 that NHS Highland has agreed that services should be resumed locally and as quickly as possible. Thank you minister. That concludes question time and brings us to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12491, in the name of Willie Rennie on privacy and the state. Must advise the chamber that we're very tight for time across all debates this afternoon. Can I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Willie Rennie to speak to and move the motion with a maximum of 10 minutes to do so. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Liberals in all political parties and none have a healthy suspicion of government's voracious appetite for information on us and on every individual. Information is a powerful tool and used in the right way can help us, but if misused can be intrusive and sometimes even dangerous, the purpose of today is to allow this Parliament to openly debate the complex issues that surround this important matter. It is our hope that this will not be the only time, the only debate, for this important topic in this chamber and that all members of this Parliament will have future opportunities to consider primary legislation to ensure effective scrutiny of any changes. Unfortunately, it is the Government's current intention to restrict debate to one committee. All that this motion seeks is that simple aim, that is to put the changes into primary legislation. It is not to determine whether any changes would be acceptable or otherwise, whether the amount to an identity card system or not. I only seek support for primary legislation if those proposals are to advance. Let me explain why that should be the case. The first reason is scale. The proposal has the potential to cover 120 organisations across the public sector. That matters because the current diffuse storage of information has an inbuilt protection from crime and misuse that would be lost if one super database shared across the public sector. We know the problem with putting all your eggs in the one basket or putting all your savings into one bank or business. We should be cautious when the Government asks us to do the same now. The second reason is the unique citizen reference number, the persistent identifier, as it is often called. Yes, we do have a unique number at present, but it is not unique across the public sector. To allow all organisations to share that number means that we move from having a series of numbers to one single universal number. It leaves open the possibility that information can be searched, profiled and mined. The Scottish Government's own principles for identity management, just published by John Swinney last October, states in section 4.6, if a public service organisation needs to link personal information from different systems and databases internally or between organisations, it should avoid sharing persistent identifiers. So, those proposals today seem to breach John Swinney's own principles. Moving on to the third reason, the current system operates on an opt-in basis, whereas the new approach means that everyone's address will be automatically included through the transfer of the community health index postcode into the NHS central registry, so that there will be no consent required for your full details to appear on this universal database. By virtue of simply being born, your details could be accessible by Quality Meet Scotland or even the Botanic Gardens. We would not be in control of our own information. I have set out three reasons why those plans are flawed—scale, unique number and consent. There are others, but those should be sufficient to cause at least some doubt in the minds of SNP members today. I am pleased that the Conservatives, Labour and the Greens agree with our concerns, and I would be interested in the opinions of the independent members. For those who are considering backing the Government's amendment, I urge them to reflect carefully. If there is even a scintilla of doubt in their mind about what the Government is proposing, they should vote for our motion. To vote with the Government is giving them permission to proceed with limited, inadequate scrutiny. The Scottish Government disputes the claim that this is a precursor to an ID card. The problem is that, if there is an all-encompassing single database with one single number for each individual with no consent required, it is a simple process to produce a card with that number on it, stick a picture on it and you have an ID card. I think that everyone would recognise that as an ID card, not just now. We may not be there yet, but we are creeping towards that destination. If SNP members have any doubt, they should vote with us today. I am grateful to the Open Rights Group, to the No2ID campaign for its advice and support that it has provided to inform this debate. It has very real concerns. The British Medical Association has expressed concern about the relationship between the NHS database and tax collection, fearing that it may drive patients away. The Scottish Council for voluntary organisations wants the Government to think again, but it was the submission from the UK's information commissioner's office that caused greatest alarm. He spoke of breaching European and British data protection laws, creeping towards an ID card system and the lack of reason and necessity with the Government's plans. Members do not have to take my word for it. Listen to the other voices. Ignoring the advice of the independent information commissioner would be unwise for any member of any Parliament. Very few are against cards that identify us. We need forms of identification to conduct our daily business. Our parliamentary card is an ID card, my driving licence, my bank card, my Carnegie Harrier membership card—probably the most important of all. There are all forms of identification and information, but each one has a different number, and each is stored on different databases. It is not identification that I oppose—it is the super ID database that concerns me. I am grateful to Willie Rennie for giving away. Does he agree with me that those who raised concerns about the UK identity card scheme, including members on the SNP benches and some of the organisations that have engaged their concerns on that issue, did not raise that principally about the piece of plastic? It was about the data system behind it and the ways at which it could be used. That is the point of similarity and the issue that we should be putting on the agenda today. Patrick Harvie is absolutely right. It is about the whole system. It is not just about the bit of plastic. It is about the database behind it, because that is open to potential theft and misuse. Patrick Harvie is right on the button. He is right to identify the whole system, not just the card. I will take an intervention. Thank you very much to members for taking intervention. He talked about, at the start of the debate, that it was not a debate about ID cards. Now we are only talking about ID cards. I have one here. ID cards will not be imposed by any Scottish Government until the SNP will stay in power. We cannot say the same thing about Westminster, so is this debate about ID cards or not? Willie Rennie. That is all I need is Christian Allard's assurance. That gives me the greatest confidence that I could ever need to make sure that I drop that motion today. The reality is that he has more confident in this than I do. The reality is that he is, and his Government, is preparing a super ID database. It is one step towards a card. Members obviously do not agree with that, but if they have any doubt, they should be listening to the privacy groups and the BMA, the SCVO, because they have doubts. Are their opinions no longer to count any more? If they have doubt, they should be considering their position today. I accept the Government and its methods to authenticate that a person is who she says she is. It prevents fraud and ensures people get what they are entitled to. All we need to do is to look south of the border to the cabinet office, to the system that is being identified for an identification system, working together with privacy groups to create a system. Order, please. The member is in his last 30 seconds. To work together with privacy groups to make sure that we have a system that is diffuse that does not involve one single database, that makes sure that our information is protected. For once the Scottish Government should look to others for their advice and their support. My message today is simple. If members support the Government's amendment, they are voting to limit the scrutiny that those proposals will receive. If members have doubts, they should express them by voting and supporting for my motion. Members do not have to agree with everything that I have said. They may reject some of the arguments that are made by privacy campaigners and they may not even accept all the points that are made by the information commissioner, but if members have any doubts, they should vote for our motion today. At the outset, I would like to make two points clear on behalf of the Scottish Government. First, I would like to reiterate the Government's unequivocal commitment to the protection of privacy. The Government took the initiative in 2009 to set up an expert group to develop identity management and privacy principles. That group included privacy expertise and interests from outside the public sector. The principles were established in 2010 and updated in 2014, and they guide the policies of the Scottish Government. I am determined that we continue to lead good practice and act in a manner consistent with those principles. Secondly, I would like to make clear that the Government will consider carefully all of the representations that were made during the recent consultation, and I confirm that no decisions have been taken on any of those issues. I can also confirm today that privacy impact assessments will be a necessary prerequisite of any proposals that are advanced and must satisfy to address the issues that have been raised in the consultation process. Decisions will also only be taken after there has been full parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals that we advance. In trying to give a proper assessment of the changes that we propose and to determine whether they should be pursued, it is important to consider the purpose of those changes. Our first purpose is that, in delivering public services, the service provider must know that they are dealing with the right person, recognising the growing expectations of the public that they will be able to access public services online. The service user must also be sure that he or she is not being mistaken for anyone else. The consequences of not authenticating identity appropriately can be significant for individuals who could receive the wrong or no service at all. Those checks will help to prevent fraud and identity theft, and are intended to give confidence to those using public services online. Our second purpose is to help to identify those taxpayers that should properly be defined as Scottish taxpayers for the purposes of the Scottish rate of income tax. That is critical because it will help to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion and ensure that the correct amount of tax flows to the Scottish budget to support our public services. Those are our purposes in holding the consultation. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister. I was grateful to him yesterday in meeting alongside me with some of the campaign groups, such as Open Rights Group, who are concerned about those matters. Does he acknowledge that they did not seek to ignore or succumbent those purposes? They understand those purposes. Their argument is that there is a better way of achieving them, one that does not give rise to the same concerns around data security and privacy. I will come on to say a little bit about that in the course of my remarks. Those are our purposes in holding the consultation. The question now becomes how we achieve those two objectives. Our consultation paper sets out that the most secure, accurate, privacy and user-friendly way to do that is by strictly controlled use of the national health service central register. I believe that this approach is preferable to contracting with private sector bodies, to use a combination of their databases and public sector databases, and it is preferable to creating a new database. One thing that we are not doing is that we are not, under any circumstances, creating a new database. The register has existed since the 1950s, and legislation strictly regulates its use, which is further protected by agreements that the Registrar General for Scotland puts in place. The register contains core facts about individuals born in Scotland, drawn from birth records and who have a registered GP. However, let me stress this point. Despite the title of the register, the register does not hold health records. The only health information recorded is whether a person has been treated for cancer, and this is only released for research purposes under strict anonymised controls. Another important point to make is that, using the NHS register, if those proposals proceed, there will not be a novel departure. In 2006, this Parliament passed primary legislation, the local electoral administration and registration services Scotland Act 2006. The liars act put the national health service central register on a statutory footing, provided for a reference number, now referred to as the UCRN, to be contained on the register and provided powers for the sharing of information. It also provided for secondary legislation to extend who could have access to information from the register. That legislation was put on the statute book by a Liberal Democrat minister, George Lyon. For the last nine years, where an individual has sought a concessionary travel card, that approach has been used to check against the register to verify that individual's identity. That has occurred under strict controls. That system has worked well. What we now propose is that other organisations, central government bodies, who will provide online services, should be able also to check and I stress check specified data. Willie Rennie indicated that he accepted the need for governments to undertake authentication work. That is precisely what is proposed in this consultation exercise. Does he not recognise and does he not agree that, in fact, he is now going beyond what the original legislation was proposing? In essence, by introducing the CHIP, the CHI postcode into this NHS central registry, he is going from an opt-in to a compulsory system. Does he not recognise that? John Swinney. I do not recognise that because this is about people trying to access online public services, opting to have their identity verified to protect their identity from identity fraud. The final question that I want to explore in this debate is why we should consider this approach. Have we read a number of the responses to the consultation and have we met yesterday with the open rights group? I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised. As we address those, there are additional important points that I believe that Parliament must also consider. Next year, we will have the Scottish rate of income tax introduced, but we also have the plan for the full implementation of the Smith commission proposals. Our block grant will be reduced next year as a result of introducing the Scottish rate of income tax by approximately £5 billion, and we will be responsible for raising an equivalent amount in revenue. It is vital that we get implementation of the new income tax powers right. Following the transition period, for every 1 per cent error, for every 1 per cent of the Scottish taxpayer base that we cannot identify, that could cost this Parliament's budget potentially £50 million on more. That is £50 million for public services, for schools, for hospitals, for police. The responsibility for implementing and operating the Scottish rate of income tax lies with the HMRC and the UK Government, and they have asked us to consider the issues that are raised in this consultation and in the interests of good government, I am doing exactly that. What I pledged to Parliament today is that I will work cooperatively across the political spectrum to ensure that agreement is reached. We will subject any proposals that we bring forward to wide consultation and to the full parliamentary scrutiny that was provided for us in the leaders act in 2006, put in place by the Liberal Democrats and move the amendment to my name. Thank you very much. I now call on Dr Richard Simpson to speak to and move amendment 1249, 1.1, maximum five minutes, Dr Simpson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by drawing members' attention to my declarations of interest in respect to the membership of some organisations that are referred to in my speech. Scottish Labour, from the outset, wants to say that it fully understands the intention and purposes of the Government's proposals and it also fully concurs with the need to establish a Scottish tax database in order to ensure that the tax can be fully collected in Scotland for Scotland, so we accept that point. However, we believe in the first instance that these issues really should have been debated in a full debate in the Parliament at a much earlier stage, because it is certainly true that some see this as the first step in establishing a national ID system. It is this single system that is a matter of concern. Indeed, our central concern, however, is that the registration data given by patients as part of a freely entered into compact with the NHS is to be used for other purposes for which that consent was never given. Before elaborating, I want to get to review some history. Some of this data has indeed, as the Deputy Minister said, been used for other purposes, verification of a benefit application. Of course, that is a positive request for application, in which, of course, authentication is important. However, the issue of the relationship between the privacy of the individual and the needs of the state are a very current issue. In an increasingly electronic age, our citizens' privacy is daily more undermined. Too often, information about us is obtained or used without our full knowledge and appreciation. The most extreme aspect of that was represented, I think, in the Citizen 4 documentary, which made clear about GCHQ undertaking widespread surveillance of all our digital communications. It is the first action of a centralising state to capture as much information as it can about its citizens. The issue of privacy was a review in 2009, which I would recommend to members, called the database state. It was sponsored by Joseph Roundtree Foundation and led by Professor Ross Anderson from Cambridge, whom I would request the Government to consult on that issue. He is a world leader on privacy issues. That report assessed the 46 existing databases across major government departments and found that a quarter of all existing public sector databases reviewed were almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law. More than half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could indeed fall foul of a legal challenge. Britain is currently out of line with other developed countries, where records and sensitive matters such as healthcare and social care services are held locally. In Britain, data is increasingly centralised and shared between health and social services, police, schools, local government and even the now tax man. The benefits that are claimed for data sharing are often illusory. Sharing can harm the vulnerable not least by leading to discrimination and stigmatisation. Turning to this particular proposal, at first it looks innocuous. However, the BMA and the Royal College of GPs believe that, while consensual registration of postcode and address to the NHS number is appropriate and will enhance health data nationally, the access of this and the community health index by a tax authority is inappropriate and access by many of the other 120 agencies is, to say the least surprising. As Willie Rennie said, quality meat, architect and design, Visit Scotland, I certainly do not want them to have my information, although I understand from what John Swinney said what he sees is the purpose of this. I would like to check Dr Simpson's point that he just made. The organisations that are listed would not have access to the data. They would be able to clarify and verify with the registered general the identity of individuals to ensure that they were able to access public services, so they would not have access to that information. Dr Simpson, you are approaching a last minute. I do not want it to be misunderstood here. I am not suggesting that they would have access to my NHS data. I accept that point fully. However, if you give permission for your authentication details to be given for one purpose, without consenting for it to be used for another purpose, I do not believe that to be appropriate. Willie Rennie also mentioned Ken MacDonald, who has said that proposals could be in breach of the European rules, which is a very serious statement for the information commissioner to make. He has called for a privacy impact assessment, and I welcome John Swinney's agreement that that will indeed be carried out. However, he has said that the use of a national identifying number for whatever positive apparent purpose has to be firstly subject to a proper debate, and secondly he has cautioned and I quote against the creeping use of such unique identifiers. This should not just happen by default, and the BMA certainly feels that it would undermine patient confidence and the relationship with the health service. If the NHS electronic data were totally secure and private, and I accept the point that this is not what people will apparently have access to, but they will have access to the CHI number, and the CHI number is increasingly used in relation to access to NHS data. I am afraid that you never time. I took one intervention, can I have just two seconds? I have one paragraph, and this is really important. There were 794 breaches in Lothian over a two-year period of electronic data inappropriate access. The NHS system is currently not fit for purpose, it does not meet the European requirements under the I versus Finland Act, and therefore we have a situation whereby, using your unique identifier, people can maliciously get access to NHS data. Linking one identifier with another is extremely dangerous and needs a full debate. Can I explain to the chamber that, if members go over time, then it will have to come out of backbench or closing speeches? I can't magic up time. Colin Llyw Smith, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank Willie Rennie for bringing this to Parliament? Indeed, I think that it's a wider debate about the role of the state and how far its power should extend, because I think that if you look back through history, it doesn't matter which age, whether it was the ancient Greeks or the disputes between people like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in British philosophical history, or whether it was people trying to rebuild our democratic traditions after two world wars, that is an important issue. I think that it is as relevant today because of the comments that Willie Rennie has made. They relate to the possible changes in the national health service central register, and it is a serious one, and he's quite right to say that it deserves the very full attention of the whole Parliament, indeed, given the very strong concerns that he has acknowledged himself that have been expressed by the Information Commissioner, the British Medical Association and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. I don't really think that any political party in this chamber could possibly argue otherwise, and that's why the Scottish Conservatives will support the motion to have this properly debated in Parliament and also the Labour amendment. Let's be very clear. There are some understandable aims behind this to improve the quality of data, which is obviously an increasing part of our lives, as Richard Simpson rightly said, to help to trace missing persons or vulnerable children and to facilitate online access of data to namebut3. However, it's what goes beyond this, which has become so controversial and which was so ably set out by Willie Rennie. The open rights group has made it very clear that it believes that this unique citizen reference number is not actually a randomised number, as the Scottish Government has claimed, and that proposals to expand the right of identification of data up to 120 public bodies instead of the current constraint when it limits it to the NHS and local authorities would, in effect, be one step closer—it doesn't mean that it is an ID card, but it is one step closer to that. In particular, I think that it is the diminished role of consent of the individual, which disturbs us most. John Swinney claimed this morning, and he said again in his speech this afternoon that there is a guarantee of privacy, and he was very sincere about that. I can accept that, in principle, he genuinely believes that, but regarding the actual practice of this, I don't think that people are fully concerned for exactly the reasons that Patrick Harvie said in his intervention. As soon as the action of the state is directed too much in favour of compulsion and the laws are backed by a lack of public consent, I think that the exercise of personal and social and moral freedom is necessarily inhibited. That is something that should worry us all, and it is exactly the reason why the Westminster Government, after a very long and controversial debate, decided not to introduce ID cards. Indeed, I have the transcripts of debates in this Parliament from 2005, when national ID cards were being considered and those from the House of Commons and the House of Lords debate at the same time, and why they were eventually rejected. I think that we need to be extremely careful about not doing something that would involve a backdoor movement towards ID in Scotland. The trends within Western democracies, which have obviously been towards a more liberal attitude in social policy, I think that the philosophical tensions about where the state lies has grown stronger. That is a contradiction within the SNP's current policy outlook, because it is very quick to tell us that they wholeheartedly espouse a liberal democratic tradition and that they will do much more to increase our personal freedoms and to promote greater equality and social justice. However, over the course of the majority government since 2011, I think that the SNP has been bordering on becoming much more paternalistic and much more orientated towards the role of the state, so that is another reason why I feel that we have. Well, this comes on the back of legislation about named persons. It comes on the back of a whole lot of things. It is the same thing. It is absolutely the same thing. It is a prime example of pushing the boundaries of state too far. I think that it is symptomatic of a government that has become, I think, overly intrusive in the lives of people in Scotland. That is yet another reason why I think that this has to be looked at extremely carefully. We are very much in full support of what Willie Rennie has proposed in his motion. It must be debated with the full scrutiny of Parliament behind it, and we are very happy to accept the Labour menu. Many thanks to you now turn to the open debate. As I already indicated when this debate started, we are very tight for time. Speachers of a maximum four minutes and interventions must be within your own time. Members know that I am not in the habit of cutting off microphones, but I am afraid that this afternoon I may have to. Christine Grahame, to be followed by Drew Smith. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that this should be a very thoughtful debate and not really party political, which I am afraid the last contribution was drifting into that area. I am asking myself, is the data necessary? What is its purpose? Is it sufficiently limited? Is it secure? Will it command public support? First of all, I welcome very much that this is a consultation. The consultation has just closed. I understand why the Liberal Democrats have brought the debate, but I think that this is early doors. There is some way to go. I notice that the Government has not got its view set in stone. I was a wee bit surprised to find that there were so many organisations, some 120 that might have access, but I am expecting that that may evolve. I understand that this is new territory, because I know that many of the public understand that there is an NHS service central register. Many of the public knew about it, and I did not know that the national register—let me just make some progress. The national registers of Scotland were in fact the public body that it maintained and owned it, but only about 30 per cent of the population is currently on that. I note that it is significant in the debate that it does not actually hold anybody's records. It holds their address and name and date of birth so that records can be properly moved about. It does not actually hold them itself. That is significant. We all accept that we require a robust, fair and—not volatile, it is the word that I am looking for—the one that can be registered and can be brought up to date—a database for the purpose of gathering income tax in Scotland. We accept that. Data is necessary. Are we seeking the right source? That might be open to argument, but let us look at this. Local authorities and health boards use the NHS central register, but that is currently subject to individual agreement, so it is not complete. However, every one of us, as somebody has referred to, has a chai number. A lot of people do not know that they have that number either. I have a chai number. Let me finish that sentence. Although everyone is not aware of it, we have something that gives you a link to the individual in Scotland. I will let you come in. John Finnie. That is the second occasion that you have mentioned low levels of public awareness. There is also the question of public perception. Would you agree that that can best be addressed by having the fullest debate further down the road, as per the Lib Den motion? I do not think that it is news to anybody here that the public do not know that they have got a chai number and did not know about the central register. That is a fact of life. They do not know that Tesco, when you go online, can say, Christine, do you want your favourite groceries and comes up with everything that you get every week? There are people who hold data on us all over the place that we are, frankly, unaware of. My understanding of the crux of that is that it is the centralisation of the information that is currently held by the health board that is the key to it. One of the other issues about it is that it is the security of the holding of that information. I think that that is a reasonable argument to put in the security of it. Centralisation, I do not have such a problem with it. When I got a letter from HMRC some years ago telling me that my tax was to go up because I was getting a state pension, I did not even get it, I did not even apply to it, but the DWP had been in touch with HMRC, so lots of other Government agencies know what you are up to. You do not need to know now whether to tell the DVLA whether or not you have got insurance. They will tell you because they are in touch with an insurer. All that interlocking is already happening. It is whether it is necessary and whether it is secure and whether in an internet age it enables people, individuals, but also the state or the Government to function properly. Privacy is not absolute. There is a duty on a citizen to meet their tax obligations, and they will be required to surrender some privacy, as we already do for income tax and national insurance. Everything else enables the state to function. As always, I am grateful to you. We all accept that there are a variety of reasons why Government must hold certain data about its citizens. It helps us to administer pensions benefits, the welfare system and, as Christine Grahame says, quite rightly the tax system, which is, after all, our subscription to society. It can help to keep people safe. In the case of the NHS central register, it allows patient medical records to follow them as they move around the country or perhaps in and out of the armed forces, or a whole variety of things. Willie Rennie was quite right to say in beginning his contribution that there are plenty of valid reasons why Government should keep important and necessary data. It is important to say that that is not being disputed today. Nor would I dispute that data stored can and often is puts a greater use. The Deputy First Minister mentioned some of the medical research that flows from the central register. Of course, we would support that. The key point is that all this activity must be properly regulated to protect people's privacy and, indeed, their civil liberties. To me, that comes down to—there are a number of questions—to talk about who has access and why they have access. The fundamental point raised on this issue is how much data is held on a single database and how much sits on separate systems, because that is one of the fundamental protections. The public must have confidence, in my view, in the laws and regulations that govern the use, storage and sharing of their data. We need to know that public consent to changes in the way in which their data is used exists. We need to satisfy ourselves that changes are fair and transparent, even if those changes are simply for checking and verification purposes. I have to say that the emails that I have received from my constituents in the city of Glasgow certainly suggest that there are enough people out there with very serious concerns about the changes that are being proposed to one issue that has been raised in Parliament. I thank the Liberals for bringing this debate today. We will all experience the frustration of the short speeches that you will rightly keep us to. We need to come back to this issue and have a much fuller debate. I hope that we can all agree on those concerns about privacy and liberty. Whether or not the Government agrees that those concerns are valid or not, they must be fully addressed before we proceed any further with that. Therefore, I support the amendment in Dr Simpson's name. The Scottish Government has been keen to stress that the changes that it proposes are limited in scope when they would be for specific purposes. One of those would be that the new arrangements would help the Scottish Government to identify Scottish taxpayers as the Parliament gains a new raft of taxpayers. We can understand that, but we need to pay very serious attention when we have comments such as those from the British Medical Association saying that they are deeply concerned about the use of central registered information to identify taxpayers and urge the Government to consider an alternative source of data. The health profession itself warns the Government not to use a health database to support tax collection, because it could deter people from registering with their GP and damage that relationship of trust between people and their doctors, which is a relationship based on trust. Of course, the comments that others have highlighted from Ken MacDonald are very serious and need to be taken very seriously by the Government if we are to prevent a national identity database emerging by default. I welcome the time that we have had to discuss the issue this afternoon, and I have certainly called and supported my constituents when they contacted me about the issue. However, I remain absolutely convinced that those are substantive changes and they must be subject to not only a full debate in this place but a broader national debate in the country and the most rigorous possible parliamentary scrutiny. That is the message that I would certainly wish to convey to the Government front bench today and to take from this debate. We need to come back and look at the issue in greater detail. Many thanks, Christian Allard, followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to participate in this debate. It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to Liberal Democrat members wanting to compare the action of this SNP Government with the Westminster Government. I would be delighted to have a debate and maybe the Deputy First Minister will not be happy about it, but make it a political debate, because I think there is a political view about it. At the end of the day, we are living now in a modern world with a lot of services available on the Internet, and we want our public services to be available on the Internet, and there are two ways of dealing with this modernisation. You can either do, like the Westminster Government, give everything to private companies to handle this, or you can do like the SNP Government and make sure that it stays in public hands. Of course, it will be controlled by the public sector. The member will recognise that Atos, from France, provides supplies, NHS, chi number services to the NHS in Scotland, along with a whole range of other private organisations. As soon as he says the word Atos, I cannot accept to finish off. Atos was really a French company that your own government, our Westminster, used, and Atos thought it was so abysmal that they were asked to do, that they had to reinate the contract. They bought themselves out of the contract from the government. It's incredible that you'll use Atos. Let's talk about identity cards. I happen to have an identity card. I'm still a French national. I'm the only one in this chamber to have an identity card. I believe you me, Presiding Officer. Let me tell Mr Rhaeny that I intend to stay the only one to have an identity card. This debate is not about identity cards. The SNP, this SNP Government, will make sure there will be no identity card. Regarding the remark of Ken McDonnell, the Assistant Commissioner for Scotland and Northern Ireland, let's see what he wrote. He wrote that the Data Protection Act 1998 requires that all data controllers must ensure that personal data shall be accurate and when necessary kept up to date. Although the NHS Central Register is the most authoritative record of individuals in Scotland, elements of the register are not complete. For example, address information is only held for around 30% of the population. By adding the community health index postcode to the NHS Central Register and by matching and sharing both it and the unique property reference number, it is anticipated that the quality of the register and the records held will be improved. That comes from the Assistant Commissioner for Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's really where the point is, President Officer, and we can again compare what's happening down south. You'll see, for example, that companies like Royal Mail have been privatised under Liberal Democrat and Tory Governments, and this company, Royal Mail, has UK Contact and Address data, 29 million business and residential postal address held by a privatised company. Really, we see a great contrast between the Westminster Government and this Scottish Government, this Scottish S&P Government. And it's very, very important that we keep the national health service as much protected by this globalisation. And we heard, I'm not one of the MSPs who said that, but a lot of MSPs came out and asked about foreign nationals who use our health service. This will help foreign nationals to pay for the health service to make sure they pay their bills. And I'll take, I'll remind the Liberal Democrat that we might want to pay their bills like we have not paid the police cut on this. Our public services have to be protected and I will put the rest of the chamber to both of the board. I'm grateful for the chance to participate in this debate and I congratulate the Liberal Democrats for bringing it. I do agree with the basic argument that if a change of this nature is to be proposed, it should be subject to primary legislation and the full scrutiny that implies. I also welcome Richard Simpson's amendment today. I had to say that I don't agree with every word that's been spoken in criticism of the Government's proposals here. There were elements, for example, of Liz Smith's speech, which she might not be surprised to learn. I didn't fully endorse, but I think that that in itself demonstrates the breadth of arguments, the breadth of different perspectives that are expressing similar concerns around that. There are those who are trying to draw a connection, rather tenuous one, I think, with things like the named person schemes, which I don't agree with. There are those who, from a traditional libo perspective, a different part of the political spectrum from my own. There are those whose anti-state agenda borders on paranoia sometimes. There are those who are SNP members who have raised concerns around those proposals as well. There are some on the Labour benches who may have voted against their own Government's ID cards bill back in session 2. There may be others who voted in favour, uncomfortably so, and there will be others who have changed their position since. There is the information commissioner's office. There is the open rights group. There are some who take this from a, let's face it, a frankly technical and almost geekish point of view in the degree of their analysis. Such a broad range of different perspectives are leading many, many people to the same area of concerns. That, I think, is one of the things that we should take seriously. From all those different perspectives, I have heard no one who suggests that the Government's policy objectives around ensuring, for example, that everyone who is due to pay the Scottish income rate of income tax pays it. No one who has suggested that those policy objectives are not valid, not important, are important. The argument here is that there is a better way to do this, a better way to deliver on those objectives, which does not create a single unique identifier that covers the whole breadth of Government relationships and agencies. That, in effect, creates a single point of failure. If an error is made in that single centralised system, whole aspects of our lives could unravel as a result of that. The single point of failure is one of the crucial elements in the open rights group's briefing, one of the crucial criticisms. They end that briefing, and I commend that to members who have not had a chance to read it. They end that briefing by saying, is there an alternative? Yes. There is a better way to do this, an opt-in authentication service. No personal data need to be stored, but it would allow the user to prove their identity to public and private bodies without having to provide passports and utility bills. It would reduce the scope for identity theft or fraud and make life easier for users without providing that single point of failure. I really would encourage the Deputy First Minister, and I think that he was listening seriously to those concerns in our meeting yesterday. I would encourage him to be open to those alternative approaches, which he can learn from and be informed by, but he does not have to absolutely replicate everything that the UK Government is doing. Finally, one request that I would make of him. I welcome the fact that he said that there will be a full privacy impact assessment, and I welcomed when he set up the privacy management group that was informed by a wide range of external experts, including people like Jerry Fischenden, Gus Assain and Charles Ravd. Can I ask him please to make sure that that privacy impact assessment is conducted by that external group of experts, not by civil servants? There are many of us who are concerned that this is not SNP policy that has brought this here. It is long-standing civil service policy that has gone through changes of government. It is the job of this Parliament to stand up for principles when the civil service tells us, Minister, that this is the only way to do it. It is not, and I hope that the Government will think again. Thank you very much. I call Colin Kear after which we will turn to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that I have to say at the outset that I vehemently opposed the implementation of an ID card system of the type that has been proposed previously in another place. The issue of civil liberties is one that we should be proud of and certainly proud to stand up for without any hesitation. I would certainly not support such legislation if it was being proposed. Since the preamble to this debate kicked off the other day in the media, I have heard some astonishing statements relating to the subject. Slippery slopes, big brothers watching and the end of democratic society as we know it. Then I actually get side of the motion, which, to be fair, is written in a reasonably temperate form of words talking about concerns and debate. I see nothing unreasonable about the motion under the name of John Swinney. As the Deputy First Minister has pointed out, if we are to have a broad use of services online, there has to be some form of information across various public bodies. There has to be some way of identifying clearly that the subject of the ID process is the recipient of the service. This morning, oddly enough, I was at a meeting at the Fire and Rescue Scotland Service Asset Resource Centre at Newbridge in my constituency. At that meeting, senior fire officers and others were discussing how the fire rescue service would be running in the years ahead. Much of the work that it will be doing will be in relation to the preventative strategy. That, of course, crosses into health and social care issues such as when a pensioner is being discharged back home. The pensioner is a bit wobbly in the feet, so I say that the assessment could be asked for. Is there any reason why some sort of online request could be made from the recipient or others that could be made of the fire and rescue services? That is not easy at the present time. Of course, work has to be done if we are to preserve civil liberties while producing a modern system that works, but whatever, an ID has to be made. More and more, we are using online services. In many cases, old methods simply are not up to the job and we are moving into areas that the speed of decision making is imperative, and, of course, possibly with the idea of it being cost effective also. In terms of the issue of the Scottish rate of income tax, this might be one of the answers to the problem of how to identify a Scottish taxpayer. I know that many members of the Parliament's Public Audit Committee are concerned about how a tax collection is audited as Audit Scotland does not have a primary role in the audit function. At least we could have some comfort in being able to ID Scottish taxpayers, which will at least mean that we can work out roughly if the numbers roughly match up with the snapshot produced by HMRC. The other thing that I find very strange is the way that Willie Rennie is complaining about the Government and the way that he has brought forward the dealings on the subject. Quickly or later, he is just adding to the legislation that George Lyons brought some time ago. He will call me a cynic if he likes, but surely Willie Rennie can see the hypocrisy here. We are dealing with consultation brought forward by the Government, different views that we have brought forward, work done by ministers, civil servants—yes, civil servants—and hopefully an agreement can be made across the parties. There is no new super database here. I reckon that it is too early in my opinion to make a huge song and dance about the subject before we see the proposals. I have to say to the Liberal Democrats that using the tactic of manufacturing a crisis so that he can run a campaign against it is something that we see on a regular basis in my constituency, and it really is a bit much. Why not responsibly debate the facts and not the worst-case scenario which will not happen? I support the motion in the name of the Deputy First Minister. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Jackson Carlaw up to four minutes, please, Mr Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been an important debate, but in its brevity is in itself not a sufficient consideration of the issues before Parliament. Today the Scottish Government appears to be standing alone in its attempt to persuade us that those proposals are not worthy of the full scrutiny of the legislative process. I thought that Willie Rennie set the argument out in the way in which he introduced his motion. The key being that we are moving from an opt-in system to a compulsory system to no consent or proper knowledge and understanding of what is taking place. As Richard Simpson identified, there is a crucial difference between opting into something and finding that you have been opted into something without your knowledge. Whilst I might have doubts as to what the botanic gardens could do with the information that would be of insidious danger to the nature of individual citizens, it misses the point, because 120 public bodies are being offered this information, and we should only be proceeding with primary legislation. Christian Allard introduced intervening on a number of occasions waving his ID about the card about brandishing it and telling us that there was no question of there being any ID cards following from this. I had no doubt that, historically, all those Frenchmen who marched for liberty, equality, fraternity were told the same thing. There would be no identity card as a result, and yet Mr Allard is the living proof that the long arm of the Elyse Palace reaches into the Billy Dew, à la France, and Mr Allard's pocket that he was forced to wave before us today. Mr Swinney was in his most offensive mode. I have never actually, I think, in all the years in this Parliament seen Mr Swinney scrambling up ice without a pick and looking quite so rattled. When you see the Deputy First Minister being deployed in full sincerity mode, rather than the usual belligerent ministerial approach, alarm bells octoring and the expostulations from Rosanna Cunningham and other SNP ministers in the front bench really made me think of one thing, the arrogance of power. It happens to all administrations the longer ministers are in office, the longer they believe in the centralisation of the state, the longer they believe they need to have the information they need to be in control, and the SNP does not appreciate the irony, because after eight years in government they are doing which in all the years of opposition they used to rail against every other administration for doing when they saw it before them. Then we had Mrs Graham. This mustn't be, this mustn't be party political. Ms Graham, you don't come naked into the chamber without form before you. Had any other government proposed this, you would have been throwing your jewellery at the ministers. Tesco, you cited a perfect example of people opting in not being compulsorily enrolled in the Tesco database of information, and you said that the key test should be necessity. What necessity is there for the Botanic Gardens to have all this information, Mrs Graham? I did make a comment. I wondered whether 120 organisations was appropriate, and I didn't know I'd opted in to HMRC, WP and Tesco. But you obviously feel the Botanic Gardens so need the information that you're prepared to support the Government's approach this afternoon. When I hear the excuse that we live in the modern world, I shudder because what it really is saying is that if, in decades past, in other countries and in other regimes, this online scenario had been before them, would they have favoured the Government's approach? I rather think they would. It's essential that parliamentary democracy prevails in these matters and they're fully debated, that light is thrown upon them and a proper discussion being held on the direction our country is taking. That is all this motion is asking. Primary legislation, proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government may have some intentions that are laudable, as Patrick Harvie, we and others accept, but that is not a fig leaf that they can hide behind by arguing that there is no major change. That call is no longer tenable. Many thanks. Now call on Dr Elaine Murray. Up to four minutes, please, Dr Murray. It's clear that the proposals on information held on individuals in the national health service central register could be shared with a wide range of other organisations has increasingly caused concern, as the consultation is due to a close. We've heard about the BMA, the Royal College of GPs and indeed the UK Information Commissioner. Those are not politically biased people. Those are people who genuinely have concerns that we need to listen to. The current purpose of the NHSRC is to prevent the movement of medical records, as Drew Smith pointed out. For example, when a patient moves and transfers records from one GP practice to another, each patient has a unique citizens reference number to ensure that they have only one set of medical records. Clearly, that is in the benefit of the patient. At this present time, the NHSRC does not hold postcode information, although the national record of Scotland does have that information, which is provided by the health board. I think that that is the kind of number. A consultation document proposes adding addressed postcode information to the unique property reference number, which the NHSRC already holds, and to permit that it needs to be shared with local authorities and health boards. Christine Grahame made a valid point about the amount of information that Tesco has managed to glean about us when we do our shopping on our loyalty cards. However, I doubt that they are actually sharing any of that information, particularly with other supermarkets. I always find it slightly worrying that they might share it with a health service who could find out whether you are buying alcohol or sweetened drinks and so on, but I do not think that Tesco actually does share any of that sort of information. The changes to schedule 2 of the NHSRC regulations of 2006 would allow the sharing of all its information, including postcode and address codes with a number of health boards in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Practising solicitors and charitable bodies can be advised that its information is contained on the register and they are not given it. They are told that it is there, and the full name, gender and date of birth postcode and address reference code can be provided to HMRC. That puzzles me slightly, because I always thought that we all get a national insurance number when we get old enough to take up employment, and surely the national insurance number plus possibly an obligation that could be introduced on HMRC to say where we live would be enough in order to tackle the issue of HMRC knowing who should have the Scottish tax code. As others have said, the extension in schedule 3 expands possibly 120 organisations, including the Scottish Parliament, to be able to find out about information that has been provided by a body or a person who is specified in schedule 3, but does not map that information. I do not know quite whether that means that they can then check up that the information that they got is correct or that they can just check up that somebody else has the information. I can understand the rationale that the Scottish Government wants to extend the online public services system and my account, which is currently used in local government and the health service. I use the UK Government to replace my tax system. It is a useful system to be able to do that, but my question is whether, in doing that, somebody else is then able to check all sorts of information. What has that got to do with Prestwick in airport or the forestry commission or the national park? If I use my account to book something in the national park, does that guarantee that somebody else has the right to know something else about my information? I just do not understand the rationale behind that. I agree with the Government that we want to make sure that all Scottish taxpayers pay their income tax in Scotland. That is very important, but I do not think that we need to do this to go about it. The issues that are sufficiently serious are raised by a whole number of other organisations that they must not slip through as amendments to 2006 regulations. We must discuss that in Parliament in full so that we have the reassurance that we require on these issues. Many thanks. John Swinney, up to six ministers, please. This debate has been a useful opportunity to discuss issues on which, as I indicated in my other remarks to Parliament, the Government has taken no final decisions. The consultation closed last week. We have had about 300 responses to the consultation, and the Government will consider all those responses and reply accordingly, just as my amendment to the motion suggests today. I think that there is some fundamental misinformation at the heart of what colleagues have shared with Parliament today, and I want to just address some of that just now. The proposal at the heart of this consultation is to enable a range of public bodies. I accept that the list of public bodies is significant and comprehensive, and there is certainly plenty of scope for us to consider whether every one of those public bodies needs to have the ability to access the identity verification that is proposed in the consultation exercise, and I will consider that in the consultation exercise. However, it is hard—this is about enabling public bodies to do exactly what is done today by local authorities in verifying whether or not people wish to have the concessionary bus pass. That is what is happening. In response to Dr Murray's point, no more information is retained. It is simply a mechanism of checking whether this person is who they say they are to enable them to do whatever they want to do online with the public services. We are not creating a new database. Mr Rennie has been putting out press releases left, right and centre about the colossal cost of all of this. All that will be proposed is that, in cases where the postcode of an individual is not currently on their NHSCR record, it will be added. That will be it—the postcode. That is all that will be added to the system, to enable higher quality verification of the individuals being who they say they are. I accept the sincere way in which the Deputy First Minister has addressed this, but it is more than that. That is the reason why there is such public concern about this, that there is one single database. That is the concern that they will have. That public concern has been around since the 1950s, and Parliament in 2006, under the previous Liberal-Labor executive, put the NHSCR on a statutory footing in the leaders act. What did my parliamentary colleagues at the time think they were voting for, Mr Scott, as they wave at me about? If you want to make an intervention, Mr Scott, it might be nice to hear the debate. That is what will be added to the NHSCR. We then go on to the next question about the whole issue of tax collection. HMRC has asked us to consider whether or not this would be a practical way of proceeding. I accept the points that have been made by the health service bodies about those questions. I do not want to, in any way, put anybody off registering with a GP, but people come on to the NHSCR when they are born, as a consequence of being given an NHS number when they are born in the hospitals of Scotland. When they register with a GP, people become part of that. That is all about ensuring that we are able to properly identify who should be paying the Scottish rate of income tax, because I do not want anybody who should be paying the Scottish rate of income tax avoiding paying the Scottish rate of income tax, because that money is due to be paid to support the public finances of Scotland and it will become ever more significant in the years to come. I am grateful. I do not want people to be able to avoid the Scottish rate of income tax any more than he does, but does he accept at least that the proposal to have a single unique reference number across a range of different functions appears, at least on the face of it, to breach his own privacy principles? Will he ensure that that privacy assessment is conducted by the experts who drew up those principles? The privacy assessment will be carried out properly and appropriately, and I do not believe that it breaches the data privacy principles that we set out. I want to come on. I obviously irked Mr Carlaw by trying to have a reason to debate in Parliament. Maybe I should just make a hysterical contribution to Parliament every time. On that basis I would compete with Mr Carlaw for the most colourful contributions that we can make, but the reason why I did it was because I think that the public is being fundamentally misled by a lot of the things that are being said about this issue, and I wanted to put dispassionately some clear information in Parliament. Mr Carlaw might shake his head and say that nobody has been misled, but I just want to share two things with Parliament. Last night on television, Mr Rennie said, I mean that nobody has ever said that this is about accessing NHS personal information. Regrettably, at four o'clock on Tuesday yesterday, Mr Rennie put out a campaign email saying that plans would mean civil servants from 120 public agencies accessing a database that includes NHS records, and that is purely nonsense—absolute, shameful, total nonsense. Can he not see the difference between records and personal information? I was drawn the distinction. He has failed to draw that distinction. I think that that reflects poorly on him. I know precisely what you are doing, Mr Rennie. You are trying to scare monger in this debate, because you have run out of roads on every other issue that you are on. The Government has said that we will listen carefully to the points that have been expressed. I had a perfectly constructive meeting with the open rights group yesterday, and there will be issues that they have raised that are entirely worthy of consideration, as have the health organisations, as have the information commissioner. However, the information commissioner correctly identifies to Parliament that the leaders act was passed in 2006 to put the NHSCR on a statutory footing, and that the ability of the registrar general to give access to verify information to a wider range of bodies was provided for in regulation making power, which was put to us by the Liberal Democrat Minister, the former member for Argyll and Bute. We are operating within the confines and the arrangements that Parliament has already legislated for, but I assure Parliament that I will come back to Parliament and we can have all the debates that we want about how to take forward our issue, which has got practical implications for protecting the taxpayer base of Scotland and the access to our public services. I now call on Alison McInnes to wind up the debate up to eight minutes, please. Well, Liberal Democrats are pleased to have used our time in the chamber today to debate privacy and the state. We welcome wholeheartedly the support of other Opposition parties today, and I do hope that the SNP will reflect on the strength of feeling expressed today. Willie Rennie, Richard Simpson, Liz Smith and Patrick Arvy have clearly and coherently set out the risks and what is at stake, which is more than I can be said about Christian Allard's contribution, I have to say. Liberal Democrats will always strike to seek a fairer balance between individuals and the Government at every level. We have led the debate time and again in council chambers at Holyrood and Westminster. We introduced laws governing DNA retention, we stopped plans for a snooper's charter and we abolished the intrusive ID card system. Some members here may recall the debate in this Parliament on ID cards back in 2008. Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Community Safety, lauded the warning of the information commissioner. The more databases set up and the more information exchanged from one place to another, the greater the risk of things going wrong, he said. The more you centralise data collection, the greater the risk of multiple records going missing or wrong decisions about real people being made. Put simply, holding huge collections of personal data brings significant risks. I end quote. Ministers ought to reflect on those previous anxieties. In 2008, the Scottish Government told us that it was finding ways to share personal data securely and with the strictest controls without creating a large centralised database. Today it is an altogether different story. Back then, the minister urged us to look to Germany where, and I quote Fergus again, the use of unique ID numbers and the storage of personal data on a central register are prohibited. Today the Scottish Government is advocating the whole sale use of unique identifiers. In ignoring its own warnings, the privacy of each and every one of us could be compromised. The Deputy First Minister has referred to the fact that George Lyon introduced the 2006 act. Indeed he did, but as Willie Rennie highlighted, the proposed repurposing of that register is fundamentally different from what could have been envisaged then, because it is shifting from an opt-in to a mandatory system, and it is a unique single identifier system. There was never any suggestion that anyone would seek to extend the scope of the NHS central register to allow access to 120 bodies. John Swinney If that was the case, why was the provision put in statute for the access to be extended by regulation making powers? Alison McInnes Because it was hard to envisage how things would have moved on at that time, so what we are saying now—absolutely what we are saying now—is that if civil servants are suggesting that this is a good way forward, it is time to say no, let's do this by primary legislation. Colin Kear and others— The member is not giving way at this time, Mr Doris. Took a very narrow way of defining privacy, but rightly privacy campaigners, the SCBO, NotoID and the BMA in many more have spoken out. On a Monday, the frank and deeply critical verdict of the information commissioner's office was revealed, and it bluntly warned against the creeping use of unique identifiers such as the UCRN, which could become the national identity number by default. That is a quote. The information commissioner's office concluded that the proposals could breach the data protection act and the European convention on human rights, and that is because he shifted away from the current model based on consent and opting in, moving to what is in effect a compulsory system. He said that the case has not been made as to why those organisations need our data and the required privacy impact assessments have not been carried out. We should be alarmed that the consultation has got this far about extending access to the central register when it was not accompanied by those assessments, did not set out alternative solutions, additional security arrangements, costs or a timescale. It lacked an analysis of the social, financial and technological implications of the scheme, and therefore people have not been able to respond properly to such a limited consultation. The Scottish Government has done nothing today to dispel these reasons and principles concerned today. As Willie Rennie pointed out last October, John Swinney published—I have no time—the Scottish Government's principles for identity management. It quite clearly says that large-centralised databases should be avoided. If a public service organisation needs to link personal information from different systems and databases, it should avoid sharing persistent identifier. Lesson six months later, in pursuit of nothing more than administrative experience, he has turned his whack on those principles. Of course, we need to verify our identity, and the Government must be able to authenticate those to prevent fraud or establish entitlement. However, aggregating our personal information to the extent proposed and the use of the unique citizen recognition number universal across the public sector is unprecedented. Linking databases in this way is dangerous and illiberal because it opens up the possibility of tracking and mapping the public services access from birth. Powerful data mining and profiling would become conceivable. The aggregation of small bits of seemingly innocuous data to build a picture of an individual person, a child or an adult, while barring people from knowing what the state knows or indeed being able to correct errors in that data. Interventions from a sedentary position are no more welcome today than they have ever been. As Professor Salove, an internationally known expert in privacy law points out, privacy is often threatened not by a single egregious act but by the slow accretion of a series of relatively minor acts. In that respect, privacy problems resemble certain environmental harms that occur over time through a series of small acts by different actors. Although society is more likely to respond to a major oil spill, gradual pollution by a multitude of actors often creates more problems. The UK Government has specifically ruled out a national database on five separate grounds, including fears of national surveillance and risks to the security of a single database. As Willie Rennie highlighted, it is pioneering alternative approaches that avoid costly, unwieldy superdatabases. A string of data breaches have eroded public confidence in the ability of the state to store and handle our personal information sensitively and responsibly. Personal information is regularly lost by the NHS. It is found in memory sticks and hospital car parks. It is left on public transport or it is sent to the wrong address. There were more than 800 such NHS incidents between 2009 and 2013. Councils lost data on 360 occasions during the same period. The Government is now proposing to allow 120 public sector organisations access to personal data via this enhanced and augmented central register. Why? We need to know why information should be disclosed to each body. The merits of every claim to our personal data must be interrogated and not granted on a whim. Secondary legislation is intended to establish comparatively minor technical details, and the repurposing of this database is anything but minor. The risks are great, and this afternoon's short debate has only served to highlight how much more patently still needs to be evidenced and explored. That must be the subject of the most meticulous scrutiny, meaningful engagement and a vote of our entire Parliament. Only primary legislation can prevent creation of the shadowy sweeping ID database by the back door. John Swinney's assurance this afternoon is not sufficient and the only way we can assure that the risks are properly understood is to vote for this motion today. Thank you very much, and that concludes the debate on privacy and the state. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12492 in the name of Jim Hume on mental health. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. Mr Hume, if you are ready, I would call on you to speak to and move the motion, but only after I have advised the chamber we are now extraordinarily tight for time this afternoon, so please do not exceed your allocated time. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'll start by moving the motion in my name. From that set, I want to take this opportunity to underline the importance of our hard-working and dedicated front-line NHS staff. They are the backbone of our NHS and deserve every support from Government. We know that, for too long, many patients with mental ill health have suffered in silence. Much progress, thankfully, has been made in breaking the stigma attached to mental health, and individuals are now taking the brave step of telling the GP that they have a problem or talked to a friend, relative or charity. It is frustrating and upsetting that, when they find the courage to come forward to help, they cannot get the treatment and support the desperately need. We only have to think about the 795 suicides in 2013 to remind ourselves that ensuring early access to mental health services is vital. The excellent work of the Choose Life campaign should be recommended. It has made huge advantages in tackling suicide rates in Scotland. However, let's now build on that and look towards a zero-tolerance ambition in order to engender a cultural change that means that we treat mental ill health before people get to that desperate stage. Sadly, last week, ISD figures disappointingly highlighted once again the continued problems that are facing mental health services across Scotland. Although today's debate is timely and an opportunity for the Parliament to give this important area of health and those patients affected by mental health issues, the prominence that they deserve. It is worrying, though, that we have a repeat of the same story on missed targets. The bottom line is that the Government simply is not delivering for patients suffering with mental ill health, and it is worrying that the fact that mental health health has become the Cinderella service of the NHS. To illustrate that point, I will refer to last week's figures. For children and adolescent mental health services, we know that nationally the new 18-week target is not being met. When you break that down, five health boards are still failing to meet the old 26-week target, and only half are meeting the new treatment target of 18 weeks. Educational psychologists are at a dangerous low, and for adult psychological services, once again, the 18-week target is not being met with 15.5 per cent of patients facing waits of 19 to 35 weeks, and 4.4 per cent of patients waiting a staggering 35 weeks for treatment. Young and vulnerable people are being repeatedly let down by ministers. The lack of facilities and specialised wards for children and adolescents is forcing them to seek treatment in England, often aggravating their conditions because of harder adjustment periods away from home. There are currently no secure inpatient facilities for children in Scotland, and their treatment has to be planned on an ad hoc and temporary basis. There are no inpatient facilities at all for young people with mental health problems in Aberdeenshire, with the closest such facilities located more than 50 miles away in Dundee, because they have been causing even more distress for those young people and their parents—something that I know my colleague Alice McKinnis has raised often. The Mental Welfare Commission identified that 202 children last year were treated in adult wards. Kindred Scotland, who supports around 900 families with children that have additional support needs, told me that around 60 per cent of those families have a mental health referral. They are raising a red flag for the increasing need of children and adolescent mental health services to be delivered as some families reach a crisis point before they are able to get a diagnosis. That leads to isolation of those families. We need urgent access to staff and services of behavioural support, especially schooling and even medication, which they cannot access without CAMHS support. We know that, without proper early support, young people run the risk of self-harm, and that is reflected in the BBC figures, showing that the number of young people admitted to hospital for self-harm has doubled in the past five years in some areas in Scotland. The fact that the Government has let this concerning trend occur is a reflection on its failure to provide adequate resources and early support for mental health care. That is so crucial when we think about mental health care by focusing on resources that are most needed to encourage early intervention. We can reduce the number of youngsters being admitted to hospital for self-harm, and we can pull back from the brink of suicide. John Mason. I wonder whether he says that there should be more resources for mental health. Is there any suggestion where that would come from? Would that be from the physical health budget? If you look at the Government's actual record on it, the Government has reduced their funding for a health research budget from £4 million in 2008-2009 to just £860,000, so it is about prioritisation. Ministers have to listen to the experts that are telling this. They are warning about problems in training, recruitment and retention of the mental health workforce. The Scottish Children's Health Services Coalition has told me that they consider that the red flag has been raised on an impending tipping point in terms of educational psychologists across Scotland. The Government in 2012 removed the funding for bursaries paid to each trainee, resulting in a drop of 70 per cent in the applications for those courses. The number of children with additional support needs has more than doubled, reaching 140,542 children in 2014. That means one educational psychologist for more than 356 children. That intense workload is sadly being echoed across other fields in mental health services, including the adult psychological treatment services, where a particularly worrisome rising trend seems to be developing. Two-fifths of GPs are not referring patients for psychological treatments either because of the ballooning waiting times or just lack of provision. It is not just me saying this, it is the GPs themselves. Those are the words of two GPs responding to a SAMH survey. Access to psychological therapies is extremely poor, with long and unacceptable wait times. GPs feel under pressure not to refer people to already stretched services. We do not have adequate access to non-pharmaceutical treatment options. We have no access to psychological therapies in our rural areas. It just makes me very angry. The human forgiving way in which he mentioned the SAMH survey of GPs, would he recognise, though, where he talks of 40 per cent of GPs not referring due to lack of availability? That was actually 40 per cent of those who said that they had not referred. We looked at figures that it was 8 per cent of the GPs responding, and I confirmed that with SAMH when I discussed it with them. You will have to go and get the SAMH to put that on the record, because that is their briefing. Ministers have sidelined again mental health issues. While the Government claims to have improved the services by hiring more people and reducing more times for numbers of patients, last week's ISD numbers tell another story. Only 81 per cent of patients referred for adult psychological therapies began their treatment within the 18 weeks' target, and only three of the 14 NHS boards reached that target. How about those patients who have been waiting for more than the 18 weeks' target time, with nearly 250 patients waiting for more than an entire year to begin their treatment? If the Government believes that there are sufficient resources, then that is not reflected in the views of the professionals, the charities or indeed the stats. That is a worrying prospect given our ageing population who often present with complex mental health needs. Indeed, the British psychological society has underlined the disparity in the number of psychologists employed in older adult services, which is only 35 out of a workforce of approximately 726 whole-time equivalent psychologists, placing older adults at a marked disadvantage in terms of their access to specialist psychological assessment and intervention. Just last year, we were promised a report by the then Minister for Public Health, which would follow up with a 10-year review of the grant report of 2003 by the end of 2014. So I look forward to the new minister to address this issue. When the mental health strategy was published in 2012, the Government then said that improving mental health and treating mental illness are two of our major challenges, and yet we know that the mental health research budget has been cut from £4 million in 2008-2009 to £860,000 this year. That is about Government priorities. Such a drastic cut does not stack up against those warm words, so I hope that the minister will update Parliament on what shape any new strategy will take beyond 2015. Deputy Presiding Officer, surely one of the biggest health inequalities that currently exists within the NHS is the treatment of mental ill health. There is an obvious lack of parity between what the system deems acceptable for someone with a physical health complaint and what the system deems acceptable for someone with a psychological health complaint. Just as we would not allow someone with a broken bone to wait for months at a time to be seen and treated, why does the Scottish Government allow people with issues of mental ill health to wait for more than six months for treatment and in some cases for more than a year? I hope that ministers will agree that that needs to be addressed by putting mental health on the same footing as physical health and the Scottish Government to follow the UK Government's lead and lay out quite clearly in legislation that mental and physical ill health are recognised equally. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me say I'll try and respond to some of the points that Mr Hume and others raised in closing, but I say at the outset that I very much welcome the opportunity for a further debate on Scotland's mental health. I believe that this is the third parliamentary debate that we've had on mental health this calendar year and the first which I secured immediately upon us returning after the Christmas recess. I think that there was a clear consensus that we should be debating this subject matter more often. I'm very glad that we seem to be doing so. I think that it's very important, I think that it's vitally important that this Parliament is engaging and bringing the issue to the fore. I say at the outset that I should move the amendment to my name, so I don't forget to do so. In doing so, I hope that it is recognised as worded in a way that, to try and capture much of the essence of the original motion, I'm just trying to place matters in a bit of a better context. I should say that I believe that Dr Simpson's amendment does that to an extent as well. In the event of the Government amendment not passing, we will support Dr Simpson's amendment. Presiding Officer, mental health is a subject that touches us all whether we have a mental health problem, whether we are a carer for someone who has a mental health problem, or whether we have family, friends or colleagues who have had a mental health problem. It's estimated that mental health disorders affect more than a third of the population every year. It's therefore vital that we continue with breaking down the stigma of mental ill health. See me as the Scotland's national campaign to end mental health stigma and discrimination is, of course, hosted by the Scottish Association for Mental Health. I should say that I believe that we have made enormous progress in tackling stigma, but the Scottish social attitude survey that was published last year, late last year, shows that the work of See Me is still needed. People are still experiencing negative attitudes because of their mental health problem, and people often stigmatise avoiding events and not wanting to talk about their illness. The refounded See Me has activity planned around, for example, equality and human rights of workplace and settings where people experience discrimination. I think that that emphasises the role that we all have—employers, communities, friends, media and others—to end the stigma of mental ill health. I should say that that is why I wanted to emphasise, and I know that Mr Hume did say in his opening contribution, but in my amendment I wanted to say that not only do we absolutely should thank and support our NHS staff working in this area, but we should also support the third sector. See Me is a great example of that work. There are other ways that we can start to end mental health discrimination. There has been debate around parity of mental health and physical health, and we have just heard that raised again by Mr Hume. It was a particular issue of interest to him. He has raised that on a number of occasions. As I have set out previously, the National Health Service Scotland, in 1978, already states that the Scottish ministers have a duty to secure improvements in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland that does not distinguish between the two, nor does it place a higher importance on one over the other. Our Scottish NHS has a duty to promote the improvement of health, a duty that extends equally to the areas of physical and mental health. In giving way to Mr Hume, I am sure that that is something that he will want to recognise and acknowledge. Jim Hume said that the 1978 act, which applies to Scotland, states that it has the improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland. However, the act, the Health and Social Care Act that applies to England of 2012, actually states that it wants the improvement in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental health. It highlights that separately. I expected that Mr Hume would raise that point. I am aware that that is what section 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 says. Let me read out for you in the chamber what section 1 of the National Health Service Scotland act 1978 says that it shall continue to be the duty of the Secretary of State. Now, the Scottish ministers have brought in Scotland a comprehensive and integrated health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. Mr Hume, that covers both physical and mental illness. What I will say is that I am more than happy to discuss the matter with Mr Hume. If he believes or perceives that there is some form of legislative vehicle that would be opposite for this, I am happy to consider the matter. I think that it is fundamentally important that we recognise that it is already the case that in legislation terms there is already parity between mental and physical health. I should also say that my portfolio includes sport and health improvement. I think that that should hopefully signal and understand how supporting the body supports the mind. I fundamentally believe that improving access to physical activity can make an important difference to a person's sense of mental wellbeing. I am very determined to bring the influence of sport to bear on improving Scotland's mental health. I am also clear that we must improve access to mental health services because some of us will experience mental health problems just as some of us will become physically unwell. That is why we have developed access targets for psychological therapies and child and adolescent mental health services. We should recognise that Scotland was the first nation in the UK to introduce a target to ensure faster access to psychological therapies. For all ages, the target for boards is that patients get a referral to treatment for psychological therapies within 18 weeks. That is a challenging target. We should recognise the work that boards have been undertaken to try and meet it. The latest data shows that the average adjusted waiting time for psychological therapies is eight weeks. 81.4 per cent of people were seen within 18 weeks. Some boards are doing better than others. We are offering support to boards to tackle waiting lists. Let me say that progress has been made. I recognise that it is not significant enough. I expect all boards to meet the target. That is why we have embedded it into NHS Scotland's local delivery plan guidance for 2015-16. Turning to CAMHS, the mental health of our children and young people have been a focus of our efforts to improve Scotland's mental health. We have increased the specialist child and adolescent mental health services workforce by almost 24 per cent since 2009. The latest data shows that more people are being seen within 18 weeks. The average waiting time is seven weeks. That is an improvement, but it is still not good enough. Last week, I was in contact with those health boards who did not reach the target. In the latest figures, I have been assured that we will continue to see progress again at the time that we meet that target. Ensuring the prompt treatment of people's experiences in mental health is a key priority for improving Scotland's mental health. I am glad that we have had the stirred opportunity to debate mental health in 2015. I look forward to keeping a strong focus in this area and responding to points raised in the debate later, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I now call Dr Richard Simpson to speak to and move amendment 12492.3. Dr Simpson, up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer members to my declaration and I move the motion in my name in case I forget. I am pleased to be opening this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, and if the chamber will forgive me, I propose to concentrate entirely on child and adolescent services. In 2006, the coalition Liberal Democrat Labour laid out some challenges facing CAMHS. That included building the workforce and ensuring that the number of those under 18 being admitted to non-specialist units was halved by 2009. Building a workforce does take time, and it is to both administration's credit that up to 2011, the numbers increased, particularly in psychology and nursing staff. However, since 2009, the number of full-time equivalent consultants has gone down and vacancies are going up. The number of family therapists has reduced by a third. Moreover, 28 per cent of all the staff are on temporary contracts, and that cannot be good for a service to have that level of temporary contracts. The 2006 Labour Government's CAMHS framework stated very clearly that adequate and minimum staffing levels required a level of 15 per 100,000 population. Today, eight years on, seven boards do not have that level. Amongst the worst is my own board, Fourth Valley, at 8.3. They are also one of the worst-performing boards for waiting times, and on closer inspection, we find that their referral figures uniquely exclude tier 2 provision, i.e., their only report referral times on tiers 3 and 4. Anyone referred to tier 2 when I finish the sentence has to wait six months for an assessment. They have to wait that, not median, not average, not the longest, six months for an assessment. Why is this board not being placed in some sort of special measures for CAMHS in the same way as the Royal Alexander hospital and now WI have for the accident and emergency? Is that equality between physical and mental health? For giving way, he does raise a fair point that there are vacancies in CAMHS services. I would recognise that. Would he recognise that as part of the challenge? He would accept, and this is one of the things that is absolutely discussed with each of the health boards last week. He would accept that the health boards are trying to fill these vacancies. I would accept that. In 2009, I went to welfare commission and welcomed the fact that the target had been reached, halving the number of admissions to non-specialised units, but they emphasised that progress had to be maintained. Labour had planned new and refurbished in-patient specialist beds to take the numbers up to 57. Unfortunately, an answer to a question in October last year, SNP confirmed that only 42 beds are currently commissioned, though with six more to be opened, that is still only 48. The result of that is that admissions reported by the MWC have actually risen by 40 per cent from 141 in 2012 to 202 this December. My question to the minister is what target has he set for progress in reducing admissions either by more beds or by more of the innovative community-intensive services such as we have in Fife. Deputy Presiding Officer, as I always do, I praise the Government when they do something right. The introduction in 2010 of the UK's first heat waiting times target of 26 weeks by March 2013, 18 weeks by December 2014 was welcome, but last year we saw an increase in the numbers waiting more than 52 weeks from 20 to 226. The 26-week target has still not been met by five boards, not the 18-week target, the 26-week target. The SNP also promised last year that the 10-year follow-up to the 2003 SNAP, that is the needs assessment programme report, would be published in 2014. When will it be published? It hasn't yet been so. I want to finish, Deputy Presiding Officer, on a concern that I believe the Government must investigate. The latest ISD figures are no longer developmental, they are now credible, but in the past year out of 26,800 referrals, 5100 were quotes rejected. The ISD definition when I asked them about this is that they were deemed inappropriate. That is one in five referrals rejected, but once again, and for the first time since the waiting list scandal in Lothian, we see a massive variation in the number of rejections. 5.6 per cent in one board, indeed not in one of the island boards, but I don't think that's relevant, through clusters which may be more relevant to 11 to 13 per cent in two boards, but there are two boards with over 27 per cent rejections. Now there are clear guidelines as to what you refer for on the websites. Very clear guidelines, and yet you are having more than one in four referrals being rejected. The cabinet secretary must investigate this extraordinary variation and, more importantly, what actually then happens to these rejected children. I welcome the support for the mental health programme of £15 million, but if the mental health services have received the same share as in 2009, they would be currently £75 million better off every year. They are being shortchanged. Many thanks. No con, Dr Milne. Up to five minutes, please. I hope that it's a good sign for the many people waiting for help to cope with mental health challenges, that this is the second parliamentary debate on mental health this year, with the stage one debate on the mental health Scotland bill to follow next week. It's right that the Parliament should be focusing on mental health, because one in four of us will have to deal with a mental illness at some time in our lives, and mental health is just as important as physical health. Indeed, our physical well-being is influenced significantly by our mental and psychological welfare. The appointment of a minister with specific responsibility for mental health is, hopefully, an indicator that the Scottish Government is taking this seriously, and I welcome the tone of the Government's amendment today, which acknowledges that physical and mental health are equally important and accepts that, whilst progress is being made, there do remain very significant challenges, particularly in the provision of psychological services for children and adolescents. Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that there is a lack of provision generally, especially in deprived areas, and for people with long-term conditions such as dementia, diabetes and heart problems. With many of the commitments in the mental health strategy to 2015, as yet on met, there is clearly no room for complacency, and increasing efforts are needed urgently to meet the needs of the many people who require help. In the short time allocated to me, I want to focus on just two of the strategies commitments that Sam H and his briefing highlighted for the debate. It has quite rightly been a lot of comment in recent weeks on the failure to achieve commitment 13 to provide access to psychological therapies within 18 weeks of referral by the end of December last year, the benchmark of success being that 90 per cent of people should have met this target. In reality, only five health boards met the target, and more than 16,000 people are still on the waiting list, of whom 3.9 per cent have waited between 36 and 52 weeks, and 1.5 per cent more than a year. That really isn't good enough, and what is particularly worrying is that we have indeed been told by Sam H, although the minister disagrees, that 40 per cent of GPs that they contacted have said they have not even referred people recently for psychological therapies because of the long waiting times, so we really have no idea of real unmet need. The Government faces a major challenge if the 18-week target is to be delivered before the end of this year, and beyond that, Sam H is quite right to recommend that talking therapies should actually be included in the 12-week target in order to put mental health on a par with physical health. Link to this is the current failure to achieve commitment 15 of the mental health strategy to increase local knowledge of social prescribing opportunities. It is well known how beneficial simple activities such as walking and gardening, art classes and just being able to talk over problems with one's peers can be in coping with mental stress and depression. If 90 per cent of GPs who told Sam H that they wanted more information on such activities locally did have that information, the benefits in terms of early intervention and reduction in prescription drugs would, I am sure, be significant. The placing of mental health-trained link workers in GP surgeries in areas of extreme deprivation, where mental health issues are very common, is a promising pilot scheme that allows those workers to intervene early and signpost patients to community services and the support that comes from social activities. Now that the pilot has been extended to 2018, hopefully in time other GP practices could benefit from this approach, particularly as health and social care integration develops and evolves across Scotland. I agree that we hold out great hope for that as a project that you would, a big part of the member would presumably agree, though we must thoroughly assess the efficacy of that problem before we roll it out further. I agree with that, absolutely, but I think that it is a very worthwhile pilot. Increasing social prescribing should not be too difficult to achieve because many communities already have the activities in place that would benefit people with mental health issues. However, improved access to psychological services will require more investment, not only in trained psychologists, but in nurses who are trained in cognitive behavioural therapy who, under good supervision and governance, can help to achieve the Government's target for accessing psychological therapies. Surely, with a commitment to caring for people in the community and avoiding the need for hospitalisation wherever possible, such investment right across the country is the way to go. Such a short debate gives little time to deal with the many challenges to achieving mental wellbeing for people who need health, for children and young adults dealing with depression, bereavement, bullying and many other stresses that can become overwhelming, and for the increasing number of older people with chronic ailments or facing the traumas of dementia. Much work remains to be done, but at least this is now recognised, and hopefully the next phase of the mental health strategy will focus on what remains to be achieved with realistic targets aimed at putting mental and physical health on an equal footing and helping the hard-working staff in the field to get the results that they desire and which patients deserve. We will support the motion and the amendments from Labour and the Scottish Government. Many thanks. I move to open debate. I call on Bruce Crawford to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like other opening speakers, I want to start my contribution to this important debate today by recognising and paying tribute to the outstanding work done in this area by hard-working health professionals across the country. As we all know, mental illness is one of the major public health challenges in Scotland today. As much has been achieved, there is much work still to be done, and as we constantly strive to improve the service offered in the field. The debate today, I hope to illustrate some of the challenges faced by those working in this area and also some of the work being done to overcome those very challenges. Jim Hewne's motion notes that one in four people experience a mental health problem during their lifetime. I think that we know that the reality is that, no matter what the statistics tell us, that many more of our population than one in four will suffer from mental health illness at some time in their life. I think that we can also see with some certainty that the level of demand on the health service to provide help to those who are suffering from mental health illness is only likely to grow. Much of that increase in demand is, of course, driven by specific hardships of modern life and, in particular, by financial challenges and poverty. I do not want to get into the impact of the United Kingdom's welfare reform today and the rise of food banks is having on people's mental health and their families, but we cannot simply ignore those matters. Our job today is to debate in a responsible way what we can do to improve the service for those who have a mental health illness and decided to seek professional help. We have a growing challenge. The budget that is still rising significantly is not able to keep pace with the sheer scale of increasing demand. It is a challenge that we face and see across the health sector in its widest sense. Frankly, we cannot simply continue to throw resources at those challenges because we all know in future how limited our capacity to do so will be curtailed as a result of further public expenditure cuts. It is clear that, in the fourth valley health area, as was discussed by Richard Simpson, both in child and adolescent mental health services and in psychological therapy services, are under significant pressure and the statistics do not make for comfortable reading. However, that only serves to emphasise the scale of the challenge that we face. However, that is not a debate about statistics and numbers on a page. It is a debate about the quality of life of individuals and their families and what health boards and we as a Government and as a Parliament can do to make improvements. No Government or health service goes out to create such conditions and they are usually a result of a range of complex circumstances that are not easily resolved, but we must resolve them. To help me to understand the specific challenges that are facing the fourth valley, I asked them to let me know what action they are taking to resolve them. They were able to inform me that they are facing significant workforce challenges in both Cammate Chess and psychological therapy services. In addition, they told me that they are committing an additional £0.5 million a year on a recurring basis and that recruitment is now on their way for two nurses and two consultants, as well as further staffing changes for Cammate Chess. In the area of psychological services, they intend to recruit ahead of service and to fill five additional posts in the near future, as well as to introduce additional clinics. It all depends on what the market for recruitment can provide for them, but it is always a significant challenge ahead. In addition, they intend to prevent a number of waiting time initiatives to help to improve efficiency and productivity of their mental health services. I sincerely hope that the actions that they are taking will have the desired impact and lead to significant improvement. Those with a mental health illness who rely on our health service deserve for this debate to be focused on where improvement plans can help to deliver change for the better. I recognise the tone of both the motions from Jim Hume and the amendment from Richard Simpson, but the minister's amendment captures better the sense of where we are and the context and, therefore, of supporting the minister at decision time. I am full of praise and admiration for those who work in mental health services. I also acknowledge, in terms of the Government's actions, the continuity of policy and general terms between this and the previous administration, and the progress that has been made in several areas. However, it is right that, in debates such as those, we highlight the problems. For me, the problems come, obviously, both at the constituency MSP, but also people draw attention to various issues since I am co-convener of the cross-party group on mental health. I am bound to be concerned, therefore, at the figures for referral for my child and adolescent mental health services that came out last week. Only 54 per cent of young people in Lothian are accepted within 18 weeks, and it is not much higher at 63 per cent within 26 weeks. Clearly, there are big issues there, and it is not just for Lothian. I pay tribute to the Scottish Children's Services Coalition, and they say in regard to the issue that we are at a crisis point, and high-level strategic management is required in order to get a grip on the situation. The question of unmet need has also come up in this debate. Richard Simpson talked about the referrals that are rejected. We cannot assume that, in those health boards, where 27 per cent are rejected, that there is not a need in terms of a service for those 27 per cent of people. We have not heard specifically in terms of young people that GPs are not referring because of the problems with those waiting, but I think that we should certainly remember the quote that Jim Hewman made, and the evidence of Sam H in terms of adult services. We can argue about the percentages, but the fact of the matter is that Sam H do quote from a GP saying, GPs feel under pressure not to refer people to already stretched services. That is a very striking comment on the situation. We are also concerned, as Richard Simpson emphasised, in terms of children and adolescents in non-specialist settings. That was legislated for in the mental health act 12 years ago, and perhaps we can revisit it when we return to that act next week, but progress there does seem to have stalled. Clearly, the preventative agenda is very important here. Early intervention and projects like place to be operate, for example, in fourth view, school in my constituency and, of course, educational psychologists, which we have debated in another debate recently. However, the issue that I highlighted at health questions is also relevant. Clearly, the mental health problems of women around the time of birth are a massive problem for them, but also for their children. While I again paid a tribute at question time to the specialist perinatal community team in Lothian, we know that many areas of Scotland are lacking services for perinatal mental health services, and that is very important for young people as well. Eating disorders that we debated last week are, again, a massive mental health issue for young people. However, since the debate last week, I had a consultation with a mother who was telling me that her daughter got quite a good cam service for eating disorders as soon as she became 18. She fell off a cliff, and I am currently taking out with NHS Lothian what is available for her now that she is designated as an adult. Clearly, the wider preventative agendas are important. The Choose Life campaign has been mentioned. CME has been mentioned. Those were great campaigns, and I was pleased to be associated with them when they started. However, clearly, more needs to be done there as well. In the last mental health debate, I paid a tribute to Lauren Olin from Edinburgh, who was nominated as one of the evening times women of the year. The work that she is doing to help those who are at risk of suicide in terms of providing services for them and spreading the awareness of mental health in schools. Clearly, that should be a collaborative exercise. Mental health is an issue for everyone. I hope that we will all follow the great example of Lauren Olin and do our bit, as well as urging the Government to take their responsibilities as well. Many thanks. I now call on John Mason to be followed by Roderick Campbell. I welcome the return to mental health as a subject for debate. I think that there is a lot of agreement across this chamber that we need to put more emphasis on mental health, but we are maybe not entirely clear how to do that. Stigma has been mentioned in previous debates and again today. Partly it is a question of time taken for attitudes to change, but that does not mean that we should not keep talking about it and so try and help to change those attitudes. I think that I have mentioned before a new care home that has been built in my constituency, which everyone was quite happy about until it transpired that the residents would have mental health issues. That provoked quite a reaction from part of the local community. I have been invisiting them and they would be delighted if either the First Minister or Mr Hepburn was able to visit or open the home. I am interested in some of the words and phrases that appear in the Lib Dem motion and, firstly, there is mention of the word targets, which we are all familiar with. Just this morning at the finance committee, we were discussing preventative spending and the need to shift resources in that direction. Targets are not necessarily in contradiction to preventative spend, but there is a certain danger with targets that they focus on what is easily measured and the short term. While in this case the targets focus on psychological therapies, which I think we can accept are preventative, it is worth saying to at this stage that targets can sometimes take our eye off the long term goals. Secondly, the phrase adequately resourced mental health services. What does that mean? Does it mean reducing the resources for physical health? I think that there is an argument for that, but I think that we should be open about that if the plan is to reduce the number of hospitals for physical health and perhaps cut down the A and E availability. I think that you can argue for that, but I think that it should be spelled out. Thirdly, we have the phrase parity is enshrined in law. What does that actually mean? Does it mean actual equal amounts of money spent on mental and physical health? Does it mean an equal number of inpatient beds for mental health and physical health? I understand that that used to be the case in the 1970s, when I used to visit patients in Lenox Castle, in Gartloch and elsewhere, and surely it is not desirable that we go back to that situation and it is much better to have more help in the community. I am very quickly. I have some discussion about the two different acts in 1978, which covered Scotland and the 2012 one. Just to make it very clear again, the 1978 act that covers Scotland that the minister seems to be content with talks about improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland, whereas the Health and Social Care Act 2012 says that the prevention diagnosis is amazing. I agree to take a short amendment, but I am sorry about that. The final point, then, I am also intrigued by the term zero suicide ambition, which I would very much agree with and welcome the reduction in recent years, but I suspect that zero suicide is incredibly difficult to achieve. I also wonder how that fits in with the concept of assisted suicide. I tend to think that that shows up one of the problems that we have with assisted suicide, that there is often a link with mental health issues. The actions of this Parliament can be symbolic, and if we say that assisted suicide is acceptable, we are also making a strong statement that, when someone faces problems in life, suicide is a valid way out. I do not think that we will have to say that on that message. I am afraid of the most. Many thanks. I know Colin Roderick Campbell up to three minutes. As Jim Hume's motion rightly acknowledges, mental health issues are universal. Few families will be untouched by the need for professional help at some stage in their lives. Mental health is clearly a major public health challenge, more common in socio-economic-deprived areas and regions. Indeed, we only have to look to Greece in the last few years to understand the impact of austerity on the mental health of that society. Inclusion Scotland, in its briefing, suggests that there is significant evidence that those with mental health conditions have been disproportionately hit by sanctions from both jobseekers allowance and employment support allowance. Public perception remains vitally important, too. Too often in the past, people are unfortunate enough to suffer from a mental illness with stigmatised and excluded by society. With the sterling work of the CME campaign launched in 2002, internationally recognised an example of best practice, we have moved a long way. Today, there is much more openness. Celebrities such as Stephen Frye talk openly about bipolar disorder. Mental disorders are of course not uniform. Women are more likely to suffer from depression than men, while the association between poor mental health and disability is clear. But suicide is disproportionately male, particularly affecting young men. In Scotland, we have high rates of suicide compared with the European average. Why that is, is clearly complex. Issues of self-esteem, family breakdown, relationship difficulties, drug use—in particular, all play a part—as indeed will economic factors. Indeed, some academics and researchers call it the Scottish effect. However, what is true is that the suicide rate in 2012 was amongst the lowest for 25 years. Although it increased last year, it will be interesting to see whether, in 2014, a downward trend has established again. What we do know for sure is that suicide rates are strongly related to deprivation. We need to encourage individuals, nevertheless, not to suffer in isolation. At the very least, speaking openly to a friend or family member, it is becoming less of a feared encounter as a result of a better understanding and awareness of the importance of mental health. Initiatives—not only that of CME but that of Choose Life and Scottish Recovery—are important. This Government, in my view, recognises the need amongst competing financial pressures to invest in mental health. In relation to psychological therapies, the figures with some boards are disappointing, but we should not forget that the shortage of cognitive behaviour therapies in itself is an issue. There is clearly a demand that cannot be solved with the stroke of the pen, which is why it is important that other issues such as the use of online technology be explored. As for children and young people, the nature of our society means that the demand is not slowing down. It is disappointing that half the health boards are not meeting targets, but I am encouraged that those boards have action plans in place to address that. I have no doubt that those boards will recognise the need to respond to concerns. Let us also not forget, as the minister has said, improvements in general health by changing people's diets, by encouraging physical activity, by reducing smoking, by tackling levels of drug and alcohol dependency, and by awareness of the threats that new psychomatic substances all play a part. Presiding Officer, I would like to thank the members today for some excellent speeches, and I would also say a tone that befits the topic. I remind some of the new members that there was an audit Scotland report done six years ago on the overview of mental health services, and at that time 142 children were referred to adult wards. The SNP gave a commitment then, and instead of 142, we have now got 202. I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I have to say that every single thing that was recommended here has been raised as a problem again today, so I hope that our new minister will take time to read this, because there is a fair bit of deja vu in there. I want to start note less than four minutes and you have got a chance to sum up. I want to start with psychological services, given that there are 16,000 people on the waiting list. I also think that, if the Government is serious about inequalities, it should start with mental health, given that 43 per cent of people on benefits have a mental health issue. For psychological therapies, the minister would do well to read sign guideline 114, non-pharmaceutical management of depression in adults, published in January 2010 and due to be considered for review two years ago, but that did not happen either. Paragraph 91 describes the provision of psychological therapies that every member has mentioned today, as patchy, idiosyncratic and largely uncoordinated. That was five years ago, so the Scottish Government has had five years to address the patchy, idiosyncratic and uncoordinated services and they failed, absolutely failed. The guideline also states five years ago, NHS Education Scotland is working in partnership with the Government, the NHS boards, other service providers to increase the capacity within the current NHS, workforce to deliver psychological therapies. Where are they? Every member from every side has mentioned the lack of workforce planning and workforce. Now we have a situation five years later, where local doctors do not even bother referring because there is nothing to refer them to. It is certainly a good way of managing a hidden waiting list, no referral, no waiting list. It is also appalling that there is no general sign guideline for depression in Scotland, only a non-pharmaceutical guideline for therapies that do not exist. With one in three patients presenting at the GPs for problems relating to stress, anxiety or depression, Scotland does not even have a sign guideline for GPs. Like others, I pay tribute to Samwich, Penumbra and so many others who help people with mental health. However, the SNP always likes to compare us to England. While in England, NICE has recommendations for depression, including mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, which is a nice approved treatment based on sound research since 2004. We are still waiting for one. MBCD is proven to cut relapse rates in half of those who experience more than two episodes of depression with the strongest evidence base. John Mason should understand that the reduction in costs for antidepressants would more than pay for this therapy, and the benefit would not only be to the patient but, as Bruce Crawford mentioned, the family and how welcome the fact that he did mention the family. The patient and the family would be far greater than a daily dose of pills. I then googled the Scottish Medicines Consortium to pressure for the equivalent of the NICE guidelines. I found a list of drugs but no psychological therapies, so we should not be surprised because the guidelines are simply not in place because they are not a commitment from this Government. I like others in this debate who want to pay tribute to the hard-working staff who provide services both in hospitals and in our communities with very limited resources. Malcolm Chisholm was right to say that we have to draw attention to the problems of those services or we would be remiss in our duty. Over 200 young people are waiting for more than a year to access mental health services. It is unacceptable. Young people are having their life chances damaged due to a lack of service. It is a really important time for them to make decisions. Malcolm Chisholm quoted the Scottish Children's Service Coalition. He went on to say that families usually experience months of waiting even before referral to camps. The consequentially in diagnosis and appropriate support can result in crisis and the need for costly extra resources. It is not a cost-saving measure. It costs more because people's conditions deteriorate and need more intervention than they would have needed if they had been seen more timely. Specialist services are few and far between. Jim Hume talked about people from Aberdeen going to Dundee. Can I say that people from the highlands and islands also have to go to Dundee? That is a huge distance for many to travel, especially in low-income families, where they cannot visit so often. That must have a real impact on young people's mental health to be separated from family and friends for so long. Can I reiterate Dr Richard Simpson's points when he raised the issue of referral rejections and the need to investigate why those rejections are so high in some area? What is happening to those who have been rejected? What support are they receiving? Indeed, where are they receiving it? Has any cognisance been taken of their outcomes? What is happening to them in the long term? Are they receiving appropriate support when they require it? I welcome the minister's comments on that. Both the minister and John Mason, and indeed a number of people, talked about the stigma associated with mental health and how that can impact on providing services within the community. It was the minister who talked about self-stigmatisation, because people were unwilling to speak out. I would put a note of caution in that, because it is very difficult to speak out given the stigma, especially when people are at their most vulnerable. I think that it would take a very brave person in normal circumstances to speak out and share their own experience. When they face a backlash, that becomes even more difficult, especially if they are currently having mental health illness. A number of people spoke about physical activity, and I agree with that. I think that we need to do an awful lot more into showing how physical activity of any kind, gardening, as well as some sheer marathon running and the like, helps people's mental health. I have read of people who have been able to come off medication because they have an exercise regime that helps them do that. Those things are recognised, but not often given as a credible option. We need to look at things such as prescribing access to leisure centres, sporting facilities and the like to get people more active, rather than looking at drugs if that is proven to help them. A number of people talked about self-harm and how that has doubled. Can I mention a case about a young person who spoke to me recently about her own self-harm and the fact that she needed to go to A and E to be stitched? We need to train staff in A and E on how to deal with people who self-harm, because she was refused anaesthetic while her arm was being stitched, because she had done this damage to herself without anaesthetic in the first place. We need to deal with those issues and make sure that people are trained to help people. Presiding Officer, we need to hear the review of SNAP, and I look forward to the minister telling us when that will be available, and indeed an investigation into rejected referrals. I now call on the minister to wind up. Minister, you have five minutes, please. Not wind up the debate, just to make your closing speech. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin to have again welcome. In fact, we have had this debate. I agree with Mary Scanlon. The tone of the debate has, by and large, been very good. I think that it is important that we strike that right tone for this subject matter more than most. Bruce Crawford said that this is not a debate about statistics but about the quality of life for individuals. I very much agree with that perspective. Let me say that that will always be my starting point. Delivering person-focused healthcare will be a priority for this Government. He raised the challenges for health boards in his area of fourth valley, relating to CAMHS. I know that he had hoped to raise that in themed questions early in unfortunate reach. That question, hopefully, he reassured that I have contacted fourth valley and the other six boards where it has not reached the CAMHS referral target. Annette Milne and Rhoda Grant raised the issue of social prescribing. I absolutely recognise the importance of that. I think that this is a very important area. Work is under way through NHS Health Scotland to promote awareness of access to social prescribing. We will be happy to report back to Parliament on that later on. John Mason invited me to come and visit the care home in his constituency. Let me say to Mr Mason that I would be very happy to do so. The issue was an exchange between Mr Hume and Mr Mason in relation to parity between physical and mental health. I want to touch on that again. I do make the point that I am happy to discuss that further. I need to emphasise that Mr Hume is suggesting that there is some fundamental difference between what we have here in Scotland and England. He mentioned that the National Health Service Scotland Act 1978 sets out that we have a duty to promote a service that is insecure, the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. Before that, illness is defined as physical and mental health. It is already there. I am not quite sure what it is going to be, but let me say to Mr Hume that I am happy to discuss the matter further with him very briefly. It does say illness, but in the health and social care act of 2012 from south of the border, it actually specifies mental illness that it states in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness. I literally have it in front of me, and I can read that, but if you go to the National Health Service Scotland Act 1978, although it is not in the same order, if you go to the clause before it talks about improving the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland, that is what illness is defined as. In terms of the issue of prescribing that Mary Scanlon reads, let me, of course, make the point that the prescriber is a clinical decision. I would refer Mary Scanlon and the other members to the comments of John Gillis from the Royal College of General Practitioners, the chair, who said that, as the stigma attached to mental health is declining, more patients raise problems such as depression with their GPs. There is good evidence that GPs can assess and treat depression appropriately, including the prescribing of medicine. In terms of research funding that Mr Hume raised, it is not the case that there has been a reduction in mental health research funding to NHS boards. There are various sources of funding, and, of course, funding will rely on bids that are coming forward. Malcolm Chisholm quoted the GP who feels under pressure not to refer patients to specialist services. Let me say very clearly for chamber that that is not my expectation. If GPs believe that they should refer someone on to specialist services, they should. I have to say that the figures would not suggest that there is a problem with the number of referrals. CAMHS has seen a 60 per cent increase in the number of referrals in the past two years. Very briefly, Dr Simpson. The problem is that the percentage numbers have not risen. We are having those rejections, and they have gone on for years, despite the fact that the guidance is there. I would like to touch on rejected referrals, because, as Dr Simpson knows, or he should know, his colleague Fergsham raised that with me in the chamber, there are a number of reasons why referrals may be rejected, such as referrals not meeting the criteria for access to cancer. What I would say is that where a referral does not meet the criteria, we would expect the service to signpost the child to the most appropriate service. I recognise the importance of the issue, and I will undertake to look at the issue further, particularly in relation to regional variation. I will be happy to report back to Parliament further on that particular issue. Many other areas have been touched on in the debate. I will probably not have time to focus on that. I will touch on the Sandra Grant review report that was raised by Jim Hume. There is work under way to assess that further. Good progress is being made, and we hope to report back further soon. I would welcome the fact that we have had this debate. I look forward to returning to the subject matter. I hope that we can recognise that progress has been made, just as I recognise that further progress still has to be made. Many thanks. I now call on Liam McArthur to wind up the debate. Mr McArthur, you have until 5 o'clock. Thank you very much, everybody. It is 12 months on since the Scottish level of the Democrats last used our debating time to focus on mental health. I am proud of that consistency and indeed the commitment across this chamber to keep mental health issues towards the top of the political agenda. The debate, as expected, has been very constructive. I thank all those who have participated and empathise with those who did not have the time to fully develop their arguments. While I do not support the Government's amendment, I welcome the tone that the minister adopted in his opening remarks and acknowledge the progress that has been made. The mental health strategy is good, and I welcome the heat targets for treatment of those suffering mental ill health. The fact remains, however, as a number of speakers have pointed out, meeting those targets has been patchy, and in some cases we appear to be moving in the wrong direction. The effect of that, particularly in relation to child and adolescent mental health services, is a genuine concern. I think that I have a point made by Dr Simpson and Malcolm Chisholm in their comments. I am going to struggle, I am afraid, Dr Simpson, sorry. As my colleague Jim Hume highlighted, when opening the debate, only half of the health boards are now meeting the new 18-week target for treatment, and five are failing to meet the old 26-week target. Meanwhile, the availability of educational psychologists is below what is needed, and, again, adult psychological services are falling short of target set. In practice, what that means is that the opportunity to intervene with those who need help to put in place support, identify coping strategies, whatever it may be, all of this is delayed, potentially with serious consequences. As Sam H1, the later individuals engaged with health services, the more complex their treatment and recovery will be. However, let me be clear, this is not a criticism of those on the front line in our health, care and third sectors. Without the contribution that they make, invariably above and beyond anything that we have a right to expect, as Jim Human and the minister emphasised, the situation for those with poor mental health in Scotland would be profoundly worse. It is why Scottish Liberal Democrats prioritised mental health in our recent budget negotiations with ministers, and why in 2013 we called for additional support to boost under-resourced psychological therapies. Little wonder do those pressures exist given the numbers affected. The range of conditions may be wide, and some people do move in and then out of poor ill health. However, that is not a niche. As Nanette Milne pointed out, the latest social attitudes survey confirms one in four of a personal experience of mental health through their life. The impact of those stretches is far, far wider. In this and previous debates, members have spoken passionately from direct personal experience, whether themselves, a family member or a close friend. I can think of few other debates in this chamber where similar insight and empathy can be brought to bear. It is also one, the only one of the reasons I believe that we must elevate still further the importance we attached to tackling poor mental health and encouraging good mental health. Scottish Liberal Democrats do believe that it is now time for Scotland to follow the lead taken south of the border and to legislate to afford equal treatment to both mental and physical health. Progress has been made here, and measures are in place to go further, but this falls short of putting mental health on an equal footing with physical health. This matters. As the head of the Blyde Trust in Orkney, Fraser Campbell explained to me recently, too often mental health services are way round the list in terms of budget allocation and other resources, for example hospital space, room design etc. That is why Fraser Campbell wants to see equality in service provision. In passing, can I briefly record my gratitude to those who helped raise around £12,500 for the Blyde Trust? It is strictly come dancing on Friday night, particularly the dozen souls who put at risk life limb and reputation on the dance floor. As well as the money raised, I hope this event brought the work of the Blyde Trust and the needs of those who suffer poor mental health in Orkney to a wider audience. Certainly the issues of stigma and a reluctance to seek help are known to be more prevalent in smaller particularly rural communities. Whatever other steps we take, I agree with Rod Campbell, we need to be more open and honest about mental health in this country. But if mental health is something people find hard to talk about openly, it is as nothing compared to the taboo surrounding suicide. Obviously, not everyone with a mental health issue considers taking their own life, but the numbers who do and who succeed remain high despite a reducing trend in recent years. In 2013, 795 people died by suicide in Scotland. Male suicides learned at three times the rate for females, and according to the Samaritans, suicide is now the leading cause of death of under-35s in this country. That last statistic is truly shocking. Those with most of their life ahead of them, those with so much still to experience, with so much still to contribute, reaching a conclusion that they cannot bear to continue living. That is truly appalling and demands recognition of depression for what it really is. Last time I spoke in this debate, I talked about Andy Harrison, a friend, work colleague and flatmate from my days working in Westminster. Andy took his own life four years ago after a long battle with depression. To this day, I find it hard to understand or accept such a tragic loss of talent, vitality and decency. Andy's wicked sense of humour and generosity of spirit that made him such a privilege to know, massed a deep-rooted despair that ultimately killed him. Since then, I have learned of others who found themselves wrestling with many of the same demons as Andy. In my own orty constituency, there have been a spate of suicides over the last six months or so. While apparently not out of keeping with the statistical averages, nevertheless in a community the size and character of orty, those deaths have touched people very profoundly. I learned recently of someone I was at school with who took their own life last year. I can still remember the shock at being told. Even though we know that each suicide involves an individual with their own personality, their own circumstances and representing their own tragedy, we are perhaps guilty of seeing the statistic rather than the person. In truth, very often, even those closest do not realise the full extent of the risk until it is too late. Again, that is why we must create the conditions whereby issues of mental health, including depression, can be talked about without fear of stigma and judgment. I firmly believe that one way of helping to achieve that is through setting an ambition of zero suicides. To Mr Mason, I would say that this is not the same as setting a target, nor is it, I believe, inconsistent with the objectives underlying the assisted suicide bill. It is about setting an aspiration, changing the mindset about how those with mental health issues are cared for. Evidence from elsewhere shows that it can have dramatic and positive effects. Mersey Care in Liverpool, for example, is a programme involving improved training for staff, working with parents, patients and families to develop a personalised safety plan, a dedicated safe from suicide team providing advice, support and monitoring, and close working with partners like Samaritans. In Detroit, which is signed up to such a commitment, the area covered by the programme has reported no suicides in over two years. Again, that is not a criticism of existing schemes such as Choose Life, but a plea to go further, to aspire to something even more ambitious. If we fall short of this ambition, let's at least be closer than we currently are. As I said in closing the debate last year, this is an issue that needs to be discussed openly, taken seriously and addressed effectively. It is not a second-class condition and ultimately there is no good health without good mental health. One year on, this is truer now than ever and I urge colleagues across the chamber to support the motion. Thank you. That concludes the debate on mental health. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 12495, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-to-speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 12495. Firmly moved. Thank you. James Kelly has indicated that he wishes to speak against the motion. Up to three minutes, Mr Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to oppose the Government business motion, and I do so on the basis that the Government have refused a request from the Scottish Labour Party for a statement on the future of Presswick Airport. I am aware and supportive of the importance of Presswick, not only to Ayrshire but to the wider Scottish economy. However, it is the duty of Parliament to hold the Government to account on this issue and its actions on Presswick. The recent Audit Scotland report that was published last week noted that the costs involved from the public pass had doubled to £40 million from the previously stated figure of £21 million, and Audit Scotland also called for clear and robust plans to be spelled out. It is against that background that Labour has asked for a parliamentary statement. Given the scale of the issue, it is staggering that the only Government-initiated statement to the full parliamentary chamber was on 8 October 2013 by the then Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Nicola Sturgeon, to indicate that negotiations were under way to take the airport into public ownership. I think that it is completely unacceptable that, in a year and a half, we have not had a Government minister come of the Government's own accord and make a statement and be accountable to Parliament on this important issue. In light of the Audit Scotland report, there continue to be questions about the on-going costs involved, the projected passenger numbers and also the future business plan. That is why we need a statement. It is simply not good enough for the Government to adopt that I cannot be bothered to come and speak to its attitude. The Government needs to take Parliament seriously. The workforce at Presswick deserves answers, the public deserves answers and Parliament is a platform for those answers. That is why the Labour Party will continue to call for a statement on the future of Presswick and also oppose the business motion tonight. I now call on Jo Fitzpatrick to respond, Minister, up to three minutes. Mr Kelly confuses money expended with a loan facility. He probably needs to check a few more of his facts as he moves along. The Audit Scotland report vindicates the actions taken by the Scottish Government. It shows that we made the right decision to safeguard 3,200 jobs and secure a vital infrastructure asset that contributes more than £61 million annually to the Scottish economy. If we had not stepped in, Glasgow Presswick Airport would have closed. If however, the Labour Party wants to question— Mr Kelly, the minister is not taking intervention. If the Labour Party wants to question the safeguarding of 3,200 jobs, their deputy leader had the opportunity to raise that at FMQs last week, and she has a further opportunity tomorrow. Alternatively, if Labour wants a longer discussion, they can use their own time during opposition business next week. I am sure that the irony of Labour opposing Labour business next week will have not escaped the majority of this chamber. That is taking opposition for opposition's sake a bit too far. I move the motion on behalf of the bureau. I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 12495 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliaments not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12495 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick is as follows. Yes, 70. No, 51. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions number 12497, 12500, 12502 and 12505 on approval of SSIs on block. And motion number 12506 on the referral to the Parliament of the Local Government Finance Scotland amendment order. Questions on these motions will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 12504 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on the approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, section 30, on the franchise. I would ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press a request to speak, but now I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. I now call on Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Devolution Further Powers Bill Committee. I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution as the convener of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. 110,000 additional citizens of Scotland that is the size of the population of Scotland of the chance to be enfranchised if in the coming months the Scottish Parliament passes the necessary legislation. I hope that the Parliament tonight will approve the draft order to transfer powers to the Scottish Parliament and allow that legislation to be brought forward once the private council has given its approval. I am delighted to report that all five political parties represented on my committee unanimously agreed to do just that and recommend that we give approval tonight at decision time. That will add Parliament's approval to the agreement of both houses of the UK Parliament, one chamber albeit a little more reluctantly than the other. What a prize, Presiding Officer, and for me the prize is another step forward towards creating a modern democracy, building on the historic reforms that delivered votes for the ordinary person, not just the rich and the privileged, few, and votes for women, reforms that characterised the previous century. The work that my committee has undertaken, we have also felt the palpable desire of Scotland's young people to be involved in decisions that affects their lives. We have been to Fort Williamant and Levenmouth as part of Parliament days and spoken to over 216 and 17-year-olds and furthermore surveyed a further 1,000. The results of the activity can be summarised by simply saying, though overwhelming majority want and are ready for this change. One comment from a young man from Fort Williamant sticks in my mind when we discussed voting in the recent referendum. He said, why should an older generation get to decide our future when it is our future that you are all voting for? I could not agree more with that. I look forward, Presiding Officer, to the work that comes next to scrutinise the bill that the Scottish Government has set to introduce. We will endeavour, Presiding Officer, to carry out the detailed scrutiny that would be expected of us and allow Parliament the chance to get this legislation on the statute books by the summer recess and ultimately give those 110,000 young people of Scotland the right that every citizen of Scotland expects in a modern democracy, the right to vote. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We support and welcome the order for three reasons. First, it gives effect to part of the Smith agreement. That agreement, of course, belongs to all the parties who signed it, and all those parties have supported the devolution of the power conferred by this order. For our part, Scottish Labour is keen to see the delivery of the agreement in accordance with the timetable that was laid out last year, and this early action in this respect more than delivers on that commitment. Second, as Bruce Crawford has said in half of the committee, we welcome votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. That is Labour policy not just for the Scottish Parliament and local government but across the United Kingdom. The referendum last year engaged young voters on both sides of the argument on the basis of votes at 16. When Harold Wilson's Government delivered votes at 18 in the 1960s, it became irreversible as soon as it was done, just as every other extension to the franchise had been. That will be true here too, and we want extending the franchise this time to be followed by wider democratic and constitutional reform across the UK, not least abolition of the House of Lords and creation of a senate of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, passing this order now will allow work to go forward on implementing votes at 16 in good time for the Scottish Parliament elections next May. Many of those who voted at 16-year-olds last year and all the 17-year-olds will be over 18 by then, and a whole new cohort of young voters will have to be added to the electoral register. There is also a job to be done in engaging these new voters, and if they are to be as fully informed and engaged as we would want, that job has to start as soon as possible. For those reasons, we welcome this order, and we look forward to a bill being brought forward in the next few weeks to extend the franchise accordingly. Presiding Officer, this section 30 order is historic. It represents the first legislative change to be brought about following the report of the Smith commission. It is the full run-out of a major package of powers being brought forward by the UK Government, which will make this Parliament one of the most powerful, devolved legislators in the world. In itself, it powerfully refutes the proposition, peddled by the S campaign in last year's referendum, that no new powers would flow to this Parliament in the event of a no vote. That bogus assertion is today laid bare. These new powers, based on cross-party consensus, have indeed begun to flow. The draft provisions for a new Scotland bill have been published, the UK Government is now focused on final revisions to them, and on launching various strands of public engagement. However, this legislation is more than a mere taster. Today, we have a devolved and developed proposal for a new power that is substantial in itself. This order proposes a very significant change to the franchise in Scotland, a very important development for 16 and 17-year-olds. It reflects the impressively high levels of interest, engagement and awareness from that age group that was witnessed during the referendum. In 1928, women were given suffrage on an equal status to men. In 1969, the franchise was lowered from 21 to 18, and today sees a further exciting development. On this side of the chamber, we welcome this first piece of post-Smith agreement UK legislation. It is a significant step in the process of delivering to this Parliament the new powers to which all the parties in this chamber have agreed. I support the motion. I thought I misheard Lewis MacDonald. I thought he said that he wanted to demolish the House of Lords, which I thought might reflect in more of the building than anything else. We support the order in front of Parliament this afternoon for a couple of reasons, not least of which, in relation to the Smith agreement, I am giving effect to the Smith agreement. I want to thank Bruce Crawford for his careful handling of the committee proceedings. Although this is maybe a rather easier issue than some that the committee is currently dealing with. The cabinet secretary for his handling of the ministerial aspects of this, I am sure that the Government will wish to recognise that the Scottish secretary moved this matter on very quickly indeed to give effect to the overwhelming desire of politics in Scotland for this to come into effect in time for the 2016 Scottish general election. I just want to make one other point. This is about, as others have said, about young people. Two weeks ago I was at junior high school in my constituency with the two members of the Scottish youth parliament who said to me or said to the class who were cross-examining us, this was one of the campaigns that got them into politics. Sometimes this place is all noise and not enough action. Today this is action that really makes a difference to people. Alison Johnstone Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to take part in this short debate and to speak in favour of this order to devolve the power to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, which will deliver, at least at Scottish Parliament and local government elections, the Scottish Green Party's long-standing policy. Many organisations and individuals have campaigned on this issue, the NUS, the TUC, Bernardos, Unison and the Scottish Youth Parliament, diligently. They proved, as did all young Scots who took part in the referendum, that they are indeed ready to vote, that they are motivated to vote and that they are totally qualified to vote. Enabling our young people to vote takes us a step closer to the kind of Scotland that we want to become, an inclusive Scotland that empowers its citizens by fully involving them in the decision making process. Of course, that is not just about voting, but a vote helps young people ensure that local and national government is listening to what they have to say. During the referendum, we all took part in debates in school and church halls across the land. The questions that we received from our youngest voters were wholly relevant to the debate. The interest of our youngest voters was intense and their contribution to the debate broadened it. Their involvement made it more meaningful to more of our citizens. Patrick Harvie's debate, two weeks ago, explored how beginning to vote from the age of 16 can help to develop a habit and can help to involve people in politics throughout their lives. I look forward to future local and national government elections, where 16 and 17-year-olds continue to contribute in the articulate, challenging and thought-provoking way that they were able to in the referendum. I call John Swinney to respond, Deputy First Minister, four minutes. Presiding Officer, can I begin, first of all, by thanking members of all political parties for the comments that they have made in this short debate this afternoon? I also thank Mr Crawford and the Devolution of Further Powers Committee for the scrutiny that they have given of the order that is now before Parliament for approval. It is beyond exaggeration to say that one of the triumphs of the referendum campaign was the decision taken by this Parliament to attach a priority to enabling 16 and 17-year-olds to participate in the referendum last September. It was a measure of the capacity and the capability of the young people of Scotland that they exercised that responsibility in such an effective and a dignified way in every part of the country and seized the opportunity to take part in shaping the future of our country. The fact that the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government have been able to recognise that and to co-operate to bring forward the order that is before us today is to pay due respect to the capability and the strength of young people in Scotland who were able to make that contribution in the referendum. We are now by our actions today and by the further scrutiny that will take place when the Government introduces the necessary legislation to Parliament very shortly to ensure that young people, 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland are able to participate in the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2016 and in the local authority elections in 2017. We do so today with a great deal more agreement in this chamber than we did when the first question of 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote was brought forward. I am delighted that the Conservatives have got to a position now where they are supporters of the right of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the election. We will work very hard to persuade the Conservatives of other ways in which they can change their position to come to support the arguments of the Scottish Government in the years to come. Annabelle Goldie made one of her usually creative contributions to the debate with her reflections on the referendum. I can just say to Annabelle Goldie, as one of her fellow members of the Smith commission, that, although there are welcome enhancements in the powers of the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Smith commission, it does not represent the belief of this Government that addresses the democratic deficit of our country, and we will continue to work to secure the further powers that will enable us to deliver on the future of our country. To Lewis MacDonald, can I simply say that the Labour Party would be slightly more credible on the question of House of Lords abolition if they were not so enthusiastic about trying to get into the institution in the first place? We will look forward to their decisions in that respect in the years to come. If this is an application, then certainly, Mr MacDonald. Clearly there are no syndicures that I can offer Mr Swinney or he can offer me, but will he offer me today the support of his party for Labour's proposal for a Senate of the Nations and Regions in place of the House of Lords? Let me just say to Mr MacDonald that there will be no more enthusiastic supporters of the abolition of the House of Lords than the members of the Scottish National Party. Let me close by also adding to that. There will be no more enthusiastic supporters of the abolition of the House of Commons than the Scottish National Party into the bargain and the establishment of the full range of independent powers that this Parliament should have. Thank you. That concludes the debate on approval of the section 30 order in the franchise. We now move to decision time. There are nine questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 12491.2 in the name of Don Swinney, which seeks to amend motion number 12491 in the name of Willie Rennie. On privacy and the state, we agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12491.2 in the name of Don Swinney is as follows. Yes, 64. No, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12491.1 in the name of Richard Simpson, which seeks to amend motion number 12491 in the name of Willie Rennie. On privacy and the state, we agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12491.1 in the name of Richard Simpson is as follows. Yes, 60. No, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12491 in the name of Willie Rennie. As amended, on privacy and the state, we agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12491 in the name of Willie Rennie. As amended, as as follows. Yes, 65. No, 60. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed to. In relation to the debate on mental health, can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Jamie Hepburn is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Richard Simpson falls? The next question is at amendment number 12492.2 in the name of Jamie Hepburn, which seeks to amend motion number 12492 in the name of Jim Hume on mental health be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12492.2 in the name of Jamie Hepburn is as follows. Yes, 81. No, 42. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to and the amendment in the name of Richard Simpson falls. The next question is at motion number 12492 in the name of Jim Hume, as amended, on mental health be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There is a no. The motion is not agreed to. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12492 in the name of Jim Hume, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 120. No, five. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. I propose to ask a single question on motions number 12497, 12500, 12502 and 12505 on approval of SSIs. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. Nobody objects. The next question is at motion number 12497, 12500, 12502 and 12505 in the name of Jofits Patrick on approval of SSIs be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motions are therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12506 in the name of Jofits Patrick on the refer of the local government finance Scotland amendment order to the Parliament be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12504 in the name of Jofits Patrick on approval of the section 30 order on the franchise be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed to and the Parliament is agreed to approve the transfer of powers to enable legislation. The Parliament has therefore approved the transfer of powers to enable legislation to be brought forward to reduce the minimum voting age in Scotland. That concludes decision time. We now move on to members' business. Members to leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.