Official Report

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-10464, in the name of Clare Haughey, on the everyone’s business campaign. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes the introduction to Scotland of the campaign, Everyone’s Business; notes that this campaign calls for all women who experience perinatal mental health problems to receive the care that they and their families need; understands that more than 1 in 10 women develop a mental illness during pregnancy or within the first year after having a child, and these illnesses include antenatal depression, postnatal depression, anxiety, perinatal obsessive compulsive disorder, postpartum psychosis and post-traumatic stress disorder; believes that such mental illness often goes unrecognised, undiagnosed and untreated and that this can have a devastating impact on the women and their families; understands that the availability of specialist provision is varied, meaning that specific care may not be readily available across the whole of the UK; welcomes the Scottish Government’s Mental Health Strategy 2017-2027, which includes a commitment to fund the introduction of a managed clinical network that will aim to bring together health professionals in order to improve recognition and treatment in Rutherglen and across Scotland, and notes the campaign’s aim, which is to ensure that all women who experience such problems receive appropriate care, wherever and whenever they need it.

I thank the members who signed my motion, which welcomes the everyone’s business campaign to Scotland. The campaign is incredibly personal to me; I have been a mental health nurse for more than 30 years, and for the past 15 years I have specialised in perinatal mental healthcare. I refer members to my entry in the register of interests: I am a registered mental health nurse and hold an honorary contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I am delighted to welcome a number of people to the gallery this afternoon. We are joined by change agents and some of Scotland’s most talented mental health professionals, from lead nurses to consultant perinatal psychiatrists and consultant clinical psychologists. I sincerely hope that they will enjoy their visit to Parliament. Among them is an individual without whom perinatal mental health services in Scotland would not be where they are today, and for that we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude. Dr Roch Cantwell’s passion has ensured that many mothers, their infants and their families have received the specialist care that they have needed and deserved.

I pay tribute to the everyone’s business campaign co-ordinator for Scotland, Joanne Smith, for her work and drive in ensuring that the campaign has been raised in Parliament.

Our debate this afternoon could not be more timely. We are in the middle of this year’s mental health awareness week, at a time where mental health is at the forefront of the public’s thoughts. Although most people will be aware of the shocking statistic that suicide is the biggest killer of men aged under 45, it is probably less known that it is also the leading cause of direct maternal deaths within a year of childbirth.

Perinatal mental health problems are, sadly, all too common, with estimates that range between 10 per cent and 20 per cent for the number of women developing an illness in the first postnatal year, and it being estimated that one in seven of those women hides or underplays its severity.

Across the United Kingdom, mental illness in pregnant and postnatal women often goes unrecognised, undiagnosed, and untreated, with many mothers suffering in silence. The everyone’s business campaign is therefore calling for all women across the UK who experience perinatal mental health problems to receive the crucial care that they and their families need, wherever and whenever they need it.

The campaign is built on three main themes:

“Accountability for perinatal mental health care should be clearly set at a national level and complied with.

Community specialist perinatal mental health teams meeting national quality standards should be available for women in every area of the UK.

Training in perinatal mental health care should be delivered to all professionals involved in the care of women during pregnancy and the first year after birth.”

The campaign recently published a UK-wide map that categorises the levels of specialist perinatal mental health community teams in different areas. The map includes so-called red areas, where no specialist team exists; pink areas, where some extremely basic provision exists; amber areas, where basic provision exists but falls short of national standards and need to be expanded; and green areas, where women and families can access treatment that meets nationally agreed standards.

Although there might not be comprehensive community care across the country, as is reflected on that map, that is not to say that there are no services available at all. There are dedicated professionals across many services throughout Scotland who are ensuring that mothers, their children and their families can access help. All health boards in Scotland bar two have direct access to one of the two mother and baby units in Scotland, and the two exceptions can access that care, when required.

I am very proud to have worked, prior to my election, in the perinatal mental health service in Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which is categorised as being at the highest level on the everyone’s business map.

The Maternal Mental Health Alliance’s report acknowledges, as do I, that we can do more across Scotland. In 2017, the Scottish Government, with the first-ever Minister for Mental Health in the UK, sought to address the disparities by launching the new Scottish managed clinical network for perinatal mental health, in order to identify gaps in provision of such care and to promote improvements in local services.

The new network is an excellent start towards ensuring that every woman and her family who require help with perinatal mental health problems receive prompt and effective care from professionals who are skilled to meet their needs.

Although we are not fully there yet, as an RMN with over 30 years’ experience, I cannot overstate how far our mental health services have come in that time. When I started nursing, mental health hospitals were on the periphery of our society—they were, quite literally, on the outskirts of towns and cities—and there were few community services available. Now, community mental health services are the norm, there is liaison psychiatry in our acute hospitals, and crisis and home treatment teams can be found in most areas of the country.

As clinical nurse manager of the perinatal mental health service, I was part of the team who helped to set up the mother and baby unit in Glasgow in 2004—the first of its kind in Scotland. All that and the continuous work to end stigma have ensured that our services, our treatment, and the prevention of mental illness are constantly improving.

I have, over the years, cared for so many women suffering from a range of illnesses, including depression and anxiety, after having a baby. Many of them had lost all confidence in themselves and their ability to be a good parent, but after some treatment and support, they got back to health.

I often reflect on the words of one particular mum, who gave me a card after her care and treatment came to a close. She wrote:

“I have spent weeks looking for a gift that shows my appreciation for all that you have done for me. Nothing I could find seemed good enough so I am trying to find the words in this card to repay you. You have given me back my life. You have knitted my family back together again and I can now get on with being the mum I want to be to my children.”

I believe that those words show exactly why the services are so important. As a perinatal nurse, I feel very privileged to have worked with mums, their infants, and their families at a very special time in their lives—the time when their baby has been born. It is a very special area of mental healthcare and one that I am very passionate about. I am sure that other health and social care professionals who work in the field feel likewise. That shows why perinatal mental healthcare is so important.

Perinatal mental health is everyone’s business: until all the mums who experience perinatal mental health problems receive the care that they and their families need, wherever and whenever they need it, we still have some work left to do.

I thank Clare Haughey for bringing the debate to the chamber today, especially during mental health awareness week. I offer my support to the everyone’s business campaign and welcome the visitors in the gallery.

Despite more than one in 10 women developing a mental health problem during pregnancy or within the first year of having a baby, the topic is not spoken about nearly enough. We all know people who have struggled after the birth of a child. After having my son 24 years ago I, as many young mothers do, found myself feeling alone, isolated and not sure that I was doing the right things. I continually questioned my actions, and felt that everyone else seemed to know better than I did. No matter how much I beat myself up or questioned myself, I did not want to say to anyone that I was not coping. However, having spoken to friends and family, and looking back, it seems that that is how a lot of people feel, so I am pleased to see that the subject is now being discussed more openly.

That is exactly why I also welcome the introduction of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance’s campaign here in Scotland. It seeks to improve access to specialist perinatal mental health services, so that women can receive the care that they and their families need, wherever and whenever they need it.

We know that services are falling short of the required standards. Only last month, data from 2017 that was analysed by the MMHA showed that women could get no such specialist care in seven out of the 14 health boards, and the MMHA has warned that women are facing a postcode lottery in accessing lifesaving care. We know what the costs are when adequate support is not provided. Suicide remains the leading cause of death among women in the perinatal period, and the impact of undiagnosed or untreated illness can be devastating for families. Although I welcome the commitment to introduce a managed clinical network, I want to see expanded and improved antenatal and postnatal mental health services, so that we get it right for every mother.

When we know that seven in 10 women will hide or underplay the severity of their perinatal mental health problem, it is also important that, on top of improving service provision, we break down barriers to talking about mental health. Last month, I was lucky enough to visit Quarriers, in the heart of Glasgow’s east end, to see the perinatal mental health support that it provides in its purpose-built family resource centre. Based in the community, the facility creates a comfortable space in which mothers can talk openly about problems that they are having, and know that they are not alone. I was encouraged to hear from the staff in the centre that the resource is well utilised. It is also great to see such services being delivered within the heart of the community. I would like to see that being replicated across the city and throughout Scotland. That would show that perinatal mental health is something that we can all speak about without stigma or feelings of self-doubt.

On that point, it is positive to have heard that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has met the national guidelines on service provision that were set out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. With the health board being clearly focused on delivering for service users, that gives us a greater chance of succeeding in assisting every mother. All stakeholders, locally and nationally, need to play their parts; the NHS is right at the heart of the strategy, going forward. I hope that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde continues to meet the guidelines. We have a duty to ensure that the guidelines are monitored regularly.

In finishing, I repeat my support for the campaign. The subject needs to be brought more to the public’s attention, so I hope that the many personal speeches that we will hear from across the chamber today will help to achieve that. We must create a society in which mothers feel able to share their experiences, rather than feeling that they have to hide away, which is why I hope that more resources will be put towards services that reach out to the mothers who find themselves affected.

I congratulate Clare Haughey on bringing the important topic of perinatal mental health to the chamber, and I acknowledge her significant experience and expertise on the topic. I also thank the Aberlour Child Care Trust, the everyone’s business campaign and the Scottish Parliament information centre for the briefing materials that they provided prior to the debate.

Perinatal mental health issues are estimated to affect up to one in 10 women during pregnancy. I support the call of the everyone’s business campaign for all women who experience perinatal mental health problems to receive the care that they and their families need, wherever and whenever they need it. I believe that the establishment of a national managed clinical network on perinatal mental health—the first MCN covering mental health—is a good sign of the Scottish Government’s determination to give mental health parity with physical health. Clinical networks operate in other parts of the health service and have a proven track record on driving up standards of care.

Good perinatal maternal mental health is vital in improving outcomes for mothers and their young children. Poor maternal mental health can impact significantly on child development outcomes. If untreated, it can impact on a child’s emotional, cognitive and even physical development, and although that is not inevitable, the consequences can be serious and potentially lifelong.

That is why the Government-funded MCN on perinatal mental health is so important. The MCN brings together specialists on perinatal mental health with nursing, maternity and infant mental health practitioners, who are assessing provision across all levels of service delivery, currently and in the longer term, to ensure that all women, their infants and their families have equity in access to the perinatal mental health services that they need throughout Scotland.

With all that we know about the importance of early development to a child’s life, intervention and support at the earliest possible stage can have a really positive impact, and can prevent or mitigate issues later on. I whole-heartedly agree that there is a way to go both in raising awareness of perimental—

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I am struggling to say “perinatal mental health”. It is not an easy phrase.

Will Ruth Maguire take an intervention?

Are you going to teach her how to say it?

No—but I thank my colleague for taking my intervention. She is aware of my campaign to increase paternity leave to up to four weeks in organisations in the public sector. Might that help women who are struggling in the early days?

I thank Fulton MacGregor for that intervention, which gave me a chance to put my teeth back in.

I absolutely agree that children having both their parents around in the early days is good for mum, good for dad, good for baby and good for everybody, so I whole-heartedly support Fulton MacGregor’s campaign.

The most effective work will be done through partnerships including the local authority, the health and third sectors and—of course—perinatal mental health services. Those services straddle adult and child mental health services, which means that the investment protects two generations at once, by supporting child development outcomes and improving maternal mental health. It is work that will ultimately prevent unnecessary suffering for women and families, and it improves children’s early experiences and removes future pressures.

There is an obvious human cost of undiagnosed or untreated illness, and if those mental health problems were identified and treated quickly and effectively, serious and sometimes life-changing human and economic costs could be avoided.

All of us in the chamber agree that we want Scotland to be the best place to grow up. Addressing perinatal mental health issues effectively and as early as possible is just one of the things that we can do to help make that aspiration a reality. Let us pledge to do all that we can to make perinatal mental health everyone’s business.

I start by congratulating Clare Haughey on bringing forward this important debate, particularly as we are in mental health awareness week. I thank the charity behind the everyone’s business campaign and all the campaigners, all the clinicians and, indeed, all the charities that are involved in mental health for their efforts, not just this week but throughout the year.

It is important to recognise that the campaign is about supporting the individual and that perinatal mental health issues impact on the individual for the rest of their life. They also impact on their family life, their social life and their working life, and on their children. It is about health outcomes for the mother, but it is also about health and life outcomes for the child. That is why the campaign is so important. People need access to specialist and wraparound services. However, to make that happen, we need a change of culture—a change in how we think about mental health. I will tell members what I mean by that.

We often mention the statistic that one in three of us will have a mental health issue at some point in our lives. I prefer to think about that as every one of us being on a spectrum of mental health throughout our lives. Thinking about it in that way can help us to change the culture—to change where the resource goes, where the workforce goes and how we not only address the stigma but back up the commitment to tackle mental health problems with the services that people need. Those services include perinatal mental health services.

We also need to address antenatal depression, postnatal depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders—women need support in all those areas. However, we should consider providing that support in different places. We should consider perinatal mental health not only straight after a child is born but when the woman goes back into the workplace. We must think about what happens in the workplace and how we can provide access to better mental health services there. If the woman is going back to the university or college sector, how do we give her better support and better access to mental health services there?

Crisis services are a specific challenge—we heard about that during First Minister’s questions. We ask people to wait days on end to see a general practitioner, and then sometimes weeks, if not months, to see a counsellor or psychologist. For many people, that delay can literally become a life-or-death matter. Someone who breaks their leg will be seen by an accident and emergency department within four hours, even though they will not lose their life. However, if someone who has a serious mental health crisis is not seen quickly, that can mean the end of their life. We need to change the culture in relation to crisis centres. It is really important to back them with resource.

We also need to think about how we provide care in the community. First, we need to consider how we deliver direct services, whether that is in an acute setting or a primary care setting and whether it is through access to a counsellor in the workplace, in a college or on a university campus, or access to an emergency service in a crisis centre. However, it is also important that, in the community, we have genuinely local crisis teams that identify individuals who need wraparound support.

Yesterday, I read about the case of someone who tried to access a local crisis team in their community. They had a history of mental health issues but were turned away. Four hours later, the police picked that person up from a well-known suicide site at a bridge in the west of Scotland. That is a stark example of the need for better thinking in relation to our crisis teams. Alongside that, we must consider the workforce and how we can get more clinical psychologists and counsellors into all those places to support perinatal women, as well as all women and, indeed, all our citizens, throughout their lives.

I welcome the everyone’s business campaign and thank Clare Haughey for bringing the debate to the chamber. I hope that members can work collectively to give mental health the priority that it needs and back that up with services, resources and the workforce.

I echo members’ thanks to Clare Haughey and the everyone’s business campaign for securing parliamentary time for us to debate this important issue.

“Welcome to the best club in the world. Your life is going to change, but only in good ways.” Those are some of the words that society utters whenever someone is expecting a child. With such a weight of societal expectation around pregnancy and parenthood, it is not surprising that it is difficult for mothers to come forward and admit that they are not necessarily coping or enjoying the experience in the way that they thought that they might. However, for all too many mothers, that is the reality. It is a hidden issue in our mental health landscape and I am glad that we are airing it today.

As with many other mental health issues, perinatal mental ill health is a spectrum. It can be severe or mild; it can involve anxiety or depression; it can involve obsessive-compulsive disorder; and it can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder and real psychosis in some extreme cases.

Perinatal mental ill health happens during or after pregnancy. I will take a moment to recognise a group that is not often a mentioned in such debates: those who miscarry. My sister, Rosie, who is in the gallery this afternoon, is one such person. She miscarried in 2016 and then suffered mental health issues directly afterwards. She has allowed me to share her words with the chamber this afternoon. She said:

“It hurts so much. Along with the feelings of guilt and failure at not successfully bringing my baby into the world, there was a chemical change that I didn’t understand or expect.”

Rosie is among many mothers or would-be mothers who suffer in that way, and we need to do far, far more for them.

There is a tension, because the stigma of not wanting to put up their hand and say that they are not coping gets in the way of identification. That is why the six-week check, which every new mother undergoes, is all important. However, it means nothing if our doctors, midwives and health visitors are not adequately trained to understand the early-warning signs that show that someone is just not coping or might need a little bit of extra support. We urgently need to rectify that and make sure that, as a matter of course, people are adequately trained in perinatal mental health issues.

Once we identify those women, we do them a profound disservice if we cannot back that up with adequate service provision in the communities and hospitals in their locale. We know that less than half of mothers are served by adequate perinatal mental health facilities or services either in their communities or in their local hospitals.

I am intensely proud to have been involved with Aberlour when it started its perinatal befriending service in Forth Valley. All told, it has helped 160 mothers in that area since it started three years ago, but there is no guarantee that the service will be able to be sustained when the funding goes. We need to mainstream such services right across the country so that there is no postcode lottery.

The worst comes when we talk about in-patient provision. In this country, on any given day we have only 12 beds available to mothers and their babies to come in for perinatal mental health support. If those beds are full, mothers are directed to adult services and cannot take their babies with them. We are compounding the mental turmoil of the chemical changes that are going on in their brains with the separation anxiety created by having to remove their child from the situation. That has to be the nexus of where we take the agenda, because it is an absolutely critical point.

I thank Clare Haughey once again for the opportunity to have this debate, and I thank the campaign. It is very easy for us to let these women drift back into the shadows and try to muddle through and carry on regardless, but they are looking to the chamber for answers. It is time that we woke up to that.

I, too, thank Clare Haughey, for securing the debate and the Maternal Mental Health Alliance for its campaign on perinatal mental healthcare and treatment. I thank all organisations that work in this important area and I thank my colleagues, whose contributions have been passionate and sensitive.

Like all members, I was glad to see a managed clinical network for perinatal mental health established, but it is clear that there is much more to be done.

Women are more likely to experience severe mental health problems following childbirth than they are at any other time in their life. Although we know that up to one in five women might experience some kind of mental health problem during pregnancy or in the first year of their child’s life, the mental health difficulties of too many women go undiagnosed and untreated.

Prioritising maternal mental health is a preventative approach to mental health; we know that the mental health of mothers, and new parents generally, is such an important factor in children’s development, wellbeing and their own mental health in later life.

In his review of national health service targets, Harry Burns advocated a “life course approach” to planning health services, which means acting more in early life to support people in the long term. It is about teacher training and training the early years workforce we are trying to attract.

Investment in maternal mental health is an investment in infant mental health. However, the support that we offer families at that crucial time is lacking, and the Royal College of Midwives has said that we are lagging behind England and Wales in making improvements.

It is concerning that only one health board in Scotland has a specialised perinatal community team that reaches the Royal College of Psychiatrists perinatal quality standards under the type 1 criteria. To be clear, in the view of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, failing to meet those standards is a threat to patient safety and rights and might even breach the law. As colleagues, including Annie Wells, have noted, although it is clear that very good work is going on in parts of Scotland, seven health boards offer no specialist community perinatal mental healthcare at all.

The Mental Welfare Commission has found that some women who would have benefited from specialist in-patient care in a mother and baby unit considered that the units were too far away from home—the travel and disruption to their wider family life was too challenging at a time when they were in severe distress. Therefore, we must think seriously about how to improve provision for women who are not close to Livingston or Glasgow. I know that the managed clinical network has been looking at that issue, and I would be grateful if the minister would address that point when she closes the debate.

Bliss has also stressed the need for better mental health support for parents whose babies are cared for in neonatal units. That is an incredibly anxious time for parents and they need access to psychological support.

The links between financial stress and mental health problems cannot be overstated. I very much welcome the new neonatal care fund to ease financial pressures for parents whose babies are in hospital.

We must also ensure that the basics are in place for all new families. Starting a family or having another child means huge change for most families’ financial circumstances. For those on low incomes, the prospect of long periods on statutory maternity pay, navigating the benefit system and paying for childcare can be frankly terrifying.

Parliament has shown the will to tackle child poverty. We have put targets to reduce child poverty back in place, and I am pleased that the Government has listened to the Green Party’s calls to roll out the healthier, wealthier children programme, which is an income maximisation approach that works.

In my Lothian region, family-friendly advice projects and healthy start projects are helping to boost the incomes of young families in Edinburgh and beyond. There have been other positive steps, too, such as the new best start grant. However, there is no room for complacency, because child poverty is predicted to rise, which will have an impact on maternal mental health. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that nearly 30 per cent of children in Scotland will live in poverty by 2021. Such financial stress for parents can have a serious impact on their mental health.

I look forward to working with colleagues to improve perinatal mental health, and I look forward to the minister’s response to the challenges that we face in delivering that improvement.

A few members still want to speak, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I ask Clare Haughey to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Clare Haughey.]

Motion agreed to.

I, too, thank Clare Haughey for bringing this important subject to the chamber and for an informative and moving opening speech. I also thank her because this issue is rarely discussed. It should be, as it affects a lot of women—one in 10, as we have heard.

Pregnancy is traditionally portrayed as a happy, joyful time in a woman’s life. People say things such as, “You look radiant”, “You’re blooming,” and all the rest of it. For many women that is true: they revel in this amazing chapter of their life, feeling fulfilled, happy and well—if a little exhausted towards the end. However, for others, as we have heard, it is just not like that that.

As the motion states,

“more than 1 in 10 women develop a mental illness during pregnancy or within the first year after having a child”,

which is exactly when they need their health and energy most. Because of societal pressure, they often pretend that everything is alright, as they do not want to seem weird or different, as Alex Cole-Hamilton articulated. The everyone’s business campaign is so important because it raises awareness of the issues. It says that it is okay to not be okay and that sufferers are not alone.

The fact that the illness often goes undiagnosed and untreated has a devastating effect on women and their family and friends. There is patchy provision of specialist care throughout the United Kingdom and, like Clare Haughey and others, I am glad that that is recognised in the Scottish Government’s mental health strategy, which will fund a £173,000 managed clinical network on perinatal mental health. The network will train midwives, health visitors and primary care and mental health professionals so that women know that there will be help when they most need it, no matter where in Scotland they live. There should not be a postcode lottery in an issue as important as this—it is everyone’s business.

The Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network’s SIGN 127 campaign—SIGN 127 is a guideline on managing perinatal mood disorders—presents a vision of what a world-class service for perinatal mental health would look like. The Scottish Government has committed to implement the SIGN 127 guideline and has also prioritised perinatal mental health in its plan “The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland”.

The gaps in specialist perinatal mental health services in Scotland must be closed, and I believe that the Government has taken the first steps to address that. An example of great practice is that of the Aberlour children’s charity, which believes in early intervention. Aberlour points out in its briefing, for which I thank it, that not all children are born equal. Since 2014, Aberlour has been providing perinatal support services across Forth Valley, and it will expand its provision this year to support mums and their families in East Lothian. Aberlour also runs a befriending support service to provide intensive, community-based, one-to-one support throughout pregnancy and during the first year of a child’s life. By matching each mum with a befriender, the service aims to improve mental health and wellbeing, increase confidence in parenting, reduce social isolation and support access to wider community supports and resources. Aberlour also believes that acknowledging the importance of the father, partner or any other existing supportive relationships in the lives of expectant or new mums is essential, which fits entirely with Fulton MacGregor’s campaign on parental leave.

Nothing is more important than our health and the health of our next generation. It is incumbent on each and every one of us to recognise the signs of perinatal and postnatal illness and to offer support to those who are suffering. We do not live in the dark ages, so let us not be kept in the dark about this most serious of issues.

I call Michelle Ballantyne, to be followed by Mary Fee.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am terribly sorry, but I neglected to refer members to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I was an employee of Aberlour for eight years prior to coming here. I am now rectifying that neglect.

Thank you very much for putting that on the record, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am sure that everyone in the chamber will forgive you.

I, too, thank Clare Haughey for bringing forward this debate on what is a really important subject.

Why is perinatal health everyone’s business? The latest statistics suggest that everyone will know someone with experience of perinatal mental health problems, be it a mother, sister, aunt, cousin or friend. Our future is vested in the wellbeing of children and, therefore, in the wellbeing of their mothers. There is a saying that it takes a village to raise a child, and that sentiment is particularly important with perinatal health. Is it, therefore, really acceptable that seven out of 14 health boards in Scotland offer no specialist care?

At present, without specialist perinatal services, it falls to GPs to detect signs of maternal mental health problems. However, how can we expect a doctor to identify and treat the often well-hidden symptoms of mental health issues, which are frequently those of an individual whom they have never met before? I know from personal experience how important a well-established relationship with one’s GP can be in identifying when something is not right. After a routine visit to my own GP following the birth of my fifth child, she asked me, as I was preparing to leave, how I was feeling. My initial, quick response of “Fine” was soon followed by a flood of tears when her concern cut through my collected exterior. My GP’s knowledge of me caught my postnatal depression early and allowed a quick and effective intervention that saved me and my family from what might have been a very difficult time.

Of course, we know that the go-to solution for mental ill health these days is often antidepressants. New mothers, whether it is their first child or fifth, are dealing with both physical and emotional change and some will require a pharmacological intervention, but that should not be the first step. There needs to be prioritised investment in appropriate specialist services. If perinatal mental health problems were identified and treated quickly and effectively, then the serious human and economic costs for the whole country could be avoided. Not getting that right impacts on not only maternal mental health but children’s future outcomes, pressure on our health services and mothers’ ability to return to work.

Although I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has made commitments to improve services, there still exists an unacceptable postcode lottery for mothers across the country. Of course, the issue often underpinning all of that is funding. Why, then, is it that increased funding received through the Barnett formula has not been ring fenced in Scotland as it has been in England and Wales? Our perinatal mental health services are now failing to keep up with those south of the border, which means that mothers and their children in Scotland are being failed. Perinatal mental health straddles both adult and child mental health services. We know that poor maternal mental health can significantly impact on child development outcomes and significantly limit children’s life chances. If the Scottish Government is serious about closing the attainment gap, perinatal mental health must be addressed.

There is a real requirement for significantly more joined-up thinking when it comes to the provision of our health services. Investment in perinatal mental health is exactly that—an investment—and it is estimated that failing to make it costs public services five times more downstream. That is nothing, however, compared with the human cost and suffering. Long-term investment and planning will be vital in combating the far-reaching human and economic consequences of poor perinatal mental health. I hope that the managed clinical network will now start delivering the resources for appropriate services.

We also need champions: individuals such as Clare Haughey or Claire Grieve, a midwife at Borders general hospital, who recently received the chairman’s award at the NHS Borders celebrating excellence awards for her outstanding work in improving perinatal health services in the Borders.

The birth of a child should be the most wonderful experience, yet so many new mothers struggle. We have come a long way, but the journey is not finished. If it takes a village to raise a child, then perinatal health really is everyone’s business.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon’s debate on the everyone’s business campaign. I, too, thank Clare Haughey for securing the debate.

Mental health problems affect everyone, directly or indirectly, and the campaign on perinatal mental health raises specific issues that must be addressed for the sake of pregnant women, new mothers, their children and their wider families. As many as 10 to 20 per cent of women face a period of mental illness either during pregnancy or in the first year after birth, and organisations involved in the care of perinatal health warn that rates of detection and appropriate intervention are still low.

The Maternal Mental Health Alliance has drawn up a map of health boards across Scotland to illustrate the level of care and service available to pregnant women and new mothers by health board. Referring to a point that was very well made by Alison Johnstone, I say that it is shocking that only one health board, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, has a specialised perinatal community team and meets the perinatal quality network type 1 standards.

Even more shockingly, seven of the country’s health board areas have no provision for perinatal mental health care. Regarding the standards, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned:

“Failure to meet these would result in a significant threat to patient safety, rights or dignity”.

Most if not all mothers will experience that express train of emotions that hurtle towards them after they give birth. How we support women after giving birth is crucial for their long-term wellbeing.

I welcome the commitment and the action taken by the Scottish Government to introduce a managed clinical network. That action was set out in the “Mental Health Strategy 2017-2027”. I am glad that there has been positive action, which will help to improve the care of and support for pregnant women and new mothers. I look forward to further progress being made on the support that is offered to women who are affected by poor mental health. I will continue to monitor the progress of the Government’s mental health strategy and to offer any help that I can to ensure that people are not being failed when it comes to mental health.

Although today’s focus is on pregnant women and new mothers, there is a case to be made to include women suffering from fertility problems. As many as one in six couples experience some form of infertility. For many, the effects of that can cause prolonged mental health problems. I know of a constituent who was diagnosed with depression because of her difficulty in becoming pregnant. For her, a huge concern and worry was that her mental health problems would continue into a successful pregnancy, and the risk of post-natal depression was always in her mind. Thankfully for her, that was not the case. However, a focus on early intervention for women going through fertility treatment would be beneficial as they become pregnant and after the birth of their children.

I once again thank Clare Haughey for today’s debate, and I extend my support to the everybody’s business campaign to secure better maternity mental health for mothers, their children and their wider families.

I commend Clare Haughey for bringing the motion—and, indeed, her knowledge and expertise in this area—to the chamber today. I also welcome the change agents, Dr Roch Cantwell and others to the public gallery. We all aspire to perinatal mental health getting the attention and sustained discussion that it deserves, and I thank all members who have spoken in the debate for their contributions and for sharing their experiences.

Over the past while—whether it has been through press coverage, passionate campaigning, parliamentary activity or elsewhere—we have heard about the priority and fundamental importance of perinatal mental health. On Monday, I spoke on the issue at Maternal Mental Health Scotland’s annual conference. We have momentum, which we must keep going, and the everyone’s business campaign has played a significant part in ensuring that that happens. That is in the wider context of this week being mental health awareness week and, of course, 2018 being the year of young people. Together, all of that work and all those opportunities can make a real and tangible difference to the profile of issues such as perinatal mental health. Ultimately, we want to raise that profile so that there is better support for women and a more sophisticated understanding of the issues at population level across Scotland.

Annie Wells spoke about what support is available in her area, at the Quarriers centre. Others spoke about the Aberlour project, and there is the Juno project here in Edinburgh. Annie Wells, Ruth Maguire and others spoke about the importance of partnership working. The model should not always be a medicalised one; with partnership working, we can offer support to each other in the community.

As well as focusing on the importance of good perinatal mental health in general, Clare Haughey’s motion supports the everyone’s business campaign, which calls for all women who experience perinatal mental health problems to receive the care that they and their families need, wherever and whenever they need it. The evidence for that is persuasive. We know that between 10 and 15 per cent of women who give birth will suffer from anxiety or depression during pregnancy and the first year after it. That equates to between 5,500 and 8,000 women each year. Furthermore, we know that, in two of every five households with a new baby, at least one parent will suffer from depression or anxiety. The Royal College of General Practitioners has said:

“Up to one in five women ... are affected by mental health problems”

in the perinatal period.

“Unfortunately, only 50% of these are diagnosed. Without appropriate treatment, the negative impact of mental health problems during the perinatal period is enormous and can have long-lasting consequences on not only women, but their partners and children too.”

As others have said, mental ill health is the second leading cause of maternal death after cardiovascular disease. Treating maternal mental health problems is good not only for the women who are affected but for their babies—that is the intergenerational aspect that Ruth Maguire mentioned—and it contributes to breaking the cycle of poor outcomes from early mental health adversity.

All of that is why we have prioritised perinatal mental health in our 10-year mental health strategy. Two of the strategy’s key themes are prevention and early intervention; others are about improving access to treatment and having joined-up, accessible services. We have provided funding of £173,000 a year for the perinatal mental health managed clinical network, and we have funded the network at nearly double the usual level for MCNs, allowing it to bring together not just specialists on perinatal mental health but specialists on nursing, maternity and infant mental health.

The network has the following long-term ambition, which, I have no doubt, we all support:

“That all women, their infants, and families, have equity of access to the perinatal mental health services they need across all of Scotland.”

We want a focus on prevention and early intervention that spans the whole range of the early years, starting from preconception and continuing through infancy and into the school years. Our aspirations apply equally across the piece, and I will make sure that the MCN takes into account miscarriage and fertility problems—which two members mentioned—if it is not already doing so.

The minister says that we have a shared aspiration. Can we have a timeline for when we expect every health board, not just half of the health boards, to have access to the services? What is the timeline for that?

I will come on to that.

The focus of the perinatal mental health MCN is not just on what we usually expect of MCNs—that professionals will talk and share good practice across their work. The work that the network is doing across Scotland involves all health boards and third sector organisations as well as the voices of families.

We want an approach in Scotland that is based on the most thorough understanding possible of the picture across the country. It is not just about which areas have specialist services, although it is crucial that we know that; it is about what is available across the spectrum of need, which spans universal education and awareness raising through to the specialist services that are vital when mental illness occurs. That is why continued involvement of the third sector and universal services is going to be important as we move forward, in the context of integration authorities remaining responsible for the commissioning of community and mental health services including perinatal services. They will continue to have a central role.

Our next steps and the investment will be guided by the MCN’s on-going work to build that full picture of current provision in Scotland. I was not going to mention what is going on in England. Although England has put in investment, I have heard quite a lot of criticism that it is doing it the wrong way round, whereas we are doing it the right way round. I look forward to the MCN’s conference next month, when it will tell us exactly what it has been doing and what it will do in the future, which will influence what we do going forward.

The involvement of women and families is crucial, and the work that we can all do together will ensure that everyone can access the support that they need.

Anas Sarwar rose—

I am not going to give Anas Sarwar a timeline until I know exactly what is required and where, and until I have taken the advice of experts who will tell us exactly what to do. It is important that we get this right from the beginning. We should not waste scarce resources, which has been seen to be happening in England. We must make sure that it is about all the services and that we take a cross-Government approach, as Clare Haughey said.

I thank Clare Haughey for bringing her motion to the chamber for debate, and I offer my very best wishes for the continued success of the everyone’s business campaign, which is doing such important work. It is everyone’s business, and I assure everyone in the chamber that it is certainly mine.

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on the Scottish veterans commissioner’s report on veterans’ health and wellbeing. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

I thank the Scottish veterans commissioner, Eric Fraser, for the work that he has done in producing his recent report “Veterans’ Health & Wellbeing: A Distinctive Scottish Approach”.

Our armed forces community, veterans and their families are an asset to Scotland, and the Scottish Government remains committed to providing them with the best possible support and opportunities. With the appointment of the veterans commissioner as a dedicated post to promote those interests, we led the way in the United Kingdom.

Last year, I met the commissioner to discuss his forthcoming report. I was pleased that he recognised the strong track record in Scotland of ensuring that veterans are given the best possible treatment, care and support.

We welcome the report, which makes a number of recommendations on how we could refocus and re-energise Scotland’s approach to looking after our ex-servicemen and women. The report was considered in detail at the recent meeting of the armed forces and veterans health joint group, which is chaired by the director-general of health and social care and includes representation from key armed forces and veterans stakeholders in Scotland. I look forward to hearing the outcome of its considerations.

The Scottish Government remains committed to ensuring that all veterans living in Scotland are able to access the best possible care and support, including safe, effective and person-centred healthcare. Our current policy states that all veterans should receive priority treatment for health problems as a result of service to their country, subject to clinical priority for all patients. That means that veterans should receive priority treatment for on-going health problems that are a direct result of their service, unless there is an emergency case or another case that demands higher clinical priority. However, the report highlights that that concept, which was introduced in the 1950s, is outdated. The veterans commissioner recognises that we should move beyond the priority treatment policy and calls for a greater focus on the principles of excellence, accessibility and sustainable treatment for all veterans.

The guiding principles for veterans’ health that are suggested in Eric Fraser’s report are entirely consistent with our ambition for safe, effective and person-centred healthcare as set out in the healthcare quality strategy for NHS Scotland. The integration of health and social care in recent years has changed the delivery landscape for healthcare in Scotland, so we need to ensure that the mechanisms that are in place to support veterans’ healthcare are still fit for purpose.

It is the Scottish Government’s continuing aim to ensure that the healthcare needs of serving personnel and veterans are better understood and supported within the national health service. We are already progressing work that addresses some of the recommendations that are made in the report.

The report makes the point that strong and visible leadership is needed to deliver high standards of healthcare, and that leadership needs to be in place nationally and locally. I have already mentioned the armed forces and veterans health joint group, and I know that the group will be keen to ensure that its membership and remit reflect the new landscape in which healthcare for veterans is delivered. At a local level, we have a network of NHS champions for armed forces and veterans who are there to support armed forces personnel, veterans and their families to get access to high-quality services and treatment when required.

To raise awareness of the policies that are already in place to support the healthcare needs of veterans, we recently issued updated information to NHS veterans champions, NHS chief executives and primary care leads, which included guidance for general practitioners on how veterans can share their full service medical record with their GP. We will look at how we can build effective working links between NHS and local authority armed forces champions to reflect the new integrated landscape.

My officials have worked with Veterans Scotland to update existing information for veterans about how to access healthcare from the NHS inform service, which will be followed by an awareness-raising campaign to coincide with armed forces day in June 2018.

The Scottish Government recognises the importance of supporting veterans’ long-term healthcare needs. It is essential that appropriate support is available to veterans and that funding and services are sustainable. The Scottish Government is at the very earliest stage of considering a managed network approach as a potential longer-term solution to ensuring equitable and sustainable services for veterans across Scotland.

Networks are a well-established way of driving improvement in the quality of care through a co-ordinated approach. A formal NHS National Services Scotland application process exists, and NHS NSS is providing advice on the necessary next steps and timeframe before the proposal is progressed further. We envisage that a range of stakeholders and interests will be involved as the proposal develops.

One example through which we provide additional support for those with the most severe and enduring healthcare needs is the national specialist prosthetics service. In 2013, the Scottish Government made a commitment to invest £4.5 million over three years in the national prosthetics service. The service was developed to provide continuing care to those who would benefit most from the new technologies, based on clinical need. The service continues to work with manufacturers to ensure that the very best services are available to our veterans in Scotland.

I welcome the focus on the mental health of veterans and their families in the commissioner’s report. The report rightly focuses on a number of positives. Collectively, we should be proud of achieving those. The report recognises the significantly improved support for those suffering mental ill health after time spent in the armed forces. It recognises that, in recent years, veterans have been able to access a number of specialist and mainstream services, with Scotland being in the vanguard in many instances. It also recognises that the vast majority of those who leave the military do so without severe mental health problems and cope well with the transition to civilian life.

The clarity in the report around the importance of mental health accords fully with the guiding ambition in our mental health strategy, which is that we must prevent and treat mental health problems with the same commitment, passion and drive as we do physical health problems. In that respect, we all have a responsibility to help realise our vision of a Scotland where people can get the right help at the right time, expect recovery and fully enjoy their rights, free from discrimination and stigma.

However, although there is much to be proud of, I agree with the commissioner that there is no room for complacency and that further improvements can be made. I note the key recommendation that

“The Scottish Government and NHS(S), through the network on veterans health ... should produce a Mental Health Action Plan for the long-term delivery of services and support.”

I look forward to hearing the considerations of the armed forces and veterans health joint group before taking next steps.

I am confident that many of the key themes and 40 actions in the Scottish Government’s 10-year mental health strategy will impact positively on veterans and their families and will lead to improvement in many of the areas that the commissioner and veterans have identified as important. The strategy seeks to ensure equal access to the most effective and safest care and treatment, a reduction in the variation of care that can be experienced, and improvements in the quality of care, measuring health outcomes and tackling stigma and discrimination.

To support improvements, in 2017-18 I expect that NHS investment in mental health will exceed £1 billion for the first time. I also secured additional funding in the Scottish budget for an additional 800 mental health professionals over the next five years in key areas such as accident and emergency and GP practices. That funding, and other investments in mental health, will help to drive improvement across the system, including for veterans and their families.

I acknowledge the commissioner’s call to protect specialist mental health services. He mentions specifically those services that are provided by Combat Stress and veterans first point. The funding available to support veterans’ mental health through veterans first point and Combat Stress will total over £5.8 million over the next three years. I hope that that demonstrates our commitment to improving mental health services for veterans and I look forward to considering what further help and support we can offer.

I thank Eric Fraser again for his important work in highlighting not only the excellent services that are already in place, but how we can continue to ensure equitable and high-quality services for our veterans. We have much to be proud of, but we should not be complacent. We will consider the findings and recommendations carefully, including how we respond to the challenges that have been raised.

The next update to Parliament, which will be in autumn 2018, will provide an opportunity to demonstrate what we have done and our future intentions in responding to this latest report on veterans’ health and wellbeing.

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we must move to the next item of business.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I join her in thanking Eric Fraser, the Scottish veterans commissioner, for his latest report, and I welcome his recommendations.

A YouGov survey for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association found these startling facts about veterans: 34 per cent felt overwhelmed by negative feelings and 27 per cent admitted that they had had suicidal thoughts after finishing military service. That shows that we need to do more for the mental health of our veterans community.

The cabinet secretary spoke about improving mental health services for veterans, which I strongly welcome. She also spoke about the funding that the Scottish Government provides for veterans first point centres, which play a vital role in the healthcare of veterans—particularly with regard to mental health—in the areas in which they operate. The cabinet secretary will know that the programme is jointly funded, with half of the money coming from the Government and half of it coming from the health boards. However, I have become aware that veterans first point is being considered for cuts by some health boards, which would result in some centres being lost to their areas. We have already lost veterans first point services in Highland and in Grampian. Will the cabinet secretary today commit to ensuring that veterans first point does not decline in size any further? My aspiration is for veterans first point services to cover the entire country and be available to all veterans in Scotland.

I welcome Eric Fraser to the public gallery—I have just been made aware that he is there—and I hope that he finds the proceedings interesting.

Maurice Corry is aware—-I hope—of the background to the funding of veterans first point and the history of LIBOR funding. When that funding came to an end last year, the understanding that local partnerships would ensure that services became self-sustaining did not materialise, and the Government stepped in to offer partnership funding. It is important to understand the background of the LIBOR funding.

Veterans first point is a network of NHS-led services across six areas in Scotland. Those areas are important, and I have heard nothing to suggest that the services will not continue with joint funding. Mr Corry mentioned issues in Grampian and in Highland. He will be aware that NHS Grampian has enhanced its service through a new venture with the Defence Medical Welfare Service to ensure that older veterans and their families in the north-east with particular needs will have access to support when they are faced with challenges. I do not know whether Mr Corry is aware that a further LIBOR grant of more than £1 million has recently been awarded in Highland. Veterans first point is discussing how to move that forward with a national third sector provider, and I hope that good news will emanate in that respect.

Mr Corry will also be aware that some boards have never been part of the LIBOR funding so have always had their own services for veterans. That is okay. As cabinet secretary, I want services to support veterans, whether those are delivered through veterans first point or through other services. What is important is not who provides the services or how they are provided but the fact that they are provided.

We provide £825,000 to support veterans first point services, and that has been match funded by the boards. I will follow the matter up and make sure that the boards that have committed that match funding continue to do so.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I declare that I am a veteran.

Thank you very much.

I join the cabinet secretary in recognising the contribution of our armed forces community, our veterans and their families. I welcome Eric Fraser’s report and the cabinet secretary’s statement.

This week is mental health awareness week, so I will focus my remarks on that issue. One of the report’s recommendations is a new national action plan. The report highlights that funding is at times disjointed and ad hoc, particularly for specialist services. It raises concerns about geographic inequalities in services and highlights a recurring theme among veterans that mainstream NHS service providers do not always understand the specific needs and experiences of veterans. The report goes on to stress the importance of the suicide prevention plan and the substance misuse strategy. Will all those issues be considered by the new national action plan? What is the timeframe for its delivery?

As I said in my statement, Scotland’s 10-year mental health strategy, which was launched last year, reinforces our commitment to the armed forces covenant and includes a range of actions to improve care services and support for people with a mental health problem, including veterans and their families. Obviously, some of that work is already under way.

The recommendations on the process going forward are being looked at in detail. The mental health action plan is a key element, and we will take that forward through the network on veterans’ health, which I think is the best forum to use. It is for the network to set out the timeframe, ensuring that it has enough time to make the action plan as good as it can be and that it addresses the recommendations and the issues that have been raised in the report.

It is worth pointing out that specialist services of a very high quality are already provided. Combat Stress provides a 24-hour helpline for veterans or their family members who need to talk about mental health. That is a very good service that is provided by a first-class organisation.

Eleven members wish to ask questions. I ask for succinct questions and answers that reciprocate.

I thank the Scottish veterans commissioner, Eric Fraser, for another valuable report, which this time is on the health and wellbeing of veterans, and I thank the cabinet secretary for her supportive statement.

I welcome the commitment to launching an awareness-raising campaign in June, which is needed in rural areas, in particular. We must make every effort to ensure that veterans in places such as Moray, where there are thousands of veterans, are aware of the services that are out there. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can speak to Veterans Scotland about how to do that in the foreseeable future.

The awareness-raising campaign is an opportunity to make veterans and their families aware of the range of services that I talked about in my statement and that members have mentioned. Armed forces day, which is next month, provides an opportunity for those services to be highlighted. The awareness-raising campaign will be very important in making people aware of services, and we fully support it.

I declare that I am a veteran.

The report identifies that many servicemen have been exposed to

“combat, harsh physical conditions, stressful situations and a lifestyle that has had a detrimental effect on their long-term ... wellbeing.”

The wellbeing and mental health of such servicemen is constantly being challenged by historic allegations being levied against individuals. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that there should be a statute of limitations in relation to historic allegations, and will she write to the Ministry of Defence supporting moves to enforce such a limitation?

That is a bit outwith the scope of my statement, but I will certainly get the relevant minister to write to Edward Mountain on that subject.

I agree with Edward Mountain that many veterans have specific needs relating to their wellbeing and mental health, although many veterans come out of the forces and adjust very well to civilian life. For those who need support, whether it is with post-traumatic stress disorder or with other issues, it is important that the sharing of records happens quickly so that information on health is transferred quickly. That needs to be improved in order that veterans who need that support get it as quickly as possible.

My question follows on from that answer. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if veterans are to receive appropriate care and the support that they need, it is absolutely essential that the MOD passes on full and accurate medical records when requested? I understand that that is still not a given.

We have been pressing United Kingdom Government ministers for some time on the need to improve the process of transferring the medical records of personnel who are leaving the services. Officials continue to engage with NHS Digital about programme cortisone, which will deliver an integrated, compatible, data-sharing capability in the NHS. The importance of that programme in assisting the transfer of prior medical history and in ensuring continuity of care after service cannot be overstated.

I also welcome the constructive and positive report from the Scottish veterans commissioner. I welcome him to the gallery.

In my postbag, I have a number of issues from veterans, particularly from those who suffer from complex post-traumatic stress disorders. Is the cabinet secretary willing to ask Healthcare Improvement Scotland to look at doing some detailed work on that issue for those veterans who suffer from that complex and difficult condition?

Yes, and a range of evidence-based treatments are available and can be tailored to the patient’s needs for PTSD that has been determined by clinicians, based on a detailed assessment. Those treatments vary from low to medium-level interventions that are available on the NHS to more specialised care and treatments. As I mentioned earlier, we also continue to fund the provision of specialist and community mental health services by Combat Stress, which has a lot of experience in that area. It has a residential facility for those for whom that would be the most appropriate treatment. We funded that to the tune of £1.4 million this year. I am happy to make sure that we keep those issues under review.

The commissioner’s report highlights early service leavers who leave the military voluntarily before completing the minimum four-year term as being at particular risk. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that this vulnerable group of people has access to the best quality care during their lifetimes?

It is important to note that early leavers, as Mark Ruskell describes them, are a particularly vulnerable group, and the right services have to be provided for them quickly. Part of that comes back to the sharing of information so that services can kick in quickly. The services that are provided by Veterans First Point or Combat Stress have a particular focus and a lot of them involve peer support so that people who understand can offer help. A lot of third sector support is also available. The short answer is yes, but the commissioner’s report points us to where we can do better for that particularly vulnerable group.

It is a source of collective shame that veterans are more likely than most to join the ranks of our homeless population. Given the causal link between mental ill health and homelessness, what action is the Scottish Government taking to help homeless veterans, particularly those who are struggling with mental ill health?

Alex Cole-Hamilton has pointed to a particularly vulnerable group of veterans. What I have laid out here today is our response on health and social care support issues. The member will be aware that there is much more support for veterans in Scotland. We have a strong track record of supporting the veterans’ community. Since its creation in 2008, the Scottish veterans fund has committed more than £1.3 million to more than 150 projects and organisations that support veterans across Scotland. Some of that will be in the area of housing and homelessness prevention that Alex Cole-Hamilton asked about. I would be happy to provide further detail on homelessness to Alex Cole-Hamilton.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, although employment is not specifically about health, it impacts on and affects people’s health? I accept that it is not under the cabinet secretary’s specific remit.

Keith Brown is the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, and he has overall responsibility in Government for veterans. He gave a full update to Parliament last November on the recommendations in the commissioner’s report on transition, the provision of housing information, and employability, skills and learning. He will provide a further update this autumn. A lot of work is being done in the sphere of helping veterans to move on and create new opportunities in civilian life, and employability, skills and learning opportunities are an important part of that.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in delivering the best treatment, care and support for our veterans, we should be cognisant of the Scottish Association for Mental Health’s assertion that inclusivity and physical activity are key elements of ensuring good mental health? We have witnessed the incredible impact of things such as the Invictus games on this community and on raising awareness of it. With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary join my colleagues and me in our enthusiasm in calling for the Invictus games to be hosted in Scotland?

The Scottish Government acknowledges the power of sport and its impact on our lives and on the lives of injured servicemen and women. Over the coming weeks, we will be speaking to partners to scope out what a potential bid for Scotland to host a future games would entail, and I would be happy to keep Brian Whittle informed as those discussions go forward.

Can the cabinet secretary provide details on what is being done to ensure that physically injured veterans benefit from the latest technology in order to allow them to regain and maintain their mobility?

In my statement, I talked about the investments that have been made in prosthetics services to ensure that cases are turned around quickly and that high-quality provision is made. A lot of investment has been made there to support veterans with specific needs who have disabilities because of their service. The commissioner’s report lays out a number of recommendations that will improve not just the physical health but also the mental health of veterans, and we are determined to take forward those recommendations.

Members will note my interest in and personal experience of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Other members have rightly raised questions about mental health for veterans. Those mental health issues are often impacted by, or have underlying causes in, neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD and autism spectrum disorders, and the case study in the report is useful in highlighting those issues. What help and support will be extended by the Scottish Government to veterans with neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD in the improved mental health services for veterans?

That is an issue that we would expect the new mental health action plan to consider, but I will certainly ensure that that message is passed on, so that that point is captured in the work on the action plan.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, in that I hold an honorary contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Recommendation 4 of the report would establish a national managed clinical network on veterans’ health, based on evidence from the existing managed clinical network on perinatal mental health. Can the cabinet secretary provide an early comment on her consideration of that recommendation?

We absolutely recognise the importance of supporting veterans’ long-term healthcare needs. As I said in my statement, we are in the initial stages of exploring with NHS National Services Scotland the option of developing a managed network approach as a longer-term solution to equitable and sustainable health services for veterans. There is a process involved, which I laid out in my statement, but NHS National Services Scotland will shortly provide advice on the necessary set-up requirements and the next steps before we progress further. I would be happy to keep Clare Haughey informed of that work as it goes forward.

That concludes questions on the statement. I am pleased to say that all members had the opportunity to ask their questions.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-12264, in the name of Derek Mackay, on stage 3 of the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) (Bill).

As members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, the Presiding Officer is required under the standing orders to decide whether, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. The Presiding Officer has decided that no provision of this bill relates to a protected subject matter and that therefore it does not require a super-majority to be passed at stage 3.

I call Derek Mackay, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, to speak to and move the motion.

I am pleased to open this stage 3 debate on the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Finance and Constitution Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill and the members of the Scottish Parliament who set out their views during the stage 1 debate in March. Members are now familiar with the background to the bill and its intent to give retrospective effect to amendments that were made by the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Additional Amount-Second Homes Main Residence Relief) (Scotland) Order 2017.

The Scottish Government’s approach to taxation is founded on, among other things, effective engagement and partnership with stakeholders. As a consequence of that engagement and a willingness to listen to the concerns of taxpayers and their representatives, we have introduced the bill. It addresses an unintended consequence in regard to the treatment of married couples, spouses and cohabitants under the additional dwelling supplement—ADS—and will deliver equity of treatment regardless of the date when joint buyers bought a home. Therefore, it is deliberately narrow in focus and scope, in that it serves only to give retrospective effect to the provisions of the 2017 order.

Members will remember that we had a notably consensual debate at stage 1 and that the Parliament has, so far, provided unanimous support for the bill. Unusually for a bill, no stage 3 amendments have been lodged in advance of the debate. Indeed, no amendments were lodged at stage 2 either. That reflects the narrow and specific scope of the bill. Therefore, I will focus my remarks on the recommendations that are set out in the Finance and Constitution Committee’s stage 1 report.

The committee’s first recommendation invited the Scottish Government to provide annual updates on the numbers of repayment claims made and the amounts repaid. I understand that Revenue Scotland has confirmed that it intends to publish figures on repayments as a result of the implementation of the bill and following the first year of its operation. That will be dependent on the information that is provided by taxpayers and agents and will be subject to Revenue Scotland’s existing policy on statistical publications.

The committee’s second recommendation was addressed principally to Revenue Scotland and invited it to consider further what steps it could take to identify taxpayers who might be eligible to claim a repayment of tax as a result of the bill. The chief executive of Revenue Scotland has written to the convener of the committee setting out that, although, as the committee noted, eligible taxpayers cannot be identified directly, Revenue Scotland has been taking, and continues to take, steps to raise awareness among taxpayers and agents using a wide range of communications activity.

The committee also invited the Scottish Government to confirm what steps it intends to take in response to the issues raised in the written evidence that were outwith the scope of the bill. A number of suggestions highlighted additional asks on the application of the additional dwelling supplement. I do not have any plans to introduce further changes to the supplement at this time, but I have noted the concerns that have been raised and will give them detailed consideration.

On the other asks, I am pleased to say that, following consideration of consultation responses, the Scottish Government today introduced legislation to Parliament to address the concerns that were raised on the application of group relief in a specific scenario and to provide for first-time buyer relief from the land and buildings transaction tax. As members might be aware, I have also launched a consultation seeking evidence to support our consideration of stakeholder asks that relate to property investment reliefs. Other issues will be considered as part of the Scottish Government’s overall approach to devolved tax management and planning.

Building on the budget process review group’s report, I am, of course, committed to working with the Parliament to consider the points that have been raised on the case for developing a new approach to technical tax legislation, such as the changes that are addressed in this bill. However, the focus of the debate is on the bill and ensuring that all the affected couples can reclaim repayment of the supplement where they have genuinely replaced their main residence. The number of affected couples might be relatively small, but I am clear that the resolution of the issue is a matter of great importance for each and every one of them.

I welcome the Parliament’s unanimous support and members’ constructive engagement on their cases and in the progress of the bill, which I am sure will continue this afternoon.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Scottish Conservatives warmly welcome the bill that is before us this afternoon. There are no amendments at stage 3; indeed, there were no amendments at stage 2, which I think was probably the shortest stage 2 in committee that I can remember. We are at the stage in proceedings at which there is very little new to say, and I do not intend to take up too much of the chamber’s time this afternoon rehearsing arguments that we have all heard before. I am sure that, given the sunshine, all members will welcome the opportunity to finish a little bit earlier this afternoon—not least the cabinet secretary, given that it appears that he now has an allotment to tend.

I set out in the stage 1 debate that this bill was necessary to correct an oversight in the original Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act 2013. That had led to a situation in which couples were being charged an additional dwelling supplement in the scenario where only one of them had their name on a property that was being sold.

I had a case of constituents who were caught by that and who ended up with an unexpected bill of around £13,000, which they had not budgeted for. As members might expect, that caused the family a great deal of concern and distress.

I am pleased at the speed with which the Scottish Government has moved to correct that error. The bill that is before us today, which brings into retrospective effect the change already made for new transactions, is the final piece in the jigsaw in ensuring that that is done. That will come as a great relief to my constituents who were affected and others across the country who have been inadvertently caught by what was an oversight in the original legislation.

The one related issue that I would raise, to which the cabinet secretary has already referred, is group relief. That relates to a situation where land transactions occur within companies in the same group or where a share pledge or similar arrangement is in place. The cabinet secretary has already spoken on that issue. Indeed, the Scottish Government recently consulted on proposed secondary legislation to amend schedule 10 to the Land and Buildings Transactions Tax (Scotland) Act 2013 to ensure that group relief would be applied. Transactions of that nature are a normal and commonplace part of commercial dealings and share pledges are usual where bank lending occurs.

Group relief has been in place in England and Wales and there have been concerns in the Scottish business community that not having it in Scotland puts Scottish business at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to borrowing and commercial operations. If the Scottish Government is making progress on that issue, as the cabinet secretary has indicated, that is very welcome and it will correct another anomaly. The remaining issue is whether such relief would apply retrospectively to ensure that, just as in the case of the bill that is before us this afternoon, no one loses out because of an inadvertent oversight in the preparation of the original legislation. I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on that.

I do not think that there is any point in my detaining the chamber any longer on these issues. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill and will be voting for it at decision time, which will hopefully be not many minutes from now. Like other members, I have constituents who will very much welcome the bill being on the statute book.

It is always a delight to take part in a consensual debate with the cabinet secretary and Mr Fraser. Scottish Labour supports the introduction and the passage of the bill, which we hope will happen shortly and which will alter the anomalies in relation to the additional dwelling supplement for land and buildings transaction tax.

The issue that has come to light is that, where there is an additional dwelling supplement, normally there is a 3 per cent surcharge. If the original property is sold within 18 months, it is subject to a relief. The anomaly that has been highlighted, principally by Mr Fraser, is that where couples are married, cohabiting or living in a civil partnership, they were not liable to claim that relief. Clearly, that is unfair and it is against the principles of taxation, which the cabinet secretary has spoken about at length at the Finance and Constitution Committee. It is right that Parliament takes steps to address that anomaly.

The proceedings were consensual as we moved through stages 1 and 2, and I am sure that that consensus will continue. The fact that there are no stage 3 amendments emphasises not just the narrow scope of the bill but the broad agreement across the Parliament on how to address the issues.

I know that the land and buildings transaction tax forum, people who are well engaged in the use of tax and other stakeholders have been unanimously supportive of the proposed change, which is very welcome.

There are two issues that we need to be aware of going forward. As the cabinet secretary has said, it is important that we raise awareness of the change, so that those people who are eligible to claim relief are able to do so and do not end up being unfairly financially penalised. I welcome the fact that Revenue Scotland is raising awareness through its forums and networks.

The other point to bear in mind is the impact that the change will have on the budget, which the financial memorandum said will be between £625,000 and £1.555 million. Although that is a small amount in relation to the large scale of the Scottish budget, it is important to monitor the situation in case the amounts vary and there are impacts on other budget lines.

Scottish Labour very much welcomes the change and the way in which Parliament and the cabinet secretary have considered and acted on the issue. We will be happy to support the change at decision time, which is no doubt fast approaching.

I, too, thank my fellow committee members and the people who have supported the committee’s work in scrutinising the bill. What a rare treat it is to see the output of a matter that has been considered by the Finance and Constitution Committee not giving rise to immense acrimonious ideological disagreement on points of constitution or taxation policy.

As others have said, the bill is a relatively minor and straightforward correction of an aspect of how the LBTT operates, so I am sure that everyone will vote in support of the bill.

The cabinet secretary knows that the Greens are not the world’s greatest fans of the LBTT. It is a modest improvement on what went before, but it captures only a tiny proportion of the unearned asset wealth that is stored up in housing after significant increases in property values. We consider that a modern, progressive, reformed and up-to-date property tax needs to play an important part of our overall tax policy. The LBTT applies only to transactions, so it does not achieve that. As I have said, it is a small step forward from what went before, but it does not resolve the on-going need to look at property taxation more widely.

Secondly, the important recognition that couples should be treated equally, regardless of marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation status, is an important signal that we respect the equality of all families, but that has not been achieved in relation to, for example, what Westminster calls the married couple’s allowance. It is important that all families be treated equally in that regard.

Finally, I draw attention, as I think others will do in the future, to the evidence that we heard from the Chartered Institute of Taxation and others, which suggests that it is not unusual or uncommon for taxation measures to give rise to unintended consequences. That is an additional argument for a future finance bill being part of the way in which we undertake our work—a finance bill could embody significant matters of policy on taxation, as well as correcting previous unintended consequences or making minor adjustments that are needed. I hope that the minister remains open to considering that, as the way forward.

We move to the open debate. Ivan McKee will be followed by Neil Bibby.

I am pleased to speak in this stage 3 debate on the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) Bill. I take the opportunity to draw members’ attention to my register of interests, with respect to residential property rental.

The change to the LBTT that we are debating is a small but important change, because it will enable people who, through no fault of their own, have been unfairly penalised through having to pay an additional amount, to redress that situation. It provides for the situation in which a couple who have two houses to sell and who are purchasing a single property could be treated as a single economic unit for the purposes of the additional dwelling supplement for both the sale and the purchase transactions. It is right that that anomaly be corrected, and that steps are now being put in place to ensure that the correction will apply retrospectively. It is good to see consensus across the chamber on that point.

Some other potential anomalies have been identified in the LBTT legislation; I know that the Law Society of Scotland and others have highlighted additional concerns to be considered and, if necessary, addressed. Although the bill has a narrow focus on the additional dwelling relief, I know that other aspects of the LBTT will be considered in due course. I look forward to considering them when they come up for debate in committee and in the chamber.

It is worth taking a minute, at this stage, to review the wider context of the Scottish Government’s changes to the LBTT and their impact. The steps that have been taken by the Scottish Government to focus the LBTT on the people who can most afford to pay and, as a consequence, to lower tax relative to the rest of the United Kingdom for people at the lower end of the housing scale, are to be welcomed. The measures have resulted in an additional 23,000 home purchasers having no LBTT to pay, and have meant that 93 per cent of house purchasers in Scotland either pay no LBTT or pay less than they would have under stamp duty land tax. That is good not only for individuals and families who benefit as a result; it is also good for the economy because it makes it easier for people to get on the housing ladder, and it helps the housing market at the lower end and enables a more mobile workforce, as a consequence.

I know that there was some concern that the measures could have a detrimental effect on the property market at the higher end, so it is worth taking a minute to review the data to determine whether that has been the case. The latest data from Revenue Scotland show that transactions in the £325,000 to £750,000 band, which represents the top 7 per cent of the market, have grown by 20 per cent and that revenues in the band have grown by 23 per cent over the past year. At the very highest segment, sales above £750,000, which represent the top 0.5 per cent of the market, have been growing even more strongly, with a 31 per cent increase in annual transactions being recorded. That suggests that the strength of the market in those bands has not been impacted by the Government’s restructuring of the LBTT.

I am very glad to see the specific point in respect of the additional dwelling supplement being addressed in the bill, and will be glad to see the bill being passed by Parliament.

Like my Labour colleague James Kelly, the minister and other members across the chamber, I make clear my support for the bill that we will vote on today. I welcome the fact that the minister and the Government have listened to and have, by introducing the changes in the bill, acted to address concerns that were raised by Murdo Fraser and others. As I have said before, it is unusual to introduce and pass retrospective legislation, but in this case it is absolutely the right thing to do, because the bill will correct unintended unfairness.

As other members have said, the additional dwelling supplement was introduced to raise taxation revenue from people who were buying additional properties as an investment opportunity or as holiday homes. Taxing people who are just replacing their main home was not intended and goes against the principle of fair taxation, as James Kelly said. At the time, the Scottish Government’s intention was clear: it wanted to levy an additional tax on people who purchased a property who already own another property. Rightly, the Scottish Government recognised that a situation can often arise in purchase of a property whereby an individual or a couple become, for a short period, the owner or owners of two properties. That is why, as has been said, a period of grace of up to 18 months was introduced. However, as members have said, it has become clear that, in trying to ensure that married couples, civil partners and cohabitants do not move property between individuals for tax-avoidance purposes, the unintended consequence to which I previously referred has been created.

I echo what other members have said today and previously: if Parliament decides that retrospective legislation is needed to address that unfairness, it would be pointless if the intended beneficiaries of that legislative change were unaware of their entitlement to claim a refund. I therefore reiterate that measures need to be taken to ensure that people are aware of the moneys to which they might be entitled.

Everyone accepts that the easiest way to address such anomalies is secondary legislation. Unfortunately, as we know, retrospective legislation cannot be effected by secondary legislation unless there is a specific expressed power, which, in this case, does not exist. Hence, the bill.

Although the bill is unusual, it is straightforward, it has unanimous support and it will address a small but significant unfairness. I will therefore join other members in supporting the bill at decision time.

Having been on the previous Finance Committee when we spent many happy hours considering and then legislating on the land and buildings transaction tax, I continue to have a fair degree of affection for LBTT, so I appreciate the opportunity to take part today and renew its acquaintance.

LBTT was the first devolved tax that we legislated on in the Parliament so, just like the eldest child in a family has a special place in its parents’ affections, I think that, for some of us, LBTT has a special place in our affections.

LBTT may not be the best-known tax that we have, and it may not produce the most money—it tends to be outshone by its bigger sibling, income tax—but it is a fully devolved tax that we were able to fashion in more of a Scottish way of doing things, and John Swinney deserves many congratulations for his role in leading on it.

No legislation is perfect, as has been said, and, in any case, circumstances change. I fully support the principle that we should revisit and review legislation and seek to improve on it when that is required, so I am more than happy to support this amending bill. It seeks to correct what is widely agreed to have been an unfairness that was not spotted at the earlier stages of our consideration of the tax.

I do not think that, as a Parliament, we need to be worried about that. We debate and legislate based on what we know at the time, and we then build on that as we move forward. That raises the question, however, of how we amend tax legislation on a regular and on-going basis. I am attracted to the suggestion made by the Law Society of Scotland—and, I think others—that we should consider a regular finance bill for, as the Law Society describes it,

“necessary changes ... at the administrative end of policy”.

That might not need to be annual, but it could perhaps be every two or three years. Something like that appears to happen with the Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs in the UK, and that is something that we could perhaps adapt for our purposes. I understand that the Government and the Finance and Constitution Committee will look into that, and it certainly sounds like a possibility to me.

I take the point that the forthcoming change to legislation needs to be publicised, so that those who could benefit from it are aware of it. However, we clearly need to be aware that we are probably looking at only between 76 and 189 cases, so I do not think that a widespread advertising campaign on television is needed.

In whatever way we look at it, LBTT has been an improvement on SDLT. It has been more progressive and fair from the beginning. The first-time buyers relief of £175,000 is very generous in my opinion. I accept that house prices vary a lot around Scotland, but people can certainly buy a reasonable flat in my constituency for less than half of that amount.

I hope that we can all support the bill at stage 3. It appears to be one of the less contentious bills that we have dealt with in this place, and I look forward to voting for it at decision time.

We now move to the closing speeches.

Well, it has been a short time, Presiding Officer. This has been a short debate, and I do not think that I have ever given an opening speech and a closing speech in a debate within so short a time.

I have learned something in this brief debate that I never expected to hear: that someone has a sense of affection for LBTT. It is a curious choice of instrument on which to place a feeling of affection.

As I have said before, I regard LBTT as a small step in a more progressive direction but one that fails adequately to address how a genuinely progressive tax policy would deal with the unearned wealth that is locked up in our housing market. I again make the case for a more progressive approach to property taxation in future.

I will draw out a little more the arguments in the stage 1 report on the bill that the Finance and Constitution Committee made regarding a potential finance bill. In its submission to the committee, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland said:

“the existing limited annual tax procedure to vote on income tax rates and bands is not enough. To maintain and improve the Scottish devolved taxes a regular, formal, tax process is needed.”

As John Mason has reminded us, this tax measure is a relatively recent introduction. We have seen a gradual increase in the range and scope of tax powers that are within devolved competence. However, with the limited range of instruments that are available to us, we are clearly not serving the interests of scrutiny properly and we are perhaps not giving the Government the ability to implement policy as coherently as it would wish to. I am pleased that the committee will look further at the idea of a finance bill that would offer the chance of a more coherent approach both to the large tax policy decisions and to getting the small details right. Like everybody else, I will vote for the bill tonight.

The debate has been very short, so I will make a brief speech to sum it up. I echo what Patrick Harvie said, in that in all the Finance and Constitution Committee debates that we have had recently, such as those on the budget and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, there has been a lot of disagreement and they have been hotly contested, so it is good to participate in one on which there has been unanimous agreement across the chamber.

I welcome what the cabinet secretary said in relation to the annual updates that will be produced. When any legislation is introduced, it is important to monitor its effectiveness. As Neil Bibby said, it is important that people who will become eligible to claim relief as a result of this change going through are able to do so. We do not want to see people falling through the net, so annual updates will allow us to see the effect of that and to make sure that the awareness raising that Revenue Scotland will carry out will be effective.

I know that there has been comment from the Chartered Institute of Taxation about group relief for situations in which companies are involved in land transaction deals between themselves. There is clearly some anxiety about the group relief proposals that the Government is introducing not being applied retrospectively. The committee and Scottish Labour will look at that in detail once we have seen the proposals, and we will engage with the Chartered Institute of Taxation and others.

I agree with the comments made by Patrick Harvie and others about an annual tax bill. As the Parliament moves to a regime in which we have more tax-raising powers, we will get into a situation in which there will be a requirement to amend technical detail on taxation. It would make sense for appropriate changes to be dealt with in a sweeping-up finance bill at the end of each year.

To sum up, I welcome the consensual debate that has taken place. This is an example of a situation in which an anomaly has been identified and both Parliament and the Government have acted quickly to address it. Scottish Labour will support the bill at decision time, which will come up shortly.

Like every other member who has spoken in the debate, in summing it up I will be relatively brief.

Mr Fraser gave us a revelation that I think surprised even Mr Harvie. I was not surprised by John Mason’s comment that he has affection for this kind of tax, because he is a both a lawmaker and a former accountant. I am more surprised that Murdo Fraser thinks that I have an allotment hidden away somewhere in Scotland. Look, I was just helping someone out at the weekend; it was not mine—that would be my offering to him. However, I did think that, if I had one and I had been tending to it in such wonderful weather, I might have ingratiated myself with the Greens. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I think that I might have broken the harmony that there has been in the chamber in relation to LBTT. I stress that I was happy to introduce the previous legislation in that regard.

It is important that, when the Government has identified an unintended consequence in tax law as a result of stakeholder engagement and fair member representation, we are willing to address it in a consensual and constructive fashion. All of Parliament is responsible for the laws that we generate, of course, but we have identified an issue and have been able to resolve it in a constructive fashion. In fairness, we did so as quickly as we could—James Kelly reflected on that. We should engage, consult, go through due legislative process and remedy the issue.

All members have picked up on the fact that there is an issue around how we can accommodate matters going forward. The prospect of an annual finance bill is worthy of further exploration.

Patrick Harvie touched on issues that are wider than the bill but, like all members, he welcomed its fundamentals.

All members have spoken helpfully about the nature of LBTT, the additional dwelling supplement and the remedy.

I want to go back to the group relief issue, which James Kelly and Murdo Fraser raised. The legislation will be helpful, and it will take effect very quickly. I know that there is the issue around the retrospective element. I believe that I can remedy that, as well, if I am given the time to ensure that I get it right. That will take away the concerns that exist with regard to group relief.

The bill addresses an anomaly that is maybe not of substantial budget significance, but it is a significant matter for those affected. I appreciate the way in which all members have engaged in the legislative issue and how they have conducted themselves in raising specific cases.

Following the successful passing of the bill, all of us, including stakeholders and Revenue Scotland, have a duty to raise awareness with appropriate cases so that people can be recompensed where that is appropriate and where they are eligible.

I am happy to conclude my remarks with that. I re-emphasise the consensus with which the bill has progressed and the retrospective action that will flow from it to ensure that we address the issue in the fashion that was requested of us.

That concludes the stage 3 debate on the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) Bill.

Given that decision time today is at 4 o’clock, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to now.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 11.2.4 of Standing Orders, Decision Time on Thursday 17 May be taken at 3.32 pm.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your clarification with regard to the standing orders. No doubt you will have seen the news reports on the actions of civil servants who work for the Scottish Government with regard to evidence taking by the Education and Skills Committee on the named person policy. As a member of that committee, I was deeply disappointed to read that civil servants who work on behalf of Mr Swinney have allegedly made inappropriate requests to clerks. They included asking clerks to hand over the identities of future committee witnesses and asking to have Government officials sitting in on focus groups conducted by the committee. I have written in full to you with the specifics of my request, Presiding Officer, but I ask, under section 9.6(a) of the MSPs’ code of conduct, for clarification on whether you think that rules 7.3 and 7.8 of the standing orders have been breached. I am sure that you will agree that the independence and impartiality of Parliament are paramount.

I thank Mr Johnson for notifying me in advance that he intended to raise a point of order. However, there was not enough time to be able to investigate the matter in the depth that I would have liked. I am aware of the issue as a result of reading reports in the papers and talking to Education and Skills Committee clerks, but I would like time to deliberate further on it. Therefore, I will bring it back to one of next week’s meetings and inform members of my decision at that point.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Why is that not a matter for the committee convener to deal with, as opposed to the chamber as a whole? It is just grandstanding politics by somebody who is no longer even on the committee. [Interruption.]

Order, please. Let us hear Mr Dornan’s point.

The matter has been dealt with by the committee. It is just grandstanding by the Opposition, who would rather play politics than deal with the education system.

Thank you, Mr Dornan. If Mr Dornan will allow me, I will deliberate on the matter. It may be very much for the committee to decide. I will let everybody know in the chamber next week.

There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. Because this is a piece of legislation, we will hold a vote. The question is, that motion S5M-12264, in the name of Derek Mackay, on stage 3 of the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) (Bill), be agreed to. Members may cast their votes now.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 109, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) Bill be passed.