year. We know the sacrifices that they make in order to serve us all during the festivities.
A96 Corridor Review
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the reported delay in the publication of the A96 corridor review document, three months after it was understood to be provided to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, is acceptable. (S6T-02250)
I received comprehensive advice on the outcomes from the review’s appraisal in July 2024, and a hard copy of the review’s main transport appraisal report at the end of August. I considered the findings over the following weeks and advised relevant cabinet secretaries and the First Minister of my intention to publish the review in draft for consultation. I subsequently met the First Minister to discuss the contents of the review and discussed it in a full meeting of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet in November. I requested a parliamentary statement later the same month, on 28 November, in order to advise Parliament of the review’s contents and provide an opportunity for members to question and comment on its findings.
That timeline represents the Government taking an appropriate time to consider a report before presenting it to Parliament. A failure to properly consider a report of such significance would not serve Parliament or the people of the north-east of Scotland well. They have a right to expect their Government to be considered and to do things in good order. That is what I have done, and it is what this Government will always do.
That consideration has extended for no less than 13 years since the pledge was made to dual the A96. Since then, a staggering £89 million has been spent, but not one centimetre of tarmac has been laid.
I ask the minister to be candid. Will she bring forward within a reasonable time period a detailed statement that sets out precisely when each remaining stage of the procurement of the section between Inverness and Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, will be completed and when the road will be constructed? Will she bring that statement forward within, say, three months? Surely that is reasonable.
With the statutory process for the scheme being completed earlier this year, work has commenced to determine the most suitable procurement option—either design and build or the mutual investment model—for delivering the A96 Inverness to Nairn including Nairn bypass dualling scheme. Only thereafter can a timetable for progress be set out in line with available budgets. It is a complex exercise that looks at a number of factors including how the project can be delivered most efficiently by industry while minimising disruption to road users.
The use of the mutual investment model for the A96 Inverness to Nairn including Nairn bypass scheme would need to be considered alongside our current proposal for the A9. That consideration will come to a conclusion at the end of 2025. As part of that work, we will also consider the delivery options for the adjacent A9-A96 Inshes to Smithton scheme, which is part of the Inverness and Highland city region deal.
That is the orderly way to deliver a meaningful timetable, and a parliamentary statement would not change that. I give my commitment to Parliament that I will ensure that it is aware of the progress and developments on the vital first part of the dualling process, and I will come back to Parliament to advise of a timetable for doing that. Unfortunately, Fergus Ewing’s timetable for a statement would not allow us to provide the orderly, considered position that Parliament might expect.
We are nearly in the fourth year of this session of Parliament, and very little progress has been made. That is a fact. If the arguments that we have just heard from the cabinet secretary were accurate, there should not have been a statement on the A9 either, because the A96 and the A9 are in exactly the same position.
My constituents will be deeply depressed by the failure of the cabinet secretary today—and I know that she takes the issue very seriously, which makes it even more serious—to give the people of Nairn and the north-east the truth. Can we not have that, please? I, for one, will find it unacceptable if we do not have the truth. It is a red line for me. I cannot betray my constituents. That is what my party and the Government that I used to be part of are demanding that I do. I am not prepared to do it.
The truth is that the A96 Inverness to Nairn including Nairn bypass dualling scheme has been progressing. In my term as minister then Cabinet Secretary for Transport—which is not the full four years that Fergus Ewing referred to but the past 18 months—we have seen the completion of the statutory requirements of the made orders and the provision in the budget to buy and procure the land, which, he will know, is a part of that process and a part of how we commence the dualling activity.
I know that Mr Ewing is frustrated—I feel and understand his frustration. He will also know that the A9 statement and the comprehensive plan for the A9 dualling was seen as part of an overall package—activity has already started on building the Tomatin to Moy part. That package was taken to the Cabinet, along with the recommendations from the cabinet secretary for finance. In order to progress the A96, I am hopeful and confident that, should a mutual investment model—work on which has already started and must complete by the end of the year—be seen as attractive, I will be able to return to Parliament with the firm commitment of build that Fergus Ewing needs and that, at the end of the day, his constituents want, together with a full and comprehensive report.
Plainly, it is not acceptable to keep secret the outcomes of a £6 million taxpayer-funded report. Will the cabinet secretary therefore apologise to the people of the north-east for the delay? How much will the new consultation cost? Will the cabinet secretary promise to publish it as soon as the ink is dry, regardless of whether it is good news for the Government?
In order to address Liam Kerr’s questions, I point out that members of his party attacked me for publishing the review and its content. He now says that I was keeping it secret. How could I have been keeping it secret when I published it? I set out the orderly way in which Cabinet collective responsibility proceeds. He obviously does not understand that, which is probably one of the reasons why the Conservatives have no hope of ever forming a Cabinet in Scotland.
The review showed that the cost of dualling the A96 is £5,000 million. That is the equivalent of 200 years of the Scottish Government’s road safety budget. If one of the key priorities for the A96 review was about safety, how can a package of measures to improve safety now be agreed that can be delivered quickly and include measures such as average-speed cameras, which have been so successful in reducing casualties on the A9?
Cabinet Secretary, please respond in relation to the substantive question.
The substantive question is in relation to road safety, and I assure the member that we have a record amount of funding in this year’s budget for road safety to address safety on the A96 and across our trunk road network.
If the member wants to help support the roll-out of more road safety measures, including speed cameras and all the different measures that our partners in local authorities, Police Scotland and so on want to see delivered, I remind him that that is part and parcel of what the budget sets out. We need to tackle road safety not only on the A96 but across our trunk road network.
Air ais
Business MotionAir adhart
Martins Review