Scottish Parliament, 9 September 2021

382 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, and I ask members to take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please use the aisles and walkways only to access your seat and when moving around the chamber.

The first item of business is general question time. In order to get as many members in as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions, and answers to match.

Local Authority Funding

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it will next meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local authority funding. (S6O-00123)

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

I most recently met the COSLA resources spokesperson, Councillor Gail Macgregor, yesterday—on 8 September—to discuss the forthcoming resource spending review. I will continue to meet COSLA and local authorities regularly to cover a range of topics including funding up to and beyond the publication of the Scottish Government’s budget.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary knows that school catering, cleaning and janitorial staff are balloting on strike action over local government pay. Those are the heroic staff who have reopened their schools, cleaned them and fed pupils who would have gone hungry. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy stated that the Government is not the direct employer of local government staff and has no role in pay negotiations, ignoring the Government’s interventions on teachers’ pay. It is vital that the Government—

The Presiding Officer

A question please, Mr Griffin.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

—averts strike action, so that schools and nurseries can stay open. When will the cabinet secretary get around the table and make a commitment to fund the pay award that those key workers deserve?

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

I agree with Mark Griffin that those

workers are heroic. They have gone to heroic lengths over the pandemic and they serve our citizens day in and day out, not least our children in our schools. We are hugely grateful for their efforts. However, as I have said in the past, pay for local government staff—except the teachers—is negotiated between the trade unions and COSLA through the Scottish joint committee. We have not been a member of the SJC, we have never taken part in those negotiations and we do not intend to start getting involved now. Both I and the First Minister have met COSLA to discuss the matter, and on each occasion we have been explicitly clear that the budget has been fully deployed and that negotiating as an employer is for COSLA.

The Presiding Officer

Question 2 was not lodged.

Low-emissions Ferries (Orkney)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Orkney Islands Council regarding the procurement of low-emissions ferries to replace the current internal fleet. (S6O-00125)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I met Orkney Islands Council in Kirkwall last month and I heard about its plans to introduce low-emissions ferries. I welcomed those plans but I made it clear that, as Mr McArthur knows, the responsibility for the interisland ferry services, including the procurement of replacement vessels, sits with the local authority. We do, however, recognise the pressures that that brings, which is why the Scottish Government’s 2021-22 budget includes £19.2 million for local authorities operating ferries, which is an increase of £7.7 million on last year.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As the cabinet secretary will know from his recent visit, Orkney’s internal ferry service relies on ageing vessels. They are costly to run, damaging to the environment and no longer fit for purpose. The service already falls below the minimum standards set in the Government’s ferries plan. What people in Orkney want to know is how and when new ferries will be delivered, so will the cabinet secretary clarify how the welcome commitment in the programme for government to carbon-neutral islands by 2040 and low-emissions ferries by 2032—

The Presiding Officer

Question, please.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

—will pave the way to island communities in my constituency getting the ferry services that they deserve?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I appreciate the promotion. We have a record of assisting our island authorities, where possible, with issues such as this. The member will remember that in 2019 we helped to fund the replacement of the MV Golden Mariana.

As he knows, the responsibility for the replacement of vessels lies with Orkney Islands Council.

I recognise, however, that, like us, the council faces budgetary pressures and that we have a shared decarbonisation agenda. I am therefore willing to explore what we could do to assist the council in the form of removal or, at least, substantial reduction of the design fee costs by virtue of creating and making available to the council a small number of standardised designs. We have had initial conversations with Orkney Islands Council in that regard.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister is well aware that the situation in Orkney is little different to that elsewhere in Scotland. When will we see a meaningful plan to start replacing Scotland’s ageing ferry fleet on the West coast and in Orkney?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

With the greatest respect,

Mr Simpson is clearly not paying attention. A ferry plan for the Government-responsibility ferries is in place, which involves, for example, the replacement of freight vessels on the northern isles route as well as ferries in the western part of the country. If he has not spotted that, I will write to him with the detail.

Not Proven Verdict (Removal)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consideration of removing the not proven verdict. (S6O-00126)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As we set out in the programme for government earlier this week, during this year the Government will launch a public consultation on the three-verdict system.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The matter is very important for my constituents—the family of Scott French, who died horrifically last year. The people who were accused of his murder were, in effect, acquitted with a not proven verdict. Given the substantial evidence that was available, the family believes that the verdict left them in limbo and appeared to be an acceptance that there was merit in the charges without the consequences. Can the cabinet secretary therefore confirm that the views of victims of crime, particularly those who were returned a not proven verdict, will inform the consultation and ensure that the verdict is scrapped as quickly as possible?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As the member knows,

it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, although I am sorry to hear that his constituents feel that the not proven verdict left them in limbo as he describes. I have said in the chamber previously that I recognise that a strong case has been made for the abolition of the not proven verdict. Those issues are complex, however, and many stakeholders believe that the third verdict should be retained, or they highlight the interconnectedness of the system. It is therefore right that we consider the consultation responses carefully before we weigh all the evidence and reach a decision on those important matters.

I am happy to confirm that we will continue to take an open and consultative approach, just as a broad range of stakeholders including victims and survivors played an important role in last year’s engagement events on the findings of the independent jury research. As part of the wider public consultation, we will seek to capture the views of a broad range of stakeholders including legal professionals, the third sector and those with lived experience of the system.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

A

consultation is all well and good, but the Justice Committee said that the not proven verdict was on borrowed time back in 2016—five years ago. Can the cabinet secretary offer some comfort to those who feel that the not proven verdict is intrinsically unfair that this session of Parliament will finally deal with it through legislation and not kick it into the long grass? It is time that we resolved this centuries-old controversy in the Scottish legal system.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I suppose that Jamie Greene highlights the difference between

opposition and government. Of course, the Opposition can demand those things, but the Government has a responsibility to take on board the views of stakeholders and to ensure that, should legislation follow from that process, it is sustainable and well founded. It is right that we take on the views of the legal profession; indeed, many of the people on the member’s own back benches and across the chamber have reservations about the abolition of the verdict as well, and it is right that we hear those views. That is the sensible way in which to proceed.

Oil and Gas Licences (North Sea)

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position on new oil and gas licences in the North Sea. (S6O-00127)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish Government’s position remains the same: we recognise that offshore licensing is reserved and call on the United Kingdom Government to commit to reassessing licences that have already been issued but for which field development has not yet commenced. The future of the North Sea must be a positive part of our just transition to net zero through offshore energy integration, including renewable energy generation, hydrogen production and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.

Our just transition plan for energy will involve working closely with the sector to seize the economic opportunities that those technologies present while playing our part in the global energy challenge and making sure that we have a just transition.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Presiding Officer:

“the hard fact is that early closure of domestic production, before we are able to meet all demand from zero-carbon sources, would be likely to increase emissions, because a significant proportion of the oil that would then require to be imported has a higher carbon intensity than UK production.”—[

Official Report

, 3 September 2019; c 19.]

Those are not my words; they are those of the First Minister. Does the cabinet secretary agree with her?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member needs to recognise that the Scottish Government is not suggesting that oil and gas production should stop, but it clearly cannot be business as usual, given the climate emergency that we are facing. That is why we need an emergency response to the issues.

Key to supporting the industry in making that transition is assisting it to move towards technologies that reduce the carbon output of the oil and gas sector. A good example of that is carbon capture and storage. The Acorn project in Peterhead has been on the stocks for years now, but the UK Government has continually refused to—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The UK Government has continually refused to approve it, although that project would have a leading role in helping to decarbonise the sector. That is why I hope that all those members of the Scottish Parliament from the north-east will get behind the Acorn project and call on the UK Government to take action, give it approval and allow it to go ahead.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary pointed directly at me. I think that that is inappropriate.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. Members will be aware of the importance of treating one another with courtesy and respect at all times.

Coastal Erosion (Mitigation)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to mitigate coastal erosion. (S6O-00128)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We are making available a new £12 million capital budget for the four years from 2022 to 2023 for coastal change adaptation and resilience. I recently launched the Dynamic Coast 2 project in Montrose, which helps to identify where the greatest risks from coastal erosion and sea level rises are in this decade and into the future as we face the global climate challenge.

We are producing guidance to help local authorities respond to those risks and prepare coastal change adaptation plans at the local level.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In 2016, a major flood study said that there was a clear and present danger to Montrose roads and properties and to the railway between Aberdeen and Dundee. That study was endorsed by the cabinet secretary’s predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham.

At the cabinet secretary’s photo opp in Montrose last week, one of his local councillors stated that action needs to be taken in the next five years. What has changed since 2016 to push action back to 2026? Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the people of the Angus coast will be an urgent priority for the next round of flood risk management funding in the next 12 months?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am well aware of the concerns in Montrose, because the local constituency member, Mairi Gougeon, has raised with me the direct impacts that the issues have on her constituents, which they also have on the member’s constituents.

That is why we commissioned the Dynamic Coast 2 project, to identify the nature and scale of the challenges that we face with coastal erosion in different parts of the country, including in Montrose. The funding that we are making available is to support a project to look at the direct action that we can take in areas where measures need to be implemented to reduce the risk of coastal erosion and the impact that that will have on flooding in areas such as Montrose.

I assure the member that we will continue to work with local authorities to make sure that the funding is used in such a way that it maximises its impacts and helps to reduce the risk of flooding in local areas.

Ferries (Capacity on West Coast Routes)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to increase capacity on the ferries on the west coast routes. (S6O-00129)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As the member is aware, passenger capacity has increased with the removal of physical distancing on 9 August. We are also actively exploring opportunities for chartering additional vessels and have secured the MV Arrow to enhance the existing fleet that provides lifeline ferry services.

We are also continuing with the procurement of a new vessel for the Islay service, as well as seven new ships under the small vessel replacement programme, and we are progressing work on new vessels for the Gourock to Dunoon and Kilcreggan services.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Our island communities in the west have suffered for a number of years from a lack of capacity and a lack of reliable ferries. This year, the additional challenge of Covid-19 has taken the service to breaking point, with many people unable to travel. That is unacceptable—it damages the economy and blights lives.

The Scottish Government has, so far, failed to increase capacity. What steps is it taking to procure additional capacity over and above that provided by the MV Arrow in the short term to alleviate those communities’ issues?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As I indicated during the members’ business debate on Tuesday evening, work on securing additional second-hand tonnage to alleviate some of the pressures that we face on the network is constant. I can share with the chamber the fact that, as we speak, senior representatives of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and CalMac Ferries are out of the country, actively assessing a vessel, with a view to purchase. If we get that over the line, it will have a positive cascade effect across the network and, in addition, will create the potential for us to head into the next summer season with a back-up vessel standing by to cover any issues that arise. I am sure that the member will welcome that news.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

How much has the Scottish Government invested in ferry operations and infrastructure since 2007?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The Scottish Government has invested in excess of £2.2 billion in the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services, northern isles ferry services and ferry infrastructure since 2007. We have also delivered a number of new routes.

However, I do not hide from the fact that we need to do more. That is why we have a £580 million funding stream to deliver new ferries and harbour infrastructure, which we are in the process of delivering.

River Bank Erosion (Monitoring and Support)

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how it monitors the impacts of river bank erosion and what support it provides for those who are affected by the erosion. (S6O-00130)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is responsible for monitoring rivers to assess their ecological status, including physical habitat condition. Local authorities also monitor rivers in relation to flood risk and work with relevant transport agencies to monitor the impact of river bank erosion on transport infrastructure.

We are all responsible for protecting our land and property from the impacts of river bank erosion. The Scottish Government and SEPA provide helpful advice and guidance on how to minimise river bank erosion and how to best protect our land.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

The impact of river bank erosion for some residents in Fenwick, in my constituency, is pretty severe and has been getting steadily worse over recent years as a result of climate change impacts. Their properties and gardens are literally sliding into the adjoining river, bit by bit, and the engineering solutions that are required to shore up the river banks are substantial and beyond their ability to afford.

Is the Government aware of that issue across Scotland? Would it consider a scheme to help the many people who find themselves in such a situation, which is not of their making?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I entirely understand the member’s concerns about the difficulties that his constituents face and the risks to their homes and gardens from river bank erosion, particularly given the distress that has recently been caused by flooding in Kilmarnock.

As I said, the current position is that home owners are responsible for protecting their property. However, if the member wishes to write to me with more details of the situation that he raises, I will give it further consideration, given the wider implications of the issue across Scotland. I will also seek an update from SEPA on its interaction with local authorities to gauge the impact of river bank erosion on home owners in Scotland.

First Minister’s Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Before we begin, I say that I intend to take constituency and general supplementaries after question 2, so any member who wishes to ask such a question should press their request-to-speak button during question 2. However, any member who wishes to ask a supplementary specifically on questions 3 to 6 should press their button during the relevant question.

Scottish Ambulance Service (Waiting Times)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. It has been reported today that the average wait for an ambulance following a 999 call is six hours. Does the First Minister not find that shocking and unacceptable?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I do not find it acceptable that anyone waits longer than they should for an ambulance. We know that the pressure that the Scottish Ambulance Service is under at the moment is because of many of the other pressures on our national health service that have been caused and, in some respects, exacerbated by the pandemic.

We are working very closely with the Scottish Ambulance Service to resolve the issue. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care spoke to the chief executive of the Ambulance Service this morning. Next month, 90 additional technicians will come into employment by the service.

We are also funding the health service. We bolstered investment by £10.5 million last year, and an additional £20 million has been invested this year.

Although any individual wait is unacceptable, and we must work to resolve that, it is worth bearing it in mind that despite all the challenges, and despite the fact that our Ambulance Service serves some of the most rural areas in the United Kingdom, during 2020-21 our crews responded to more than 70 per cent of the highest-priority calls in less than 10 minutes, and to more than 99 per cent in less than 30 minutes.

We will continue supporting our Ambulance Service through this challenging period—just as we continue to support the entire national health service.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

People are dialling 999 and are asking for an ambulance. On average, they are waiting six hours, not 10 minutes. The First Minister tries to say that that is because of the pandemic. Our ambulance staff and technicians have done fantastic work during the pandemic and before it, but the problems began long before Covid-19.

In 2018, a Government report found that only 20 per cent of ambulance crew members thought that there were enough staff. A 2019 staff survey showed that demand for ambulance services had increased far beyond the available resources. Almost half of paramedics who were surveyed in 2019 said that they often thought about leaving the service. Just yesterday, the trade union Unite’s convener at the Scottish Ambulance Service said:

“Serious adverse events from the ambulance service have been on an upwards trajectory since the start of the year. They are through the roof.”

That all adds up to a service that was in crisis well before Covid hit. Does the First Minister agree?

The First Minister

I agree that there were pressures before Covid. I do not think that anyone can or should deny that those pressures have been significantly exacerbated by Covid, and not only here in Scotland: we see similar pressures on health services across the UK, and further afield.

Because we have been aware of those pressures, we have been working to address them. Last year, we commissioned a working group to agree and implement a range of actions to improve turnaround times. As part of that, 296 additional ambulance staff are being recruited as a result of the investment that we have made available in the past two years. In the north of the country—the part of Scotland that Douglas Ross represents—there will be an extra 67 front line staff, who will be a mixture of experienced and newly qualified paramedics and technicians along with nine patient transport service staff, who will be located across the region.

I will not stand here and suggest that it is in any way acceptable for anyone to wait too long for an ambulance. In the week up to 7 September, which is the week for which we have the most recent figures, the Scottish Ambulance Service responded to 10,435 emergency incidents, which was more than in the previous week. The median national response time in that week for all calls about immediate life-threatening need was nine minutes and three seconds. That is slightly higher than we want it to be; the target is seven minutes.

The Ambulance Service is working hard under incredibly challenging circumstances. My job, and that of the health secretary, is to support them with funding and in other ways, to ensure that they can meet the challenges for the sake of all patients across Scotland, who deserve timely responses from the Scottish Ambulance Service.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

People who are listening at home will be wondering about that time of seven minutes. To have an ambulance come in seven minutes would be great for people who are waiting for hours, often in agony.

All over Scotland, people are waiting for ambulances. I have some examples. At an Abbeyfield assisted-living complex in Bearsden, a resident had symptoms of stroke and phoned for an ambulance at 2.30 pm. They were not picked up until 4.45 am, more than 14 hours later. A general practitioner from Dumfries called for an ambulance during a home visit and was advised that there would be a four-hour wait. The patient reached hospital nine hours later. The doctor told us that the whole service is in crisis.

When cases are life threatening, ambulances are expected to arrive within seven minutes. That is not happening. Jim from Pitlochry told us that his 17-year-old son, who had collapsed by the side of the road, needed an ambulance when he fell unconscious. About 30 minutes later, with no ambulance in sight and with his son’s lips turning blue, he drove him to the nearest hospital, but even then he struggled to get medical attention.

Thankfully, a nurse came to the rescue and his son is doing better, but Jim wanted me to ask the First Minister these questions. What would have happened if his son had taken a turn for the worse? If he had been a more vulnerable person, would they still be alive?

The First Minister

I do not know whether Jim is watching, but he might be, so I will address him directly. First, I am extremely sorry that the wait that you had happened, and I do not think that that is acceptable. I am trying to address the issues genuinely, because I do not think that the cases that Douglas Ross has cited are acceptable, and nothing that I have said today suggests that they are.

We know the reasons for the pressure on the Ambulance Service. There are a variety of pressures on our national health service. Of course, some of those pressures were there before Covid, but they have been significantly exacerbated. We know that our accident and emergency departments are under pressure and we know that there is a backlog of treatment. One of the issues that the Ambulance Service faces is longer turnaround times, which puts a lot of pressure on ambulance resources. I acknowledge all that, and we are working hard with the Ambulance Service to address the situation. Nothing that I have said or that I am saying is intended to suggest in any way that the kind of waits that we have heard about today are acceptable.

However, I would also say—I refer to the figure that I cited in my previous answer—that the median response time for the most urgent calls in the most recent week was just over nine minutes. That is not good enough, because it should be within seven minutes. For amber calls, the median time was 21 minutes 26 seconds. Again, that is slightly above the target. There is work to be done here, but that is exactly why we are making the investment. We are supporting recruitment of additional paramedics and technicians to bring waiting times down again.

Perhaps even more important to note is that some of the pressure on the Ambulance Service comes from pressures elsewhere in the health service, which is why the NHS recovery plan and the investment that supports it are so important. We will continue to focus on the service with health boards—including the Scottish Ambulance Service—every day to address the very serious issues.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I agree with the First Minister: this is not good enough. The Government has allowed the long-term issues to spiral into a crisis. The knock-on problems are bringing our NHS to its knees and are putting lives at risk, and it is only going to get worse this winter.

People cannot see a general practitioner in person. They call for an ambulance, but it is delayed for hours. When they reach A and E, they find that waiting times are at their worst levels since records began. Unite the union said this week that ambulances were parked outside hospitals for seven hours, missing three other 999 calls while they waited.

However, this week’s programme for government set out nothing—no new money for the Scottish Ambulance Service. Will the First Minister accept that there is a crisis? Will she tell us what she is going to do about it now, before lives are lost?

The First Minister

The Ambulance Service is receiving additional money. We increased investment by more than £10 million last year, and additional investment of £20 million is being invested this year. The £1 billion recovery plan funding will include support for the Ambulance Service, just as it will include support for health services across the country.

I do not challenge any of what Douglas Ross is saying; there are big, big issues facing our national health service. However, because we know that, we are making the investment and doing the work with the service to address the issues.

However, I take issue because the issues for Scotland, and for other countries in the United Kingdom and around the world, have been significantly deepened and exacerbated by a once-in-a-century global pandemic—although saying that does not make things any easier for patients across the country who are waiting too long for elective treatment, for A and E treatment or for an ambulance. We need to support our NHS to recover from the pandemic.

There are headlines today from other parts of the UK about the longest waiting times on record. Some of the problems that our Ambulance Service is facing are problems that ambulance services elsewhere are facing. That does not remove the responsibility—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, First Minister. Mr Kerr, I would be grateful if we could hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

The point that I am making is a serious one. It does not in any way take away the Scottish Government’s responsibility for addressing the problems in Scotland. However, I think that most people understand that exceptionally difficult circumstances have prevailed over the past 18 months, and they understand the difficulties that all Governments and health services are having as we try to recover. That is why we are making investment, why we have the recovery plan and why we will continue—every single day—to support our health service and everybody who works in it to recover and to get the NHS fully back on track.

Vaccine Certification

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. Today, the Parliament will vote on the introduction of vaccine passports. Scottish Labour will not support the proposals. We have supported the Government at key moments throughout the pandemic, but this is about what works and what will make a meaningful difference.

The scientific advisory group for emergencies, on which the Scottish Government’s chief medical officer sits, says that any proposals should consider these three key points:

“1) isolate those that are infectious from the rest of the population”—

vaccine passports will not do that;

“2) reduce the likelihood that they enter higher-risk settings or situations”—

vaccine passports will not do that; and

“3) attempt to decrease the transmission risk from an infectious person in any given environment.”

Given the high transmissibility of the delta variant, vaccine passports will not do that. What evidence has led the First Minister and her ministers to change their minds, disagree with those scientists and now back vaccine passports?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, I have not changed my mind. I said to the Parliament, on 3 August most recently, but before that in April and February, that we were considering the issue of vaccine certification. We had not ruled it out but had wanted to properly consider all the issues, and that is what we have done.

We have also listened to and continue to listen to a range of evidence. Ahead of the debate today, I recommend that all members of the Parliament read on Twitter the comments of Steven Reicher, who is one of the members of the Scottish Government Covid-19 advisory group but who is entirely independent. He sets out very fairly, and very well, the benefits of vaccine passports, the conditions that need to prevail in order to make their operation a success and, frankly, some of their limitations.

That takes me to the nub of Anas Sarwar’s question. Vaccine certification is not a 100 per cent solution in and of itself. All the things that Anas Sarwar rightly ran through have to be done but, in addition, vaccine passports can provide an added layer of protection. Take, for example, a nightclub, where people come together and there is the potential for superspreading events. If we make sure that, in addition to all the other protections, everybody in that nightclub has been fully vaccinated, we do not eradicate the risk of transmission, but we reduce it and significantly reduce the risk of illness. Crucially, we also give an alternative to the possibility, as we go into winter, of the closure of those kinds of events.

Is it a complete solution? No, but in the face of this challenging pandemic, there is no one single solution. We have to take all the ways that we can to act as proportionately as possible to keep the country as safe as possible. That is the responsible way in which the Government is going to continue to act. Some of what we have heard from the Opposition suggests that a bit more genuine grown-up politics on this issue would go a long way.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I have respect for all of the First Minister’s answer apart from the end part. Is she saying that all the businesses out there that are worried are being disrespectful? Is she saying that the thousands of people who have emailed us are being disrespectful? These are serious questions that deserve serious answers.

The First Minister has published a document this morning that contains no evidence that vaccine certification will make a difference and no details of how it will work. She references nightclubs, but the document suggests that the Government still does not even know what “nightclubs” means, and they will be expected to introduce the measures in three weeks’ time. The First Minister is expecting businesses across the country, many of which have only just reopened, and some of which are still closed, to implement and enforce the scheme in that short period. That will put immense pressure on them and even greater pressure on the staff who have to administer it.

Earlier this year, the UK Government undertook a consultation on vaccine passports, to which it received 52,000 responses, including from major industry bodies that would be impacted by the change. Can the First Minister detail what engagement she has had with the relevant sectors? Can she confirm that there has been a public consultation in Scotland and, if so, how many responses have been received?

The First Minister

Engagement is and will continue to be on-going, and the Parliament will debate and vote on the issue this afternoon. We engage with the public on a range of issues all of the time.

I made a comment about Anas Sarwar’s position—it was not a comment about anybody else’s position. To say categorically, as he did at the weekend, that, no matter what, he would vote against something is, frankly, opposition for opposition’s sake. I think that that reflects rather poorly on Anas Sarwar, but that is my opinion, and people can agree or disagree with that.

Of course businesses have concerns about any of the measures that we have to take to try to tackle and contain Covid. I wish that we were not in this position at all—I wish that we were not even having to consider any measures to constrain the spread of an infectious virus—but we are in this situation. It is a very difficult situation, particularly with the increased transmissibility of delta, which is one of the other things that have changed since we first started talking about this. I would think that, for businesses in higher-risk settings, it will, on balance, be a choice between being able to continue to operate over the next few months or finding themselves facing a period of closure again. I am sure that there will be a variety of opinions, but I think that many such businesses would prefer this targeted, proportionate measure to closure.

Scotland is not alone in considering vaccine certification. An increasing number of countries across Europe are already using vaccine certification on a much more wide-ranging basis than we are proposing. In some cases—France, for example—vaccine certification is pushing up rates of vaccination uptake and helping to constrain and reduce transmission. We need to use every tool at our disposal to drive down infection rates and keep people safe while, at the same time, keeping our economy open. Anybody who buries their head in the sand in the face of that is not doing the economy or businesses any favours.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister wanted us to wait for the publication of the document that it has published today. There are businesses that will be impacted by vaccine certification that have longer cocktail menus than that document. We need some real-life experience from the First Minister on this issue. Instead of creating a new system, we should fix the systems that we already have. That means, after 18 months, finally giving test and protect the support that it needs.

We know that the vaccine works—we know that it reduces hospitalisations and deaths—but, even if someone has had the vaccine, they can still get the virus and spread it, so it is more important to ensure that anyone going into a venue has had a negative result. Under the Government’s proposals, however, someone who does not have a vaccine passport and does not have the virus will not be allowed to enter a venue, while someone who has a passport and has the virus will be able to walk straight in. How does that make sense? There are no details published in the paper, no evidence to back up the proposals, no meaningful engagement with the sectors involved and no public consultation. Is it not the case that the First Minister is rushing the proposals through Parliament in an attempt to look in control of a virus that is clearly out of control?

The First Minister

Most people who are watching this will probably breathe a sigh of relief that Anas Sarwar is not standing here. Clever quips might sound good in a student union, but when we are trying to deal with a global pandemic, it is more important that we have the solutions that help to keep people safe.

Let us take some of Mr Sarwar’s points in turn. He appears to be saying that negative test results should be used in place of proof of vaccination. We suggest to people that they test themselves regularly. Lateral flow device testing is an important part of our overall response, but one of its constraints, which means that it does not make sense to put too much reliance on it for the kind of thing that we are talking about here, is that it is a self-reported test. I heard the United Kingdom vaccines minister make that point yesterday in the House of Commons. We have to be careful that we do not introduce false security around such a system.

The other point is that people can still get the virus if they are vaccinated. Anybody looking at the current statistics knows that, but vaccination reduces people’s risk of getting the virus. Do you want to be in a nightclub in which some people are unvaccinated or do you want to be in a nightclub in which everybody is vaccinated? In the latter, your risk of getting the virus is going to be significantly lower than in the former. Is the risk eradicated? No, but no single measure will eradicate risk.

This is about having a basket of measures. It is about testing and making sure that people isolate when they are required to. It is also about ensuring that we use vaccination to its fullest effect. We need to drive up vaccination rates and then ensure that we use the protection of vaccination as effectively as possible. This measure is one part of a solution.

Anas Sarwar says that we are rushing this through in Scotland. Actually, in Scotland we are behind the curve on this, as so many countries in Europe are already doing it and finding the benefits of doing so. Let us get on with it and discharge our responsibility to keep this country as safe as possible.

CalMac Ferries (Winter Maintenance Programme)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The October to February period is often a challenging time of year for CalMac Ferries. The company uses the period to dry dock and refit vessels as the tourist season comes to an end. However, with continued demand for staycations, it seems likely that Scotland’s islands will continue to be busy beyond the normal shoulder months. With that in mind, will the First Minister outline what preparations are being made for this year’s maintenance programme?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We need to ensure that vessels are safe and well maintained. Every CalMac vessel requires essential annual maintenance over the winter months. Scheduling of the overhaul programme, including the relief vessels that are used, is complex and must take account of a range of factors. CalMac now has a long-term strategy in place for dry docking.

We continue to encourage CalMac to do everything possible to minimise the impact that is caused by maintenance work over the winter period, and we continue to support CalMac to deliver services in the face of the challenges that Covid continues to pose for us all.

Mental Health Waiting Lists (Young People)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

From April 2019 to July 2021, more than 7,000 girls between the ages of 10 and 16 were reported missing. I am sure that we all agree that that statistic is horrific for all concerned. We know that poor mental health is often the root cause of such incidents, and that the proportion of young people who are waiting more than a year for specialist help has trebled in the past 12 months. What action will the First Minister take now, to address the shame that is mental health waiting times for young people in this country?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As I set out on Tuesday when I outlined the programme for government, we are making immediate investments of £120 million into mental health, with a particular focus on prevention and early intervention. We are already funding health boards to improve community child and adolescent mental health services and to enable the expansion of community services for people aged 18 to 25. The funding that I announced will enable the clearing of historical waiting lists, which I accept are too long. They were long as we went into Covid, and that has been further exacerbated by the experience of Covid. The funding that we will make available is specifically targeted to deal with the issue that Jamie Greene raises.

Public Services

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We can argue about the impact on public services of failed Tory austerity, the Scottish Government’s failure to workforce plan and Covid. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that many public services are in meltdown across Scotland. How can the First Minister possibly justify using Government resources and taxpayers’ money on working up proposals for an independence referendum at a time when the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament should surely be wholly focused on addressing the emergency in our public services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I do not think that we can argue about the impact of United Kingdom Government austerity on services the length and breadth of Scotland—it has been utterly devastating. The problem is that, unless we do something to get ourselves out of the grip of Tory Government after Tory Government, people across Scotland will suffer more.

Just this week, we have seen a national insurance increase that will punish the lowest paid in our society—[

Interruption

.] Well, we all want to see extra money for public services but raising that money in a way that punishes the poor is the bit that we do not agree with—no one should agree with it if they care about those issues. We are also about to see the UK Government make the biggest overnight cut to social security since the 1930s, when it takes away the £20 per week uplift to universal credit.

It may be something that Alex Rowley and I have to disagree on—he can explain that to his constituents. It is right that people in Scotland have the opportunity to choose a different and better future, in which we take control over social security and how we raise funds, into the Scottish Parliament, so that we do not have to stand here and—to use Alex Rowley’s phrase—argue about the impact of another Government on people the length and breadth of Scotland.

Fishing Vessel Safety

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

My constituent, Jason Campbell, a young person who I am told has met the First Minister and read a poem on fishing, has raised with me concerns about the safety of fishermen, including some who are his friends. There are reports of non-United Kingdom fishing vessels that are, to quote Jason, “dumping their fishing gear overboard”. That is dangerous as well as being bad for the marine environment. Jason has also asked why fishery patrol vessels are not doing more at sea.

Will the First Minister tell Jason what is being done to keep our fishing vessels and those on board them safe at sea?

The First Minister

I remember Jason and I hope that Beatrice Wishart will pass on my best wishes to him. I am happy to engage with Jason through Beatrice Wishart, or he can email me directly, to set out exactly what the Scottish Government and our agencies are doing to keep fishermen as safe as possible. Our fishery protection vessels have a key part to play in that. He clearly has some real concerns, and that reflects my memory of him as a very engaged young man. I would be happy to have a further discussion with him directly.

ScotRail (Industrial Action)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with ScotRail and the trade unions regarding industrial action on the network. (S6F-00220)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Minister for Transport meets ScotRail and trade unions regularly. He met trade union representatives on 24 June, and subsequently met Abellio. I met the Scottish Trade Union Congress on 12 August. On each occasion, we expressed our disappointment about the current dispute affecting ScotRail’s Sunday services and urged all parties to seek resolution.

I understand that the transport minister is meeting Unite the union today and has offered with to meet the other rail unions. We want all parties to get around the table and identify solutions to the challenges that our rail services face.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I note the comments made on Tuesday by the transport minister, in which he called on everyone to act responsibly.

It has been six months since people were able to get a train on a Sunday. It seems that Abellio has little interest in acting responsibly, given that the ScotRail franchise is soon to be transferred to public ownership. It is clear that we need a long-term partnership between the workers, passengers and the Government to avoid the problems that have arisen with Abellio.

Will the First Minister tell me how her Government will bring the situation to an end in the short term? Can she also give us an assurance that when ScotRail is brought into public ownership, the governance structure will include representatives of workers and passengers, as well as appointees, on the board?

The First Minister

I can give an assurance on fair work; in my view, part of fair work is having good industrial relations as well as engagement and discussion with trade unions. I expect that to be at the heart of ScotRail services as they come into public ownership.

I know that members are aware of the reasons behind the current dispute, which arose from an agreement made during Covid for enhanced rest-day working. Now that additional ticket examiners and conductors have been recruited, the issue of excessive rest-day working has been resolved. The unions and workers—I understand why this is the case—want to keep the temporary allowance and make it permanent, whereas ScotRail’s view is that that is not sustainable. Again, I call on both parties to get around the table to find an agreement. It is in no one’s interest—not least the workers’ interest—for the dispute to continue any longer. We will continue to encourage the parties to do that. We will also continue to do the work to bring ScotRail into full public ownership, which we expect to conclude in the early part of next year.

Corporate Travel Management

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

4. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had regarding the functioning of Corporate Travel Management. (S6F-00211)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The managed isolation service in Scotland is operated under a United Kingdom Government contract, which places responsibility for setting the quality and levels of service on the UK Government. The Scottish Government’s international passenger co-ordination team is in regular contact with Corporate Travel Management, which is the UK Government’s travel agent, and we continue to work with them to ensure a high-quality service for travellers.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

As we are all aware, the situation is very distressing and costly for students who come from red list countries. I put on the record my thanks to the universities for stepping in with practical help.

Of course I appreciate that CTM was tasked by Westminster, and I understand the relationship with the Scottish Government’s international travel co-ordination team, which liaises with the CTM Westminster arm. Has there been any positive response? Are we any further forward for students who are anxious to start their courses?

The First Minister

I very much agree with Christine Grahame’s comments about international students. We always want to offer a warm welcome. They make a significant cultural, economic and intellectual contribution to our universities and, indeed, to the whole country, and they are welcome here.

Scottish Government officials have been engaging directly with universities on the issues that are highlighted in the question. They have contacted CTM, which has said that it is addressing those issues as a priority. My officials will continue to work with the universities to improve processes.

Students should, of course, contact their universities if they continue to experience issues with the booking system.

In recognition of the difficult circumstances that international students have faced, the Scottish Government has also taken steps to put support in place. For example, international and European Union students can apply for financial hardship support from the Scottish Government’s higher education coronavirus discretionary fund.

Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd (Air Traffic Control)

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on HIAL’s proposed centralisation of air traffic control services. (S6F-00230)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Although that is a matter for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, it is clear that the Scottish Government has a strong interest in it. We are liaising and monitoring the process closely.

The investment that is being made in air traffic control is essential to secure the long-term future of air services in the Highlands and Islands.

The objective of the central surveillance centre in Inverness is to ensure safer, more sustainable and more reliable air services for the communities that rely on them. We know that the decision may affect where staff work in the future, and I understand that HIAL is engaging directly with the Prospect union on the detail of a commuting policy and other measures to mitigate that. However, we should not lose sight of what the investment and change are intended to deliver in the long term, which is security for the islands’ connectivity, with related social and economic benefits.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yesterday, the union Prospect sent a letter that was signed by representatives of all five major political parties as well as the three island local authority leaders which called for an urgent meeting with the Minister for Transport in light of the impact that the proposed centralisation will have on local jobs on the islands. I understand that a ministerial meeting with stakeholders is proposed to happen in two months’ time. Given the urgency of the situation, will the First Minister instruct the Minister for Transport to bring forward that meeting? Can she explain how centralisation can be justified, given her Government’s stated intention to encourage people to move to our islands and reverse depopulation?

The First Minister

There are some serious and perfectly valid issues in there—complex issues. Of course we want to see the repopulation of our islands, but we must also ensure that there are sustainable services that support the connectivity of our islands. Those are often complex issues that require very careful thought.

On the Minister for Transport’s meeting with Prospect, my understanding is that he is due to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Prospect next month to discuss aviation generally, and I am sure that the issue that has been raised will feature in that. We will certainly look to see whether diaries can enable that meeting to be brought forward. It is important that that engagement takes place.

As I said in my original answer, it is also important that HIAL engages directly with Prospect to address issues that have been raised about how it can make changes that improve the sustainability of the services. The kind of model that is being discussed already operates at London City airport, for example. Obviously, that is very different from our islands, but this is about the sustainability of those services in the longer term.

Important issues have been raised by the union, and I expect HIAL to engage properly with it. As I said, I will ask the Minister for Transport to see whether the meeting can be accelerated.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is clear that the situation is very challenging for island communities. They value air traffic provision being delivered locally, because that gives them a sense of security and ensures that much-needed skilled jobs are based on our islands. For obvious reasons, people are nervous about the implications of HIAL’s proposed new centre in Inverness. What reassurance can the First Minister provide, particularly regarding what might happen to those jobs in the future?

The First Minister

When it comes to the jobs, the issues around relocation are important, and those were what I was alluding to. It is important that HIAL engages with the unions and with workers in considering the policies in place that allow workers who are working under the new system nevertheless to continue to live in and contribute to our islands. That will not always be easy, but that is the work that we are expecting HIAL to engage in properly.

On some of the other concerns, safety issues have been raised with me directly, for example in Shetland. Those issues must be taken seriously. Loganair, the main airline flying in the Highlands and Islands, which is already operating under the system at London City, is supportive of the changes and the safety benefits that it says will be delivered. New air-traffic control procedures and the operation of such a centre will go live only following a rigorous assessment and approval by the Civil Aviation Authority.

I understand the concerns that are being raised—it is important to say that. There is a responsibility on HIAL and indeed on the Scottish Government to seek to address those concerns as we move forward.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I disagree with the First Minister that the programme is essential to ensure the long-term viability or indeed safety of air traffic in the Highlands and Islands. Digital Scotland classed the project as an amber-to-red risk. Added to that, the Sumburgh radar project, which is part of the scheme, is currently believed to be running six to 12 months behind schedule and costs have already increased. Is the First Minister still convinced that it is the right project to go forward with, and what steps is she taking to avoid another vanity transport project in the Highlands and Islands?

The First Minister

I thank Rhoda Grant for her perfectly reasonable question, although I am not sure that anybody would describe it as a vanity project. There are sustainability issues in the services as they are. The project is about improving and securing the sustainability of the services in the future.

The project is still at an early stage, but it is proceeding in line with the approved business case. HIAL obviously has the responsibility to ensure that that continues to be the case.

There can be no compromise on safety on any aviation matter, which is why, to return to a point that I made in my previous answer, the processes that must be gone through, ultimately resulting in approval by the Civil Aviation Authority, are so important.

I recognise the concerns. A change such as this will always result in worries and questions for people. Therefore, HIAL and, indeed, the Scottish Government will address those in order to give people the reassurance that they need.

Oil and Gas Industry (Just Transition)

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking ahead of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—regarding the future of oil and gas exploration and securing a just transition for workers. (S6F-00228)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

While oil and gas and issues around the licensing and exploration of offshore oil and gas are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, we have called for the UK Government to significantly enhance the climate conditionality associated with offshore exploration and production and to reassess licences that have already been issued but where field development has not yet commenced.

The programme for government includes a commitment to develop an energy just transition plan. We have committed to working with communities and with those who are most impacted across Scotland, including our very highly skilled oil and gas workforce, to co-design that plan, and we have committed to take forward a 10-year £500 million just transition fund for the north-east and Moray.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government cannot make the same mistakes as the Tories and leave whole communities facing unemployment. An offshore training passport would allow oil and gas workers to move freely between the offshore and onshore energy sectors. The Government should really be supporting standardisation of skills across sectors. Will the First Minister commit today to developing an offshore training passport, as supported by Friends of the Earth and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers?

The First Minister

Yes—I am very happy to consider all constructive discussions. I am happy to ask the minister to engage directly with the member. Those are exactly the kinds of constructive proposals that we need. Will every constructive proposal be able to be taken forward? No—that is rarely the case—but, because we are so serious about a just transition, we will engage properly on all those issues.

I suspect that I am a fair bit older than the member, but I have first-hand memories of the devastation in the community where I grew up from the mistakes that previous Governments made around deindustrialisation.

We must not repeat those mistakes in the process of decarbonisation, which is why the just transition process is so important. I thank Mercedes Villalba for that question, and I am happy to engage with her on the detail.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Given that an Oil and Gas Authority report endorsed by Sir Ian Wood shows that the carbon footprint from imported gas is more than double that of domestically produced gas, does the First Minister agree that currently, while there remains a Scottish demand, the most environmentally friendly approach, and one which recognises the climate emergency, is to ensure that we support the Scottish oil and gas sector?

The First Minister

Where I agree with Liam Kerr—I will try to find points of agreement here—is that we must make the transition not only in a way that is just for workers, which is fundamentally important, but in a way, and at a pace, that does not become counterproductive because it inadvertently increases reliance on imports. In principle, that point is important; I have made it many times myself. Underneath that, though, there is greater complexity. Right now, we export a significant proportion of what is produced in the North Sea, and we already import a lot of the oil and gas that is used, so there is often greater complexity lying beneath the headline claim.

We need to engage properly with these issues. We are in a transition, whether we like it or not, from fossil fuels to renewable and low-carbon sources of energy. We owe that to the planet, and none of us can—nor should we try to—escape that responsibility, but we need to do that in a way that is fair and just and which actually has the intended effects.

These things require a lot of careful consideration and a large amount of careful work, but we cannot escape our moral and economic responsibility to make the transition and to meet our net zero targets. The Government is incredibly serious about doing that, and about, on occasion—not just on this issue but, I am sure, on a whole range of other issues—facing up to the difficult challenges that it entails.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I recently met Equate Scotland and discussed the importance of putting an equalities lens on the just transition for workers. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that there is equity for women in the just transition for workers, in particular as they have been disproportionately affected by the Covid-19 pandemic?

The First Minister

That is an excellent and extremely important point. In fact, it should run through all the work that we do as a Government.

The programme for government recognises the point that Karen Adam makes. The impacts of Covid have been, and will no doubt continue to be, experienced disproportionately by various groups, including women. I assure her that our engagement on the development of just transition plans will seek to amplify the voices of underrepresented groups, and to actively work to ensure that we create a better, greener future for all.

More generally, we have committed to take forward a programme of work to embed equality, inclusion and human rights throughout Scotland. That is an important part of our overall commitment to ensuring that while the transition happens, it happens in a way that is just and fair.

Vaccination Records

The Presiding Officer

As we have a little time in hand, I call Rachael Hamilton to ask a supplementary question.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Constituents are reporting errors in their vaccination records, which are held on the NHS Scotland website. Wrongly logged dates and incorrect vaccine types are being flagged, and the only way to resolve those issues is to sit in a very long telephone queue. One constituent reported that she had waited in a queue of 92 people.

Is the First Minister aware of the extent of that problem? Does she trust the system? Will she consider a vaccine data resolution system?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

In short—yes, I trust the system. As I have said in relation to Covid and the various different systems and approaches that we have had to take over the past 18 months—not least the vaccination programme in general—there will, in a system so big and complex, be individual cases of things going wrong. We should not shy away from that, but what is important is that we have processes in place to fix those things.

Yesterday, in my Covid statement, I gave the number of the helpline that people can phone to have any such mistakes rectified, and I encourage them to do so. I know that the system is taking on a number of those questions and very quickly resolving them on a daily basis.

Mineworkers Pension Scheme

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-00430, in the name of Christine Grahame, on the mineworkers pension scheme. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the recent report by the UK Parliament’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee into the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme; understands that the scheme, established in 1994, meant a 50:50 split in surplus sharing between the miners and the UK Government and that, to date, the UK Government has received £4.4 billion, with at least a further £1.9 billion due and the UK Government paying nothing into the fund; further understands, however, that many beneficiaries are struggling to make ends meet, including those in the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency; notes that the committee therefore recommended amending the 50:50 surplus sharing arrangements in the miners’ favour, and immediately giving the £1.2 billion currently held in the Investment Reserve to former miners; understands that the Welsh Government has registered support for these recommendations, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to do likewise.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I thank the members who supported my motion.

I commend the report by the United Kingdom Parliament’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, whose unanimous cross-party report along with the pursuit of this injustice by my colleague Owen Thompson, the MP for Midlothian, brought me to the debate. I add to that the Scottish Government, which wrote to the UK Government supporting the recommendations of the report.

As Penicuik, Gorebridge and Newtongrange, which were once at the heart of coal mining, are in my constituency, and as my maternal grandfather was a Welsh miner who died prematurely from injuries sustained in the pit well before I was born, I have a deep interest in what happens to miners and mining communities. In the 1980s, I witnessed the mounted police charging into men who were fighting for their livelihoods and communities.

I will provide a bit of historical context to the pension arrangements. They were put in place in 1994, when the mines were privatised. Since then, the UK Government has benefited from 50 per cent of the surplus in the funds, to the extent that—this is key—without contributing a penny, it has received £3.1 billion, and, in addition, £1.3 billion from the investment reserve. There is a further £1.9 billion in the pipeline—I have never seen a billion, but that is a lot of money.

The committee held an inquiry and unanimously recommended that the 50:50 split should be reviewed and, as an interim measure, that £1.3 billion should be redistributed to the miners. That humongous sum contrasts with the actual pensions that miners receive. The median is £65 per week, so 50 per cent of members receive less than that, while 25 per cent receive less than £35 per week and 10 per cent receive less than £18 per week.

At the metaphorical coalface of life and paying for everyday bills, many miners are on the breadline, while thousands, like my mother’s father, have been injured and died not even having enjoyed their pensions. It is estimated that 7,000 members die each year. It was an inherently dangerous job that by its nature led to poor health, and that is now compounded by susceptibility to Covid because of those underlying health conditions.

Against all that, it is an affront to justice that the UK Government creams off billions of pounds and has responded to the report with a rejection of all its recommendations. What is the justification? It claims that the guarantee that the UK Government will plug any deficit if the scheme is vulnerable to failure is a reasonable defence. The reply from Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Westminster Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, was:

“The Government continues to believe that the arrangement agreed in 1994 was fair and beneficial to both Scheme members and taxpayers. Scheme members have rightly shared in the benefits but the Government has taken on all the risk.”

The reality is that, even through the 2008 financial crisis and to date, the fund has thrived, as the free billions are harvested by the UK Government. Where is the evidence of risk, if any? Is it commensurate with a 50:50 split? The previous schemes assigned the surpluses at 70:30 in favour of the miners—the beneficiaries.

The UK Government has a sad track record in its attitude towards the miners, which, as I referenced, started with the brutal treatment of decent folk who were defending their jobs and communities. Of course, that was compounded by the recent remarks of Boris Johnson, when he said:

“Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, who closed so many coal mines across the country, we had a big early start and we’re now moving rapidly away from coal altogether.”

Those were crass remarks, but they were in keeping with the disdain for the coal miners and their communities and are now compounded by the rejection of a review of the pension scheme. Irony of ironies, the Westminster Government is now, controversially, considering opening a fresh pit near Whitehaven, where it will, of course, need coal miners.

That contrasts with the approach of the Welsh Assembly and of the Scottish Government, which is providing a pardon for miners who were convicted in the 1984-85 strike action in Scotland and has written to the UK Government to support the Westminster committee’s recommendations.

Whether or not members have a mining community in their constituencies, I urge them to pursue that with their MP and to support the select committee, shame the Government at Westminster and make it, for once, do right by the miners by accepting the unanimous recommendations of the cross-party select committee. After all, the Westminster energy minister offered a chink of hope when, in a letter of reply to Owen Thompson MP, she said:

“I am unable to accept the conclusions and recommendations. ... However I hope that as a result of my discussions with the Trustees we can reach a mutually acceptable way forward”.

I suggest that people get writing. Let us hope that those are not just easy words but that there are actions to follow, before more miners fall into penury and others die before they receive their pensions.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

As the MSP for Cowdenbeath, I am pleased to speak in this debate on the mineworkers pension scheme. I congratulate my Scottish National Party colleague Christine Grahame on securing this important debate. She has just outlined in some detail the background to the privatisation of the scheme in 1994 and the financial arrangements that were put in place at that point. As we have heard, in return for a UK Government guarantee, there was to be a 50:50 split of any surplus.

Some 27 years after the scheme was privatised—during which time the Government has accrued around £6.3 billion under the scheme without having, as we heard, paid in a single penny—very serious concerns have been raised about the plight of the miners who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the scheme but who receive very low pension pay-outs and are struggling to make ends meet. As an MSP for former mining communities, I very much share those concerns.

In the short time that is available to me, I will highlight key issues that emerged from the April 2021 report of the Westminster Parliament’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Those issues led the committee to conclude unanimously that the scheme must now be reviewed and a better outcome for miners achieved.

First, the option of a 50:50 split in return for a guarantee was presented at the time as a fait accompli, leaving the trustees with no choice but to accept.

Second, the 50:50 split was entirely arbitrary. Indeed, at paragraph 17 of its report, the committee’s damning conclusion was:

“The Government failed to conduct due diligence during the 1994 negotiations and undertook no empirical analysis or evaluation to inform or support the 50:50 split it proposed. The Government was negligent not to take actuarial advice.”

Third, the UK Government has not paid in a penny over the lifetime of the scheme, but it has accrued £6.3 billion. It was noted in evidence to the committee that such an arrangement must be viewed as highly unusual and that it would not be allowed today.

Fourth, the UK Government has received more than was expected because the scheme has performed strongly, notwithstanding the global financial crash and the Covid pandemic.

Fifth, as we have heard, the median pension is a meagre £65 per week and, moreover, as we have also heard, half of the members receive less than that, notwithstanding the chronic health issues facing many former miners and the deprivation suffered in the communities in which they reside.

Sixth, the number of pension scheme members is sadly decreasing by approximately 7,000 per year and therefore time is running out to sort the matter.

Seventh, the role of a guarantor is surely not to make a profit at the expense of the beneficiaries of the scheme.

Eighth, there would be minimal risk to the UK Government as guarantor in changing the split to favour the beneficiaries, given the strong performance of the scheme, the considerable surplus that the UK Government has already accrued and the reducing number of members of the scheme. Indeed, as paragraph 39 of the BEIS Committee report states, the head of pension strategy at Coal Pension Trustees Services Ltd posed the question:

“what is the true value of a guarantee that is extremely low risk and extremely unlikely to be used”?

It is clear that the scheme requires to be reviewed as soon as possible. It is neither fair nor appropriate and it is fundamentally flawed in its design. To date, the UK Government has set its face against such calls for a review and for an immediate transfer to the miner beneficiaries of the £1.2 billion currently in the investment reserve fund. To many former miners and their families in my Cowdenbeath constituency, that intransigence and, indeed, hostility on the part of the UK Tory Government will come as no surprise whatsoever, for they have been on the sharp end of that for decades.

In conclusion, I urge the Scottish Government to do all that it can, even though the power lies with the Westminster Government, to urge the UK Government to do the right thing, and to ensure that here in Scotland we have a voice for former miners and their families. We are determined to see right done by them.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank Christine Grahame for lodging her motion. I am immensely proud to represent South Scotland, a region that is steeped in Scotland’s mining history. As Christine Grahame highlighted, Midlothian was one of those proud mining communities. At one time, it contained 26 collieries employing 11,000 miners, and today, of course, it houses the National Mining Museum. Neighbouring East Lothian is home to the earliest documented coal mines in Scotland, between Tranent and the town of Prestonpans, where the local Labour club ensured that local children were still being fed a hot meal after school every day during the miners strike.

It is a region where Scotland’s coalfields run almost continuously from the west coast to the east coast. Some of the most valuable coal seams are in Lanarkshire, which paved the way to making it the seat of the iron smelting industry at one time. On the west coast, in Ayrshire, there were, at one time, around 14,000 coal miners who mined 4 million tons of coal annually. A certain Keir Hardie founded the Ayrshire Miners Union, ultimately leading to the National Union of Scottish Mineworkers.

Even in Dumfriesshire, where I live—an area that many people may not associate with coal mines—deep mining was integral to the economy as far south as Canonbie and Rowanburn, and more recently in Upper Nithsdale from the Fauldhead mine in Kirkconnel, which was the largest local pit until it closed in 1968, to the opencast that continued until just a few years ago. Many of my relatives worked in those Upper Nithsdale pits until the demise of the industry in the 1980s. I should declare an interest, because some of them retired and are mining pensioners today, although some had to move out of the area, to the north-east, to find work in the oil industry.

If there is one lesson that we must take from the demise of the pits and the devastation that it inflicted on our communities, many of which have still not recovered today, it is that we must have a just transition for our oil and gas sector that creates new jobs to replace those that will be lost. Never again can we have a Government inflict such economic vandalism on communities and then walk away, leaving industrial-scale levels of unemployment.

Not content with the pain inflicted on those coalfield communities by Thatcher in the 1980s, and fresh from those crass comments joking about pit closures, her protégé Boris Johnson has added insult to injury by failing to right the injustice of the mineworkers pension scheme. As we have heard, since the Tories privatised British Coal, in 1994, the Treasury has stripped out 50 per cent of any surplus.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I ask the member to acknowledge that we had a long period of Labour Government when those actions took place, which I personally support. I support the proposition that the BEIS select committee makes. The member cannot say what he is saying without accepting his party’s culpability in the current situation as well. This anti-Tory rhetoric is tiresome.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I know that Mr Kerr does not like to hear about his Government’s record, but the reality is that Labour’s policy on this particular issue is very clear. It was the Tories who privatised British coal in 1994 and the member’s Government that created the injustice that holds today, and they still reject that now. The member’s Government has taken £4.4 billion that should have gone to miners and their families. It is those miners—not Tory ministers—who toiled away down in the pit, creating wealth and prosperity, and those are the thanks that Mr Kerr’s Government gives them today. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is enough sedentary comments, Mr Kerr.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

If Mr Kerr wants to intervene again, I am happy to take his intervention. I have made my and my party’s position absolutely clear. I am proud of the fact that our manifesto in the 2019 election made clear that we would redress and change this particular policy.

As we have heard, some pensioners have been left scrimping on a pension that is, in half of cases, less than £65 a week, yet if there ever were communities that would need that extra spending power, and local people needing a few more pounds in their pockets, it would be our coalfield communities, which are in desperate need of regeneration.

Labour’s position on the matter is clear, and it was stated in our manifesto at the election: we believe that the sharing arrangement should be changed so that 90 per cent of any surplus stays with the miners. The fact that the Tories choose not to adopt Labour’s policy of restructuring the pension scheme is obviously unsurprising, but it is frankly vindictive that they still choose not to do so in the face of calls from some of their own MPs. It is a testament to the fighting spirit of all those who campaign on the issue that—finally—the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee of the UK Parliament conducted an inquiry into the pension scheme.

The current 50-50 split of surplus was, as Annabelle Ewing highlighted, arbitrary and simply unfair. Yet, the UK Government continues to reject the putting right of that injustice that miners and their families suffered, which is frankly shameful. Many of the former miners whom that injustice affects are elderly now. They paid their fair share of the pension scheme while they worked, and it is high time that they received their proper share now, in their later years. In many cases, those mineworkers sacrificed their health, working in dark and dangerous conditions to create the nation’s wealth, which frankly remains unfairly distributed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to wind up now, Mr Smyth.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

A p

roper pension pot in retirement is not an aspiration but a right that those miners deserve.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Christine Grahame for securing this important debate. I am pleased to see her focus on Westminster and the importance of the work that the UK Government has done on behalf of mining communities across the United Kingdom.

There is strength in that partnership, which has brought benefits to our miners through the

pension scheme. It has been mentioned already that the select committee conducted an important inquiry and heard evidence from all sides. One thing on which all participants agreed was that the guarantee that the UK Government offered was essential to securing the benefits that the scheme has enjoyed.

Indeed, the report states that the pension scheme made gains of 6.2 per cent in 2020, far outperforming other schemes, and that

“the typical member’s pension”

is

“‘around 33% higher in real terms than it would have been had they received only their actual earned pension up to privatisation’.”

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member mentioned the select committee’s report, so I wonder whether he agrees with its summary conclusion that

“the Government should also relinquish its entitlement to the Investment Reserve, and transfer the £1.2 billion fund to miners, to provide an immediate cash uplift to former miners.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am happy to give you the time back, Mr Lumsden.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Okay. Yes, the report is there, but it also mentions that the fund is now in a much stronger position because of that UK Government guarantee.

The conclusions of that report state that

“the Scheme has continued to produce strong returns despite the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic.”

All parties agree that that is only due to the guarantee that the UK Government continues to provide for the scheme.

In 1996, a report by Binder Hamlyn concluded that no one expected future surpluses of that extent. The trustees and the Government agreed a 50-50 split in good faith, and all parties signed up to it and were content with it. The split was agreed on the understanding that the UK Government would guarantee the scheme, as has already been said, and it was that guarantee that meant that the trustees could invest in more high-risk investments, which has undoubtedly paid off. It is widely accepted that the bonuses would have been less, or non-existent, had the scheme not been guaranteed. One witness at the inquiry even suggested that the pension payout might have been smaller if the Government’s guarantee had not been in place.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I honestly just seek clarity. Do you agree with the findings of the cross-party select committee—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Grahame, you should know better than to refer to “you”.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer—I should not have used the “you” word.

Does the member agree with the findings of the select committee, which had Conservative representatives on it? I commend the resilience and toughness of select committees at Westminster.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I agree the with committees at Westminster, and I often see differences between the Westminster committees and those here. The findings are there and that is commendable.

The minister has also said that her door is open and that she will talk with the trustees, as Christine Grahame said.

The trustees of the scheme have always prioritised the protection of the bonuses, and it is right and proper that they do so. However, for this to take place, the Government has to have a means by which to secure those bonuses in a time of deficit. No one knows what the future holds. In her evidence to the committee, the minister was eloquent on that point. We do not know how the fund will perform in the future or whether there will be future deficits in the fund that require the guarantee to come into effect. No one could have predicted the success of the fund.

I turn to the question of a review. At the committee, the minister was very clear that her door is open, and she met union representatives on 21 June. At that meeting, the minister asked the trustees to consider whether they would be willing to include the Government’s guarantee in any future discussions around surplus sharing and the investment reserve. I believe that the minister is still awaiting a reply.

The Government has been open in its discussions. It is more than happy to discuss a change to the surplus that would mean removing the guarantee. Up to this point, the trustees have not been open to that.

Scottish miners in all our constituencies have benefited from the strength of the guarantee offered by the UK Government. Their bonuses have been more than they could have expected without that guarantee, and the strength of the scheme is clear.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this most important debate before Parliament. The pits might be gone, but the miners, their families and mining communities remain, and their voices must be heard in the Parliament.

Progress on the pardoning of miners who were needlessly arrested, charged and convicted during the 1984-85 strike was a victory for the principle of justice in the previous session of Parliament. Now, in the current parliamentary session, it is right that we move from the principle to the enactment of justice, and I welcome that.

Other historic wrongs also have to be righted. Since the day the coal industry was privatised—and so the mineworkers pension scheme was, in effect, also privatised—the UK Exchequer has not paid a single penny into the scheme but has taken £4.4 billion out of the scheme. When that was put to the Prime Minister during the 2019 election, he said this:

“We will make sure that all their cash is fully protected and returned”.

He said

“that no Mansfield miner ... is out of pocket”.

It was a promise made not just to the Mansfield miner but to the Midlothian miner and the Monmouth miner. So, let me be as clear as I can be: this pensions betrayal by Boris Johnson and his repugnant view that Margaret Thatcher was some kind of eco-warrior and that her war on the miners was “a big early start” is contemptuous. But it is not anti-Scottish, it is anti-working class. Those retired miners and those widows in Mansfield, Midlothian and Monmouthshire all have the same concerns, the same hardships and the same challenges, and we should not falsely divide them.

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee called for reform of the scheme. That call was supported by the pension scheme trustees but not by Boris Johnson’s Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, who shamefully twisted the truth, claiming that the trustees supported her when they did not—they supported the select committee and the miners.

In the end, the question for all of us is this: do all those years of hardship, suffering, struggle and sacrifice by the miners count for nothing? We know that the hazards, the risks and the dangers that forged those bonds underground have also brought in their wake chronic health conditions, which is why the betrayal of the miners by the UK Government and the Prime Minister is a question of ethics and justice, as well as of standards of living.

This is a poignant time for those of us who place a value on working-class history. Two days ago, we marked the 71st anniversary of the Knockshinnoch tragedy. This Sunday, we shall assemble at Auchengeich to remember the 47 miners who were killed there 62 years ago. In so doing, we rededicate ourselves to remembering the dead, but also to fighting for the living.

It was the pioneering Labour MP John Wheatley who said presciently in 1926:

“The miners are fighting alone, but they are fighting the battle of the whole nation. If they lose, we all lose.”

So, today’s struggle for justice is not a struggle for the miners and their families alone. That is why they must not lose this fight. It is why this Parliament must support them to win. Make no mistake—a victory for the miners will be a victory for social justice everywhere.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I congratulate my colleague Christine Grahame on securing the debate. Although the subject of the debate is not directly relevant to Scottish Government policy, I absolutely agree that it is important for us as politicians, as role models and as leaders of society, to call out comments that are completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister’s comments regarding former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s decision to close the mines as having given the UK a “big early start” in tackling climate change are not only unacceptable but deeply offensive. They show nothing other than the contempt that the Prime Minister and the UK Government hold for former mining communities in Scotland.

Many of those communities are located in my South Scotland region. Christine Grahame has invited the Prime Minister to visit the National Mining Museum Scotland in her constituency, and I am sure that many members of former mining communities in my area would welcome a discussion with the Prime Minister on his views on the mine closures that happened under Mrs Thatcher.

The reality of what the mine closures meant has been highlighted by ex-miner Rab Wilson, who said that they had no bearing on tackling the climate emergency. Rab said:

“Kirkconnel, New Cumnock, Auchinleck—all these villages are only here because of the coal ... Socially and economically, it made these local communities. ... The Tories didn’t give a second thought to the social catastrophe they were creating.”

In his book of Scots language poems, “Accent o the Mind”, Rab said:

“The right tae work, that wis aa that we asked

Demands which the Tories said went too faur

Fir tellys, holidays, mibbes a caur ...

Ah’ll never forget it, it’s left its mark,

It festers there yet, somewhaur in the daurk.”

I have written to the Prime Minister to invite him to take part in the discussion that I have agreed to organise on the mine closures. Unsurprisingly, I have not had a response.

Christine Grahame laid out the detail in the report, which shows that billions of pounds should go to the miners. Annabelle Ewing mentioned the fact that the pension amount is as little as £65 per week.

The report talks about the privatisation of British Coal in 1994 and the arrangement that was made between the Government and the trustees of the mine workers pension scheme. In the 2000s, the coalfield communities campaign argued for a review of the surplus sharing arrangements on the grounds that the guarantee had been struck on actuarial advice and may, with hindsight, have been too cautious, and that a 50 per cent share of an unexpectedly large surplus was too much. The consequences of that caused problems for our miners. As Annabelle Ewing noted, not many are left now to benefit from reforms. I ask the minister to do whatever he can to support the miners in the continued effort to ensure that they benefit from anything that comes out of the select committee’s well-worked report.

I again thank Christine Grahame for today’s debate.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing the debate and bringing the campaign to Parliament. She is absolutely right to raise the issue and the work of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has already made its position clear, and I hope that the issue will be given as much attention as possible.

There has been much discussion of history in today’s debate. The history of mining in Scotland is a brutal one. It begins with what was called thirlage, which was basically a form of slavery. Conditions for miners and people in mining communities were absolutely appalling. That applies not only to coal mining, but to mining for tin and iron ore. The communities that many of us represent exist because people often lived beside their workplaces and had often moved, perhaps by walking, from another part of the country to live beside the mines.

The select committee report makes clear the principle that the Government should not benefit and profiteer from miners’ pensions. I have always argued for the trade union position, which is that pensions are deferred pay. The principle is that those miners paid into their pension scheme. We have heard a number of contributions highlighting the poor amounts of pension that many miners receive from the scheme. I understand that some widows receive as little as £8.50 per week. Many of the miners receiving those pensions are struggling with work-related illnesses as they get older.

There are many issues of justice. I listened to the Conservative contribution, and I appreciate that the Conservatives find anti-Tory rhetoric tiresome and are attempting to detoxify themselves. The UK Government, and Conservatives here, should be facing up to the consequences of the actions that they forced through in the 1980s. The pit closure programme caused devastation to communities up and down the country.

Those communities are not benefiting from the socioeconomic justice that the UK Government claims to stand for. Nor are they benefiting from levelling up, as we see from Boris Johnson’s reaction to the select committee’s report. Those communities are still suffering from decades of de-industrialisation, poverty and lack of economic justice and jobs. Generations have campaigned for economic justice for those communities since the 1980s.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I respect Katy Clark’s argument, but she was a member of the UK Parliament during the most recent Labour Government. The issue could have been dealt with then, given the nature of the agreement that was reached in 1994. I said that I tire of the anti-Tory rhetoric because both Labour and the Conservatives were party to the agreement. The Labour Party’s partisan approach is ill suited to the argument.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I am grateful to the gentleman. I appreciate the point that he makes, but I point out that—unfortunately—it is now more than a decade since Labour was in power, and the reality is that, as time has gone on, it has become clearer that the balance of risk is very much against the miners. I understand the point that Stephen Kerr’s colleague made earlier when he said that the Government has taken on risk and acted as a guarantor, but the principle is surely that it should be those who paid into the scheme who benefit from it.

The select committee looked at the issues in detail and came to the conclusion that the Government had been negligent at the time and that the only just solution now is for the benefit to be given to those who paid into the scheme, who live in some of the poorest communities in the country.

I say to Mr Kerr that, if his Government at UK level is serious about its levelling-up agenda, there is a very simple step that it could take that would put money into those communities. The act would show clearly that it wanted to right some of the wrongs of the past and ensure that those communities are given a fair chance.

There are many other steps that should be taken, but the proposal is a simple step and I hope that, at the end of the debate, we will be united in saying that it is one that the UK Government should take. It would make a significant difference to many people’s lives.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To this day, the legacy of mining and the miners who made it happen is everywhere across South Scotland, particularly in my home area of Ayrshire and in Midlothian, which is referenced in the motion. It is not just a legacy that has been left on the earth; it is a legacy of social, cultural and political energy that continues to reverberate. I am speaking in the debate in order to celebrate that legacy and the dedication of the miners who broke their backs for our country. They have not been forgotten by me or by the Scottish Labour Party.

I hope that we can, through a bit of common sense and decency, get them the pensions that they deserve. That is not much to ask.

I know that there are people in other parties who would like to think that they saw off the miners long ago. However, although many miners are now retired or, sadly, no longer with us, the legacy of the industry lives on in the solidarity, grit and shared experiences of their communities. It also lives on in the poverty that we have heard about, which is seen in many former mining communities and in the miners’ struggle to achieve financial security for themselves and their families, now that their livelihoods and the highly skilled and well-paid jobs that came with mining have all but gone.

I am disheartened to say that, nearly 40 years after the process began, we are still having to stand up and defend the miners and their families against a Tory Government that simply did not care—a Tory Government that saw destroying the power of the working classes as a priority above all else. Why would we expect anything different now?

It is likely that, over the next six years, the Treasury will earn about £23 billion in real terms from the miners’ pension fund, but the sum could grow as high as £55 billion—all that wealth, and so little of it going to those who grafted for it. There was a time when the Tories claimed to be all about getting Britain back to work and putting a pound in people’s pockets. We can see now whose pockets are bulging from the miners’ money.

Fortunately, we have a majority in Scotland against that callous injustice, and I fully support the call to give the £1.2 billion that is held in the investment reserve to the former miners. After all, it is what they are due.

As is rightly mentioned in the motion, the great work of the Labour Government in Wales serves as a fine example for Scotland to follow, and I have no doubt that attempts to follow it will be supported by almost everyone in the chamber. I only despair that we have had to demand it. The distribution of funds should have been reviewed long ago. I thank Christine Grahame for bringing her important motion to the chamber for debate.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank my colleague Christine Grahame for bringing her important motion to the chamber for debate. I also thank members across the chamber for their contributions.

It is clear that, although many decades may have passed, this is still a live issue. That point has been captured by many members. Richard Leonard’s contribution reflected on the need to right historic wrongs, which is—as I think that Carol Mochan expressed it—not much of an ask.

I recognise that we have many challenges and many complex and wicked problems. However, when we are presented with an opportunity to right a wrong and to do the right thing, around which we can all unite, we must seize it. We must also learn the lessons of the importance of a just transition, so that there are not debates taking place in this Parliament decades from now because we failed to learn the lessons of previous generations.

I also recognise Annabelle Ewing’s contribution, which highlighted in particular a very important element of the BEIS Committee report. It is an excellent report, and I commend the committee on its work. To make a point that was picked up on by other members, the UK Government should not be engaging in profiteering—that is not the purpose of the pension fund.

I also recognise the contributions that illustrated the rich history of mining across Scotland and, indeed, the wider UK. I have only to look back a few generations in my family to find miners in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, and I recognise the often horrendous conditions that they had to work under.

I also recognise the contribution of Mr Lumsden, which seemed to be a statement of the UK Government’s existing position—I hope that he does not mind me saying that. I had some hope when Mr Kerr intervened on Mr Smyth, as I picked up the suggestion that Mr Kerr agreed with the recommendations of the BEIS Committee. [

Interruption

.]

He is indicating from a sedentary position that he does—I welcome that. Although there may be a difference of opinion across the Conservative group in this place, I hope that Mr Kerr will be full throated in supporting the Government and members across this chamber in calling for the UK Government to do the right thing.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I point out that I am being consistent with the position that I took when I was a member of the House of Commons representing the Stirling constituency, where there are many retired miners who brought this issue to my attention. I am therefore being consistent.

I am also being consistent as a former member of the select committee that produced the report. My former Conservative colleagues on that committee will have received the evidence and their unanimous conclusion is—I believe—based on that evidence. It is therefore an easy thing to support.

I do not belong to the UK Parliament now; I am a member of the Scottish Parliament, and my job is to hold the minister’s Government to account. Therefore, I am free to comment on the UK Government at will.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

As a new member of this Parliament, Stephen Kerr is making an excellent start. I fully encourage him in that approach and urge him to share it with Mr Lumsden.

The mineworkers pension scheme was established in 1952 and was closed to new members on the privatisation of British Coal, in 1994. There are more than 120,000 pensioners receiving benefits from the scheme, and more than 10,000 deferred members, with the average pension being under £100 per week. Indeed, I understand that 10 per cent of the pensioner membership receive less than £18 per week. Former Scottish mineworkers and their widows are among those pensioners. Inevitably, their numbers are sadly diminishing year on year.

Over centuries, thousands of Scots lost their lives underground. Even in the past few decades of the industry, working conditions remained dangerous. Many former mineworkers continue to suffer chronic health conditions as a result of their occupation, which is a particularly acute issue, given what we have collectively endured over the past 18 months.

Of course, times have changed and our priorities for energy are rightly refocusing on sustainable and renewable sources as we strive for a just transition away from fossil fuels. However, we should not forget the critical historical role that mineworkers played over many decades—including in the transformative period between nationalisation and privatisation of the industry—in extracting coal to fuel our communities and propel society into the modern age.

As other members mentioned, the National Mining Museum in the former Lady Victoria colliery—in Christine Grahame’s constituency—provides visitors with a vivid reminder of the conditions in which mineworkers toiled, and the gratitude owed to them by all of us. I very much hope to visit the museum soon.

As the chamber is aware, responsibility for occupational pensions is reserved to Westminster, and this Parliament has no influence over decisions affecting the mineworkers scheme or the arrangements set out in the UK legislation in 1994. It was right that, on privatisation in 1994, the UK Government provided assurances and a guarantee to former mineworkers to protect the value of their pensions. It is also right that the risk to the taxpayer was acknowledged.

The arrangements are technical, as has been touched on. In return for the provision of a guarantee, the UK Government is entitled to a half share of scheme surplus—a so-called 50:50 share with the scheme members.

The fund has four notional sub-funds. The “guaranteed fund” provides inflation-proof pensions to former mineworkers and their dependants. There is an investment reserve, based on the £1.2 billion surplus that was bequeathed from British Coal days. Two other components complete the arrangements: a bonus augmentation fund for payments to members, and a guarantor fund, from which the UK Government’s share of benefits are derived.

I recognise that the scheme trustees would have welcomed the guarantee, which permitted an investment strategy seeking higher returns. It has benefited members through bonus payments over years. However, at the time that the arrangements were entered into, it was estimated that the surplus might amount to £2 billion over the course of a quarter of a century. In reality, the UK Government’s dividend amounts to more than three times that figure. In the unlikely event that the guarantee is ever called upon, it is expected that the risk to the taxpayer would fall well short of what has already been paid in.

I have read the report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which, as members are aware, sets outs key recommendations in relation to the arrangements that were entered into in 1994. The committee describes the 50:50 arrangements as “arbitrary”, as it found that no substantial contemporary assessment had been undertaken. They are also quite exceptional.

I agree with the findings of the committee, in particular, about the future division of surpluses. There is a strong case for a more equitable distribution of surpluses to scheme beneficiaries—many of whom are on low incomes—through an arrangement that better reflects the risks of scheme management and assurance. One of the committee’s key recommendations is to turn over the investment reserve to pensioners, which is a step that could have a material impact on thousands of low-income households.

The UK Government has rejected the recommendations and has set out that it continues to believe that the arrangement that was

“agreed in 1994 was fair and beneficial to both Scheme members and taxpayers”.

The chair of the select committee has understandably responded in strong terms, asking the UK Government to reconsider. The scheme trustees are also disappointed and, given that they consider the guarantee to be essential to the operation of the scheme, they must feel that they have little scope for alternative action. That is a crucial point to make with reference to what Mr Lumsden said, because the UK Government might say that its door is open, but, if it will engage in conversation only under the condition that the guarantee is to be removed, that is not openness or transparency and that is not engagement. That is what needs to change.

The National Union of Mineworkers has also called for a more balanced approach to the distribution of funds and the investment reserve. As I said, I note the UK Government’s position that ministers are open to further dialogue with trustees and to an arrangement that sees the scheme retain 100 per cent of surpluses. However, that appears to be entirely conditional on removing the guarantee, and that is not a genuine offer. It places the trustees in an invidious position, so it is not acceptable.

The UK Government has been a substantial beneficiary of the arrangements for a quarter of a century. The time for it to stop taking and to do the right thing is long overdue. That is why, as members will be aware, I am writing to the UK Government and the trustees of the mineworkers pension scheme, asking that the arrangements be reviewed so that former mineworkers can, in retirement, be properly recognised for the work that they undertook, on behalf of all our countries across the UK, for many years.

Those discussions should be transparent, should include expert input from actuaries and should have the interests of pensioners at their centre. Action should be taken as soon as possible.

I sincerely hope that the concerns of many on this issue are heard by the UK Government and that the recommendations are given full consideration in mutually supportive discussions. I call on Parliament to support the recommendations of the select committee, and I again thank Christine Grahame for bringing this important issue to the chamber.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate. I suspend the meeting until 2.00 pm.

13:34 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Social Justice, Housing and Local Government

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon, colleagues. I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, and I ask that members take care to observe them, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please use the aisles and walkways only to access your seat and when moving around the chamber.

The next item of business is portfolio questions; the first portfolio is social justice, housing and local government. I remind members that questions 5 and 7 are grouped and that I will take supplementaries on them after both have been answered. Moreover, if a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letter R in the chat function during the relevant question.

Finally, in order to get as many members in as possible, I ask again for short and succinct questions and answers.

Social Enterprises (Support)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the growth of social enterprises and other not-for-profit community enterprises. (S6O-00107)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government’s social enterprise strategy, which was launched in 2016, sets out a wide-ranging, ambitious and long-term programme to develop the potential of Scotland’s social enterprise sector. The latest social enterprise action plan was published on 24 March this year and covers the period from 2021 to 2024.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

It has been highlighted in conversations with community groups that many of the available funding packages are project based instead of being intended for expanding or building on existing initiatives. Will the cabinet secretary comment on the thinking in those groups that they are not deemed sufficiently innovative for one of the funding streams if they want to expand or that they are not eligible for others because the project in question is not new?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I can write to the member with more details, but I would point out that First Port Scotland delivers Scotland’s national social enterprise start-up incubator on behalf of the Scottish Government via the social entrepreneurs fund. It helps not just to start social enterprises but to develop and grow their ideas, and more information about that is available on the website.

We are looking to continue to fund social enterprises so that they continue to deliver. Beyond the funding package that was delivered during the Covid period, we are continuing to fund social enterprises, and there is an additional £1.5 million to build on the successful programme of support offered through the adapt and thrive programme, which helps community organisations that want to diversify their income. I am happy to write to the member with a bit more detail, particularly on his point about growing social enterprises.

Gypsy Travellers

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress with its joint action plan with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, “Improving the Lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers (2019-2021)”. (S6O-00108)

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

First, we welcome Ms Whitham’s interest in this area, which she has had since her days as COSLA’s community spokesperson. She was also an active member of the Scottish Government’s Gypsy Traveller ministerial working group.

Due to the pandemic, the Gypsy Traveller action plan was extended to October 2022 to provide us with more time to deliver on the remaining actions and to build on the excellent work that has already been undertaken. Covid-19 and the pandemic crisis have already allowed us to make unexpected progress in some areas such as remote and distance learning and digital access, which have improved, and improving sites and accommodation. We will continue to work closely with the community, COSLA and partners to ensure that we meet our objectives and improve outcomes for our Gypsy Traveller communities.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As well as seeing their traditional lifestyle eroded, we know that our Gypsy Traveller communities often experience extreme and persistent stereotyping and hostility as they go about their lives. I know that the minister agrees that it is hugely important that we challenge such negative attitudes and ask that progress be made in tackling racism and discrimination, which is a central part of the action plan.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The member is right; we are working hard to address racism, prejudice and discrimination against the community. For example, some of the practical steps that we have taken include the development by NHS Fife and NHS 24 of an e-learning module, to be promoted to tackle the stigma and discrimination that some Gypsy Travellers experience when using national health services. Uptake of the module has been high. Work has also involved developing learning and development resources for Social Security Scotland, to support the needs of Gypsy Travellers when they access front-line services.

As the member will know, COSLA works with councillors across the country to raise awareness of the issues that Gypsy Travellers face, to ensure that they feel involved in their local communities.

Social Security (Support)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how much it plans to invest in social security support over the next five years. (S6O-00109)

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

As set out in this year’s budget, we are committing £3.5 billion to social security payments, which will reach more than 800,000 people. That money will go directly to the people in Scotland who need it most.

The latest Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast, which was published in August 2021, estimates that annual social security spending will rise to £5.2 billion in 2026-27, totalling £23 billion over the next five years.

The Scottish Government views social security as an investment in the people of Scotland and a fundamental human right, and we are committed to ensuring that everyone can access the financial support to which they are entitled.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I welcome the introduction of new benefits such as the Scottish child payment, which, since February, has helped more than 2,000 families that need it most in South Ayrshire alone.

This morning, I received an email from my daughter’s school, advising parents of food shortages and saying that the local school was unable to provide the school lunches that were on the menu. We are living in the aftermath of a reckless Tory Brexit, which was forced through during a global pandemic. With food and energy prices rising—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Could we have a question, please?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

—and empty shelves, does the minister share my deep concerns, and agree that it is imperative that the people of Scotland get the opportunity to determine their own future and rectify those injustices?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

With the powers that we have, the Scottish Government has taken unprecedented action to tackle child poverty by investing nearly £1 billion in 2020-21 to support families with children. That includes our game-changing Scottish child payment, which we will double to £20 in the lifetime of this parliamentary session, together with the best start grant and best start foods. That will provide more than £5,300 of financial support for families by the time their first child turns six.

I completely agree that our anti-poverty efforts are seriously undermined by United Kingdom Government decisions and its unjustified assault on social security in too many cases. I take the opportunity to once again call on UK Government ministers to do the right thing by reversing its planned £20 cut to universal credit, to avoid pushing a further 20,000 children in Scotland into poverty.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The pandemic has demonstrated the negative impact of coping with bereavement, with families limited to how many people can attend funerals, and people not being able to say a proper goodbye to their loved ones in care homes and hospitals. In particular, it has impacted those who provide care for a loved one.

When does the Scottish Government plan to introduce the extension of carers allowance for six months after a bereavement?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

As Mr Briggs will know, the delivery of devolved social security benefits has taken place over the past three years. One of the first measures that we took, which was stipulated in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, was to deliver the carers allowance supplement. This year, as we did last year, we intend to give an additional supplement.

As I set out to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee last week, we are undergoing the process of appropriate stakeholder engagement and consultation on how we bring forward Scottish carers assistance. We are looking at a range of different measures around eligibility, and considering the experience of carers to make sure that we work collectively with other parties, and as a Parliament as a whole, to ensure that Scottish carers assistance helps the unpaid carers whom we all value and appreciate, and for whom, in due course, we want to deliver an enhanced benefit.

Affordable Homes for Rent

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its commitment to supporting the building of affordable homes for rent. (S6O-00110)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government is proud of our record on delivering, since 2007, more than 102,000 affordable homes, nearly 71,000 of which were for social rent, including more than 16,000 council homes. As the programme for government makes clear, we are committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which 70 per cent will be available for social rent and 10 per cent will be in our remote, rural and island communities.

Delivering on that ambitious affordable homes target would support a total investment package of around £18 billion and up to 15,000 jobs each year. In the four years to 2020, we delivered over 75 per cent more affordable homes per head of population than in both England and Wales, and over nine times more social rented properties per head of population than in England.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Back in April 2020, the Auditor General for Scotland told the Government that it must

“evaluate the impact of the current programme on housing needs and the economic impact of the investment in affordable housing”.

Shelter Scotland, in its document “Exiting Covid and Tackling Scotland’s Housing Emergency: Shelter Scotland’s 2021 Action Plan”, says that the Government’s programme must be about more than simply the number of housing units completed—it must be about the social impact; moving Scotland’s communities in the right direction; and, first and foremost, reducing social housing need.

Will the cabinet secretary today give a commitment to place before the Parliament an annual housing and social justice report, to include whether housing need has gone up or down; the economic and social impact of the building programme; the state of housing need and access among groups that are all too often marginalised; and measures of wider community benefit and wellbeing?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Richard Leonard will, I hope, be aware that the “Housing to 2040” strategy talks about many of those issues. Housing is not just about bricks and mortar—it is a core anti-poverty measure, and I very much understand that.

I was asked something along the same lines as Richard Leonard’s question when I attended the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee this week. I said that I would reflect on whether, in addition to the myriad pieces of information that are provided on progress towards the affordable housing targets—there are a lot of statistics, data and reporting—further reports would be of benefit. I do not think that anyone can say that an ambitious target of 110,000 affordable homes, a total investment package of £18 billion and the creation of 15,000 jobs each year is anything other than to be welcomed.

Rural Housing Fund

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the rural housing fund. (S6O-00111)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Between 2016-17 and 2019-20, the Scottish Government invested more than

£400 million through the affordable housing supply programme, including the rural and islands housing funds, in rural and island communities, and delivered more than 4,800 affordable homes in that time. The rural and islands housing funds are described in the Scottish Land Commission’s report on “The Role of Land in Enabling New Housing Supply in Rural Scotland” as “game changers” for community-led housing development.

We have committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which 10 per cent will be in our remote, rural and island communities, backed by at least £45 million.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. However, she is well aware that less than half the £25 million fund that was set aside for rural housing has actually been spent, despite the chronic shortages of affordable housing in many parts of the countryside, and that there has been much faster progress on house building in the central belt than in rural areas. Can she explain why that is the case and what is being done to rectify the situation?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said in my initial answer, good progress has been made in delivering rural housing. I talked about the 4,800 affordable homes that have been delivered in that time. However, Liz Smith will be aware of some of the particular challenges in remote and rural Scotland, such as land availability, community capacity to bring forward proposals and ensuring that those proposals can get from pre-development to the development stage. Those are complex matters, which is why, in recognition that we need to do more, we have committed to developing a rural and remote housing plan that is dedicated to the needs of rural and remote Scotland.

That consultation will talk to communities the length and breadth of Scotland to make sure that we can get it right in every community, even for small-scale developments. That is, of course, backed up by the additional resources that we have made available.

Housing Shortage in Rural Areas

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle the reported shortage of housing in rural areas. (S6O-00113)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said, the Government has significantly invested in affordable housing, delivering 4,800 homes between 2016-17 and 2019-20 as part of the £3.4 billion affordable housing supply programme, and we have committed to the 10 per cent of 110,000 homes target. We are also committed to developing our remote, rural and islands action plan. Councils are being given significant additional powers to manage particular challenges in communities, such as short-term lets—we will lay legislation for a licensing scheme in November. We are also giving local authorities the power to deal with second homes, if they see that as a problem in their area.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Given that the population of rural areas is growing and now accounts for 17 per cent of Scotland’s population, does the cabinet secretary think that the 10 per cent that she referred to of the target of 110,000 homes is going to be adequate? Put simply, that is about 1,000 properties a year. There are big challenges when it comes to labour shortages in rural areas, and access to affordable housing is one of the biggest barriers. Surely we should be planning to build more houses in order to tackle that challenge.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I see the 10 per cent target as a minimum and, through the rural and remote housing plan, we will get a better sense and more evidence of what the housing need is. I want to take a more strategic approach to looking at housing needs in remote and rural Scotland. We have been relying on community organisations and community responses for

proposals, and that can be sometimes quite difficult, because of the complexities. We want to assist communities to analyse and agree housing needs and priorities, and then work with them and local authorities and social landlords to work up plans to deal with those shortages.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the cabinet secretary outline what action is being taken to reduce the impact of the huge increase in short-term lets on the availability of rural housing? That issue is of major concern to those who live in those areas.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Our licensing scheme will ensure that all short-term lets across Scotland comply with basic safety standards, in order to protect guests and neighbours. Local authorities will have the discretion to add further licence conditions in order to address any local concerns such as littering or the overcrowding of properties. The licensing scheme will provide local authorities with data on the number, type and location of short-term lets in their areas. They can also, of course, designate short-term let control areas if they wish to do so, in order to address pressures that are created by secondary short-term letting. Within a control area, planning permission would always be required to let out a whole home for short-term lets. Finally, the provisions will allow local authorities to manage high concentrations of secondary letting where those affect the availability of residential accommodation or the character of a neighbourhood.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The shortage of housing is not just a rural issue; it is an island issue. What action is being taken to tackle island housing shortages, which disproportionately affect young people and are a significant factor in island depopulation?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I very much appreciate that issue, and the remote, rural and island housing plan will absolutely look at the needs of island communities. It can also look at how we use island bonds as part of the response to that.

Just this morning, I met with the leader of Shetland Islands Council. We talked about many issues, and the issue that the member raised was one of those that we explored. We will have further discussions about it as we take matters forward.

Child Poverty

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making on reducing child poverty. (S6O-00112)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Child poverty is a national mission, which is shown through the almost £1 billion of targeted investment that we provided last year. Our Scottish child payment has already reached 108,000 children. Combined with our bridging payments, it will provide more than £130 million directly to families this year.

However, we will go further and double the Scottish child payment to £20 a week as soon as we can put the budgetary provisions in place. That complements wider action across Government, from the 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare to the expansion of free school meals and an increase in the school clothing grant. Those are all examples of positive steps that the Government is taking to tackle child poverty.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish child payment has already made significant strides towards reducing child poverty in Scotland in general and in Glasgow, in particular, where 58,520 payments have been made to Glasgow families, totalling £2,895,000, and that that demonstrates the Scottish Government’s progressive thinking as opposed to the regressive universal credit cuts that the United Kingdom Government is callously pursuing?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree that the Scottish child payment has been acclaimed as a game changer in the fight against child poverty and is projected to lift thousands of children out of poverty. The member outlined how that is impacting positively on Glasgow families. However, that policy is being completely undermined by the UK Government’s regressive £20 cut to universal credit, which will be the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years. Some 60,000 families across Scotland, including some 20,000 children could be pushed into poverty.

We have urged the UK Government to reverse its plans on numerous occasions, most recently in conjunction with the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Citizens Advice Scotland has said that 4,000 families will lose eligibility for the Scottish child payment if the abhorrent cut to universal credit goes ahead. Will the Scottish Government commit today to continuing to pay the Scottish child payment to those families?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said, the UK Government cutting the £20-a-week uplift to universal credit could reduce the number of children who are eligible for the Scottish child payment by around an estimated 2,000. For some families, the universal credit cut will be enough to remove their entitlement to the Scottish child payment. However, the problem is that we rely on top-up powers to deliver those payments. We do not have any other legislative basis to allow us to do so. I call on the UK Government not to cut the £20-a-week uplift to universal credit. We want people to remain eligible for the Scottish child payment. However, because that payment is delivered through the top-up powers, we are constrained in what we can do for those families.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

It is deeply disappointing that the Scottish Government has yet again failed to commit to paying the Scottish child payment in the next fiscal year as all other parties, civic society and the faith community have called for. Of course, the reason why it has not done that is that independence is on its mind and there is room for nothing else. Can the cabinet secretary explain why the Government insists on continually putting its constitutional obsession before the wellbeing of our young people?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I find it astonishing that a Tory MSP would come to the chamber to demand that the Scottish Government double the Scottish child payment this year—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Balfour, no shouting from a sedentary position.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

—in the very month that his Government is going to remove £20 a week—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Sorry, cabinet secretary, but could you resume your seat for a second? Mr Balfour, I do not want shouting across the chamber.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I think that I might have touched a raw nerve.

Every time a Tory MSP comes to the chamber and utters the words “child poverty”, I will remind them of what their Government is about to do this very month in cutting £20 a week from some of the most vulnerable families. They should get their own house in order before coming here and demanding that we do anything. It is an absolute disgrace and a total brass neck.

Commission on Violence Against Women

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on establishing a commission to prevent violence against women, in all its forms. (S6O-00114)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Violence against women and girls is one of the most devastating and fundamental violations of human rights and is totally unacceptable. Rather than establishing a commission to tackle it, we are committed to delivering against the equally safe strategy and continuing our collaborative work with a wide range of partners in the sector via the equally safe joint strategic board.

We have also tasked the independent working group on misogyny and criminal justice in Scotland with evaluating how the Scottish criminal justice system deals with misogyny, including by looking at whether there are gaps in the law.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Earlier in the year, when Scottish Liberal Democrats suggested the idea of a commission to prevent violence against women and girls, the Government agreed that it would be willing to explore the idea of such a commission with an open mind and that a commission might help bring all the strands of the work together.

Statistics that have been published this week show that, of 1,045 stalking charges reported to the Crown Office in 2021, at least 592 were identified as domestic abuse. I am dismayed to hear the cabinet secretary—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Would you get to the question, please, Mr Cole-Hamilton?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

—suggest that there will not be a commission. I ask her to explain to the chamber why the Government has decided not to embark on such a commission.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The member is aware of all the work that is happening in this area. In my first answer, I described the current work around the equally safe strategy. I have also described the work of the working group on misogyny and criminal justice, and a review of the law is going on in this area as well. The Minister for Community Safety has also been looking at what further areas of the law require reform. I do not think that anybody can really accuse the Government of not taking action across all those areas.

It is not that we have an objection in principle to a commission; we just think that this work is being taken forward already through those other platforms. I hope that the member will engage constructively in those discussions.

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask all members who seek to participate in portfolio questions—back benchers as well as front benchers—to ensure that their cards are in their consoles.

Also, if a member wishes to request to ask a supplementary question, they should either press their request-to-speak button, or indicate so in the chat function by entering R during the relevant question.

United Kingdom City of Culture 2025 (Borderlands)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what support it can offer the Borderlands region with its bid to be UK city of culture 2025. (S6O-00115)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I wish the Borderlands, the Tay cities region, and Stirling all the best in the longlisting stage of the UK city of culture competition.

My officials met the Borderlands bid team on 23 August to hear about the content of its bid and to discuss useful connections that Scottish Government officials could help to facilitate—for example, with VisitScotland—to allow it to be on the front foot if it was longlisted. I understand that its longlisted bid will be announced later this month.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank Jenny Gilruth for that answer, and I wish the other Scottish bids all the very best, too. We, in the Borderlands partnership, are very well placed to showcase what we have in the Borders. We can build on cross-border and cross-party collaboration and on the UK and Scottish Government growth deal. We need to highlight our intrinsic cultural, historical and societal links and to draw international attention to the region.

I would like to ask the cabinet secretary, in the spirit of learning lessons from the Paisley bid several years ago, what support and guidance the Scottish Government might be able to offer the exciting new Borderlands bid.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I recognise Rachael Hamilton’s constituency interest in the matter, and I note that she wrote—in July, I think—to the UK Government culture minister on it. It is a UK Government policy for which, she will note, there is an expert UK panel that will select six bids to receive support to develop a longer bid.

In July, I signed off the appointment of

Roberta Doyle to the expert panel as Scotland’s representative, and I know that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has stated that it hopes for a representative geographical spread in the shortlisting.

Scottish bids have been shortlisted previously, but no Scottish bid has yet been successful at procuring the title. Indeed, Rachael Hamilton will recall the amount of hard work that went into Paisley’s bid. My officials have been in contact with the bidding team from the Borders, and we will continue to have those conversations. I look forward to seeing the longlist at the end of this month, and I hope, of course, to see Scottish representation in the final list.

United Kingdom City of Culture 2025 (Tay Cities and Stirling)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support the bids from the Tay cities region and Stirling to be UK city of culture 2025. (S6O-00116)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

My officials have already met representatives of the Stirling bid and have sent a note of introduction to the Tay cities team, offering to meet. The Tay cities team has advised my officials that, if its bid is longlisted, it will be back in touch to arrange a further discussion. Scottish Government officials have liaised with the relevant United Kingdom Government team throughout the design and implementation process to ensure that Scottish interests are represented.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mid Scotland and Fife region has two bids to be the UK city of culture 2025. How will Scottish Government funding for cultural projects across the region assist in supporting those important bids?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As I previously stated, the UK city of culture programme is a UK Government sponsored competition. The Scottish Government’s approach to working with the Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport on the UK city of culture 2025 was signed off by the previous cabinet secretary in a letter to Oliver Dowden, the UK Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, agreeing that we would, of course, work with DCMS officials on design and implementation of the process that I spoke to in my response to Rachael Hamilton.

As I understand it, the Stirling bid is purely for Stirling itself, whereas the Tay cities bid takes in Angus, Dundee, North East Fife, and Perth and Kinross. I will not ask Mr Fraser to pick sides, given that I know that he represents both areas. I hope that he understands that I am keen, at this stage, to support both Scottish bids as they move forward. I wish the Stirling and Tay cities bids the best of luck.

On funding, if Mr Fraser has any influence, he might wish to raise with his Conservative colleagues at Westminster the expanding culture consequentials that are due to the Scottish Government—a sum total of £31 million, of which the culture sector in Scotland is, of course, in dire need.

Brexit (Impact on Imports)

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s ability to import essentials such as food and medicine. (S6O-00117)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Brexit has led to significant challenges, including labour and skills shortages, which could have an impact on supplies of food and other goods. It was an astonishing act of recklessness by the UK Government to press ahead with a hard Brexit in the middle of a pandemic, and it did so despite the Scottish Government’s having provided detailed evidence of the damage that it would cause. We are doing whatever we can to mitigate the harms that are being inflicted on Scottish businesses.

Since 1 January, the Scottish Government has, at official and ministerial levels, attended 29 European Union exit operations committee meetings to discuss the impact of Brexit with the UK Government.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I have been contacted by constituents who are extremely worried about the consequences of Brexit on recognition of UK prescriptions in the EU and on imports going through customs controls. Will the cabinet secretary urge the UK Government to rectify those problems?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Since 1 January 2021, UK-issued prescriptions are no longer valid in the European Union, except in Ireland and Spain, where separate arrangements apply. Prescription charges can be applied to UK citizens by pharmacists in both those countries. The Scottish Government continues to work closely with the UK Government regarding the impact of EU exit on import of medicines in the event of border disruption.

I stress to my friend Collette Stevenson that there is, of course, a solution to all this, which is that at the soonest practical point we should rejoin the European Union, so that we do not need to go through the continuing woes that Brexit is causing for our economy and for so many communities the length and breadth of this country.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4 has not been lodged.

Scottish Government Offices in Warsaw and Copenhagen

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government when it will establish the new overseas offices in Warsaw and Copenhagen, as set out in its agreement with the Scottish Green Party. (S6O-00119)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

As was announced in the programme for government, we will open a Scottish Government office in Copenhagen next year to increase Scotland’s economic and cultural visibility in the Nordic region. In this parliamentary session, we will also open an office in Warsaw, as part of our continued commitment to enhancing our external reach and voice.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the minister will be aware, 32 of the Scottish Government’s existing 38 international offices are located in British embassies and consulates. As she will also be aware, more than 60 per cent of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is only one investment trade office in that market. When will the Government take steps, such as opening trade offices, to support and increase Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Scotland’s international network has been supported by ministers from a range of political parties for a decade, so I hope that the issue will not become politicised in the future. In 1992, Scotland Europa was established in Brussels under a Conservative Administration, and offices in Boston and Beijing were opened under the Labour-Lib Dem coalition.

Scotland’s international presence is even more important now, in the wake of Brexit—which of course we did not vote for—and given the damage that it is causing to our economy, jobs and trade. Our network of international offices promotes Scotland’s enterprise internationally; indeed, in 2020, work to attract investment by our offices both at home and overseas helped to increase foreign direct investment in Scotland by 6 per cent.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The establishment of new overseas offices will play an important role in developing Scotland’s international relationships. Can the minister provide an update on what further action the Scottish Government is taking to strengthen Scotland’s international presence and voice?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Our international presence creates domestic opportunities, broadens our horizons, attracts investment and, ultimately, benefits the people of Scotland. Our policies and actions abroad will be consistent with our focus on fairness and inclusion at home. The programme for government emphasises our commitment to reviewing our approach to future policy and economic engagement, with a view to enhancing Scotland’s global reach and presence.

Scottish Independence (Monarch)

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its co-operation agreement with the Scottish Green Party, whether it will provide an update on its position on maintaining the monarch as the head of state in an independent Scotland. (S6O-00120)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I begin by commending Douglas Lumsden for his implied recognition that there will be an independence referendum. That is extremely welcome.

As the co-operation agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party parliamentary group makes clear, each party continues to have the right to set out its own vision for independence. The Scottish Government’s view remains clear: Scotland will remain a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen as head of state, just as she is in a great many other independent Commonwealth countries.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree with the First Minister’s adviser Mark Blyth that

“unwinding centuries of economic integration could prove devastating to businesses”

in the short, medium and long terms? Would he further agree with me that Scotland is best placed to succeed in the short, medium and long terms politically, economically and socially with the monarch as head of state, and with the union as the defender of Scotland’s interests?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The gentleman obviously needs to reread some history. Scotland was, of course, part of a treaty involving the Crowns for 100 years before the treaty of union saw the end of the Scottish Parliament.

As the First Minister set out, work on a detailed independence prospectus will now be taken forward, in line with the democratic mandate that has been secured for a referendum. For the record—if it needs any more stressing—the parties that were committed to a democratic choice in the recent Scottish Parliament elections won the election, while the parties that opposed a referendum lost. We will determine how the work towards that referendum will proceed, as we do for delivering our commitments across the whole range of our responsibilities, in the interests of the people of Scotland.

Afghan Refugees (Housing Assessment)

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

7.

To ask the Scottish Government what work it has done to assess how many Afghan refugees can be housed across all local authority areas. (S6O-00121)