Post Office (Horizon Prosecutions)
I begin by putting on record the best wishes of, I am sure, the whole chamber and people across Scotland to His Majesty the King and to the Duchess of Rothesay. We wish them both a speedy recovery to good health. [Applause.]
Last week, in response to the Horizon scandal, the First Minister said:
“I think that the idea of almost a mass exoneration is one that is very worthy of consideration.”
In a letter to the Prime Minister just eight days ago, he said:
“it is right that normal processes for appeals are set aside”.
However, in a statement this week, the Lord Advocate, his Government’s top legal adviser, said:
“in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2024; c 14.]
Humza Yousaf has said that there should be a blanket exoneration, but the Lord Advocate believes that the current process for appeals should not change, with each case being considered individually. Will the First Minister tell not just the Parliament but, crucially, all the victims of the scandal what the position of his Government is?
I associate myself with Douglas Ross’s remarks and wish both King Charles and the Duchess of Rothesay a speedy recovery.
On the Post Office issue, I begin by paying tribute once again not only to Alan Bates but to all the hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses right across the United Kingdom who should not have had to wait for an ITV drama in order to get justice and compensation. However, it is important that the United Kingdom Government has acted.
Douglas Ross is right—I wrote to the Prime Minister. I should say that I have received his response, which is a positive one, to the effect that he is willing to work on a UK-wide basis. I will be happy to release that response, but I think that we are waiting for number 10 to confirm that it is happy for us to do so. The detail says that the UK Government is willing to work with the Scottish Government to consider a UK-wide approach to mass exoneration for people who have been wrongfully convicted.
I listened carefully to what the Lord Advocate had to say, both in her statement and in response to questions. She made the point that there is currently an appeals process through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate miscarriages of justice. Let me be clear, though, so that Douglas Ross has no misunderstanding. We support the UK Government’s considering legislation for mass exoneration for people who have been wrongfully convicted. We have written to the UK Government and have had a positive response back. We hope that the legislation can apply across the UK.
That does not clear up the case in Scotland.
It does.
The First Minister says that it does, but the UK legislation will apply in England and Wales, whereas the issue is devolved in Scotland. We have his top legal officer, who sits in the Scottish Government’s Cabinet, saying something quite different from what the First Minister is saying. Let me quote again from the Lord Advocate’s statement on Tuesday:
“That is an important process, because not every case involving Horizon evidence will be a miscarriage of justice, and each case must be considered carefully”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2024; c 14.]
That is the Lord Advocate’s current position: a refusal to change the process and accelerate the system because there might be some guilty people. Surely it is better to accept the tiny possibility that a guilty person will have their conviction overturned than to allow dozens of innocent postmasters to live with the stain of guilt for a minute longer.
What discussions has the First Minister had with the Lord Advocate since her statement on Tuesday? Does he agree that the convictions must be quashed as quickly as possible?
The Lord Advocate and I are due to speak again tomorrow, I believe. When the Lord Advocate spoke in the chamber, she was speaking as the independent head of the prosecution service. That important part of her function is distinct from her position when she provides legal advice as a member of this Government.
It is still my preference that UK legislation be applied UK-wide through a legislative consent motion. That would be the preferable route, although there are complexities to work through in that.
Douglas Ross is presenting this as a binary choice, which is not correct. The best position for all of us is to see, urgently, the mass exoneration of those who were wrongfully convicted. However, when it comes to those whose conviction was and is sound, nobody necessarily wants those convictions to be overturned and those people to be able to apply for compensation. If we can get to the position of having the best of both worlds, that would be the best position to get to. That is why we are willing to work with the UK Government, which presumably also does not want sound convictions to be overturned if that can be avoided. We will work with the UK Government in that respect.
However, let us not forget what we are dealing with. I am afraid that this is a scandal that was born in Westminster. The Post Office is wholly reserved, and UK Government ministers are wholly responsible for it. I accept that it lied to UK Government ministers—
Briefly, First Minister.
—but they clearly did not interrogate the Post Office strongly enough. Therefore, the public inquiry is important, and I urge the UK Government to fully co-operate with it.
The Crown Office is wholly devolved in Scotland, which is why the situation here is very different. The Post Office could not prosecute those individuals here—it was the Crown Office that did so.
One of those who was prosecuted was Judith Smith. She pled guilty in 2009 at Selkirk sheriff court to a charge of fraud, after thousands of pounds disappeared. Judith’s lawyer told us that the Crown Office displayed a worrying lack of scepticism about the Post Office’s case, particularly as there was no trace of the money anywhere. Judith was even asked whether she had blown it all on a lavish holiday or whether she had a gambling problem. Her conviction was finally quashed just last week. However, Judith’s lawyer said that the Crown Office should have launched a review of all past Post Office prosecutions the minute that it became aware of the Horizon problem in 2013. It did not, and it took a further two years for prosecutors to dismiss on-going cases that relied on Horizon evidence.
Will the First Minister explain why prosecutions in Scotland continued for two years after the Crown Office became aware of concerns with Horizon? Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Conservatives’ call for the Lord Advocate at the time, Frank Mulholland, to come to the Parliament to answer questions on the scandal?
Let us be clear that it took an ITV drama to get the UK Government to take action, even though we have been told by hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses up and down the country that they were lied to. Let us not forget that that is what spurred the UK Government into action, not the desperate pleas of sub-postmasters up and down the country.
Let us go back to the point that the Lord Advocate made very clearly in the chamber, which was that the Crown Office was, in her words, “misled” and given false reassurances by the UK Post Office time and again.
There are many institutions that, given the harrowing testimonies, including the one that Douglas Ross just articulated, will be answerable for what they did and the action that they took. I fully expect—I am certain that it will be the case—that the Crown Office will fully co-operate with the public inquiry that is under way.
On why the Crown Office chose to prosecute cases after 2013, the Lord Advocate laid out the fact that there was guidance to prosecutors in 2013 in relation to Horizon cases, and, in 2015, the Crown Office stopped prosecuting cases that were sufficiently dependent on Horizon data.
The current Lord Advocate is responsible and answerable for the Crown. She has already answered questions about what took place in 2013, and she has said that, if MSPs want a further opportunity to question her, she will make herself available.
My question was about one of her predecessors. I think that it is crucial that the Parliament hear from Frank Mulholland. It would be interesting to know whether the First Minister supports that call from the Scottish Conservatives.
All of this matters here in Holyrood, because the Crown Office is a devolved institution. The procedure by which these convictions can be quashed will be set by this Government and this Parliament. However, the process that the Lord Advocate set out could mean that that takes far longer in Scotland than it should.
Myra Philp worked with her mum, Mary, at the post office in Auchtermuchty in 2001. At 7 o’clock one morning, Post Office auditors burst through the door and demanded the keys to the shop. Mary, a former policewoman, was suspended, but she immediately suspected that Horizon was to blame.
The Post Office, on the other hand, blamed Mary’s teenage grandchildren. Auditors accused them of breaking in during the night, overriding the time lock and taking the money. Mary was not prosecuted, but she lost her business. She died in 2018, the year before Alan Bates forced the Post Office to admit that Horizon was desperately flawed. Myra told us:
“My mum died not knowing she was right.”
The Lord Advocate is head of the independent judiciary in Scotland, but she is also the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government and the Cabinet. Does the First Minister accept that, if we follow the position that the Lord Advocate laid out to the Scottish Parliament on her preferred process, the process will take far too long for the postmasters who have been wrongly convicted and that some could die before their names are cleared?
I will give clarity once again, not just to Douglas Ross but to Mary’s family and to all the other sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across Scotland. Last week, the UK Government announced that it was looking to introduce legislation in the UK Parliament in order for there to be mass exonerations for wrongful convictions.
I have written to the Prime Minister to say that we would welcome that process. Not only that, but I said, as the First Minister, that we would be willing to work with the UK Government so that the legislation has a UK-wide effect. That could be done through an LCM. I say to Douglas Ross that, if it is not possible, for whatever reason, for the UK Government to bring forward an LCM, we are already working on contingencies around separate Scottish legislation if that is required. I hope that it is not—if an LCM is a possibility, that would be the easiest and quickest route.
As the First Minister of Scotland, I will decide what legislative route is used in this Parliament to exonerate those who were wrongfully convicted. I say once again, regarding the harrowing testimony that Douglas Ross gave in relation to what Mary had to suffer—I have no doubt that her family still feel the consequences—that that happened on the UK Government’s watch, because of a Post Office that is wholly reserved to the UK Government.
Time after time after time, UK Government ministers from UK-based parties did not believe sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, such as Mary and others, who were being harassed by the Post Office. They have waited far too long for justice, so I give them absolute confirmation and assurance that we will work with the UK Government, and whomever else we need to work with, to ensure that they do not have to wait a single day longer—
Briefly, First Minister.
—not just for justice but for access to compensation.
Dangerous Dogs
I echo the best wishes to King Charles and to the Duchess of Rothesay, and I wish them both a speedy recovery.
Confusion about a ban on XL bully dogs in Scotland has brought dangerous dogs back into the headlines. Today, the Scottish National Party Government will finally make a statement, and I hope that it takes action. As with so many issues, however, it is only when media pressure builds that SNP ministers respond. Too often, they act on headlines rather than on the evidence.
In the previous session of Parliament, I sat on the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee when it produced its “Post-legislative Scrutiny: Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010” report. The cross-party committee called for a review of the law and for a focus on irresponsible owners and breeders. The Government accepted the committee’s findings, and committed in 2019 to a review. Nearly five years on, therefore, why are we still waiting?
There was, of course, something that happened between 2020 and the current time: a global pandemic, which undoubtedly resulted in the fact that other work had to be delayed. I think that most individuals would accept that.
On the XL bully dog safeguards that the United Kingdom Government has brought in, the UK Government made the announcement without a single word of consultation with the Scottish Government. I suspect that, if I had said to Anas Sarwar at that point that we would take immediate action, he would have demanded to know what consultation we had had. It was right that Siobhian Brown took time to consult with animal welfare stakeholders and those involved in animal rehoming centres.
The Scottish Government still absolutely believes that the correct approach is not to breed XL bully dogs, but we have to be able to respond to the fact that we have seen media reports of a number of people who have brought their XL bully dogs over the border to Scotland.
We have consulted, we have taken time to engage and we will bring forward safeguards. It should be said that that is not a ban. People will still, of course, be able to have their XL bully dogs if they meet the criteria of the regulations that are brought forward.
On the stricter regime that we have in Scotland with the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the various notices, I am pleased that we have a strict regime, which is not available elsewhere in the UK.
I know that the First Minister is not good on the detail, but a review of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was in the programme for government in 2021, during Covid. Therefore, I am not sure that that excuse holds any water.
In 2022 alone, victims were treated in Scotland’s hospitals a reported 7,600 times for injuries that were inflicted by dogs. Those dogs were out of control and often mistreated, or poorly trained by their owners. Many of the injuries that people sustained disfigured them for life.
Kirsteen Hobson is a postwoman in Oban. In December, she was brutally attacked by a German shepherd dog, and she sustained serious injuries to her face, leg and arm. She needed specialist plastic surgery. She will be scarred for life emotionally and physically. Nothing that the Government is announcing today would have helped her.
Five years ago, the Government promised to take action against irresponsible owners and breeders, not just an individual breed. If the Government can act on XL bully dogs, what will it take for it to protect people such as Kirsteen and many others whom it has repeatedly promised to protect?
My sympathy goes to Kirsteen for the injuries that she has suffered.
We did, of course, take action on the back of the work that was done in 2019. That is why we have a really important regime of dog control notices. That is the regime that I am talking about, and it does not exist in England and Wales. If Anas Sarwar had the detail in front of him, he would know that.
Anas Sarwar would also then know that more than 1,200 active dog control notices are currently in place in Scotland. We know that XL bully dog DCNs represent 2 per cent of the DCNs that are in force.
One dog attack is, of course, one too many. We have taken a whole range of actions to protect communities as well as we possibly can. Our dog control notice regime will undoubtedly help in that regard.
We will continue to work with Police Scotland, local authorities, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and those with other relevant interests to keep communities safe from the very small minority—we should be clear that it is a very small minority—of irresponsible dog owners who have dangerous dogs.
Some 7,600 treatments in hospitals related to dog attacks in one single year. I do not think that the First Minister should play that down, because that will be of extreme concern to families throughout the country.
Humza Yousaf was, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice when the Government promised to review the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. Still nothing has happened. People such as Kirsteen Hobson should not have to be fearful when they go to work, and parents should not have to fear for their kids when they take them to the park. The Government has a responsibility to protect people, not just to respond to bad headlines. However, too often, sadly, that is what it does. We saw that with the infection scandal at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, we saw it last week and we see it again today with the Post Office scandal, and now we see it with XL bully dogs.
The Government must commit to stronger powers for councils and the police, and it must make it clear that the responsibility for dogs lies with owners and breeders. Does the First Minister accept that we cannot wait until another 7,000 people are harmed before the Government fixes the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010?
Anas Sarwar’s third question took no account at all of the response that I gave to his previous question. That is the problem. He says that we failed to act. If he had stopped reading his pre-prepared script, he would have heard me say that we brought in a dog control notice regime. That does not exist in England and Wales. The fact that we have that in place has meant that we have more than 1,200 active dog control notices in place as we speak.
We will continue to work with Police Scotland, local authorities, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other relevant stakeholders to keep our communities safe. On top of that, we have established an operational working group involving local authorities, Police Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and key stakeholders to progress the work. We have also commissioned a national dog control notice database to help enforcement agencies better monitor the control of dogs.
When it comes to having to respond to the actions of the UK Government, which is what we are having to do in this case, would it not be far better if we did not always have to respond to what the UK Government does, and instead had the full powers here in Scotland?
Cancer Survival Rates
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Scotland has among the worst survival rates for some of the most serious cancers. (S6F-02717)
Cancer remains a national priority for the national health service and the Scottish Government, which is why we published a 10-year strategy in June 2023, focusing on improving cancer survival and providing equitable access to treatment. The strategy includes a focus on the less survivable cancers and improving their outcomes. The strategy and the plan take a comprehensive approach to improving patient pathways in cancer, from prevention and diagnosis through to treatment and post-treatment care.
I am heartened by the fact that, overall, cancer mortality in Scotland has decreased by 11 per cent over the past 10 years, but we of course recognise that we have much more to do, particularly when it comes to less survivable cancers. I know that Alexander Stewart has raised these issues on a number of occasions, and the importance that he attaches to this subject is shared by the Government.
The Scottish National Party Government has been responsible for running health for nearly 17 years. Data shows that, out of 33 countries of comparable wealth and income levels, Scotland ranks as low as 32nd for five-year survival from pancreatic cancer, 31st for stomach cancer and 29th for lung cancer. First Minister, you should be ashamed that your Government has allowed the five-year survival rates for those cancers to deteriorate to some of the lowest levels in the developed world. What action will you take to resolve that?
Always speak through the chair, please.
With those survival rates, there is work for the Scottish Government to do—there is no getting away from that. I have often spoken about my personal experience in relation to pancreatic cancer: I lost a dear uncle to pancreatic cancer, so the issue is very personal to me.
There are areas where we compare very favourably among those 33 countries—in liver cancer, for example, where Scotland’s survival rate is 12th, whereas that of the United Kingdom overall is 21st, and England is in 25th place. Although there are some cancer types where we are seeing progress, there is clearly still much more for us to do in other areas such as pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, brain cancer and lung cancer.
In relation to what we are doing, I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care writes in detail to Alexander Stewart. We are trying to speed up diagnosis where we can, and that is why we are investing in our detect cancer early programme. We are also investing in rapid cancer diagnostic services, which are currently operational in five national health service boards across Scotland. The early evaluation from those rapid cancer diagnostic services shows that hepato-pancreato-biliary or HPB cancers—liver and pancreatic cancers—are among the most common cancers that are being diagnosed through that pathway.
I will return to and end on this point. Overall, cancer mortality in Scotland has decreased by 11 per cent over the past 10 years, but there is clearly still work to do on less survivable cancers, as Alexander Stewart says.
Labour MSPs shamefully failed to support minimum unit pricing, a policy that has been proved to save lives and reduce hospital admissions since its inception. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of policies such as minimum unit pricing on liver cancer rates in Scotland?
Public Health Scotland’s evaluation of minimum unit pricing shows that it has had a very positive impact on health outcomes during the study period. It is estimated to have cut alcohol consumption and alcohol-attributable deaths, and it is likely to have reduced hospital admissions. Public Health Scotland estimates that about half of liver cancers in the UK are preventable, and that is why we continue to take action on the most prevalent factors, particularly alcohol consumption. Prevention of cancers takes longer to realise, but we hope that MUP impacts will be seen in the future for liver cancers. Our cancer strategy places a focus on less survivable cancers, including liver cancer.
Recently, I met a courageous group of women from the west of Scotland who shared their experiences of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer and being forced to use their families’ life savings to fund private treatment in England. According to Target Ovarian Cancer, people in the west of Scotland cannot access the life-saving surgery that women in NHS Lothian can access. Consequently, they face poorer outcomes with survival rates for the disease. It is nothing short of a national scandal that women with ovarian cancer are having to pay for the surgery that they need and deserve because of where they live. Can the First Minister tell us why women in the west of Scotland cannot get surgery? What urgent action is being taken to end that life-threatening postcode lottery?
I am happy to ensure that the cabinet secretary for health writes in detail to Jackie Baillie about the actions that are being taken. I do not want anyone in the country, regardless of their condition, but particularly when it is cancer, to have to wait a day longer than they have to in order to get treatment. We know that the earlier that cancer is diagnosed and the earlier treatment begins, the better the chances of survival, which is why we have taken action. For example, there has been an almost 100 per cent increase in the number of consultant oncologists since the SNP has been in position. We have also increased the number of consultant radiologists by more than 66 per cent.
To address the point about private healthcare, when comparing Scotland to the rest of the UK, fewer people are having to self-fund for private in-patient day-case care. Notwithstanding that, I want to see the work that we are doing, particularly on ovarian cancer, being extended across Scotland so that there is no postcode lottery for care. I will ensure that the health secretary writes to Ms Baillie in detail.
Food Labelling
To ask the First Minister, in light of reported concerns regarding food labelling being a devolved matter, what the Scottish Government’s position is on what impact the United Kingdom Government’s reported plans to roll out “not for EU” labelling on food and drink products across the whole of the UK could have on Scotland’s food and drink industry. (S6F-02729)
The Government shares the well-documented concerns about those labelling plans that have been highlighted by the Food and Drink Federation Scotland and many food and drink businesses. Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, wrote to her UK Government counterpart before Christmas for much-needed clarification on its plans. However, my understanding is that she has not had the courtesy of a response as yet. We will continue to press the UK Government for answers, not least on the question of why it is insisting on pursuing a policy that would arbitrarily add costs to all agri-food businesses, not just those that trade specifically with Northern Ireland. The move is disproportionate and wholly inappropriate, particularly when consumers are already bearing the burden of added food costs. Frankly, it is just another example of Conservative chaos harming our economy.
I agree with the First Minister about the impact and the harm that the plans will cause many Scottish food and drink businesses. Does the First Minister also agree that, although the labelling may be needed for goods that are being traded with Northern Ireland, there is no rationale for it in relation to trade with other countries? Has the Westminster Government shared why it intends to impose the regime?
No, it has not. We have written to the UK Government, but we have had not had the courtesy of a response. There is no real evidence or convincing argument as to why the labelling requirement is necessary.
Food and drink stakeholders in Scotland, who have added so much to our economy, are absolutely scathing about the UK Government’s plans. The Food and Drink Federation’s director for growth, Balwinder Dhoot, said:
“Our members are really clear that the Government’s plan to extend ‘not for EU’ product labelling on a UK-wide basis will hamper growth, hitting investment, exports and jobs while increasing consumer prices and restricting the choice of products”.
The evidence is clear, as is the independent analysis. Brexit is damaging our economy, which is why it is utterly unforgivable that no UK-based party is standing up against Brexit, or even proposing that we rejoin the single market, which is seven times the size of the UK. The people of Scotland should be given a choice—
Briefly, First Minister.
—as to whether they want to stay in broken Brexit Britain, or whether we want to make decisions for ourselves as an independent nation that is in the European Union.
The UK Government is going to launch a consultation on a new food labelling scheme that will ensure that consumers know what they are buying: high quality British produce, rather than imported goods that do not meet UK welfare standards. Does the First Minister support that move? Can he explain how he expects Scottish farmers and fishermen to continue to provide high welfare food that meets environmental standards when his Scottish National Party budget is cutting £46 million from the rural affairs portfolio?
This is another Brexit burden for businesses in Scotland to bear, even though we did not vote for Brexit—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
The damage and burdens of Brexit are being imposed on our businesses up and down Scotland.
Businesses are not lining up to thank Rachael Hamilton’s Conservatives for the imposition of Brexit—quite the opposite. Even the British Retail Consortium has said:
“Given labelling is intended to prevent goods from GB entering the EU through Northern Ireland, it is unclear why such labelling is necessary for all goods sold in Great Britain. This will only add unnecessary costs at a time when the cost of living is already high.”
The SNP is the only party that is standing up against Brexit and the only party that says that we should rejoin the European Union—that single market that is seven times the size of the UK market. When the choice is so clear, it is no wonder that the Conservatives fear the Scottish people’s verdict.
Superfast Broadband (Reaching 100 Per Cent Programme)
To ask the First Minister what percentage of the premises contracted for delivery of superfast broadband under the R100 scheme have still to be connected. (S6F-02720)
All homes and businesses across Scotland can currently access a superfast broadband service. The R100 contracts go beyond that by extending access to gigabit-capable broadband, which is more than 30 times faster than what we originally committed to.
Our programme remains on track to complete build and ensure that all contracted premises are connected by 2028. So far, more than 36,100 premises have been connected, and the remainder will be phased between now and 2028.
Despite swingeing cuts from the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government has prioritised investment in digital connectivity in the 2024-25 budget, in recognition of the fact that digital connectivity is a key building block for a green and growing economy.
The R100 scheme was meant to connect more than 114,000 premises—mainly in our rural areas—by 2021. We know from the response to a freedom of information request that only 29 per cent of those premises have been connected, and the figures in the north are even worse—only 15 per cent has been delivered. The date for the north Scotland scheme has slipped to 2028, which is seven years late. Does the First Minister accept that that abject failure by his Government is leaving our rural communities behind? Will the R100 scheme be delayed any further?
We have a strong track record of delivering successful digital infrastructure—[Interruption.]
Members.
Our broadband initiatives have delivered almost 1 million connections to date. Douglas Lumsden asks about telecoms, which matter is wholly reserved to the UK Government—well, you could not mark his neck with a blowtorch. We have a strong track record. For rural Scotland, we have invested three times more in the R100 north contract than we have in the central or south contract. Any suggestion that the north of Scotland has been neglected is simply untrue.
Although telecoms legislation is wholly reserved to Westminster, the UK Government has invested just £49.4 million in the R100 programme. That stands in stark contrast to the £592 million that the Scottish Government has invested. If we left it to the UK Government, we would all be using dial-up modems. Thank God, and thank goodness, for the Scottish National Party stepping in.
Briefly, First Minister.
Through our efforts, we have delivered more than 1 million broadband connections to Scotland to date.
We must move on.
The First Minister may recall media coverage of the eye-watering £725,000 quote that Shetland residents were given for getting connected to superfast broadband. Even if vouchers from the broadband voucher scheme were pooled with neighbours, that would not cover the cost. One of my constituents, who is investigating the possibility of a community scheme, has found that inflation has impacted the scheme’s real-terms value. Is it time for a rethink of the voucher scheme offer?
I am happy to look at the important issue that Beatrice Wishart raises. We have had some success under our R100 programme on a number of our islands, including our most remote islands. Beatrice Wishart asked about Shetland in particular, but our contract build on Fair Isle was delivered almost two years ahead of schedule in one of the country’s most challenging rural locations.
The issues that Beatrice Wishart raises are important. If there are tweaks that we can make, particularly to understand the complexities in our island communities, we are always happy to consider them.
Sexually Transmitted Infections (Accessible Information)
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that information on sexually transmitted infections is accessible, in light of STIQ day and the reported rising number of cases of sexually transmitted infections in Scotland. (S6F-02719)
Ensuring that people have access to the information and services that they need to make informed choices and to take care of their sexual health is vital, which is why there are outcomes in our “Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Action Plan 2023-2026”. The plan, which was published in November last year, sets out the priority areas for action over the next three years and is backed by £1.7 million of Government funding. The Scottish Government is funding a number of projects to support those priorities, including the development of a new sexual health website, which is hosted by NHS Inform, and the production of accessible animated information resources on key sexual health topics, including testing for sexually transmitted infections, in a range of community languages. Vaccinations against STIs also continue to be important in protection and the treatment of disease.
Research published last year by the BMJ found that young people in rural and island communities face practical and social barriers to support for sexual wellbeing. Will the First Minister outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure access to timely STI testing in those areas?
Evelyn Tweed rightly raises an important point about the particular complexities and nuances that rural communities face in relation to sexual health care. Rural communities face unique challenges when it comes to accessing healthcare, and it is no different for sexual health care. That is why we do not believe that one size fits all, particularly when it comes to delivering healthcare. National health service boards are the experts on their communities, which is why we work with them to ensure that they take appropriate approaches that are tailored to local needs.
We have invested in a number of projects through our sexual health and BBV action plan, with a significant focus on rural communities. Those projects include providing outreach services in Ayrshire and Arran and exploring the delivery of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in primary care in Grampian.
Given the importance that the First Minister places on the issue, I ask him to acknowledge that access to in-person sexual health services is often limited, particularly, as was mentioned, in rural areas. Even in more urban areas, clinic times can be limited to one session per week, and NHS Inform indicates that workforce pressures are causing operational hours to be changeable. Given all of that, what additional investment has been made in sexual health services to ensure that face-to-face appointments can be provided appropriately when requested?
The member makes a very important point. A number of people will want that face-to-face service and a number of people will not. We should all say collectively that there is no stigma around sexual health. People should be able to access the care that they want when they want it and however they want it, be it face to face or otherwise.
On the funding that we are providing, I have mentioned the action plan, which is backed by £1.7 million of funding to improve sexual health and blood-borne virus outcomes. Grants totalling £800,000 have been distributed between a wide range of projects, including high-quality innovative projects with health boards, third sector organisations and academia. Many of them provide the face-to-face service that Carol Mochan rightly mentioned.
On wider funding for the health service, I am pleased that, notwithstanding the fact that our budget has been subject to swingeing cuts from the UK Government, we have increased our investment in the NHS to a record £19.5 billion.
We move to general and constituency questions.
W W & J McClure Limited
The First Minister will be aware of the collapse of W W & J McClure Limited, which happened in 2021 and has affected an estimated 100,000 people across the United Kingdom.
The firm was based in Greenock and it had many local clients. The Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in December, and the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill will, I hope, make similar situations more manageable in the future. Will the First Minister provide an assurance that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be supported, if it requires to be, to deal with the expected increase in complaints relating to McClure’s as former clients become aware of the collapse and as public information events take place similar to the one with the SLCC that was hosted in Greenock earlier this week, which was attended by 150 people?
I am hopeful that the SLCC will be appropriately funded, and I will come to that point shortly.
I am aware of the matter and I appreciate, as Stuart McMillan rightly noted, the distress that it continues to cause. I cannot comment on individual cases, but the Scottish Government has taken proactive steps to militate against such a situation happening in the future. Stuart McMillan is right to mention the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which introduces authorisation of legal businesses, bringing benefits such as greater consistency in regulating legal firms and enabling the regulator to identify and address deficiencies early doors.
I understand the concerns that Stuart McMillan raises. The SLCC is funded through a levy paid by legal professionals in Scotland. The SLCC is required to forecast trends in complaints when considering its budget in order to set the levy, so any proposed levy takes into account the consideration of potential increases in complaints, such as complaints relating to the matter that has been raised.
Milan Centre (Closure)
Earlier this week, I attended a protest against East Dunbartonshire Council’s plans to close the Milan day care centre. Milan provides a fantastic tailored service to elderly and vulnerable ethnic minority clients. Its service users all say that Milan should be a model for the rest of Scotland to follow, rather than something to be closed down. Does the First Minister agree that local services should cater to all communities, including the needs of ethnic minorities? What can the Scottish Government do to save Milan and other centres like it?
I thank Pam Gosal for raising the issue of the Milan centre. Yesterday, I met the Scottish Hindu Foundation, which is a recently established organisation speaking on behalf of the Hindu community. The foundation raised the issue of the Milan centre with me, and I said that we would engage with the local authority—in this case, East Dunbartonshire Council—to see what more we could do to assist.
However, these are decisions that are being made by local authorities. That is why, when the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance announced our budget, she announced an uplift for local government. I agree that community services are incredibly important and should cater to the needs of all our diverse communities. What does not help is that we continue to receive a £500 million cut in our block grant since 2022-23. Despite such swingeing cuts, we have decided to prioritise local government by giving it an uplift in 2024-25.
Turning Point Scotland (Closure of 218 Service)
Turning Point Scotland’s 218 service in Glasgow will close in February. Glasgow City Council presented the service with an unworkable budget of £650,000, down from £1.5 million. The funding was previously ring fenced by the Scottish Government, which signed off a reduction in that funding in a letter on 31 May last year. That decision has, in effect, resulted in the closure of the service.
Is the First Minister content that there is now no bed facility for women offenders with drug use as their main problem—a facility that has kept hundreds of women out of jail? The Lilias centre in Maryhill, which is brilliant, was cited by the cabinet secretary in her response to the news, but it is not an alternative to custody disposal. Ministers surely cannot wash their hands of this tragic outcome.
I know the 218 project well. I visited it when I was on the Justice Committee, many years ago now. It is a project that I know is doing some excellent work. This is a decision made by Glasgow City Council in relation to the services that it is able to fund. I am more than happy to ask the justice secretary to engage with Glasgow City Council on that issue. I know the excellent work that Turning Point’s 218 service has done over the years. By giving that intensive support to female offenders, we can stop the cycle of reoffending, and I value the project very highly.
Of course, we have maintained our budget in relation to the national mission dealing with drugs deaths in particular, but nobody should be in any doubt that this Government believes in community justice disposals. That is why I will ask the appropriate cabinet secretary to pick up the issue with Glasgow City Council.
Union Street, Aberdeen (Regeneration)
This morning, it was sad to hear that Marks and Spencer has decided to close its Aberdeen St Nicholas Street store—a blow that has been lessened by the fact that it intends to invest in and expand at Union Square in Aberdeen. However, the St Nicholas Street site, off Union Street, is a very important one. I have asked the local authority and other stakeholders to come together to form a task force to ensure that we have a bright future for that site and for Union Street as a whole. The First Minister has previously ensured investment in the Our Union Street project to help with the regeneration of Aberdeen city centre. Will the Government serve on such a task force if it comes to fruition? I hope that the First Minister will agree to do so.
We will certainly be happy to give that consideration. As the member has rightly said, we value our city centres and town centres, and we are working hard to ensure that they are as vibrant as possible. A flourishing and vibrant city centre is essential for the social and economic wellbeing of our cities, including Aberdeen. That is why we provided £400,000 to the community-led Aberdeen Our Union Street initiative, which aims to revitalise the town centre, building on the city centre’s regeneration plans. If Kevin Stewart can furnish me with the details of the task force that he is proposing, we will give that due consideration.
Professor Sam Eljamel (Public Inquiry)
Four months have passed since the Scottish Government announced a full public inquiry into Professor Eljamel, but we still have no confirmation of the appointed chair, no confirmation of the start date of the one-to-one clinical reviews and, as was revealed by The Courier, no confirmation from the First Minister that the public inquiry will start in 2024. Will the First Minister confirm all those points?
It is fully my expectation that the public inquiry will start in 2024. Therefore, we should have an inquiry chair appointed very shortly, I hope, because the Lord President has, rightly, been involved in the process of appointing an inquiry chair, and discussions are at a very advanced stage.
Planning for the independent clinical review is also well under way, and further discussions are continuing early next week. We will say more as soon as we can. As with the announcement of the inquiry, we will ensure that former patients are informed directly wherever possible.
I say to those who have suffered greatly at the hands of Professor Eljamel that we do not want them waiting a moment longer for the public inquiry to begin. I can give them absolute confidence that a lot of work is happening, somewhat behind the scenes at the moment, with the appropriate authorities, including the Lord President, to ensure that an appropriate inquiry chair is appointed.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so.
12:47 Meeting suspended.Air ais
General Question TimeAir adhart
Prostitution Law Reform