Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to standardise the criteria for urgent referrals to child and adolescent mental health services for an assessment, in light of reports that it is currently a postcode lottery. (S6F-04690)

I refer members to paragraph 7(1) of part 1 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which states:

“International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Union (and their institutions) and other international organisations … are reserved matters.”

As a devolved legislature, we have substantial limitations on our exercise of power—would that it were otherwise. Do I wish that I could cock a snook at Donald Trump and his unholy Administration? Of course I do—probably along with many European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, who are all holding their collective noses as Trump blunders around the world. Do I think that he has destabilised the world order? Of course I do. Although he will not have it all his own way—as other international alliances, political and economic, are being formed, some of which are pretty unholy—he has debunked the long-standing myth that the UK has a special relationship with the US. He has caused Europe to pull up its socks and deal with Putin’s imperialistic ambitions.

In fact, Finland and Sweden joined NATO not only in the face of the invasion of Ukraine, but also because of the casual, confrontational and dismissive attitude of Trump to NATO. The Scottish Government has spoken out about the Russian invasion to absorb Ukraine and Trump’s ludicrous attempts to annex Canada and Greenland—straight from Putin’s playlist.

Destabilisation has a substantial impact on devolved issues. Let us think about the threat to energy supplies and the cost of energy, which is at the base of much inflation. Yes, I say to Stephen Kerr, Trump will go—but the world order will not return to the way that it was before his reign.

With regard to airports, there are not only the limitations of devolution; there are also other, reserved restrictions at play. Aircraft landing at any UK airport require permission from the UK Government, not the Scottish Government. Prestwick airport operates on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, and operational decisions regarding the day-to-day running of the airport are a matter for its management.

Do I wish that it were otherwise? Of course I do. Could it be otherwise? Of course it could. Small countries can make a difference, especially by sharing their sovereignty with others on a mutually beneficial basis. An independent Scotland in NATO, the EU and the United Nations could do just that.

I want to debunk another myth in relation to NATO membership. Of 32 NATO members, only the United States, the United Kingdom and France possess their own nuclear weapons. Five countries—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey—host US nuclear weapons under a nuclear sharing arrangement. The majority of NATO nations, such as Canada, Norway and Poland, do not. There is nothing to prevent an independent Scotland, nuclear free, from being a member of the very important alliance called NATO.

I refer members to paragraph 7(1) of part 1 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which states:

“International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Union (and their institutions) and other international organisations … are reserved matters.”

As a devolved legislature, we have substantial limitations on our exercise of power—would that it were otherwise. Do I wish that I could cock a snook at Donald Trump and his unholy Administration? Of course I do—probably along with many European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, who are all holding their collective noses as Trump blunders around the world. Do I think that he has destabilised the world order? Of course I do. Although he will not have it all his own way—as other international alliances, political and economic, are being formed, some of which are pretty unholy—he has debunked the long-standing myth that the UK has a special relationship with the US. He has caused Europe to pull up its socks and deal with Putin’s imperialistic ambitions.

In fact, Finland and Sweden joined NATO not only in the face of the invasion of Ukraine, but also because of the casual, confrontational and dismissive attitude of Trump to NATO. The Scottish Government has spoken out about the Russian invasion to absorb Ukraine and Trump’s ludicrous attempts to annex Canada and Greenland—straight from Putin’s playlist.

Destabilisation has a substantial impact on devolved issues. Let us think about the threat to energy supplies and the cost of energy, which is at the base of much inflation. Yes, I say to Stephen Kerr, Trump will go—but the world order will not return to the way that it was before his reign.

With regard to airports, there are not only the limitations of devolution; there are also other, reserved restrictions at play. Aircraft landing at any UK airport require permission from the UK Government, not the Scottish Government. Prestwick airport operates on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, and operational decisions regarding the day-to-day running of the airport are a matter for its management.

Do I wish that it were otherwise? Of course I do. Could it be otherwise? Of course it could. Small countries can make a difference, especially by sharing their sovereignty with others on a mutually beneficial basis. An independent Scotland in NATO, the EU and the United Nations could do just that.

I want to debunk another myth in relation to NATO membership. Of 32 NATO members, only the United States, the United Kingdom and France possess their own nuclear weapons. Five countries—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey—host US nuclear weapons under a nuclear sharing arrangement. The majority of NATO nations, such as Canada, Norway and Poland, do not. There is nothing to prevent an independent Scotland, nuclear free, from being a member of the very important alliance called NATO.

I refer members to paragraph 7(1) of part 1 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which states:

“International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Union (and their institutions) and other international organisations … are reserved matters.”

As a devolved legislature, we have substantial limitations on our exercise of power—would that it were otherwise. Do I wish that I could cock a snook at Donald Trump and his unholy Administration? Of course I do—probably along with many European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, who are all holding their collective noses as Trump blunders around the world. Do I think that he has destabilised the world order? Of course I do. Although he will not have it all his own way—as other international alliances, political and economic, are being formed, some of which are pretty unholy—he has debunked the long-standing myth that the UK has a special relationship with the US. He has caused Europe to pull up its socks and deal with Putin’s imperialistic ambitions.

In fact, Finland and Sweden joined NATO not only in the face of the invasion of Ukraine, but also because of the casual, confrontational and dismissive attitude of Trump to NATO. The Scottish Government has spoken out about the Russian invasion to absorb Ukraine and Trump’s ludicrous attempts to annex Canada and Greenland—straight from Putin’s playlist.

Destabilisation has a substantial impact on devolved issues. Let us think about the threat to energy supplies and the cost of energy, which is at the base of much inflation. Yes, I say to Stephen Kerr, Trump will go—but the world order will not return to the way that it was before his reign.

With regard to airports, there are not only the limitations of devolution; there are also other, reserved restrictions at play. Aircraft landing at any UK airport require permission from the UK Government, not the Scottish Government. Prestwick airport operates on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, and operational decisions regarding the day-to-day running of the airport are a matter for its management.

Do I wish that it were otherwise? Of course I do. Could it be otherwise? Of course it could. Small countries can make a difference, especially by sharing their sovereignty with others on a mutually beneficial basis. An independent Scotland in NATO, the EU and the United Nations could do just that.

I want to debunk another myth in relation to NATO membership. Of 32 NATO members, only the United States, the United Kingdom and France possess their own nuclear weapons. Five countries—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey—host US nuclear weapons under a nuclear sharing arrangement. The majority of NATO nations, such as Canada, Norway and Poland, do not. There is nothing to prevent an independent Scotland, nuclear free, from being a member of the very important alliance called NATO.

I have a constituent who is homeless and is staying with his mother following the break-up of a relationship. He has applied for permanent two-bedroom accommodation, which is required for him and his two children, because he shares residency on an equal basis with their mother. However, Midlothian Council will allocate only one-bedroom accommodation because he does not receive child benefit. That is usually okay as a test, but I would argue that that is not so in this case. Does the cabinet secretary agree that my constituent requires two-bedroom accommodation because he shares residency equally with his former partner, and that allocation should not be based simply on which party receives child benefit?

I have a constituent who is homeless and is staying with his mother following the break-up of a relationship. He has applied for permanent two-bedroom accommodation, which is required for him and his two children, because he shares residency on an equal basis with their mother. However, Midlothian Council will allocate only one-bedroom accommodation because he does not receive child benefit. That is usually okay as a test, but I would argue that that is not so in this case. Does the cabinet secretary agree that my constituent requires two-bedroom accommodation because he shares residency equally with his former partner, and that allocation should not be based simply on which party receives child benefit?

I have a constituent who is homeless and is staying with his mother following the break-up of a relationship. He has applied for permanent two-bedroom accommodation, which is required for him and his two children, because he shares residency on an equal basis with their mother. However, Midlothian Council will allocate only one-bedroom accommodation because he does not receive child benefit. That is usually okay as a test, but I would argue that that is not so in this case. Does the cabinet secretary agree that my constituent requires two-bedroom accommodation because he shares residency equally with his former partner, and that allocation should not be based simply on which party receives child benefit?

I, too, pay my respects and tribute to Jeane Freeman and offer my condolences to her partner.

I am concerned that the attempt by the Labour Party to interfere in the independent inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is shifting base but with the same goal: to undermine confidence in the inquiry and the confidence of patients and staff in the safety of the hospital. Interference—undermining the findings before the publication of the report—is Labour’s shame. I have here a copy of the letter from Anas Sarwar to Lord Brodie, a former inner house judge, which blatantly breaches the independence of the inquiry process and challenges the very competence of Lord Brodie as chair.

Mr Sarwar requests that the five-year-long inquiry be reopened, particularly to interrogate Government ministers—despite the fact that Jeane Freeman, who established the inquiry, had already given evidence and the fact that Government ministers had stated that they would give evidence if requested to. That they have not been called is entirely at the judgment of Lord Brodie, who may call whomsoever he wants.

I quote from Mr Sarwar’s letter:

“I appreciate that reopening public evidence sessions would be an extraordinary step but I believe that it is the best route to securing the answers that families and staff need and ensuring that your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component in the scandal.”

I repeat: to ensure that

“your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component”.

The conclusion must be that Lord Brodie is not up to the job, that he has failed to call all relevant witnesses and that failure to do as Anas Sarwar asks will mean that the inquiry is flawed and cannot be relied on. That is an act of desperation and political sabotage.

In 2007, following eight years of a Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration, Scotland faced a major crisis in relation to hospital-acquired infections. An example is the Vale of Leven hospital in Jackie Baillie’s constituency, where Clostridium difficile was a contributory factor in 34 deaths. Those failures had occurred during the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration. The SNP, new to government, instigated an independent inquiry, which was published in 2014 and which established that the hospital environment had not been conducive to safety and cleanliness, with poor antibiotic prescribing practices and inadequate nursing care.

In 2007, a Health Protection Scotland survey found that 9.5 per cent of patients in acute hospitals in Scotland had a healthcare-associated infection. In the same year, under Nicola Sturgeon’s stewardship as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, the outsourcing of cleaning and catering contracts to private companies in acute hospitals was banned—they were brought back in-house. As a result, the number of hospital-acquired infections was halved, from 9.5 per cent in 2005-06 to 4.9  per cent by 2011, and it remains low.

Why do I say that? The SNP’s track record of responding—and, more than that, of letting independent inquiries do their work without fear or favour—goes back a long way. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of Labour.

I thank the member for this debate. As an endangered species myself, I am grateful to be species champion for the once endangered golden eagle, and I even have the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project in the Tweed Valley in my constituency.

From 2018 to 2024, 28 juvenile chicks were legally moved from the Highlands to the south of Scotland, establishing the current population of 48 to 50 birds. They are thriving because of the terrain, the supply of food and the protections.

I visited the secret location where the chicks develop into full-grown adults. They are released in stages on to platforms for food, returning initially to their camouflaged container homes until they choose to fly free for good.

Escorted by experts, the visitor approaches the containers silently across fields, carrying a tub of fresh kill. The containers are solid on the side the visitor approaches from, with grid walls on the other side, facing the hills, so the birds can scope their future territories.

Wearing a gauntlet for protection, the visitor raises a small leather flap in the side of the container through which they can present the fleshy morsels to the chicks. As I did so, this huge bird turned away from those hills and briefly stared at me and the food, in that order. To say that I was taken aback by the size of that chick is an understatement. It was enormous.

More scary was the predatory look that it briefly gave me. I was, indeed, coming face to face with the eye of its ancestor, the dinosaur—but what a privilege and what a thrill. I commend that project to anyone coming in once I have retired.

18:06

I, too, pay my respects and tribute to Jeane Freeman and offer my condolences to her partner.

I am concerned that the attempt by the Labour Party to interfere in the independent inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital is shifting base but with the same goal: to undermine confidence in the inquiry and the confidence of patients and staff in the safety of the hospital. Interference—undermining the findings before the publication of the report—is Labour’s shame. I have here a copy of the letter from Anas Sarwar to Lord Brodie, a former inner house judge, which blatantly breaches the independence of the inquiry process and challenges the very competence of Lord Brodie as chair.

Mr Sarwar requests that the five-year-long inquiry be reopened, particularly to interrogate Government ministers—despite the fact that Jeane Freeman, who established the inquiry, had already given evidence and the fact that Government ministers had stated that they would give evidence if requested to. That they have not been called is entirely at the judgment of Lord Brodie, who may call whomsoever he wants.

I quote from Mr Sarwar’s letter:

“I appreciate that reopening public evidence sessions would be an extraordinary step but I believe that it is the best route to securing the answers that families and staff need and ensuring that your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component in the scandal.”

I repeat: to ensure that

“your report, and the public, are able to account for this vital component”.

The conclusion must be that Lord Brodie is not up to the job, that he has failed to call all relevant witnesses and that failure to do as Anas Sarwar asks will mean that the inquiry is flawed and cannot be relied on. That is an act of desperation and political sabotage.

In 2007, following eight years of a Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration, Scotland faced a major crisis in relation to hospital-acquired infections. An example is the Vale of Leven hospital in Jackie Baillie’s constituency, where Clostridium difficile was a contributory factor in 34 deaths. Those failures had occurred during the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration. The SNP, new to government, instigated an independent inquiry, which was published in 2014 and which established that the hospital environment had not been conducive to safety and cleanliness, with poor antibiotic prescribing practices and inadequate nursing care.

In 2007, a Health Protection Scotland survey found that 9.5 per cent of patients in acute hospitals in Scotland had a healthcare-associated infection. In the same year, under Nicola Sturgeon’s stewardship as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, the outsourcing of cleaning and catering contracts to private companies in acute hospitals was banned—they were brought back in-house. As a result, the number of hospital-acquired infections was halved, from 9.5 per cent in 2005-06 to 4.9  per cent by 2011, and it remains low.

Why do I say that? The SNP’s track record of responding—and, more than that, of letting independent inquiries do their work without fear or favour—goes back a long way. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of Labour.