Scottish Parliament, 23 June 2021

305 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Finance and Economy

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon, colleagues. The first item of business is portfolio question time.

First, I remind members not to move around the chamber in a non-safe way. Social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. I ask members to take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please use only the aisles and walkways to access your seat and when moving around the chamber.

The first portfolio for questions is finance and the economy. Questions 3 and 7 are grouped together. I will take supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or indicate in the chat function by entering R during the relevant question.

Again, I point out that we will get through more questions and answers if we have succinct questions and answers, please.

Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Revenue 2021-22)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what revenue it estimates it will receive from land and buildings transaction tax in 2021-22. (S6O-00049)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Fiscal Commission is the independent body responsible for forecasting revenues for the fully devolved taxes. In “Scotland’s Economic and Fiscal Forecasts”, which was published on 28 January 2021, the SFC forecast that the Scottish Government will receive £586 million in revenue from land and buildings transaction tax in 2021-22.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that response. Does he agree that, for many young first-time buyers, in areas where there are very high house prices with many properties over the £250,000 rate at which LBTT kicks in, that tax, on top of other taxes that people pay, is quite prohibitive? Does the Scottish Government have plans to introduce regional schemes in which there can be more targeted support for aspirational families, or does it have—at least—plans to provide tangible support through mortgage assistance?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government provides support through first-time buyer relief, which raises the nil band from £145,000 to £175,000 and means, in effect, that eight out of 10 first-time buyers do not pay any tax.

With regard to a regional scheme, I recognise that that is an area in which the Conservative Party has some interest. I am open to receiving more information on what Liz Smith’s proposals would be, but I caution that LBTT is a national tax and that we would have to be cautious about introducing unnecessary complexity into the system by using a localised methodology.

Economic Recovery Support (Fair Work Practices and Climate Obligations)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to ensure that money invested in economic recovery by way of grants, loans and other funding will support fair work practices and climate obligations for any companies that receive such support. (S6O-00050)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I welcome Lorna Slater to the Parliament.

Fair work is central to our economic recovery and renewal. Through fair work first, we are applying fair work criteria to public sector grants, contracts and other funding wherever it is possible and relevant to do so. We continue to consider how we can use all our levers to support a green recovery, and we expect those who access financial support to publicly align with Scottish Government values, particularly those relating to our climate and environmental ambitions.

Securing the full range of employment powers would enable the Scottish Government to fully implement policies that best meet Scotland’s distinct needs, and it would enable us to create more good green jobs with fair work at their heart, and a more prosperous Scotland.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

In order to support a green recovery, will the minister commit to ensuring that investment money, whether as grants, loans or other funding, will come with conditions to ensure not only that the money goes to businesses that support fair work—I approve of the minister’s support of that—but that the support is sustainable for the economy? That could be done by, for example, ensuring that support will go only to companies that pay the living wage, do not use zero-hours contracts or tax havens, and have plans to achieve emissions that are in line with our national targets, as agreed by Parliament. How would the minister follow that up to ensure that applicable conditions were being met?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I generally agree with the principles that Lorna Slater has outlined. Much of what she says relates to the fair work agenda that the Scottish Government is implementing. As part of our first 100 days commitments, we are reviewing fair work first criteria in order to oppose, for instance, unfair fire-and-rehire tactics and to promote flexible and family-friendly working. We are working with the Poverty Alliance and building a living wage employer accreditation, which was referred to by Lorna Slater, so that we can also introduce a living hours scheme for Scotland in the first 100 days of this new Government.

I assure Lorna Slater that we are exploring every possibility to ensure that our grants and support for businesses and organisations across Scotland are aligned with the values of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the Government commit to making trade union recognition a precondition, for large companies of more than 250 employees, of applying for further Government support?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

On the fair work agenda, that issue is already reflected in the principles that we promote as part of our grants and so on. The fair work first criteria have already been applied to £619.8 million-worth of contracts that have been awarded by the Scottish Government.

Employers’ relationships with trade unions and workers voices are part of the fair work first and fair work agendas. We are exploring in what further ways we can promote those principles. As a new minister in the portfolio, I am very keen to make sure that I leave no stone unturned.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. I think that I promoted you momentarily earlier.

Covid-19 Restrictions (Business Support)

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what support it will make available to businesses in light of the continuation of the current Covid-19 restrictions. (S6O-00051)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I welcome Audrey Nicoll to her place and look forward to working with her.

We recognise the impact that deviating from the route map has had on businesses across Scotland—perhaps more so in some areas than others. That is why we have provided additional financial support to businesses in areas where it has been necessary, unfortunately, to retain restrictions for an additional period.

We will continue to prioritise business support as much as we can within our limited resources, and we will continue to press the United Kingdom Government for additional funding to be made available for businesses, because there have not been additional consequentials for business support since the election.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I know from speaking to many businesses in my constituency that the support that has already been made available by the Scottish Government has been a lifeline. While some restrictions remain in place, understandable concerns have been raised about the United Kingdom Treasury’s failure to announce an extension to the furlough scheme, which is due to be scaled back from 1 July. Can the cabinet secretary provide reassurance that she is doing everything that she can do to press the UK Government to extend the furlough scheme, in order to give businesses in Scotland the financial support that is needed until our economy can fully reopen?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I agree with Audrey Nicoll. We have consistently called for furlough funding to remain in place for as long as it is needed.

We have been here before. Last October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reannounced support plans about five times before finally confirming that he would extend furlough. It is essential that the UK Government commits to the furlough scheme.

We have also called on the chancellor to change the rules that require contributions to the cost of the scheme from July, and which currently exclude people who started a new job since 2 March from being furloughed. People who have been required to stop working in order to protect others should be supported as much as possible.

Covid-19 Regulations (Engagement with Business Sector)

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the business sector regarding the current Covid-19 regulations. (S6O-00055)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I welcome Pam Gosal to the Parliament—I think that this is the first time that we have had an exchange here.

We have engaged extensively with businesses and their representative organisations during the pandemic. I do not think that a single work day has gone by without some form of engagement. Officials have counted that, between March and December 2020, more than 820 engagements took place. There is a regular weekly programme of engagement with business leaders, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, Scottish Financial Enterprise, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Tourism Alliance and Scotland Food & Drink. Immediately after I was sworn in, the first thing that I did was meet that group to discuss a range of priority issues. I also discussed the latest restrictions with those organisations yesterday.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

One sector that has been complaining bitterly about its current circumstances is that of businesses that provide contact services such as beauty therapy and spa treatments. They have lost out on business restart grants because they are classified as non-essential retail, which is an inaccuracy that needs to be addressed urgently. Will the cabinet secretary agree to ensure that those services are properly reclassified?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I think that there is some misunderstanding about the restart scheme. Separately from that, we are one of the only places in the UK that put in place a specific funding stream for mobile close-contact services, to try to reach those in what is a predominantly self-employed sector and provide them with additional support.

In line with the rest of the United Kingdom, we provided the smaller restart grant for businesses that were able to open before others and we reserved the larger restart grant for businesses that restarted later. That remains our position, and I have no intention of changing it.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that people are outside Parliament today lobbying for the travel industry. They cannot understand why, when they have in effect been shut down for months by the restrictions, they have received very little financial support in return. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the level of restrictions should match the level of financial support that the Government makes available?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Willie Rennie has been an advocate for the travel industry for a number of months. He will recall that we put in place a specific fund for travel agents as well as for the inbound tour sector and the wider tourism sector that relies on international travel. Again, we were one of the few places that did that. However, I absolutely understand that some sectors are being impacted for longer because of a lack of international travel. I know that, more than anything, the sector wants the restrictions to be lifted, and we intend to do that on a four-nations basis as far as possible.

In the meantime, providing additional support is challenging, because of a lack of additional consequential funding. However, Ivan McKee, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, has written to the UK Government specifically on the travel industry’s need for additional business support and to ask the UK Government to consider whether additional consequentials could be made available to support the sector.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Today is a day of action at the airports. Sadly, the route from Aberdeen to Manchester is now to close. Is the Government prepared to meet the airports to discuss a plan so that jobs can be saved?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Since the pandemic first hit last March, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport has regularly met the airport sector and the wider aviation sector, and we remain in close contact with them. Again, we were one of the few parts—if not the only part—of the UK to extend non-domestic rates relief to the airport industry in light of the challenges that it faces. We will continue to keep in close contact with the airports. I know that, ultimately, they want the restrictions to be removed. We want to do that on a four-nations basis when it is safe to do so and when we see that the vaccination programme is making good progress across the world.

Town Centres (Economic Recovery)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the economic recovery of town centres. (S6O-00052)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I will shortly set out plans for a Scotland loves local loyalty card scheme and a £10 million Scotland loves local programme to help revitalise town centres that have been hit by the pandemic.

We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and partners to respond to the ambitious vision for our town centres and the recommendations to deliver it, which were set out in the recent town centre review report, “A New Future for Scotland’s Town Centres”. All that is underpinned by our £325 million place-based investment programme, which will accelerate our ambitions for place, 20-minute neighbourhoods and town centre revitalisation.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Although the pandemic has accelerated it, the collapse of many large retailers in our town centres, including in Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline, was already a feature of high streets across Scotland. They are owned by private companies and investors, but we need a public sector response to the challenge that we face.

The minister mentioned some projects, but what is there to incentivise the repurposing of large units and to support local authorities in their efforts to invest in changing town centres, which I think will need significant investment? Will the public have a stake in the decisions that impact on their high streets and environment?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Claire Baker raises a lot of important points. Those ideas are all live and relate to our response to the town centre review, which is due to be published later in the year. I draw her attention to our retail strategy, which is also due for publication later in the year. Finally, as planning minister, I will lay a draft of national planning framework 4 in Parliament in the autumn.

I am very keen to make sure that all those areas of the portfolio align. In particular, I recognise the point that is implicit in the comment that Claire Baker makes, which is that we need to ensure more community ownership in our town centres. As the minister responsible for social entrepreneurship and employee ownership, I am happy to engage further with Claire Baker and any other member on that area.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Empty town centre properties are being repurposed into spaces to house artists’ studios, venues and workshops, including Fire Station Creative in Dunfermline and Creative Stirling’s hub. How has the culture organisations and venues recovery fund directly supported those types of initiatives? What further support can be offered in order to provide a viable future for our town centres?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I do not have in front of me detail on the specific question that Mark Ruskell raises, but I am happy to write to him. He raises a very important point: it is absolutely correct that we recognise that we have a duty to support the cultural sector in recovery, but the cultural sector also has a massive role to play in supporting town centres to recover. I am very keen to take that forward with Mark Ruskell and any other interested member.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister agree that high street retailers operate at a severe disadvantage relative to online businesses, for example, with regard to paying rates? Given that taxing online retailers is a reserved matter, is the Scottish Government urging its United Kingdom counterpart to enact such a policy, actively pursuing any revenues that would accrue to Scotland and, ultimately, the devolution of such a power?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

We recognise the concerns that have been raised regarding a level playing field for all, and the Government is committed to supporting all businesses, including those that deliver online services. For that reason, in our manifesto, we committed to exploring the introduction of a new national digital sales tax, and we will look into that complex area.

Hospitality Sector (Covid-19 Restrictions)

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what additional support it will provide to the hospitality sector to mitigate against the impact of the Covid-19 restrictions. (S6O-00053)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

On 2 June, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy announced the provision of up to £12 million of additional funding for the 14 local authorities that remain in level 2, should restrictions continue to the end of June, and payments will be processed on a weekly basis. That included £4.5 million for the events and wedding sectors, and up to £7.4 million to support hospitality businesses, with grants of between £350 and £525 per week for businesses in level 2 that are required to modify their operations.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The support in the short term to which the minister refers—as well as today’s announcement that hospitality premises that show Euros matches that go into extra time can open for a bit longer—will be welcomed by those businesses that receive the support, but it still excludes too many others. Even the lifting of restrictions on 9 August will not be enough for many small hospitality businesses. Does the minister accept that we need a proper recovery plan for small businesses—including hospitality businesses—that covers long-term support and reform of business rates, which penalise hospitality, to help to get those local firms back on their feet?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The member will be aware that we are keen to do all that we can to support the sector, and I have met various stakeholder groups in the sector over the past two or three weeks to discuss those very issues. As funds become available through consequentials from the United Kingdom Government, we will of course ensure that the sector is supported to the best of our ability.

As the member rightly identifies, recovery from the pandemic is hugely important. That is why we have a significant focus on our economic transformation strategy, the details of which we are working through at present. The strategy will address those very issues and consider how we build the hospitality sector and sectors across the economy in order not only to recover from the pandemic, but to transform the economy in Scotland into the economy that we want to see.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Although hospitality is now open, it is still facing many restrictions, lower customer footfall and significant barriers to trading. What analysis has the Scottish Government conducted of the levels of operating loss that businesses in the sector are facing? Can he advise me of any Scottish Government analysis of the proportion of that loss that is covered by support grants and loans that the Scottish Government has provided?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

First, I make it clear that the support that we have provided cannot cover the losses for every business across the sector. As I indicated, we pass on the consequentials that come from the UK Government. A total of £3.6 billion has been used to support businesses during the course of the pandemic.

With regard to analysis of the impact on the sector and across the wider economy, I note that we are engaging in discussions with the national services sector, which is best placed to understand the levels of debt that businesses across the economy are suffering. As well as looking at the matter at a macro level across the economy, we are conducting sectoral analysis to understand the differential impacts on specific sectors.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the First Minister’s announcement yesterday regarding changes to the guidance on weddings, which are key to the hospitality sector. I have been contacted by wedding venues in the south of Scotland that have asked whether a specific route map out of Covid-19 can be created for the sector that takes account of the diverse nature of weddings and wedding venues. Will the minister consider that? If it is possible, will he outline a potential timeframe for its establishment?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

A number of changes were announced yesterday that will benefit the wedding sector. From 28 June, wedding suppliers will no longer be included in the numerical cap, and focused entertainment will be allowed at receptions, provided that all guests are seated. Those have been key asks of the sector, as the member knows. The wedding reception guidance was updated on 22 June to set out clearly what the changes mean for weddings.

When we move beyond level 0, almost all Covid restrictions will be removed for businesses and individuals, which will mean that weddings can take place with dancing and singing, as happened before the pandemic. Some baseline measures will remain, including requirements for good hygiene, surface cleaning and continued compliance with the test and protect programme. More guidance on those baseline measures will be provided before we move beyond level 0.

Green Employment

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the growth of jobs that will support a greener economy. (S6O-00054)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We are committed to ensuring that our transition to net zero creates new opportunities for people across the country. Our £100 million green jobs fund is supporting green employment and creating opportunities for individuals to retrain and upskill in new and high-growth areas. We are also investing £26 million to develop the energy transition zone in Aberdeen, which is expected to directly support 2,500 green jobs by 2030, alongside a further 10,000 transition-related jobs. We are continuing to deliver on that ambition, which will be key to achieving the changes that we need in order to meet our climate targets and deliver a just transition.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for that response. By 2030, at least 60 per cent of North Sea oil and gas platforms will be decommissioned and over 1,500 wind turbines will be at the end of their lives. The Scottish Government’s analysis shows that decommissioning could support over 18,000 green jobs. Can the minister confirm that all of that work will be carried out here in Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The reason why we are creating a £100 million green jobs fund, as well as the energy transition fund, which is already indicating that it will significantly benefit the north-east and Aberdeen, in particular, is that we want Scotland to gain the maximum economic benefit from a just transition between now and 2045 or, as Maurice Golden says, between now and 2030. I am confident that we will create a lot more green jobs for Scotland. It will require a Herculean effort but, for the sake of the planet, Scotland’s economy and our people, we will make substantial progress. We have to work collaboratively with the local agencies and all the academic and other institutions in Aberdeen, which I am sure that we will do.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 8 is from Jackson Carlaw.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I thought that you were going to say that time was up, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have squeezed you in.

United Kingdom-Australia Free Trade Agreement (Whisky)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the announcement that the United Kingdom-Australia free trade agreement will remove tariffs of up to 5 per cent on Scotch whisky. (S6O-00056)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

We are keen for all Scottish exports to increase, in line with our vision for trade. However, any potential gain for Scotch whisky is more than offset by the cost of the deal to our farming communities. That is why it is vital that the UK Government involves the Scottish Government—and other devolved Administrations—in trade discussions to ensure that trade agreements are in the best interests of everyone across Scotland. It is well known that the deal has been celebrated in Canberra but concealed in London and, as we heard last week from the Australian Deputy Prime Minister,

“The big winners are Australian producers”.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

When Ivan McKee has time to get off his high horse, will he focus on the aspect that I asked about, which is the opportunity for Scotch whisky? Australia was our eighth-biggest market last year, worth £113 million to the Scotch whisky industry. Since the announcement of the agreement, what specific conversations has Ivan McKee had with the Scotch whisky industry about how the Scottish Government can work with it to ensure that we maximise the opportunity? Assuming that he has not bothered to do that, will he commit to doing so in the weeks ahead?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As Jackson Carlaw should know, I have on-going discussions with the Scotch Whisky Association about how we maximise the global opportunities for all Scotch products. I have engaged extensively with the SWA on the challenges that it has experienced with US tariffs, and the Scotch whisky industry has representatives on my trade board. He should not lecture me about engagement with the Scotch whisky industry, because we have that regularly.

The key point about the trade deal is that the UK Government has not published its impact assessment in full. The reason for that is the significant negative impact that the trade deal in its entirety will have on the Scottish economy through our farming communities. That is why it is important that the UK Government engages with the devolved Administrations to ensure that Scottish interests are taken into account in trade deals.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Does Ivan McKee agree that no free trade deal is ever completely free, and that the Australia deal comes at a particularly high cost for Scotland, including in terms of lowering standards for consumers?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I absolutely agree. We know that trade deals involve trade-offs, but the Scottish Government has had no involvement in the decisions. We have argued consistently that any trade agreement must protect our food, welfare and environmental standards, and that any imports must be produced to equivalent standards to those of Scottish producers. It would be unacceptable if our current high standards suffered as a result of the deal, and it is vital that the UK Government shares the full detail of what has been agreed with Australia.

Post-Covid-19 Skills and Training

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to provide secure, sustainable and long-term post-Covid-19 pandemic skills and training opportunities. (S6O-00057)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Skills are a key priority for the Government. Last week, we met one of our first 100 days commitments by announcing a further £20 million for upskilling and retraining through a national transition training fund. We are investing across the whole skills system, including our colleges and universities, to deliver learning opportunities to equip our workforce for the jobs of the future. In addition to the more than £2 billion that is allocated for post-school provision in 2021-22, we have committed £500 million in this parliamentary session to support skills and employment.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of the latest numbers showing that the fair start Scotland scheme has resulted in only 9 per cent of participants remaining in employment after 26 weeks. That low level of employment under the scheme has been a feature of the scheme since it was introduced three years ago, before the pandemic. Does the minister acknowledge those disappointing results on employment from the fair start scheme, and what steps will he take to improve the performance of that scheme?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sure that Richard Lochhead, my ministerial colleague who has responsibility for that scheme, will be delighted to provide an update to Mr Lockhart. I am always struck by the Tories’ unwillingness to recognise the fundamentally different approach that we have taken to employability compared with the one that they have taken in government, whereby they coerce and compel some of the most vulnerable people in our society to take part in employability programmes under the threat of losing their benefit entitlement. That is not an approach that we will ever take, and ours is an approach that I am proud of.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Paul O’Kane.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

When did the national qualifications group agree on the appeals process for the 2021 national qualifications, and was the decision unanimous?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I did not quite catch that question, Presiding Officer, because I thought that you had moved to question 2.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry—I thought that Paul O’Kane wanted to ask a supplementary to question 1. I invite Collette Stevenson to ask a supplementary question.

This is going well—I see that she has not pressed her request-to-speak button. We will now move to question 2.

National Qualifications 2021 (Grade Assessment)

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether demonstrated attainment from the 2020-21 school year will be used in determining learner grades. (S6O-00058)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

This Government’s absolute priority has been and remains to ensure that our young people are kept safe and are able to achieve fair and credible grades despite the most challenging of school years. Professional judgments of teachers and lecturers based on what learners have demonstrated that they have attained is at the heart of this year’s approach. Learners’ grades this year will be judged by their teachers, based on evidence of their work. If the learner demonstrates that they deserve a certain grade, that is what they will receive.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Teachers and pupils have been contacting me in distress and under pressure due to what one teacher called “exams by stealth”. One pupil who contacted me likened the approach of the Scottish Qualifications Authority to gaslighting. Those concerns have been compounded by the elimination of last year’s results from the historical grade boundaries.

It feels to me that the Government is about to fail the most disadvantaged pupils again in an unforgivable dereliction of duty. Most shameful of all, the Government appears to be trying to shift the blame on to teachers. There is no room for teacher judgment; estimated grades must be evidence based. Will the cabinet secretary now do what must be done to avoid the mistakes of last year and agree that we need to scrap pre-moderation, allow teachers to professionally determine grades without constraints and introduce a no-detriment appeals process?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The alternative certification model was co-produced with the national qualifications 2021 group, on which there is teacher representation. They specifically asked, as part of the process, that the awarding of grades be based on demonstrated attainment, so Mr Sweeney’s suggestion goes directly against what teachers representatives asked for. We have worked carefully with stakeholders—including teachers, but also young people—as we have moved through the process.

I appreciate that there have been differences of opinion around part of the appeals process. There is a question on that later, and I will perhaps deal with the detail of the situation at that point. However, I certainly remain committed to ensuring that young people can have faith, as they absolutely should do, in a fair and credible process, which has been worked through with stakeholders and the SQA with the aim of delivering that for them.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

When did the cabinet secretary become aware that local authorities were excluding 2020 exam results when using historical data to moderate grades this year? Is she aware that the SQA discussed the use of statistical analysis with local authority directors of education ahead of quality assurance models being designed and adopted?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I appreciate that there has been a great deal of speculation around whether historical data is being used. Once again, I say that what is being done is part of a quality assurance process that can be undertaken by local authorities and which helps identify patterns and trends that can be used for local quality assurance to prompt discussions around attainment and achievement.

That historical data is important, because it can support teachers and headteachers to be confident in their judgment as it will be based on a national standard. As always, the important aspect of this is to ensure that young people know that, if their demonstrated attainment has indicated a grade, that is the grade that they will get. Historical data is not being used as an algorithm to change their grades, either by the school or by the SQA.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Following the finding in the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that Scotland’s assessment system needs to match its 21st century curriculum, what is the education secretary’s response to the call from Maureen McKenna—one of Scotland’s leading educationists and Glasgow City Council’s executive director of education services—for a big debate on whether teachers’ continuous assessments should play a greater role in pupils’ final grades and qualifications in future?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, no decisions have been taken on what reform of the qualifications or assessment approach would look like. That is because a second OECD report will be forthcoming, and a comparative analysis of assessment and qualifications approaches is due by the end of August. When they come through, I will absolutely commit to engaging with stakeholders—including Maureen McKenna, if she wishes—to discuss future plans for senior phase qualifications and awards.

Student Support (Covid-19)

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what support is available for students impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-00059)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I understand the significant impact that the pandemic has had on students. As a result of it, many students are facing financial difficulties with accommodation and its associated costs or challenges in getting jobs. In direct response to that, we have committed an additional £20 million to help alleviate the financial pressures that many students face over the summer. We have already provided substantial support to students over the course of the pandemic, including over £96 million in support via hardship funds, digital access, mental health support and support for student associations.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Covid pandemic has severely impacted many students, and it has magnified the financial burdens that some students face during the summer. The Scottish National Party continues to prioritise improving the attainment gap in Scotland, and providing summer support to students is a very positive step towards achieving that. Many students find themselves in debt over the summer months, and not all have the capability to find work, sustain their accommodation or take up training or volunteering opportunities relevant to their degree, because they simply cannot afford it. That puts those students at a disadvantage relative to their peers who can do so, based on their financial situation rather than their learning ability.

Can the minister provide an update on the timescale for the review of future summer support for students, as outlined in the plan for the first 100 days of government?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

As Ms Don has rightly laid out, we have made a commitment to commence the review of summer support within our first 100 days. We will engage with the relevant stakeholders across the sector to help inform the review and will consider all the relevant factors before making any decisions. I have already had dialogue with the National Union of Students that touched on a range of matters relating to that subject, and we will continue to engage with it.

We are committed to beginning that review in the first 100-day period. When the review is concluded, we will respond to it and provide updates to Parliament in due course.

Teachers

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to an NASUWT Scotland survey, which suggests that 53 per cent of teachers have considered leaving the profession in the last year, feeling demoralised, unsupported and unrecognised. (S6O-00060)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We recognise the pressure on teachers and appreciate their extraordinary contribution in the most challenging of circumstances. We have already committed over £400 million to education recovery and have introduced a support package for schools and mental health support for staff. We are committed to supporting the employment of an additional 3,500 teachers and classroom assistants and to reducing teachers’ weekly class contact time by 1.5 hours, to reduce workload and enable more time for planning. We will continue to put the health and wellbeing of pupils and staff at the forefront of our recovery plans and to work constructively with all stakeholders, including the NASUWT.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome that answer and wish the cabinet secretary well in addressing the crisis in education.

The Educational Institute of Scotland put forward a proposal at its conference in which it talked about, over nine years, reducing class sizes throughout Scotland at least down to 20. Does the cabinet secretary support that? Does she support the principle that we have to get more resources into the classroom? Will she put a time limit on when we will start to see new teachers come into the classroom, as well as a massive increase in the number of teacher assistants?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

W

e are absolutely determined to move quickly on the number of teachers and classroom assistants. That is why we have already moved, as part of our Covid recovery work, to deliver additional teachers and classroom assistants. Once again, on top of that, another first 100 days commitment of this parliamentary session will be to fund councils to increase teacher numbers by 1,000 and classroom assistants by 500.

I appreciate the points that Alex Rowley made in his supplementary question and the need for the Scottish Government and our agencies to ensure that we are supporting teachers at that time. I hope that I can reassure Mr Rowley that I take that very seriously and we are moving quickly to do that.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I ask the Scottish Government for its views on the link between improving teacher morale and supporting recognition in relation to the comments in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s curriculum for excellence report, which says that there is a need to provide dedicated time to lead, plan and support curriculum for excellence at the school level. That supports what I am hearing locally from teachers in the Uddingston and Bellshill constituency, who tell me that increased planning time improves the quality of lessons that are delivered to our children.

Although the OECD team did not raise the issue of teacher workload, Scotland’s teachers have among the highest rates of class contact across OECD countries. The report actually stated that—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

C

ould we get a question, please?

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Y

es, certainly. For all teachers, curriculum planning for monitoring student achievement in support of moderation—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Callaghan, could we please have a question?

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Yes. Will the Scottish Government commit today to prioritise a reasonable reduction in class contact time

for Scotland’s teachers?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I mentioned as part of my answer to Alex Rowley,

we have committed to reducing teachers’ class contact time by one and a half hours a week. That was in the manifesto that we stood on and we are proud to deliver on that. We are investing in more teachers, which will ensure that we are supporting the OECD’s recommendation on dedicated time for school staff to lead, plan and support the curriculum. We have begun discussions, through the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers, on how that reduction in class contact time can be most effectively achieved. I hope that we can achieve that in the very near future.

School Sports Events

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

5.

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to schools to enable them to hold modified sports events that can be attended by parents and carers. (S6O-00061)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

W

e know that end-of-year events such as sports days are important to children and young people, as well as to many parents and carers. In light of current clinical advice, it is also important that we keep schools as safe as possible until the end of term. As always, that involves balancing competing risks and priorities. Our guidance for schools continues to reflect public health expert advice to minimise the number of contacts that children and staff have. That means that class sports days are able to go ahead and be enjoyed but that spectator attendance must be via digital means such as schools’ secure online platforms.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, Orkney has been at level 0 for some time, yet parents have been prevented from attending sports days at schools and nurseries across the county. At a time when fan zones were being given the go-ahead by ministers, the curb on attending sports days has caused understandable anger and confusion. Why was more not done to facilitate perhaps smaller school events that would allow parents to attend? Can it really be said that a risk-based approach is being taken when guidance is applied uniformly across the country?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I appreciate that the issue has concerned many members across the chamber. I absolutely recognise the importance of events to mark the end of a key stage in a child or young person’s life, and very careful consideration has been given to that. The current guidance was considered again very recently by the Covid education recovery group and by the advisory sub-group on education and children’s issues. We were not able to recommend changes to the position at that time, but I understand that many schools have made plans within the guidance.

One of the reasons why we have not been able to propose a change is that we know that, if cases are identified in an education setting, they can often disrupt the whole setting, with perhaps many children, young people and teachers having to self-isolate. Many early years establishments of course run right throughout the summer, which is the reason for the decision around educational establishments. Our absolute priority is keeping early years centres and schools open as much as possible and not requiring staff or students and pupils to self-isolate.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Last week, I raised concerns in relation to parents and guardians who are still unable to attend their child’s nursery or school graduations or sports days. Will the Scottish Government produce the evidence that states that it is not safe for parents to attend before parliamentary recess, given that the First Minister assured us that it would be made available?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am certainly happy to ensure that the member is directed to the advice that we have, the guidance that has come out and the minutes of the education recovery group. I have stated the reasons for the decision of that group and of the advisory sub-group on education and children’s issues not to recommend to ministers a change in that guidance, which I will not rehearse again. However, we will of course keep that under review to see whether changes can be made for the new academic year.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

A key issue in holding school events is Covid testing levels. Does the Government believe that the low

numbers of Covid tests taking place in schools have led to more disruption to young people’s education?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Michael Marra for that question, because I have kept a very close eye on that. We believe that there is an underreporting of Covid testing levels in schools among both pupils and staff, because there is an underreporting of when a person has a negative test.

We discussed that at great length at the education recovery group, and that is one of the reasons why the unions, Public Health Scotland and other members of the group think that we are seeing a level of results coming through that is perhaps lower than what is happening in the area. We have been very keen to press the issue. I thank the unions, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and others in local authorities for their work to encourage their staff to take that up, and to ensure that they do so right up until the summer holidays.

We are already looking at what needs to be done to ensure that testing is as high as we would like it to be as we move into the next academic year. I am keeping an exceptionally close eye on the issue, because I would also like to see higher figures.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Paul O’Kane—I apologise for the earlier confusion, Mr O’Kane.

National Qualifications 2021 (Appeals)

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

6. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I knew that there being two Pauls in the Labour group would get confusing at some point.

To ask the Scottish Government when the national qualifications group agreed on the appeals process for 2021 national qualifications, and whether the decision was unanimous. (S6O-00062)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The alternative certification model for this year has been co-produced by the national qualifications 2021 group to deliver the best possible approach under the circumstances, to ensure that learners’ hard work is recognised fairly.

On the approach to appeals, a range of views were expressed following an extensive consultation on draft proposals. As has been apparent, some group members do not support the approach that is being taken, whereas others do. Jim Thewliss, who is the general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, for example, is clear that SLS is fully behind the model as the best approach possible, and fully behind the approach that is being taken on appeals.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I note what the cabinet secretary said about some members of the group, but the Government has said that a rights-respecting approach is at the heart of our recovery from the pandemic. It is therefore disappointing and frustrating that Cameron Garrett from the Scottish Youth Parliament, who was the only young person on the national qualifications 2021 group, has said that young people have been ignored in the formulation of the process.

Listening to the views of young people and upholding their rights should be among our top priorities in the Parliament. Were there any other dissenting views in the national qualifications 2021 group regarding appeals?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I said in my original answer, there were a number of thoughts on the appeals process and its different parts. The issue did not involve a binary choice, because there were a great number of different thoughts on different aspects of the process.

When I was reassuring myself about what was happening, I considered whether the process is credible and fair. I appreciate that Cameron and others in the Scottish Youth Parliament wanted a no-detriment arrangement, whereby grades could not go down. However, that would not be fair and credible: it would not be fair on young people who do not put in an appeal, because anyone looking at an appeal would see only part of the evidence. That would not make the process fair for all learners.

I absolutely appreciate that, on this occasion, I took a different view from that of the young people who made representations on the matter. However, I reassure them that I listened carefully to their views, and that they were not ignored. There was a genuine difference of opinion.

I look forward to working with Cameron and others as we move forward with the policies on education. As I said yesterday, I am determined to put them at the heart of those policies. We might not necessarily agree on every occasion, but they will be at the heart of the Government’s education policy making.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take questions 7 and 8, provided that the questioners and the cabinet secretary approach the questions and the answers with some brevity.

School Estate (Investment)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for future investment in the school estate. (S6O-00063)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Scottish Government officials are currently preparing for my consideration options regarding phase 3 of the £2 billion learning estate investment programme. Later this year, I expect to make an announcement on the timescales for phase 3.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

All over Argyll and Bute, we have excellent schools—they are fantastic places to learn. However, on the islands of Islay, Mull and Tiree, our high school estate needs upgrading. Our teachers are the best, and our children’s school staff deserve a building that mirrors the excellent teaching that takes place inside it. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the quality of teaching must be mirrored by the quality of the buildings, and that funding should be forthcoming?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am determined that Scotland’s pupils have access to high-quality, up-to-date facilities of which school communities can be proud. I reassure Jenni Minto that any bid for funding from Argyll and Bute Council through phase 3 of the learning estate investment programme will be given careful consideration.

Teaching Posts (Funding Allocations)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether funding allocations earmarked for new and existing teaching posts will be made permanent, to enable local authorities to award a greater number of permanent contracts. (S6O-00064)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the employment of teachers for the next academic year, and local authorities are currently undertaking an assessment of staff requirements to support education recovery. As employers, the recruitment and deployment of teachers and support staff in local authority schools is a matter for individual councils. Our education system relies on the hard work and dedication of our teachers, and I recognise the effort and resilience that they have shown to support learners during the pandemic.

I am firmly of the view that we will need all possible teaching resources at our disposal to support education recovery, and I would expect employment opportunities to be available.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The cabinet secretary completely dodged my question. I was asking whether she is prepared to make the funding permanent so that the teaching posts can be made permanent. If the funding is temporary, it is a no-brainer that we will get temporary posts. Will the cabinet secretary change the policy and allow local authorities to make the teaching posts permanent?

As we have already heard, the teaching profession is utterly depressed, and it has been treated poorly by this Government. Will the Government change its ways?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I say to Willie Rennie exactly what the First Minister said to him when he raised the issue a few weeks ago. She said, and I reiterate once again, that we will need all possible teaching resources at our disposal as we move to education recovery. As a Government, we are taking Covid education recovery exceptionally seriously, and that is why I would expect, as does the First Minister, permanent employment opportunities to be the priority of local authorities.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions.

Child Poverty

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on the tackling child poverty progress report. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Today, I have published the third annual progress report due under the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. During the past unprecedented year, we have done everything in our power to support children and families who have been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, and to continue to drive progress on our ambition to eradicate child poverty. We have built on the strong supports that have been established to date, and worked with partners to deliver entirely new support, rising to the challenge and demonstrating our capacity and capability to make significant change at pace.

The report published today highlights that all 66 of the actions that we have previously reported on are either in progress or being delivered. It also highlights that the scale of the investment that we have targeted at low-income families with children continues to grow, rising to £978 million in 2020-21, including £118 million of targeted investment made through our response to Covid-19. That is part of almost £2.5 billion that we have invested to support low-income households, including more than £434 million of Covid-related investment in social assistance.

The report also highlights the scale of the challenge that we face in eradicating child poverty in Scotland. We know that the Covid pandemic will make reducing poverty that much harder, which is why we must work together across Scotland to deliver the change that is needed.

During the past year, we have continued to take action against each of the three key drivers of poverty. We have stood up a wide range of new support to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic and protect children and families, working in partnership with local authorities and wider partners, including the third sector. We have made strong progress in maximising household incomes through social security with the introduction of three new benefits, which are unavailable elsewhere in the UK, each offering completely new support. That includes our job start payment, which supported more than 230 young parents to transition in to work with payments of £400 to meet essential costs, and our child winter heating allowance, which supported more than 14,000 children and put £2.8 million in the pockets of families with the most severely disabled children, helping to ease the financial pressures that were caused by winter fuel costs and the Covid pandemic.

Notably, in February, we delivered on a landmark commitment by commencing payment of the game-changing Scottish child payment for eligible families with children under the age of six. It is our 10th benefit and is worth £40 every four weeks. I am delighted that, by the end of March, we had made payments worth more than £3.6 million for more than 78,000 children.

In addition, we introduced new pandemic support payments to provide immediate financial support to families in need, reaching almost 145,000 children and young people. We will build on that approach to deliver bridging payments of £520 each year until the Scottish child payment is rolled out in full at the end of 2022 as committed to, and we will fulfil one of our 100 days commitments by paying a further £100 for each child around the start of the summer holidays in addition to the £100 paid at Easter.

Importantly, we have now committed to doubling the Scottish child payment by the end of the current parliamentary session by increasing payments to £80 every four weeks. We will look to do that as early as possible, thus putting more money into the pockets of families who need it.

We have delivered new action to reduce living costs and ensure access to essentials. That includes the May 2020 launch of connecting Scotland, which is one of the most comprehensive national programmes aimed at tackling digital exclusion in the world. Since then, the programme has supported more than 17,000 families with children and 4,000 young care leavers, helping them to get online and access the benefits that digital connectivity can bring.

To tackle food insecurity and reduce the strain on family budgets, we invested more than £56 million to support the continued provision of free school meals for around 156,000 children and young people during school closures, periods of online learning and school holidays, promoting a cash-first approach, as parents know best what they need. We will continue that support during forthcoming school holidays, alongside commencing the expansion of our universal free school meal offer for primary school children.

Despite the impacts of the pandemic, we have also continued to deliver progress on our action to increase incomes from work and earnings. In 2020-21, more than 4,500 workers saw an increase in their earnings as a result of living wage accreditation, and we have applied fair work first criteria to more than £2.4 billion of public sector grant funding, helping to deliver fairer workplaces for workers across Scotland.

The impact of the pandemic has meant that it has not been possible to deliver the anticipated progress on all commitments. However, we have taken ambitious and realistic steps to ensure that we deliver on them as quickly as possible and that we go further in future. For example, our expansion of early learning and childcare is now set to be completed from August, although more than half of councils are already delivering the expanded offer of 1,140 hours. Given the importance of childcare to families, we have set out the next stage of our ambition, which is to further expand childcare and to develop a wraparound childcare system that provides care before and after school, all year round.

As soon as possible, we will complete delivery against the target of 50,000 homes that we set during the previous parliamentary session, and we have committed to delivering a further 100,000 affordable homes by 2031-32.

We have committed a further £8.65 million this year for our parental employability support fund, bringing total investment to more than £23 million since 2019, and enabling even more parents to benefit from that service. We have also extended our commitment to the fair start Scotland service until 2023, to ensure that future demand for employment support can be met.

We are determined to maintain the pace and determination with which we responded to the Covid pandemic. That is why, in addition to the measures that I have already mentioned, we have committed to taking further steps in the first 100 days of the parliamentary session. That includes delivering our ambitious summer programme for children and young people and further increasing the minimum value of school clothing grants and our best start food payments.

In Scotland, we are serious about ending child poverty, and we have committed to a wide range of action to do just that. Early analysis of the impact of our Scottish child payment suggested that it could move 30,000 children out of poverty when it is paid at £40 every four weeks. Doubling that will enable us to go even further. However, the UK Government’s cut of £20 to universal credit threatens to knock out the benefit of that ambitious measure and to push 20,000 Scottish children into poverty. The Scottish Government is giving with one hand what is taken away by another. It is a disgrace that our efforts to tackle child poverty are at risk of being undermined by regressive UK Government policy and a broken welfare system.

We have declared a national mission to eradicate child poverty. We know the scale of the challenge that we face and, although the Scottish child payment is a game-changing policy, we need more of those, right across Government, to deliver the change required. The Government is hugely aspirational. Our commitment to exploring the feasibility of a minimum income guarantee, which could be revolutionary in our fight against poverty, is a clear demonstration of our ambition for Scotland.

The Cabinet recognises that that is a cross-Government responsibility, and we are 100 per cent committed to doing everything in our power and using every lever that is at our disposal to deliver the change that is needed. However, it is not just Government that needs to act. We must take a team Scotland approach and work collectively to eradicate child poverty. That will take Parliament, civic Scotland, the public sector, and businesses doing everything that they can to support those efforts.

We will shortly commence consultation on our next delivery plan for tackling child poverty, which is to be published by the end of March 2022. We will build on the action that has been taken to date and on the strong evidence base that has been established. We will be guided by the recommendations and challenge that is offered by the Poverty and Inequality Commission and by the blueprint of the social renewal advisory board. In the plan’s development, we will also work closely with our partners, with experts by experience, and with children and young people themselves.

As the report that is being published today demonstrates, we are already taking wide-ranging action, but we must do more, and I ask all members to help us in that. I call on them to support us in taking the action required and to come forward with ideas—my door is always open to positive and serious suggestions—and I ask them to back the Government in eradicating the blight of child poverty once and for all.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

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

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

There is welcome cross-party agreement on, and support for, the actions to tackle child poverty that the cabinet secretary outlined, including the doubling of the Scottish child payment. Many people in the sector are, however, asking what is preventing ministers from taking steps to double the Scottish child payment as soon as possible. The cabinet secretary said that it will be

“by the end of this parliamentary session”—

which is some five years away—and said in the same paragraph that the Government would look to double the payment “as early as possible”. Why will the Scottish Government not commit to a date for delivery?

A key area on which the cabinet secretary did not touch is the Scottish Government’s record on children who live in temporary accommodation. The most recent Scottish Government statistics show that 7,900 children are living in temporary accommodation, which is a 9 per cent increase on the figure for 2019-20.

We all know that a safe and stable home is vital to a child’s wellbeing and development. After 14 years of Scottish National Party Government, the situation is getting worse and worse, especially here in the capital. Will the cabinet secretary say what plans the Scottish Government will put in place to ensure that we end the problem of households that include pregnant women and children living in temporary accommodation? How will the Government prioritise the issue?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

First—as, I think, Miles Briggs acknowledged—I note that the Scottish child payment is a game-changing policy in the fight against child poverty.

As I said, our manifesto commits us to doubling the payment to £80 per month by the end of this parliamentary session, which has been widely welcomed.

We recognise the need for urgent action. We will double the payment as soon as is practicable. We are considering the timetable for the increase, taking account of the impact on child poverty as well as legislative, financial and delivery considerations, and I will make an announcement in due course. I recognise that there is an appetite to go as quickly as possible.

Miles Briggs asked about children in temporary accommodation. He will be aware of the enormous efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic to ensure that people could be in safe accommodation. I do not want anyone to live in unsuitable temporary accommodation, so it is a top priority for me to try to resolve the situation.

Miles Briggs also alluded to regional variations; the issue is more difficult to tackle in some areas than it is in others. I want to engage with local authorities and housing associations in each area, to consider what more we can do.

The 100,000 affordable homes that we have delivered are important, as is the commitment to building 100,000 more affordable homes, 70 per cent of which will be for social rent. That will make a big impact, but there is more to be done.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

It is a tragedy but—sadly—it will be no surprise to anyone in the chamber that, at the point when we need to do more, we are set to miss by 4 per cent the child poverty target that Parliament set.

The Poverty Alliance and civic society are united in making it crystal clear that if we are to move towards giving people lives that are free from poverty, we must double the Scottish child payment immediately. Today, the Government committed to doubling the payment by the end of this parliamentary session. That is not soon enough.

Will the cabinet secretary say what the hold-up is? If not now, when will she do so? I share the Government’s concern about the removal of the £20 uplift to universal credit, so I find it hard to understand why the Government is not prepared to use its power to mitigate that policy, right now.

People in single-parent families, people of colour and families that include disabled people or carers are more likely to live in poverty. Those people are being hit hardest. A minimum income guarantee is needed to lift those people above the poverty line. The Government has committed to a minimum income guarantee, but when will it begin to take steps to introduce the policy? Will it set out what those steps will be?

As the cabinet secretary knows, my view is that we cannot successfully reach a minimum income standard without making changes across Government—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Will you ask a question, please?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary today commit to making the minimum income guarantee an organising principle for this Government?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy will not mind my sharing that we had a constructive discussion about issues to do with the minimum income guarantee when we met last week.

I want to get the steering group up and running—as Pam Duncan-Glancy is aware, that is one of our commitments for our first 100 days—and I want then to consider the feasibility of introducing a minimum income guarantee. We discussed the fact that that could encompass not only cash but in-kind support across a myriad of areas of government. That work is important, so I assure her that I want to see it progress at the earliest opportunity.

As I said to Miles Briggs, we want to bring forward the doubling of the Scottish child payment as quickly as possible. However, I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy will recognise that, even in the first 100 days, we have brought forward delivery of bridging payments of £520 a year until the end of 2022, by which time we have committed to rolling out fully the Scottish child payment to those who are currently not eligible. That fulfils one of our first 100 days commitments, so it is not a fair accusation to say that the Government is not moving fast enough to put money into the pockets of the families who need it most.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The cabinet secretary will recognise that the United Kingdom Government’s two-child policy is a major driver of child poverty, and that even if the two-child policy did not exist, the UK benefit cap would still enforce that misery for many families. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me and organisations including the Child Poverty Action Group that both policies must go? What actions will the Scottish Government take to support families who are impacted by these draconian measures?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree very much with Marie McNair. Scottish ministers have, since the start of the pandemic, written to the UK Government on four occasions calling for the measures, which trap many families in poverty, to be scrapped. Over time, more and more families will be affected by the callous two-child cap. By April 2019, 8,500 families across Scotland had been denied entitlement for their children. In the long run, up to £120 million a year could be cut from benefit spend in Scotland, which will push 20,000 children into poverty. Similarly, the damaging impacts of the benefit cap have been highlighted during the pandemic. Cases have nearly doubled to 6,500, and 97 per cent of those households contain children.

Therefore, I reiterate my call: it is the UK Government’s responsibility to ensure that its policies provide adequate support. I hope that Parliament can unite in calling on it to do that.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Government’s statement refers to working in partnership with local authorities, partners more widely and the third sector. Funding was set aside specifically to support disabled parents to access employment. Can the cabinet secretary say whether that funding has been distributed to all local authorities? If it has not, can she provide a timescale for that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

First, I note that the partnership with local government is important. Local government is one of the main delivery partners for many of the programmes that have been outlined. I will write to Alexander Stewart on the specific question about moneys to local authorities for parental employment. That is a key pillar of support for families; it ensures that families are supported into work, reduces the cost of living and provides cash and in-kind support to families.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s report on Scotland’s curriculum for excellence, which was published this week, found that there has been an apparent improvement in tackling the poverty-related attainment gap, that the impact of socioeconomic status on performance here is among the lowest among OECD countries, and that a greater proportion of resilient young people from less well-off backgrounds are performing at high levels. That is quite a turnaround from the picture in previous OECD reports.

Given that building resilience has been at the core of the SNP Government’s early years education and development agenda, can the cabinet secretary commit to driving forward that early years agenda by working in partnership with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills on tackling the impact of poverty on children?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I thank Fiona Hyslop for her question.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has underlined the importance of the OECD’s findings and recommendations. As I said, we are investing £1 billion over this session of Parliament to close the attainment gap, with record funding of more than £215 million in 2021-22, which will help to provide targeted help to some of the most disadvantaged children and young people.

However, we recognise that more must be done if we are to maintain that relentless pursuit of equality in education. That is why we are introducing free school lunches for primary 4 children as a first step towards providing free school breakfasts and lunches for all primary school pupils. I also mentioned the best start food funding. We have the school clothing grant, as well. All those taken together are important, but I am keen to work with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to see what more we can do. I want to work with every cabinet secretary and minister to make sure that we redouble our efforts to tackle child poverty.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The

Scottish Government rightly recognises that low pay is at the heart of child poverty and that it is an issue that should preoccupy everyone across the country. Why, then, will the Government not commit to paying carers—a workforce that is largely made up of seriously underpaid women with childcare responsibilities—£15 an hour?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Carol Mochan has raised an important point about the social care workforce. She will be aware of the work that is going on around the building of a national care service, of which pay and conditions are a key part. That is important in this agenda, given the three pillars that I talked about, with the first being employment. Care services have a mainly female workforce supporting families, so the employment pillar is important in making sure that we support those families and that workforce. I am confident that pay and conditions will be taken forward and improved as part of building the national care service.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

W

e know that increasing household incomes from work and earnings is one of the key ways to tackle poverty effectively. Can the cabinet secretary outline what impact the parental employability support fund will have on tackling poverty in Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Jackie Dunbar has made an important point about one of the three key pillars in tackling poverty. Since 2019, we have committed more than £23 million to the parental employability support fund, which provides parents with employability support to help them enter and progress in the labour market.

The fund has a strong focus on each of the six priority family types that are identified in the tackling child poverty delivery plan, providing locally tailored support that is responsive to need. Our 2019-20 progress report estimated that around 11,500 children could positively benefit from our investment in the fund, with increases in parents’ take-home earnings directly impacting on child poverty targets.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

What assessment—[

Inaudible

.]—of the current likelihood of meeting the child poverty reduction targets without new and additional action?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that the cabinet secretary struggled to hear that question, perhaps because of the sound quality. It would be helpful if Jeremy Balfour repeated the whole question.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

What is

the Scottish Government’s assessment of the current likelihood of meeting the child poverty reduction targets without new and additional action?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I apologise to

Jeremy Balfour for not hearing him properly the first time.

My immediate response to Jeremy Balfour’s question is that it will be tough. In our report, which I hope everyone looks at, I have laid out the extensive actions that the Government has taken. However, in my statement, I also said clearly that all those actions and all the investment, even taken together, will not be enough. That is why we have committed to redouble our efforts across the Government and to look at everything that we do through a child poverty lens to see whether it works to reduce child poverty. That will be crucial.

I also make the point to Jeremy Balfour that although we could end up with all that work being on the right trajectory to hit those targets, we could be prevented from hitting them because of the actions of the UK Government—for example, in reducing the £20 universal credit uplift. I implore him and his colleagues to make representations on that to the UK Government, because it would be a travesty if the Scottish Government makes progress towards meeting those targets but is held back by UK Government welfare policy.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and the report.

In the cabinet secretary’s statement, she referred to the Scottish child payment as a game changer in the fight against child poverty, but it will not be a game changer for the children who are eligible for the payment but do not receive it because their families are unaware of it, not supported to claim it or put off by the toxic demonisation of benefits claimants.

In January, the Scottish Fiscal Commission projected that by 2025-26 around 99,000 children will be eligible for but not receiving the payment. That would be nothing short of a national disgrace. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that all families who are eligible will receive the payment?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Maggie Chapman makes a very important point about awareness of the Scottish child payment. She may be aware that, from the start, Social Security Scotland has promoted awareness of entitlement, which is perhaps a bit different from the position taken by the Department for Work and Pensions.

It is very much Social Security Scotland’s job to promote awareness of entitlement. However, that is not just Social Security Scotland’s job; it is everyone’s job. It is the job of health visitors, teachers, social care staff and general practitioners who come into contact with families who they think may be eligible to make sure that awareness is heightened. For example, one important project involves the co-location of benefit advisers in GP surgeries. We should miss no opportunity to make sure that families are aware of their entitlement to not just the Scottish child payment but all the other benefits that they may be able to claim.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome my friend Shona Robison to her place back in the Cabinet.

The impact of Covid on poverty will be a big challenge for us to address. On Monday I took part in a meeting with the Poverty Alliance and other groups across Scotland about just that. Rent arrears and indebtedness was one issue that was highlighted. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact on debt and poverty levels in Scotland of removing the £20-per-week universal credit uplift, and what work has she done to persuade the UK Government to make the uplift permanent?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I thank Neil Gray for his question. I very much enjoyed working with him on the Social Justice and Fairness Commission.

The Scottish Government analysis that was published in November estimated that removing the £20 uplift and reinstating the minimum income floor would reduce benefit spend in Scotland by £476 million in 2021-22. Although the UK Government has extended those measures to the end of September, the scale of the loss to families will be hugely significant if the uplift is cut.

As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted, even with the uplift, families who are unable to work are still £1,600 per year worse off now than they were in 2011. That is why we have written to the UK Government seven times calling for it to make the uplift permanent and to extend it to those who are in receipt of legacy benefits.

Neil Gray also made a point about rent arrears. Given the importance of the issue, which I recognise, the Deputy First Minister announced the establishment of a tenant grant fund to add to the other measures that we are taking to help people who have been impacted by Covid-19 during the pandemic in relation to rent arrears.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Scottish Liberal Democrats campaigned for years to convince the SNP of the value of offering funded childcare for two-year-olds from deprived backgrounds. Supporting children in their early years is one of the most effective ways of driving down the attainment gap. It also helps parents to return to work by easing the burden of childcare costs and, by extension, it drives down in-work poverty.

Statistics that were released this week show there are still more than 8,000 two-year-olds missing out on that entitlement. What will the Scottish Government do to improve that terrible take-up rate and deliver flexible childcare to those who need it most?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said in my statement, the expansion of early learning and childcare is now set to be completed from August this year. Of course, half of councils are already delivering the expanded offer of 1,140 hours to families. Given the importance of the issue, we have set out the next stage of our ambition to further expand childcare and develop a wraparound childcare system before and after school, all year round.

The member makes an important point about two-year-olds. As I said, one of the three key pillars is about cash and in-kind support. Wraparound childcare is one of the most important aspects of in-kind support for families, and it can make a big difference in lifting them out of poverty. I will be working with my Cabinet colleagues to ensure that that is delivered.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Interventions such as the Scottish child payment will make a huge difference, but there will always be a limit to what can be achieved while the majority of powers to tackle child poverty remain reserved to Westminster. The cabinet secretary referred to that in her opening remarks, but will she provide further examples of areas where the Scottish Government is unable to act to tackle child poverty because powers are reserved?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Although around 15 per cent of social security spend is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it is our job to make the most of that spend in tackling child poverty, 85 per cent of the spend is not devolved and remains at Westminster, including key income-replacement benefits such as universal credit. I have already outlined the damaging effect of withdrawing the £20 uplift in universal credit. Of course, the benefit cap and the senseless two-child limit just add to the issues and problems.

With full powers over social security, we could deliver a system that is fit for purpose, that treats people with dignity and respect and that tackles and reduces poverty. Similarly, if we had employment powers, we could make the real living wage mandatory, outlaw unfair fire-and-rehire tactics and ban the inappropriate and exploitative use of zero-hours contracts. Those are just a few ideas about what we could do if we had powers in this place over those matters.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the statement. Before we move on to the next item of business, I am required to remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. I ask members to take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber.

Royal College of Nursing Scotland (Trade Dispute)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the formal notification by RCN Scotland that it is in trade dispute with the Government over pay.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Clearly, the notification—[

Inaudible

.]—but I look forward to continuing to engage with it. We have engaged in the pay negotiations through the staff-side representative and collective union group STAC, the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee. That process has been in place—[

Inaudible

.] In May, the clear majority of unions, including Unison Scotland, the Royal College of Midwives and many others, which represent a clear majority of national health service staff, reported that they accepted the 2021-22 pay deal. We have therefore moved to deliver the pay increase, with uplifted back pay, as soon as possible. The 4 per cent increase stands in stark contrast to the paltry 1 per cent that is on the table from the United Kingdom Government for nurses in England.

I met—[

Inaudible

.] Clearly, I would be happy to meet them again on these matters—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but we have a point of order from Jackie Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I did not ask for a point of order.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry. I thought that it was from Jackie Baillie, but it is from Alex Cole-Hamilton.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unsurprisingly, as this is an urgent question, there is a lot of interest in the answers from the Government. Given the connection issues with which the cabinet secretary is struggling, I wonder whether another member of the Government might be prepared to answer the question.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I note the point of order. I will ask the cabinet secretary to turn off his video so that we have audio only. We will try again and see if that works better. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could start again with his answer to Jackie Baillie’s initial question.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes, I am happy to do so. I can see and hear everybody, so I apologise if the connection problem is at my end. Please interrupt me if the connection does not get better. If it is helpful, I have a back-up device, which I am happy to set up quickly and use.

In answer to Jackie Baillie’s question, the notification from the RCN is, of course, disappointing. I look forward to continuing to engage with the RCN. We have engaged in pay negotiations through the STAC process, which has been in place since 2005. In May, the clear majority of unions on STAC, which represent a clear majority of NHS staff, reported that they—[

Inaudible

.]

—Scotland, the Royal College of Midwives, among others. Therefore, we have moved to deliver that increase in pay, with uplifted back pay, as soon as possible. That 4 per cent increase in pay stands in stark contrast to the paltry 1 per cent from the UK Government that is on the table for nurses in England. I met the RCN and the rest of STAC on 14 June, and I would be happy to meet them again to discuss those matters. At the STAC meeting, we discussed the fact that the 4 per cent increase was the biggest uplift for NHS Scotland staff in at least 20 years and that it will continue to ensure that our nurses are the best paid in the UK.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Jackie Baillie, I hope that there was enough of that answer to help you in asking your supplementary questions.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

There was, Presiding Officer.

It is fair to say that this is the first time in the history of RCN Scotland that it has notified the Government of a trade dispute. However, it is about so much more than pay. Nursing staff have been warning for years that unsustainable vacancy levels, increasing workload demands and the risk that those pose for patient care and safety need to be addressed. The vacancy rate is up, and 30 per cent of vacant posts have been vacant for more than three months. After months of working on the Covid front line, nursing staff are now exhausted and many are considering leaving the profession, which will make staff shortages worse. Given the scale of the backlog challenge that the NHS faces, why has the Government allowed the relationship with the nursing workforce to deteriorate to that level?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Unsurprisingly, I do not agree with Jackie Baillie’s characterisation, but the RCN’s action is unprecedented and I will look to engage and reach out to the organisation. In my first few days in the role, I wrote to the RCN and, as I mentioned in my previous answer, I followed that up with a meeting with the RCN and other trade unions, in which pay and other matters were discussed. I will reach out again to the RCN to have a discussion and bilateral talks.

However, this Government has an exceptional record, and these are the most unprecedented of times. The record pay rise that we have implemented, which is the single largest pay rise for NHS staff in a single year, comes on top of the £500 thank you payment. The number of qualified nurses and midwives in Scotland is at a record high, having gone up by 12.8 per cent to more than 46,000. We have 8.5 qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 people, compared to 5.9 per 1,000 in England.

However, I do not seek to minimise the points that Jackie Baillie raises. We know that there are still challenges, and that is why I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we continue to invest in, for example, the mental wellbeing hub, which will help the resilience of our workforce. There are issues that still need to be discussed, and I am happy to get back around the table with the RCN.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I repeat that this is the first time in its history that RCN Scotland has taken such action; it is unprecedented. What wider action will the cabinet secretary take to deal with the workforce pressures? What action will he take to recruit and retain the required nursing staff? The RCN claims that, despite attempts to engage with the new cabinet secretary, its requests for a meeting have been ignored. Will the cabinet secretary commit to an urgent meeting with RCN Scotland to hear its concerns and find a solution before the matter escalates even further?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I reiterate that I have engaged with the RCN; within my first few days in the post, I wrote to the RCN in response to its letter to my predecessor. I met the RCN about 10 days ago as part of a wider group of meetings with all the trade unions. Of course, I am more than happy to meet the RCN, and I will look to do that and get that process under way.

On the broader issues, which I think Jackie Baillie raises fairly reasonably, we will look to engage with not just the RCN but our other trade unions around the mental wellbeing of our staff. We know that the past 15 months have probably been the hardest and most difficult for most of our NHS staff in their entire careers. That is why we are putting in place a comprehensive package of wellbeing support that includes the national wellbeing hub, the national wellbeing helpline, psychological interventions and therapies, coaching for wellbeing, digital apps and workforce specialist services for regulated staff including nurses.

Jackie Baillie will know about our plans for a national recovery plan. A lot of our implementation of important wellbeing measures will be part of that plan, which I am happy to engage with Jackie Baillie on.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

The latest workforce statistics show that there are more than 4,400 nursing vacancies in Scotland and that a fifth of the workforce is over the age of 55. We urgently need to improve recruitment and retention of nurses if we are to maintain safe levels of care. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that pay and conditions will be essential to ensuring that the NHS has the nursing workforce that it needs and to the implementation of the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019, which has been delayed due to the pandemic?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes. I think that Gillian Mackay makes

reasonable points. That is why we have implemented the single largest pay rise in the history of devolution for NHS staff, and it is also why we gave our NHS staff a £500 thank you payment in recognition of what a challenging 15 to 16 months it has been.

Gillian Mackay is right that both recruitment and retention are important. I am pleased with the Government’s record of recruiting qualified nurses and midwives—the figure is at a record high—but where there are still challenges, I am more than happy to engage, and will engage, with the RCN. Many of the issues that Gillian Mackay and Jackie Baillie have raised will be part of our recovery plan, which we have committed to producing in the first 100 days.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

All too often, nurses have had to bear the brunt of the pandemic, and many have had absolutely no respite, between cancelled leave and overtime. The sustained high-intensity workload has resulted, and will result, in significant mental health repercussions. There can be no NHS recovery without a committed and motivated nursing workforce. Nurses are pivotal, and the Government must make it clear that they are valued and will be listened to and supported at all times, not just in the run-up to an election. When it comes to the mental wellbeing of our nurses, what package of support will be offered to them alongside a much-needed pay uplift?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I probably answered that in my answer to Jackie Baillie, but Alex Cole-Hamilton is right—there must be a comprehensive package of wellbeing support, and I am pleased that there is one. It includes the

national wellbeing hub, the national wellbeing helpline, psychological interventions and therapies for staff, and coaching for wellbeing. Digital apps are available for the workforce, too, and there is a workforce specialist service for regulated staff, including nurses. If Alex Cole-Hamilton wishes to have even more detail about some of those interventions, I am more than happy for him to write to me and I will, of course, respond in due course.

We take our commitment to our workforce exceptionally seriously. That is why we have implemented the single largest pay rise in the history of devolution for our NHS Scotland staff.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the urgent question.

15:38 Meeting suspended.

Committee of the Whole Parliament

The Convener (Alison Johnstone)

The Committee of the Whole Parliament will consider stage 2 of the Coronavirus (Extension and Expiry) (Scotland) Bill. For the duration of the proceedings, I am the convener of the committee.

Coronavirus (Extension and Expiry) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

The Convener (Alison Johnstone)

In dealing with the amendments, members should have the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or type R in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

The Convener

Amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is in a group on its own.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether I should call you “Convener” now—I will stick with “Presiding Officer”.

Amendment 1 is my legislative attempt to be just a little bit cheeky. The Government and members will be aware of my frustration with the narrow scope of the bill—a deliberate choice made by the Scottish Government—that has inhibited members lodging amendments of substance to fill policy gaps. Most such amendments have, unfortunately, been ruled inadmissible by the Presiding Officer on the basis of the narrow scope of the bill.

Amendment 1 sets out the purpose of the act to increase its scope, and thus the amendments that could be accepted for debate. The delicious irony is that amendment 1 has been accepted but the other amendments of substance have not. I continue to live in hope, but my experience with the Government is, as Dr Johnson would have said,

“a triumph of hope over experience.”

I move amendment 1.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, and I own a property from which I derive rental income.

I thank Jackie Baillie for her bold attempt with amendment 1 to extend the purpose of the bill. I understand exactly where she is coming from and the point that she is trying to make.

In the stage 1 debate yesterday, I set out our concerns about the fact that the bill has been too rushed. There has been no time for consultation or detailed scrutiny. Unlike Jackie Baillie’s criticism of the bill, ours is not that it does too little but that it does too much too quickly. What Jackie Baillie is trying to do would exacerbate an existing problem, because she is trying to broaden the scope of the bill to allow more amendments to be lodged on which there has been no consultation and for which there will be no time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 1, which would make the problem worse rather than better.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This is getting us off to an absolutely fabulous start. It is refreshing to be reminded that Jackie Baillie is, if nothing else, up front in what she does. Murdo Fraser’s contribution contrasted with Jackie Baillie’s makes me feel that I am between the devil and the deep blue sea in arguing that the provisions of the bill are designed to follow a very narrow purpose, which is to ensure that a number of practical operational factors and provisions that are in place to help us to manage the challenges of Covid are either maintained in statute or expired as a consequence of the bill. Who knows, perhaps more of them will be expired as a consequence of amendments.

I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her explanation of the purpose of amendment 1, but it is an unnecessary and potentially confusing amendment. The Government’s general approach to the drafting of bills is to avoid including purpose sections. We avoid them because they have a legal effect by virtue of their inclusion in a bill, which means that they are open to legal interpretation, and that interpretation may have unintended consequences for other provisions in the bill.

The long title of the bill already makes it crystal clear to the reader what the bill does. I do not think that the addition of a purpose section adds anything. Instead, it introduces an element of uncertainty that I think that it is important that we avoid. For those reasons, I invite Jackie Baillie to not press amendment 1. If she does, I encourage the Parliament to vote against the amendment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary described Murdo Fraser as the devil and me as the deep blue sea. I would have worried a little if it was the other way around.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It was a choice!

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

T

he cabinet secretary made the right choice in this instance.

I would like to rebut Murdo Fraser’s argument. I entirely accept that we are in the middle of a pandemic. We might be seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but we are still in an emergency situation and this is about policy gaps. We are talking about ensuring that people who most need protection are covered by the legislation and that we do not create any policy gaps. I do not agree with the cabinet secretary—he will be surprised to know—that there are consequences of my proposal or that it creates uncertainty. However, in the interests of time and because this is not a point of substance, I am happy to withdraw my amendment 1.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Convener

Amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 3, 15, 19, 20 and 21.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I rise to speak to amendments 2, 3, 15 and 19 in my name, which are grouped with Murdo Fraser’s amendments 20 and 21, which we will support, too. I will address each of them in turn, briefly.

Amendments 2 and 3 would remove the power to extend the provisions to September 2022. Emergency legislation is just that—it is for emergencies. I believe that we have come through the worst of the pandemic. The First Minister believes so, too, given her upbeat statement yesterday. I think that that is something that we all hope is now happening. The vaccine programme is now being rolled out at pace, and restrictions are slowly but surely being lifted. Even pubs are now allowed to open late, if the Euros go to extra time or penalties. Although that is unbelievably inconsistent with the other restrictions that are in place, it is a sign that normality is returning. However, that action is not consistent with an emergency. As it stands, the bill will be extended by six months to April 2022. I do not believe that it is necessary to go beyond that. If there is another emergency, there is time to bring forward legislation at speed to cope with it.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Jackie Bailie agree that, all the way through the pandemic, we have kept hoping that things would be finished quicker than they were, and that problems such as new variants or shortages of vaccine have arisen? Is it not wiser to leave the other six-month period in place?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I genuinely do not think so, because, certainly in the discussions that it had with me, the Government was prepared to consider a shorter extension period. The principle is the thing that applies. At the moment, the extension would be for six months beyond September. I think that that is enough, but it also allows the Parliament time, should there be a need, to bring forward urgent legislation, and it allows this Parliament to scrutinise provisions that give sweeping powers to the Scottish Government and ministers rather than simply rolling them over.

Amendment 15 is about improving scrutiny. It seeks to expire rather than extend the power to use the made affirmative procedure for Scottish statutory instruments in urgent situations. As I said yesterday, I think that the context has changed. Restrictions are lifting, Parliament is sitting and committees are constituted. There is absolutely no reason why regulations should not come before this chamber or before the Parliament. I note that even the United Kingdom Government has agreed to bring changes to be voted on in the House of Commons. If the Conservatives can concede that in an effort to be open and transparent, why is the SNP setting itself a lower standard to meet? Parliamentary scrutiny, openness and transparency are essential for a flourishing democracy. It is time for this Parliament to do its job on behalf of the people who elected us.

Finally, I will not move amendment 19, and will work with the Scottish Government to bring it back at stage 3. Again, the amendment is about improving scrutiny. I want a statement to be made to Parliament before changes are made to measures that are in place to respond to the virus. I entirely accept that 14 days is just a little too long to wait for that and a much shorter timescale is needed to allow for a speed of response.

However, the principle of the amendment is important. Statements must be made to this chamber by ministers. I am not going to speak at length about recent events, in which decisions were made that appear to lack consistency and simply do not make sense. Members will have an opportunity to scrutinise, and that will benefit the Government and our democracy.

I move amendment 2.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will speak to amendments 20 and 21, in my name, and comment on the amendments in the name of Jackie Baillie. Unlike in the previous group, I am happy to support Jackie Baillie’s amendments in this group.

I start with Jackie Baillie’s amendments 2 and 3, which she just explained. They remove ministers’ power to extend provisions beyond the initial six months for a further six-month period. If that extension were to go ahead, it would mean that the powers contained in the coronavirus acts that we passed in spring last year will be in place for two and a half years from when they were originally introduced. To put that into context, yesterday the First Minister told Parliament that we were hoping to be in a situation where the great majority of restrictions affecting us would be lifted by the middle of August. I accept that that was a caveated statement, as it was dependent on a number of things, including the data continuing to improve. However, if it proves to be correct, it will mean that the various provisions of the bills that we passed 15 months ago will continue until the end of March next year—about eight months from now. If there were an extension of a further six months, the provisions would extend for a year and one month after the point at which the First Minister has told us that we should be getting back to a degree of normality. I find it really hard to understand why we should be in that situation.

Indeed, if we get to the new year and there is still an argument for the restrictions, the proper way to deal with that would be to bring forward new legislation, instead of just rolling over something that has been rushed through and passed in a desperate hurry. Therefore, I support Jackie Baillie’s amendments 2 and 3.

If they are not successful, I intend to move amendments 20 and 21, which are a further safeguard in relation to the additional extension of time. Those amendments require ministers, should they wish to extend for that further six-month period, to give at least 45 days’ notice of that intention. Why? That would give us the opportunity to have detailed consultation and debate on the impact of rolling those powers over for a further six-month period. That would be very welcome, in stark contrast to the situation that we have been in over the past few days, where we have had to deal with this bill in a dreadful rush, without having the opportunity for external input and consultation and without time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

I am grateful to the Covid-19 review observatory at the University of Birmingham law school, which has input ideas in relation to the bill; I read its submission with great interest.

That is why I have lodged amendments 20 and 21. I am happy to support the other amendments in the group.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

The outcome of the vote on amendments 2 and 3 will be very important to the Liberal Democrats when it comes to deciding whether to support the bill at stage 3, because they seek to support the fundamental principle that these are emergency powers—

they exist only in the context of an emergency.

We simply do not know what the context or the landscape of the pandemic will look like in 2022. As we all know, coronavirus is unpredictable and it can lead to unimaginable change, but the weathervanes all point to the fact that we might finally be emerging from it, and the roll-out of the vaccine is going well. We have to hope that there will be some version of normality in the near future without the necessity for draconian Government powers hanging over us all.

The bill will allow ministers to extend those powers in a wholesale way to September 2022, by regulation. As I have said before, the existing coronavirus legislation contains powers that are far reaching and, indeed, illiberal. They are necessary only because of the clear and urgent need brought about by the pandemic.

There is no need to extend such powers. As we speak, ministers are showing their ability to legislate quickly. If the Government insists that three days is enough time for scrutiny of a new piece of legislation on this occasion, why could that time not be found again in the new year? I reiterate our support for amendments 20 and 21, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the same basis.

I am gratified to hear that Jackie Baillie has chosen not to move amendment 19. I look forward to working with her on that at stage 3 because I have a lot of sympathy with her intentions. The amendment would require that a statement be laid before Parliament 14 days before any proposed changes came into force. My party has expressed frustrations with late changes, some of which have been poorly consulted on. There have been times when businesses have spent serious amounts of money preparing for one scenario, only to find themselves plunged into an entirely different situation at the last minute.

However, I share the concern that a requirement for 14 days’ notice would not give the Government the flexibility to respond to urgent health threats. If such a rule were to apply to adding countries to the red list, would we be able to respond with the speed required in the event of a new variant emerging? We know that a delay in making such decisions can have serious and far-reaching consequences. The Government has stretched and, at times, overstepped the boundaries in making announcements to Parliament and doing so in good time, but I recognise the need to afford ministers flexibility so that they can respond to serious and fast-moving situations. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for not moving amendment 19 and I look forward to working with her at stage 3.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her explanation of her amendments, starting with amendments 2 and 3. Although I understand the rationale behind those amendments, the Government intends to resist them, because they attempt to remove important flexibility from the bill.

As was commented on several times yesterday, we cannot predict the path of the pandemic or how long we may need some of the important measures that are contained in the acts.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the Deputy First Minister explain what he means by “flexibility”? When they presented their arguments, Jackie Baillie and Murdo Fraser said that, should there still be a need for emergency powers, we would work co-operatively across the Parliament in order to give the Government the powers that it would need in such an emergency. Why is the Government resistant to that? It does not make any sense to someone like me who is listening to this kind of debate for the first time.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We recognise that we are in a very uncertain situation. We are optimistic about the situation—that is obvious—but there are still anxieties. The case numbers today cause me further anxiety. We are not absolutely certain about the course that the pandemic will take and we are therefore not certain of the implications over the coming winter. There may be a requirement for us to use some of the powers over a longer period of time.

I will come on to explain the rationale about the situation that we could face, which could see us having to return to more emergency legislation. I am trying to minimise the recourse to emergency legislation by having sufficient flexibility in the legislation that Parliament passes this week to enable us to address any circumstances that we may face in due course.

It makes no sense to remove a safety net that we may well need, especially because any further extension would require Parliament to scrutinise and approve affirmative regulations. I want to be clear on that point. The bill only enables the Government to ask for Parliament’s approval for an extension. It is for Parliament to determine any decision about whether such an extension should be granted.

The Scottish Government remains committed to retaining powers only for as long as they are necessary and appropriate. I remind members that Parliament will, on a bimonthly basis, scrutinise the decisions of this Government in relation to the continued need for measures in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020, which this bill proposes to extend. There will therefore be numerous opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise the continued necessity for the provisions.

The removal of flexibility would also have an impact on the timing of a permanence bill, which we will soon consult on. Without that flexibility, the permanence bill would have to be in force by the end of March 2022 to ensure that there is no legislative gap. Parliament would therefore be deliberately choosing to put a deadline on the date by which the bill placing measures on a permanent basis must be enacted.

That does not appear to be consistent with the mood in Parliament, and is likely to have the effect of reducing the amount of time that Parliament will have to scrutinise the bill.

In addition, if it is necessary to extend the measures further, it could result in another emergency measure, without this power. Parliament will still be able to consider and debate any extension, and the necessity for that, through debate on the regulations. I do not consider an emergency bill designed to achieve the same aim would be an appropriate and effective use of Parliament’s time. I therefore ask members not to support amendments 2 and 3, which seek to remove important flexibility, have wider implications for legislative planning, and may necessitate further emergency legislation in six months’ time.

I am sure that Jackie Baillie will be glad to hear that the Government is content to support amendment 15, which will expire on 30 September 2021 the provisions relating to scrutiny of subordinate legislation in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020. The provisions in that amendment relate to allowing regulations to be progressed under the main affirmative procedure rather than the draft affirmative procedure, and therefore enable regulations to be brought into force immediately where necessary, but to remain in force only if parliamentary approval is secured.

As a result of Parliament’s willingness to accelerate timetabling of the scrutiny of relevant draft affirmative regulations, it has not been necessary to use those so far. Therefore, although it would be helpful to retain those provisions in case accelerated timetabling of necessary draft affirmative regulations is not always possible, the Government is willing to accept Parliament’s view on that matter. For those reasons, I lend my support to amendment 15. However, I wish to make Jackie Baillie aware that, if the amendment is agreed to by Parliament, technical tidying-up amendments will be lodged by the Government at stage 3 to make small consequential amendments.

Although I appreciate the sentiments behind amendment 19, it is, in my view, unworkable, and much more widely drawn than Jackie Baillie suggests. Obviously, Jackie Baillie has indicated that she will not move that amendment. The effect of that amendment could be to require ministers to lay a statement before Parliament on any change to any measure in response to Covid proposed by any person or authority. I do not think that that is deliverable, or what Parliament would want—nor would it be feasible for ministers to lay such statements 14 days before they are intended to have effect. By its very nature, the pandemic has necessitated urgent action in response to its changing impact. I wish that that were not so, but that is the reality that the Government must deal with, and which is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future.

At every stage during the pandemic, the Government has fully committed to being accountable to Parliament and its committees. We have agreed specific arrangements with the Parliament for the detailed scrutiny of ministerial statements and accompanying regulations. We stand ready to act on any further measures that the Presiding Officer or Parliament consider would assist scrutiny. However, ministers must retain the ability to move at pace where the public health and clinical advice indicates the need for immediate action. On that basis, the Government cannot support amendment 19. However, I am happy to commit to Jackie Baillie and other members that the Government will continue to have dialogue about how best to keep Parliament informed about any significant changes to measures that we consider necessary.

The Government also intends to resist amendments 20 and 21, as they attempt to remove important flexibility from the bill. It has been the Government’s view that a fine balance needs to be struck between making available as up-to-date evidence as possible and allowing sufficient time for scrutiny and implementation in order that stakeholders and public bodies can prepare for any changes. Indeed, we have been discussing that matter over the past couple of days. In my view, it is unhelpful for the Government to be unnecessarily constrained by having an arbitrary 45-day deadline imposed. It would instead be more helpful to maintain a balance and necessary flexibility. I therefore suggest that amendments 20 and 21 are unnecessary and invite members not to support them.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I intend to press amendment 2. I will make a couple of comments in closing. I recall that, at Westminster, MPs kicked up such a fuss when the UK act was first extended in September 2020 that the UK Government agreed that, wherever possible, it would bring a debate and vote on new regulations to Westminster before they came into force. It has done that. For example, the UK Government decided to delay the lifting of lockdown on Monday of last week; MPs voted on the regulations on Thursday, three days later.

In contrast, on 11 June, the Scottish Government made regulations about the social distancing that is required in the fan zone and at Hampden, which MSPs are not voting on until today, after the events have basically happened. We cannot continue to operate in such a way.

I am pleased that the Government will accept amendment 15 on the basis that the provision has not been used at all. That proves that there needs to be better scrutiny by this Parliament, because the Government was simply going to extend an emergency measure that has never been used.

On amendments 2 and 3, I think that scrutiny is important. In my view, there is no need to extend, and no sensible justification for extending, emergency legislation with such sweeping powers for more than six months. As I said to John Mason, in discussion with the Government, a compromise of an extra three months was suggested. That tells me that the Government was prepared to negotiate on whether the extension would be six, nine or 12 months, which does not appear to be based on any scientific approach.

There is no logic to the cabinet secretary’s argument when he says that he does not want any more emergency legislation, but that the Government wants the option to extend emergency legislation. If we are coming out of the pandemic, we should not have emergency legislation in place for any longer than is necessary.

We need accountability to the Parliament; therefore, I will press amendment 2 in my name.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Convener

There will be a division. Proceedings will be suspended for the first division of the afternoon.

16:06 Meeting suspended.

16:17 On resuming—

Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, convener. I did not realise that we were voting on amendment 2. I would have voted no.

The Convener

Thank you, Ms Burgess. That is noted for the record, but we cannot change the recorded vote.

The Convener

The result of the division on amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is: For 55, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Jackie Baillie.]

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Convener

There will be a division. Members should vote now.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote appears not to have registered; I would have voted yes.

The Convener

Thank you.

I call Clare Adamson for a point of order.

Unfortunately, we cannot hear you, Ms Adamson, but I can confirm that you did vote.

The Convener

The result of the division on amendment 3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is: For 54, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Section 1 agreed to.

Group 3 is on justice. Amendment 4, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 6 to 11, 22, 23 and 27.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I will speak to amendments 4, 7, 8 and 27, which are in my name, and I will move amendment 4. I begin by asking the Deputy First Minister to acknowledge that, in a rather rushed process, we have all done our best. I thank the legislation team for ensuring that we could draft and lodge our amendments in time.

Amendment 4 seeks to address the welfare of prisoners by hooking in the provision to regulate for early release so that Government would have a far-reaching power to do that. It also seeks to enable discussion of the wider implications of prisoners spending long periods in cells because of coronavirus and concerns about the lack of fresh air for prisoners who cannot get outdoors. The amendment would require the Government to report every two months on the welfare provisions.

Organisations including Amnesty International have already expressed concerns about the length of time that prisoners have spent in prison. Given the human rights responsibilities of the Parliament, some supervision of the conditions in which prisoners are held, particularly when the virus is present in the prison, would be a helpful provision.

Amendments 6 and 7 relate to expiration of the increase to £500 in the value of fiscal fines, and to the extension of time limits. The fine of £500 would, I imagine, be for high-tariff crimes. I would be concerned if that increase were to be permanent, so I wish to probe the issue in debate, and to probe expiration of the extension of time limits for criminal proceedings, which should not be extended.

Before coronavirus, there were already significant delays in the courts, particularly the High Court, with cases going well beyond the 140-day limit that is set out in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The first coronavirus legislation suspended certain time limits and had the effect of increasing the maximum time period for an accused person to be held on remand prior to trial. The current bill seeks to extend that period again. I realise that all those time limits are slightly shorter than those for summary cases. I have expressed extreme concern at the number of people who are held on remand in Scotland, which almost doubled during the pandemic, from 982 to 1,753 between April 2020 in April 2021. Even before the pandemic, we therefore had an issue with the number of people being held on remand.

The Scottish Government acknowledged that point in January 2020, noting that Scotland has the highest prison population per head in western Europe and that approximately one in five prisoners in Scottish jails were held on remand. Howard League Scotland published a report last month titled “The Scandal of Remand in Scotland” and noted that 57 per cent of people who are held on remand do not go on to be given a prison sentence. There were reports this week as well on women in remand that are concerning.

Amendments 6 and 7 are probing amendments. I realise why the Government would want to extend the time limits, but I ask it to acknowledge that the numbers on remand were a serious issue before the pandemic and that we should be careful about using those powers. I understand why the Government wants to extend those provisions, but it would be welcome if it would note that point.

I have more concerns about amendment 8, which relates to hearsay evidence. I question whether we need the provision on hearsay evidence now, given that there are more opportunities for people to attend court. When we passed the first coronavirus legislation, the Scottish Law Commission noted that the provision would be used only in a narrow set of circumstances. Amendment 8 seeks to expire rather than extend the option for hearsay evidence to be accepted. The rationale for the original coronavirus legislation allowing the use of hearsay evidence was that it would allow evidence by statement where there would be a particular risk to a person’s wellbeing from the coronavirus or a particular risk of transmitting the coronavirus to others. However, a statement cannot be cross-examined by the defence and, further, the legislation does not specify whether it would be a witness diagnosed with coronavirus who would use the provision concerned. More important, though, I am not clear whether the provision would be used for the complainer in a trial or for a witness. I hope that the Government can see that, if that provision was more widely used, it would not serve the interests of justice if a complainer provided a statement that could not be cross-examined. I am looking for the Government to say in what circumstances it would be happy for hearsay evidence, which is hardly ever allowed in the courts, to be used.

Amendment 27 seeks more information on how fiscal fines are used. For example, it is unclear what sort of crimes would incur fines of £400 and £500. I want the Government to be clear about that. I would like to see some transparency by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about how the powers would be used and for what types of crime. That transparency would be in the interests of justice and fairness.

I am sympathetic to the concerns behind Jamie Greene’s amendments 9 and 23, which I am sure I will hear him express in the debate. It would be helpful if the Government could confirm that, when the provisions on the early release of prisoners are used, the prisoners would be near the end of their sentence, the release would be related to a coronavirus outbreak and there would be no intention to use those powers for general prisoner management. The same confirmation would be helpful for payback orders too.

I move amendment 4.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 9 and other amendments in the group.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

This is the only set of amendments that I will deal with, so I hope that members will bear with me, as there is a lot of them and there is a lot in them. This is the only opportunity that we will get to talk about the justice-related issues of these emergency powers, so I hope that we give them a good airing accordingly.

I thank members for lodging amendments that I, too, tried to lodge but could not. I thank the parliamentary chamber desk and the legislation team, who have been superb over the past few days and have gone beyond the extra mile to turn what were just concepts into meaningful and workable amendments.

The problem that we identified, as is the case with Pauline McNeill’s amendments in this group, is that the only way in which we could bring some of these issues to the table is through the process of revoking or expiring the provisions that the Government seeks to extend. That is far from ideal. We will hear from the Deputy First Minister about some of the unintended consequences of full revocation or expiration of the measures, and I understand why he will make that case—indeed, he probably has a case on some of them.

I caveat my comments by saying that some of the measures were necessary for an emergency footing and some of them may still be necessary as we live through the pandemic. Some of the measures may even have long-term benefits, and I would be the first to admit that, but emergency measures by their very nature cause us to do things differently, and that is most apparent in relation to our judiciary. That has consequences, and we know from some of the briefings and feedback that we have had from stakeholders that some of the measures have caused concern. It is important that we get those concerns on the table.

We had to make a judgment call about submitting these amendments. The problem was that not submitting them would have meant that there would be no debate on them—then no one gets their voice heard in the

Official Report

or by ministers. In many ways, I would rather have approached the amendments very differently, and I appreciate that they create some technical difficulties.

That is by the by, and I will now address the amendments, starting with amendment 6. Initially, we supported the raising of the fiscal fine limit from £300 to £500, because the case was rightly made at the time that we could deal with a far greater number of cases in that way rather than through formal court proceedings that put more pressure on courts with burgeoning backlogs. This is an important question: what impact has that had on the serving of justice? How many cases that would have been met with harsher measures have been dealt with by administering fines? Has that provision watered down the dispensing of justice in relation to certain types of crimes? The problem is that we do not know—we do not have the data and we have not heard evidence to the contrary. I am minded to support amendment 6 if it is pressed.

Amendments 7 deals with the extension of time limits for prisoners on remand, which is a much bigger issue. I tried to submit an amendment of a similar nature, but it was deemed inadmissible. We took the approach of extending the total number of days that a prisoner can be kept in custody, which was a difficult decision at the time, but the maximum of 140 days was clearly not going to be enough in a number of cases. It is clear that we could not allow a situation in which some prisoners who are accused of very dangerous crimes could be allowed back on to the street before the trial comes to pass.

Like many areas of public service, the justice sector has been hit hard by coronavirus. Howard League Scotland warned us of the problem that the number of Scottish prisoners on remand has grown immensely over the course of the pandemic due to those delays. However, the way to tackle the problem is not simply to let people out of prison but to speed up the processing of those backlogs. I know that the cabinet secretary will tell us what the Government is doing on that, but there are thousands of people who are awaiting trial.

There is an issue with the remand population that I tried to raise at topical questions the other day, and it relates to the shocking suicide statistics of those on remand. Almost half of all deaths of remand prisoners are suicide; the figure for the general prison population is a third. That is shocking. Howard League Scotland has described that as the scandal of the Scottish Prison Service. Given that Scotland’s remand population is double that of England and Wales, how can this endless extension of keeping people on remand deal with the number of people on remand or the nature of remand.

We are faced with an impossible conundrum: nobody wants the automatic release of potentially dangerous criminals on to our streets due to forced expiration of the measures but, equally, we do not want—and should not countenance—endless and limitless remand caused by backlogs of court cases, which is not acceptable or humane.

I turn to amendment 8 and the hearsay provision. It is an important amendment; we have had much feedback on it and it was much debated in the original legislation. The latest briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, which I thank for its information, raised a particular concern about the changes to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the continued changes to hearsay requirements. Under the current emergency measures that the Government plans to extend, a witness in a trial can give evidence but not necessarily be required to give evidence under oath or be subject to cross-examination to test that evidence. That is the key point. The use of untested evidence in criminal trials is extremely problematic and muddies our entire criminal justice process.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

As members will have heard, I share Jamie Greene’s concerns about that provision. Even the appeal court has been conducted in a virtual setting so, if the Government wants to provide flexibility to allow courts to proceed, it could do so in other ways. Does the member agree that the big question is whether it serves the interests of justice if someone who is accused of a serious crime cannot cross-examine a witness or complainer when an accusation has been made, because a statement cannot be cross-examined?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Exactly. On Friday, one lawyer described the situation to me by saying,

“You cannot cross-examine a piece of paper”,

and he is absolutely right.

We need to consider where there is a necessity to tolerate the practice on a long-term basis. This is not simply a short-term extension—it is for six or 12 months and potentially even longer, given that we have seen the powers being rolled on and on. The legal profession is saying to us that the practice cannot become the norm and should not be acceptable to us as the norm.

In response to the original proposals, the Faculty of Advocates warned about what the interpretation of the term “reasonably practicable” might be, and the faculty’s briefing at the time said:

“Abandoning the hope of sworn oral testimony is only done as a last resort, knowing that it is at the expense of the quality of that evidence. It is not a step taken lightly.”

We do not know how much the power is being used in practice, because we have not taken evidence on it, which is another by-product of this rushed affair.

I move on to my amendments. To save time, I will cover amendments 9, 10 and 23 together. We need a much wider conversation about the use of community orders, but we will not have that today, as it is a complex matter. However, we need to stimulate proper debate on the issue. The problem that we are faced with today is that we can either approve or revoke the emergency procedures, and in this case neither would be ideal.

In the early stages of the virus, we all got behind the need to reduce face-to-face contact. That made sense, no matter how difficult it was, so the community order provisions made sense at that time. However, we are now 18 months on and we are in a completely different situation. The stay-at-home message has been rescinded, people are mingling outside, seemingly more than ever, and 80 per cent of Scots have received their first dose of the vaccine. Therefore, I argue that there is no excuse for writing off or rescinding community orders and that people should be carrying them out. Unless the cabinet secretary can give clear evidence to the contrary, it seems that there is simply no need for the power to be extended. I believe that community service can be carried out safely if the scientific evidence allows it.

The consequence of the emergency powers is that 300,000 hours of community service have been written off—they are just gone. That will raise eyebrows, not least among those who have been the victims of crime. Social Work Scotland has warned that there is a backlog of 700,000 hours of community service yet to be served within the designated timescale, which it says is impossible. We do not know, but up to 450,000 hours of that might be written off. I ask the cabinet secretary to think carefully about extending the powers. My amendments seek to revoke the powers. No doubt, we will hear that there are issues with that but, nonetheless, I want to probe the Government on the issue, because the measures cannot proceed without debate.

My final points, which are important, are about my amendments 11 and 12 and amendment 4 in the name of Pauline McNeill—we tried to lodge a similar amendment. The amendments are about the early release of prisoners, which is perhaps one of the more contentious issues and one that my predecessor, Liam Kerr, spoke about in detail. I know that the issue is a concern for the Criminal Justice Committee.

We will support amendment 4, which includes useful and important reporting metrics that would at least give us an indication of the situation. We are again being made to decide on a complex policy matter with a simple yes or no, or keep or do not keep. It does a disservice to the Scottish Prison Service when we execute policy decisions in that manner.

The provision on the early release of prisoners was originally intended to mitigate a health crisis and an emergency in our prisons and I understand the reasons: it allowed the Scottish ministers effectively to grant prisoners early release if they were serving less than 18 months and had fewer than 90 days left in custody on 4 May last year. Members should think about the date and what was going on at the time, especially if the prisoners were at high risk of catching Covid in prison. We supported that provision, perhaps reluctantly, in March 2020, but we had no idea what was facing us.

Today, we are in a very different situation. We have a tremendous vaccination programme, which is also taking place within the prison population, and the decision to vaccinate prisoners, in line with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommendations, was valid, although it is unclear how many prisoners have been vaccinated. The average age of a prisoner in Scotland is in the 30s, and more than 70 per cent of those who are in the 30 to 39 population group have had their first jab. Although I think that prisoners pose a far lower infection risk to each other than they did before, any risk that still exists must be addressed and the way to address that is not simply to release prisoners but to deal with prisons on a one-to-one basis and work with the staff and protect them. Again, we will object to the on-going extension of those powers, unless the cabinet secretary can justify them.

With all those measures, I revert to my opening comments. The process is already rushed, and we should not be doing it that way. We should be taking evidence on those important matters that affect our justice system, but we are not able to. Therefore, it is with regret that the Parliament has voted to navigate those complex matters in the way that we are doing, in the few short hours that we have.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I rise in support of all of Pauline McNeill’s amendments and some of Jamie Greene’s amendments.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats worked hard to highlight the crisis in our prisons, which were unsafe and overcrowded well before the pandemic struck, because the Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to get a grip on the instinct to imprison. I have long supported evidence-based proposals for reducing the prison population by stopping the overreliance on remand and giving confidence to community sentencing options that do not rely on extra bunks in Barlinnie.

The release power was a mechanism that was put in place as part of extraordinary measures, at an extraordinary time, in the interests of health and safety. Fifteen months into the pandemic, with the vaccine roll-out well under way, that threat to health and safety is not what it was and the Government should not get comfortable with the power of executive release, because it is not a sustainable option for the long term. Likewise, options for automatic rebates on community orders do nothing to give confidence in those orders. If there are resource or deliverability issues, as opposed to health and safety issues, they need to be dealt with through proper funding, so that people can be supported to meet the terms of the orders. The legislation cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Scottish Government’s failure to properly support Scotland’s justice system.

I close with a word in support of amendment 7, in the name of Pauline McNeill, which would disapply the extension of time limits to criminal proceedings. Yesterday, I spoke in the stage 1 debate about the issues of remand that Jamie Greene has eloquently pointed to this afternoon—in particular, the rising population on remand. A rising number of people are going for a plea of convenience by pleading guilty to a crime that they perhaps did not commit, because they know that, otherwise, they will spend longer on remand when waiting for their case to come to trial. We support amendment 7, because we believe that the extension of time limits has caused a drift in the criminal justice system that is no longer acceptable.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A

mendment 4 would duplicate reporting that is already undertaken on conditions in prisons. On its website, the Scottish Prison Service already regularly provides updated information on the effects of Covid, including a regular update on the numbers of prisoners who are infected or self-isolating, the number of prison staff who are absent from work due to Covid, and updates on prison operations and policies in response to Covid. There is also already regular reporting to Parliament on the legislation’s provisions.

I also fear that amendment 4 would not have the intended effect of requiring Scottish ministers to produce a report on conditions within prisons every two months. As drafted, the trigger for the report seems to be the use of the release power, so it would not happen unless that power was used again, and there are no current plans to use it. If the power were used, it does not seem proportionate to initiate an on-going reporting requirement that might end up continuing well beyond the period of release, when the context might have significantly changed.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Does the reporting that the cabinet secretary mentioned currently include how often prisoners get to be outdoors and things like that, which I mentioned in my remarks?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think that it will carry systematic volume data, but there will be information on the way in which prisons are able to operate within the context of the current situation. I am happy to write to Pauline McNeill with further detail on that issue.

If ministers considered it necessary in future to make use of the early release power, specific regulations would have to be presented to Parliament on the proposed process, which would have to demonstrate why the action was considered necessary and proportionate and how it would support the effective operation of prisons and protect the health of prison staff and prisoners. I therefore urge members to reject amendment 4.

Amendment 6 seeks to expire on 30 September 2021 paragraph 7 of schedule 4 to the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020. That provision increased the maximum available fiscal fine from £300 to £500 and introduced a new scale of fixed penalties to give practical effect to that measure. The measure, which has been in force since 7 April 2020, represents a small but important part of the wider response to the on-going recovery of the justice system from the significant impacts of coronavirus, which is expected to last for a number of years, and certainly beyond 30 September.

The increase of the available upper limit of fiscal fines from £300 to £500 has allowed a greater number of cases to be diverted from summary court proceedings without the need for court procedure and associated appearance at court. That has, crucially, freed up the courts and prosecutors to deal with more serious cases and eased the burden on the courts during a time of significant resource pressure as a result of coronavirus.

As members are aware, there remains a significant backlog of cases in the court system as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, and retaining the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s ability to divert a greater number of cases from the courts through the measure is an important and proportionate part of the wider approach to enabling the justice system to recover from the impact of coronavirus.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Therein lies the issue. We are using emergency legislation to extend what are extraordinary measures. I am not saying that I do not support what has been achieved through the measure; the problem is that, as the cabinet secretary said, the backlog could take a number of years to clear, far beyond even the longest extension of the legislation. Would it not be proper and prudent for the Government to produce fuller proposals and for Parliament to debate the matter properly so that such measures become long term with the overt approval of Parliament rather than through emergency legislation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I think that we are in danger of repeating ourselves. Of course, Mr Greene is perfectly entitled to repeat points that have already been aired in debates, including yesterday, on the approach that the Government has taken. Through the bill, the Government is trying to take forward a number of practical measures that are necessary to cope with the disruptive impact of Covid on public services.

Mr Greene and I can agree that there is a backlog of court business—that is beyond dispute. With the benefit of legislation that the Parliament has already passed—and had reports on—over the past 15 months, the Government is trying to continue the practical, mitigating approaches that are in place, which Parliament has already agreed to, where that is justifiable.

The justification here is that there remains a significant backlog of court cases. The provision contains sufficient flexibility to deal with that, and it could exist for a further 12 months after 30 September if Parliament agrees first to the bill and then to a renewal after six months. However, if there needs to be consideration of longer-term provisions beyond that time, the permanence bill, which we will consult on over the summer and take forward in the normal parliamentary sequence, as I assured Mr Fraser yesterday, could be a place for that to be undertaken.

I agree with Mr Greene, in that I do not think that this is a desirable long-term provision, but we need it now because of the backlog in the courts. The reassurance for Mr Greene is that, in accordance with guidance issued by the Lord Advocate, the measure will be used only where independent prosecutors consider such action to be appropriate in the public interest, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

Safeguards are built into the operation of fiscal fines, which are not mandatory penalties. Anyone who is offered a fiscal fine as an alternative to prosecution may refuse such an offer by giving notice to the court to that effect. In such an event, the refusal is treated as a request by the alleged offender to be prosecuted for the offence, in which case the procurator fiscal decides what action to take in the public interest.

The measure allows, where appropriate, for a greater range of cases to be dealt with outwith the court setting. It remains an important part of the on-going recovery of our justice system from the impacts of coronavirus. I therefore invite Pauline McNeill not to move amendment 6.

Amendment 7 seeks to expire the provisions suspending certain time limits that are contained in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It might be helpful if I explain to members why the suspension of the time limits will continue to be important in enabling the justice system to recover from the effects of the pandemic, even after the immediate impact of coronavirus has abated.

The purpose of the provisions is to preserve scarce court resource from having to be used to extend time limits in individual cases. Expiring the provisions will not, in itself, provide any additional court capacity or result in anyone’s case being heard any more quickly than is currently the case; indeed, it could have the opposite effect. As members may be aware, almost all the time limits in question can be extended, case by case, on application to the Crown Office. The changes were made following discussion with justice agencies, which noted that, at a time of significant pressure on court resources, it would not have been an efficient use of court time to have to hold individual case hearings in potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of cases. That reasoning is the basis on which an extension to the effect of the changes is being sought in the bill.

It is anticipated that the resource pressures caused by the backlog will last for a number of years. Retaining the suspension periods as part of the operation of time limits is a policy that is designed to adapt to a changing environment. Over time, as steps are taken to reduce backlogs in the criminal justice process, it is expected that the suspension periods will not be needed to be used as extensively when someone is subject to court proceedings, and that when they are needed, they should not need to be used to their maximum extent. The numbers involved should reduce each year, but it is crucial that flexibility is retained to allow for effective and efficient prioritisation throughout the recovery and renewal period for the processing of court cases. I therefore invite Pauline McNeill not to move amendment 7.

Amendment 8 seeks to expire the provision that allows the court to admit evidence by statement when a witness is unable to attend the trial because of a risk attributable to coronavirus, for example because they are self-isolating or shielding, and when it is not reasonably practicable for them to give evidence in any other competent manner. That legislative change helps to minimise the impact of the outbreak on the ability of courts to proceed with trials, and so ensure that the justice system continues to operate as effectively as possible. It is especially important at a time when a number of people are required to self-isolate.

It should be remembered that section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already permits statements to be used in evidence in court when a person is, among other things, unfit to give evidence. However, that provision does not cover people who are unable to attend court because they are self-isolating for public health reasons. The measure should be considered along with the provisions that allow witnesses to give evidence remotely.

Evidence by statement would only ever be admissible where the witness could not give evidence in a competent manner. Someone who is self-isolating cannot easily be in contact with others, which includes when giving evidence remotely, as the courts would not generally permit evidence to be given remotely without safeguards through the presence of others to ensure that evidence was being given in a fair manner.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

My concern is that the provision does not seem to apply exclusively to a witness or a complainer who is isolating. I can understand why the cabinet secretary might want the provision, but can he confirm that the power would not generally be used when someone was not fit to attend? Some of the lawyers I have spoken to say that the provision is not specific in its drafting. That is only part of the concern, but it is a concern.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will reflect on that point and take some further advice. The body of the argument that I am putting forward is that the provision would be utilised only where it was impossible for evidence to be given in a competent manner. I think that that is the crucial test. Our court system operates on the assumption and presumption that evidence is given in a competent manner. Therefore, the provision would not be utilised unless there were very limited circumstances that surrounded the giving of evidence in a particular case.

To complete the point that I was making before I accepted the intervention, it is not the case that a person could simply give evidence from their home, because safeguards would have to be in place to ensure that evidence was being given in a fair manner.

Judges will assess the weight to be attached to evidence introduced by statement and may be expected to take into account the fact that it has not been given on oath or subject to cross-examination. Where evidence in the form of a statement is introduced in a jury trial, the judge is obliged to give a warning to the jury that the evidence was not given on oath and was not tested by cross-examination. In appropriate cases, a judge may disregard such evidence or direct a jury to disregard it. Nothing in the provision detracts from the duty of the court to consider the fairness of the trial and to keep the fairness of the trial under review, which I think is the significant reassurance that Pauline McNeill requires. On the basis of that assurance, I invite her not to move amendment 8.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am sorry to prolong the debate, but it is an important matter. The cabinet secretary’s statement might offer reassurance to members in the chamber but it does not offer reassurance to the Law Society of Scotland, which stated explicitly:

“We cannot ... support the extension of hearsay provisions”

as detailed by the Government. What does the cabinet secretary say to the Law Society of Scotland?