Scottish Parliament, 4 November 2021

251 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place, and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

Glasgow Kelvin and Clyde Colleges

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will give an assurance that Glasgow Kelvin and Clyde colleges will not be taken over by the City of Glasgow College in connection with the review of tertiary education. (S6O-00327)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Scottish Government accepts the Scottish Funding Council’s review recommendation that Glasgow Colleges Regional Board and its three assigned colleges explore other organisational options.

There is no proposal for City of Glasgow College to take over the other two colleges, and we have no plans for such. I expect a recommendation from the SFC on the future of Glasgow Colleges Regional Board shortly.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the minister for that answer, which I find encouraging. Does he accept that the colleges in question have quite different roles? City of Glasgow College is at a different level and is aiming at a different clientele, whereas Glasgow Kelvin College and Glasgow Clyde College are very much community based and involved in helping people who, in terms of their background, are far away from education.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I say to Mr Mason that I like the activity that each college does. Each college makes a distinct contribution, but they are all engaged with their communities. All three colleges are doing well as regards the proportion of higher education entrants from the 20 per cent quartile of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation areas that we are seeking to target. All of them are ahead in that regard, especially Glasgow Kelvin and Clyde colleges.

Whatever recommendation the SFC makes, I do not want the distinct contribution of the colleges to be lost, or there to be a loss of community engagement, and that is the manner in which I will approach the matter.

Lochs and Rivers (Ecological Status)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the ecological status of Scotland’s lochs and rivers. (S6O-00328)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Scotland’s river basin management plans set out the Scottish Government’s continued commitment to a wide range of measures that are protecting and improving the ecological status of our rivers and lochs. Actions that are already under way include ensuring that good agricultural practice is adopted and providing investment in public waste water infrastructure to improve water quality.

Achievement of the objectives that are set out in the plans is a responsibility that is shared between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, local authorities, and other public bodies and regulated businesses, such as Scottish Water and agriculture, fish farm, distillery and hydro power businesses.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the minister agree that SEPA’s recent assessment found that Scottish rivers, lochs, canals and burns are in the worst state on record? Does she intend to bring forward urgent plans to address that dreadful situation?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

It is not correct to say, as was reported on 22 October, that Scotland’s rivers and lochs are in the worst state on record. The number of water bodies that were awarded “bad” overall ecological status by SEPA fell from 126 in 2018 to only 64 in 2019. SEPA’s monitoring and assessment of the water environment shows that the number of rivers and lochs that have been rated as “bad” or “poor” due to pollution is at its lowest ever level—just 1 per cent were classified in that way in 2019.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The United Kingdom Government made a partial U-turn on allowing raw sewage to be dumped into rivers and coastal waters only after its members of Parliament came under extreme criticism. Scotland undertakes around 80 per cent of the UK’s tree planting and was one of the first nations in the world to declare a climate emergency.

Does the minister therefore share my view that the Scottish National Party Government needs no instruction from the Tories on how to conduct itself when it comes to the environment?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Eighty-seven per cent of our water environment is now at the “good” quality level, which is hard evidence that this Government has taken its environmental responsibilities seriously for many years.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

There have been several instances of pollution of the river Eden in my constituency over recent years, with the death of many fish and an impact on other wildlife. Does SEPA have sufficient resources and authority to enforce environmental law? Has the minister considered whether wildlife crime officers could have an additional role?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am happy to meet Willie Rennie to look into that matter further.

Climate Technology Industry (Support)

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports the climate tech industry. (S6O-00329)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

A vibrant tech sector is critical to our economic recovery and net zero ambitions. Through the implementation of the Scottish technology ecosystem review, the Scottish Government is committed to creating a world-class technology ecosystem, enabling a pipeline of profitable, scalable tech businesses, including climate tech businesses. This year, we have allocated £7 million to support the first-year implementation of the review, which includes establishing a national network of tech scalers that will support 300 to 500 tech companies through the tech scalers programme.

Other policy interventions include our recent artificial intelligence strategy. The strategy sets out actions to build on the success of our AI climate emergency challenge, which saw six companies develop concepts to use AI to address the climate emergency. The Scottish Government is also supporting challenges in CivTech 6—the sixth CivTech programme—which explores the roles that tech can play in carbon sequestration, an important tool in getting to net zero.

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

The “Innovation Critical” report by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, BT, ScotlandIS and the Royal Society of Edinburgh tells us that

“Up to 75% of the emissions reductions we need to achieve net zero are dependent on technologies which are immature, have not been deployed at scale or have not even been invented yet.”

Will the minister assure me that Scotland’s tech industries, which have major strengths in climate tech, are getting the support that they need to develop solutions, not just for Scotland but for our contribution to global efforts to get to net zero?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Willie Coffey for his question and his consistent interest in this issue. I agree that there is huge potential in this area.

I have two points to make. One is about supporting the tech industry itself, which I referred to in my first answer on the tech scalers programme. The other is about supporting the industries that will use technological interventions. We have committed more than £2 billion in capital investment over the course of this parliamentary session to deliver low-carbon and natural infrastructure.

Climate tech cuts across a range of businesses, so this is about support for businesses themselves and for the wider mission of a just transition to net zero, which will drive the economy for tech start-ups.

Marine Environment (Protection)

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

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the measures it has been taking to protect and enhance the marine environment through no-take zones and marine protected areas. (S6O-00330)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Following recent designations, including the Red Rocks and Longay urgent MPA for the critically endangered flapper skate, the marine protected area network now covers 37 per cent of our seas. Most sites already have the required protective measures in place, and we have committed to putting in place further fisheries management measures on MPAs, where required, by March 2024.

We have also committed to designating, by 2026, 10 per cent of our waters as highly protected marine areas, which will provide a higher level of protection, providing for additional recovery and enhancement of the marine environment.

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

The current Scottish National Party Government established its first no-take zones in the Clyde. I understand that marine interest groups in Ayrshire propose to undertake a scoping exercise regarding a 30 per cent no-take zone along the eastern coastline of the Clyde, which includes the coast of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. I would be grateful for advice from the minister on what support the project could expect to receive from the Scottish Government in line with the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—endorsing Scotland’s lead in addressing climate change and biodiversity loss through marine protected areas.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The development of highly protected marine areas goes beyond no-take zones by providing for the strict control or exclusion of all human activities, not just fishing. The Scottish Government will develop a policy framework for HPMAs in the coming months and will ensure that the wide-ranging perspectives of all marine stakeholders are taken into account throughout the selection and designation process. We would encourage all stakeholder interests with proposals to manage inshore fisheries to develop those measures within the relevant regional inshore fisheries group.

I would be very happy to meet Ms Whitham to discuss activity on the Ayrshire coast further.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The only no-take zone in Scotland is in Lamlash bay, in my constituency. What is the difference between a no-take zone and a highly protected marine area?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The proposals for developing the details around highly protected marine areas are still under development. We will be working on a policy framework for HPMAs in the coming months, and we absolutely need to make sure that a wide range of perspectives from all marine stakeholders are taken into account. I look forward to presenting that information to Parliament, or to it being presented by one of my colleagues, in the months ahead.

Barr Environmental

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Barr Environmental has received a £99 million fine for having not paid tax on disposed waste. (S6O-00331)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

It

would not be appropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on any individual tax dispute. The collection and management of the fully devolved taxes are matters for Revenue Scotland in its role as Scotland’s independent tax authority.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer. As he may know, Barr provides waste management services to both East Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council. Due to the findings of the tribunal, the councils may have to provide more funding to Barr for it to provide waste services, as the company cannot operate under the terms of its previous contracts. What discussions will the Scottish Government have with both councils regarding the future of the company and waste management services in the area in order to ensure that the councils receive any extra funding that they require so that there is no impact on local services?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I stress to the member again that it would not be appropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on the matter. However, I stress that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency works to ensure the safe management of all licensed landfill sites in order to protect the environment and communities.

COP26 (Innovation and Economic Activity)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what role Scotland is playing during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in relation to innovation and economic activity. (S6O-00332)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Achieving

global climate change targets requires new ways of thinking about economic policy, finance and investment, as well as new instruments and interventions to make the change. We are working with partners and businesses from Scotland and around the world to deliver a COP26 programme that will accelerate change across those areas.

Through our programme of events and ministerial and business engagements, we will showcase our strengths in innovation, trade and investment to a global audience. For example, Scotland’s climate ambition zone is hosting a programme of events during the COP26 fortnight that is putting the spotlight on Scotland as a world leader in sectors such as decarbonising heat, the circular economy, hydrogen and green skills. Furthermore, in association with partners such as the Michelin Scotland Innovation Parc, in Dundee, we are highlighting innovations in the area of low-carbon transport, which is a key enabler for a net zero economy.

We will use COP26 as a platform to showcase and attract investment into Scotland’s green investment portfolio, which will bring together market-ready projects worth £3 billion by 2022. We are participating in events covering natural capital, green ethical finance and finance for nature, providing a platform to address the crucial issues of financing a fair and just transition to net zero. By sharing our experiences across those sectors, we intend to galvanise action in the business community and help others on their journey to net zero.

COP26 is not an end in itself, however—

The Presiding Officer

Minister, I ask you to draw your remarks to a close. Thank you.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I certainly will, Presiding Officer.

We will build on the opportunity through delivering our national strategy for economic transformation.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I thank the minister for that extensive answer to what was a very open question. What is the Scottish Government doing to promote green hydrogen innovation, specifically at COP26? What action is being taken to advance the pace, the scale and the role of green hydrogen in our energy mix in the drive to cut carbon emissions?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am grateful to Fiona Hyslop for that supplementary question. I will try to answer it succinctly but comprehensively.

The Scottish Government will shortly publish its five-year hydrogen action plan, which will set out the actions that it will take to support Scottish supply chain activity and drive the development of low-cost hydrogen capability to meet the 5 gigawatt ambition by 2030.

The Scottish Government’s upcoming hydrogen action plan will be supported by a five-year £100 million programme of investment to help accelerate the development of the hydrogen economy in Scotland. The Scottish Government, in collaboration with Scottish Enterprise, has developed a series of hydrogen events during COP26 to showcase Scotland’s expertise and innovation in hydrogen technology. We will be seeking opportunities during COP26 to strengthen our existing international partnerships and seek new collaborations to accelerate the growth of our shared hydrogen economy.

Active Ventilation in Classrooms

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for active ventilation in classrooms now that its inspection programme has been completed. (S6O-00333)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Guidance on reducing risks in schools makes clear the on-going approach to ventilation that local authorities and schools should adopt. The guidance includes advice on identifying and implementing local approaches that balance the need for fresh air in key parts of the school estate with the maintenance of adequate temperatures.

Following completion of local authorities’ initial CO2

monitoring activities, it is expected that CO2

monitoring will continue to play a role in supporting implementation of the approaches set out in the guidance. We are working with stakeholders, including the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the Scottish heads of property services, to ensure that suitable longer-term strategies are in place across all local authorities.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer and I note the statistics that she set out to the education committee. The Scottish Government has taken more than a year and spent £10 million of taxpayers’ money on alarms to let teachers know when to open the window, with no real regard for the sustainable active ventilation systems that we need. Real action would make schools safer environments by reducing Covid transmission rates and would also reduce education disruption. Can the minister tell us how many classrooms failed inspections and what remedial actions she would expect now to be taken?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I point Mr Marra to the fact that, although the Scottish Government gave £10 million to local authorities recently, that is, of course, in addition to the £90 million that was given previously in the year for such remedial actions, including dealing with

CO2

monitoring exercises.

The assessment outcomes, which have come from the local authorities themselves, have reported that the remedial actions have in the main been very small. They have required looking at, for example, changes to repairing windows or removing obstructions to ensure maximum opening. There have been very limited requirements for any further improvements than those, but where they have been required to be undertaken, they will be undertaken by local authorities. Of course, the Scottish Government continues to be in close contact with local authorities to ensure that that monitoring is on-going and that remedial action is undertaken.

Export Statistics 2019

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the 2019 Scottish export statistics. (S6O-00334)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Through our export growth plan “A Trading Nation”, the Scottish Government is focused on supporting the growth of exports from 20 to 25 per cent of gross domestic product by 2029. The 2019 Scottish export statistics show strong growth in Scotland’s exports before the economic shock of the global pandemic and the damage caused by the United Kingdom Government’s reckless approach to European Union exit.

In 2019, Scotland’s total exports of goods and services increased by 4.3 per cent to £87.1 billion, including increases in the international exports of goods and services by 3.4 per cent to £35.1 billion, and exports to the rest of the UK by 5 per cent to £52 billion. The growth in exports to the rest of the UK was driven by an increase in electricity exports, helping to keep the lights on in England and Wales. More recent HM Revenue and Customs statistics only underline the negative impact of EU exit, as Scottish goods exports fell by 24 per cent in the latest year to June 2021, compared with the equivalent period in 2019.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that extensive response. We welcome the statistics, which show a 3.4 per cent increase in Scottish exports. However, they also show an increase in the proportion of goods exported to the rest of the UK, with the figure increasing by 5 per cent to £53 billion, which is 60 per cent of exports from Scotland.

Given the increasing importance of the UK market, does the minister agree that any potential trade barriers between Scotland and the rest of the UK would risk significant economic damage?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I do not know whether international trade is the strongest suit for the Conservatives to lead on, but—[

Interruption

.] On a note of consensus, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are important trade partners for Scotland, and I assure the member that they will remain so once we have achieved independence.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. That concludes general question time.

First Minister’s Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is First Minister’s question time. I intend to take constituency and general supplementary questions after question 2. Members who wish to ask such questions should press their request-to-speak buttons during question 2. On questions 3 to 7, members who wish to ask a supplementary should press during the specific question.

Drug Deaths (Prisons)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. I start by wishing everyone across Scotland a very happy Diwali.

Scotland has the highest drug death rate in Europe. Every solution should be considered in order to tackle that crisis, and should be considered urgently. Why did it take 10 overdoses this weekend in a single prison for the Government to accept Scottish Conservative proposals to cut down on the supply of drugs in our prisons?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I, too, wish those who are celebrating across the country a very happy and peaceful Diwali.

I have been very open about this. We have a significant challenge when it comes to drugs deaths, and we are determined to make sure that we are open to ideas and suggestions and that we are genuinely doing everything reasonable that we can to turn that around.

Within that overall challenge, there is a particular challenge in our prisons. I think that we all understand the different factors that are at play. I would hope that members from across the chamber could come together to welcome the ways in which we are seeking to change past practice and to recognise where perhaps we should have done things differently in the past and should do them differently in the future. I hope that there is an appetite to build consensus on that.

To that end, as I have said to the leader of the Conservative party before, I am open to suggestions. That, of course, includes, as I have said many times in the chamber, consideration of the Conservatives’ wider proposals in their proposal for draft legislation.

I continue to be open minded, and we will continue to seek to do the right things, backed by investment, to turn the situation around.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister has said that she has been “very open” about the issue—and she has. She has accepted that she took her eye off the ball with Scotland’s drug deaths. However, the eye is still off the ball.

For months, we have highlighted the issue of drugs reaching prisoners through mail, and we offered a solution. Russell Findlay raised the issue with the Government five times over two months. When he raised it in the chamber with the Minister for Drugs Policy, Angela Constance—this is a direct quote, and I am reminded that the First Minister has just said that we need to work together and be consensual—the First Minister’s own drugs minister said:

“Mr Findlay is a big boy now, and does not need his mammy to hold his hand; I am sure that he will be able to address any outstanding matters that he has with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans.”—[

Official Report

, 29 September 2021; c 76.]

This issue is about drug overdoses and people dying. Was that response worthy of a Government minister?

The First Minister

On such a serious issue, although I am absolutely sure that members of parties across the chamber will not agree with everything that Angela Constance or I say on the issue, I hope that they would agree that Angela Constance in particular has not just been open to different approaches but has already in her tenure as drugs minister taken forward many different approaches to tackling this challenge.

On the specific point about the situation in prisons and, in particular, the issue of the photocopying of prisoner mail, the Scottish Prison Service has, rightly, taken time to consider the range of very serious operational and legal considerations. That includes taking into account prisoners’ rights, which are often determined through court judgments, on the handling of their correspondence. That is a fundamental consideration. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans outlined to the Parliament on Tuesday, the Prison Service will, after detailed operational consideration, be implementing that change.

I recognise that, particularly on such important issues, everybody wants the Government to operate and move with speed, and I share that view. However, when we are dealing with such serious issues, it is important that we take the time to consider all the implications, particularly when those implications involve legal considerations. That is what has happened, and I hope that members from across the chamber, who have been calling for the measure, will welcome the progress that we are able to make.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is not just Angela Constance. Another Government minister, Lorna Slater, recently said that drugs are “not inherently dangerous”, and, this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown, dismissed another serious concern that we raised.

I have here the standard operating procedure to which prison officers have to work. It says that prisoners have the option to have items that are contaminated with drugs safely stored and returned to them on their release. Prison officers are telling us that they are having to hand drugs back to prisoners as they leave. The First Minister’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans refused to give a serious response to that issue. Will she commit to ending the practice immediately?

The First Minister

In the spirit of openness, I will certainly look at that. Prisoners have rights, which are often upheld in courts of law, and we have to consider the issues carefully in ensuring that we address them properly.

There is a deeper issue that, in the spirit of openness and sincerity about trying to find the solutions to the matter, I ask Douglas Ross to consider. I accept his sincerity on the issue without doubt or equivocation, but it is too easy for all of us in the Parliament to oversimplify some of the issues in quoting ministers and to forget to understand the nuances of the matter.

The factors behind the drugs crisis are complex. We all understand that, so let us not oversimplify or take quotes out of context. Let us focus on the substance of solutions, as Douglas Ross has been doing, and try to find maximum consensus.

I will go away and look in detail at the particular issue that he raised. If we consider that a change is necessary, appropriate and possible to make, I undertake that we will give it due and serious consideration.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am not taking quotes out of context. I have reminded the First Minister of the response that we have had from three members of her Government.

The Government must finally start treating the crisis with the urgency that it deserves. The Prison Officers Association Scotland has told us that it has been overwhelmed with unprecedented levels of drug abuse in our prisons. Her Government is making it harder for them to do their job. It gave prisoners £2.7 million-worth of unhackable phones that were then hacked and used to deal drugs. Scottish Prison Service documents show that there have been more than 2,200 incidents of prisoners misusing those devices. Given the obvious abuse of those phones for criminal activity, will she now commit to removing the phones that have been hacked from Scotland’s prisons?

The First Minister

We are treating the issue seriously and with urgency. Sometimes, there are complex situations and issues that have to be properly considered and thought through. That is what we will do, because—to be frank—we do not progress anything if we fail to do that.

On the issue of mobile phones, it is important to remember the context. In the absence of in-person contact with loved ones over a sustained period during, in particular, the early stages of the pandemic, the provision of mobile phones has been vital in addressing the negative impact of Covid in our prisons not only for prisoners but for staff and families—in particular, children who are impacted by the imprisonment of parents.

The vast majority of the more than 10,000 phones that were issued were used entirely as intended. The breaches of the rules are taken very seriously by the Prison Service. Robust monitoring, which detected where there were breaches, detected that a small minority of handsets—around 7 per cent—had been tampered with. That is not acceptable, but the robust monitoring detected it and allowed steps to be taken to prevent it in the future.

The issues are serious, and they are often complex. I hope that all of us will treat them in that way as we face up to and address drugs deaths in society generally and in our prisons, in particular.

National Health Service (Staffing)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2.

I join other members in wishing a happy Diwali to everyone who is celebrating it. In coming through these dark times, it is poignant that families will be celebrating the festival of light.

This week, emergency doctors have told us that there have been 231 excess deaths due to delays at accident and emergency departments. Those are 231 people who could have survived if our hospitals were properly resourced.

The Royal College of Nursing tells us that its members are overworked. We have even heard stories of nurses going home crying, and many are leaving the profession early. That is because our NHS is 3,500 nurses short.

On top of that, our A and E waiting times are the worst they have ever been. The First Minister’s response is not to fix the problem, but to tell people that they are the problem and that they should not go to A and E. The Scottish Government has been warned repeatedly; it is in denial and lives are being lost. When will the First Minister take personal responsibility and act?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I take personal responsibility for everything that the Government is responsible for, every single day.

Anas Sarwar’s question raised three related issues; I will address them in turn. First, our NHS is working under extreme pressure right now. I recognise that. I pay tribute and express my gratitude to everyone who works in our national health service.

Nursing and midwifery staffing in Scotland is currently at a record high. Since the SNP Government has been in office there has been an 11.7 per cent increase in qualified nurses and midwives. The number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff working in our NHS has increased for nine consecutive years. We have a higher per head staffing ratio than other parts of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, we have 8.4 qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 of the population, compared with just 5.9 per 1,000 in England.

That is the SNP Government’s record—but, of course, we need to do more because of the current pressure. That is why we are investing in greater recruitment and supporting health boards across the country to recruit more nurses and other professionals into our national health service.

On what the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has said, it published research this week, on which we will engage with the college in order to better understand it. The analysis appears to use research findings from England from four years ago to make extrapolations from Scotland-only data now. We want to understand that in more detail.

However, that said, everyone recognises the relationship between long waits in A and E that are not clinically justified and increased risk of harm to patients. Nobody can or should deny that, which is why we are investing to try to cut A and E waiting times and to improve flow through our hospitals.

That brings me to the new guidance that has been issued for A and E. This is where Anas Sarwar cannot quote the Royal College of Emergency Medicine when it suits him and ignore its views when they do not suit him. We are not turning anyone away from accident and emergency departments—it is about ensuring that people get the right care in the right place. The vice-president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has said that the RCEM supports the guidance and that, in order to ensure that all patients receive

“the right care, at the right time, in the right place, it will on occasion be appropriate to signpost ... some people who have presented to an emergency department—but do not require after an”

appropriate

“assessment to be seen there—to another part of the healthcare system.”

That is appropriate and is a change in guidance that was, I think, made in England some time ago. It is about ensuring that patients get the best care in the right place, which is something that everyone should support.

The Presiding Officer

I would be grateful for succinct questions and responses. I appreciate that we are discussing complex issues.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I will come back to the quotations in a moment. We have heard the same excuses week after week. The situation across our NHS is getting worse. Why does Nicola Sturgeon think that she knows better than the professionals on the front line?

We have heard the quote from the First Minister, now let me quote Colin Poolman from the Royal College of Nursing. He has said that

“Despite the Scottish Government’s talk about record levels of staffing, these figures show that the shortfall in registered nurses needed to run NHS services has never been higher.”

The Royal College of Nursing says that there is a shortfall of almost 3,500 nurses.

The First Minister talked about selective quoting of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. I will quote the words of Dr John Thomson directly. He said:

“What we are seeing: ambulance handover delays; dangerous crowding; long stays ... put patient safety at risk and can lead to harm or avoidable deaths.”

Nicola Sturgeon wants to pretend that it is a recent problem, but it is a crisis that has been years in the making. Why does she think that she is right, but that the professionals on the front line, who are delivering our high-quality healthcare and are the people whom we applaud as our heroes, are wrong?

The First Minister

I do not think that. If Anas Sarwar had listened to what I said, he would have heard me say that we are listening to the front-line professionals. The nurse numbers that I cited are facts: there has been an 11 per cent increase in nurses and midwives since we took office. I went on to say that that is not enough, because the pressure on our health service has increased. We are listening to the people on the front line and we are supporting health boards with additional investment to recruit more staff into the health service in order to deal with the pressure.

Anas Sarwar said that we are somehow not listening to the people on the front line by—in his words—turning people away from accident and emergency services. That is not the case. We recognise the pressure on accident and emergency services and we recognise the need to ensure that people get the right care in the right place, and we are trying to find the solutions.

The part of the solution that is encapsulated in the new guidance is supported by the people on the front line. It is supported by the very person whom Anas Sarwar quoted—the vice-president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, John Thomson. He said that the approach is the right thing to do to ensure that patients get

“the right care, at the right time, in the right place”.

We absolutely recognise the challenge, but we are listening to those on the front line in coming up with the best and the right solutions.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Nicola Sturgeon’s rhetoric cannot hide the reality. The Scottish National Party has been in government for 14 years. She was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for four years, and she has been the First Minister for seven years. There must come a point when it cannot be somebody else’s fault.

Let us look at Nicola Sturgeon’s record. Nicola Sturgeon cut nurse training places, as health secretary. We now have a shortage of 3,500 nurses in our NHS. Nicola Sturgeon has cut hospital beds by almost 1,500 in the past decade, and we are now chronically short of NHS beds. Nicola Sturgeon has been warned for months about the challenges that A and E services face, and people are now dying because of record A and E waiting times.

Earlier this week, the First Minister described Scotland as a “nation in waiting”. She is right: it is waiting on record long NHS treatment lists, waiting for an ambulance, waiting at A and E, and waiting for her to take responsibility. When will Nicola Sturgeon get a grip of the NHS crisis?

The First Minister

I take responsibility every day. With respect to Anas Sarwar, I note that I have held the positions that I have held for as long as I have only because, on several occasions, I have put before the people of Scotland my record in the ministerial posts that I have held, and the record of the Government, and have been re-elected with the trust of the people of Scotland to face up to these challenges.

In the years that we have spent in government, there has been an 11 per cent increase in the number of nurses and midwives working in our national health service. We have increased training of nurses; the overall intake for pre-registration nursing and midwifery increased by 5.8 per cent this year.

That is what we are doing. We recognise the acute challenges in our national health service. Those challenges are shared by health services across the world, largely because of the Covid pandemic. We are bringing forward solutions to support the people who work on the front line and patients throughout the country. That is what the people of Scotland have entrusted us to continue to do.

The Presiding Officer

We will move on to supplementary questions.

Guardian (Job Losses)

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

I am sure that the First Minister shares my disappointment and deep concern at the announcement by

Rocialle Healthcare Ltd that its Guardian surgical textiles facility in Girvan, which is in my constituency, will close in 2022, with the loss of 75 jobs over the next four months. That is a long-established business and employer that provides the national health service with surgical drapes, gowns and tray wraps, as well as having provided personal protective equipment during the pandemic. I would be grateful for the First Minister’s advice on what the Scottish Government can do to support that very skilled workforce and our very fragile rural economy, which will be hugely impacted by the closure decision.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Elena Whitham for raising what is, I know, a very important constituency issue for her. I was certainly concerned to learn that Guardian had announced the closure of its factory in Girvan and its warehouse in Ayr, and I know that this will be a difficult time for the company’s staff, their families and the local areas that are affected, especially at this time of uncertainty caused by the pandemic.

I can advise Parliament that the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise has spoken with the company to explore available options for the sites and its workers. Scottish Enterprise will continue to engage with the company to discuss alternatives to closure. Obviously, the individuals who will be affected are our immediate priority. We have already provided information on the support that is available for affected employees through the partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—initiative. I will ask the business minister to keep

Elena Whitham, and members more widely, updated on the matter.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Delays)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Earlier this week, I was contacted by a constituent whose adopted daughter was referred to child and adolescent mental health services in early 2017. Since then, she has been passed from case worker to case worker, and each time her parents have felt that they were starting from scratch.

After five years of that, without receiving a confirmed diagnosis, they were told that their daughter would likely require medical intervention and so must be seen by a child psychologist. The waiting time for that is, apparently, at least three years. By that time, that young girl will have spent almost eight years in the CAMHS system without a proper diagnosis or access to appropriate treatment.

Does the First Minister believe that it is acceptable for any child to be referred to CAMHS in primary 1 and potentially not to receive treatment until they are in secondary 2? What can she do to assist that family and any others who have been forced to wait for such an obscenely long time for help?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

No, I do not think that that is remotely acceptable. I am not able to comment on the individual case, although if Brian Whittle wants to write to me or to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, we will look into it and liaise with the health board. I absolutely understand the distress and added anxiety that will have been caused by waiting that length of time for appropriate intervention.

More generally, we are investing heavily in CAMHS and we are redesigning how mental health support is provided to children and adolescents. We are investing more in early intervention and support—for example, counsellors in schools and the wellbeing service that is being rolled out—in order to ensure that young people get help earlier and that specialist services are there for those who need them most. That is a significant priority area, so that we can get to a position in which every young person who needs the support of mental health services gets the right support timeously. I would be happy to look into the individual case in question.

Nursing (Vacancies)

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

In response to Anas Sarwar’s question, the First Minister engaged on the Royal College of Nursing report that was published today, which shows that, this year, we have seen the highest ever shortfall in nursing, with more than 3,400 nursing vacancies.

With vague promises of only 1,000 health and care workers in the national health service, the winter plan scarcely begins to address the challenge. Nurses say that the shortfalls add to the significant pressure on them, which is why they are currently considering industrial action. When will the First Minister engage with the RCN’s demands to pay our nurses fairly, and when will she tell her cabinet secretary to fix his inadequate recovery plan?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Government engages with the RCN and other unions and professional bodies regularly; the health secretary is telling me that he met with the RCN as part of a staff-side engagement just yesterday, so that engagement is on-going.

I absolutely recognise the significant pressures that nurses and others in our health service are working under. There are significant recruitment challenges across not just our national health service and social care but our whole economy, exacerbated by other developments around Brexit. We are focused on supporting health boards to recruit more people—not only nurses, but other professionals—into our health service, and we will continue to engage with unions and others as we do so.

Bird Flu (Angus)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware of the outbreak of bird flu in Angus and the cull of a flock of birds that is taking place as we speak. Can she provide an update on that issue and let us know what guidance is being issued to local communities?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is an important issue, and I know that it will be causing concern. A small premises near Arbroath has tested positive for avian influenza. Public health advice remains that the risk to human health is very low, and food standards bodies advise that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk for consumers and does not affect the consumption of poultry products, including eggs.

In order to limit any further spread of disease among birds, appropriate restrictions have been imposed on the affected premises, and public health staff are liaising with others such as Health Protection Scotland to ensure that the correct protocols are followed. There were some surviving birds on the premises, and those were euthanised on welfare grounds, with on-going support being provided to the owner.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands will be happy to engage with any member who wishes to have further information on the steps that are being taken.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jackie Dunbar.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is working to ensure that, during COP26, it provides a platform for unheard voices, including citizens, young people and those from the global south.

The First Minister

The Scottish Government has been working—

The Presiding Officer

S

orry, First Minister—I will just interrupt there. I think that there has been a misunderstanding; I am taking supplementary questions at the moment, Ms Dunbar, but we will reach your question in due course.

I call Jamie Greene.

Vaccinations (Booster Programme)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I have been contacted this week by many worried constituents. One is Ron Cooper from Ardrossan, who works in a care home. He had his second Covid vaccine in March, but he has been waiting for more than a month for his booster due to problems both online and with the telephone system. Another is an 89-year-old lady, who should be on the home-bound booster vaccination list but has been struggling to get an appointment. We believe that there may be hundreds of similar people in North Ayrshire who are in the same boat. Many of those people are elderly or vulnerable, and they are concerned—rightly, I think—as they look ahead to winter while awaiting those much-needed jabs.

In the light of those examples, what reassurance can the First Minister offer the wider public that this year’s winter flu and Covid booster programme has been adequately planned and is being executed successfully?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Those are important issues. Any member who hears reports about people in their constituencies or regions finding it difficult to access either the Covid booster jag or the flu vaccination should raise those with the health secretary so that they can be looked into.

Both vaccination programmes, which are being delivered on an integrated basis, are generally going extremely well. More than 850,000 people aged over 12 have received a third dose or a booster vaccination. Last week, more than 500,000 combined flu and Covid doses were delivered. We are ahead of some other parts of the United Kingdom on delivering that.

The programme is going extremely well overall, thanks to the dedication of those working on it across the country. As I have said before, there will be instances of individuals experiencing difficulty and it is important that those are raised so that they can be addressed as quickly as possible.

Fireworks (Public Advice)

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

3. To ask the First Minister what public advice the Scottish Government has issued regarding the discharge of fireworks, given that new regulations came into force on 30 June 2021. (S6F-00411)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We have taken several steps to highlight the nuisances and risks associated with fireworks and the new limitations on when they can be used. Outwith organised displays, fireworks can be used only between 6 pm and midnight on bonfire night itself and between 6 pm and 11 pm on most other nights of the year. We have funded three targeted publicity campaigns as well as promoting key messages on social media. We have also funded extra engagement with retailers by trading standards officers.

Others are also playing an important role. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Police Scotland, community safety partnerships and charities—from Crimestoppers to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—are putting huge effort into advisory activity to minimise distress and harm to people and animals across Scotland.

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

I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare and as the owner of Mr Smokey, a rescue cat.

The regulations limiting the sale and discharge of fireworks are much welcomed by animal welfare organisations and by pet owners—particularly those who are less experienced, having become an owner during Covid. The increasing use of fireworks previously made it impossible to keep animals safe, even indoors.

Fireworks also affect livestock. All animals have more acute senses than we do, and fireworks cause them suffering, stress and anxiety. Too many farm animals come to harm or even die, so the regulations are also welcomed by the farming community.

Will the First Minister explain how the impact of the regulations will be monitored and what the maximum penalties are for breaching them?

The First Minister

I agree with Christine Grahame about the well-known harm caused to animals and livestock by the misuse of fireworks. It is a serious issue.

Misuse of fireworks also causes harm, distress and anxiety to humans in communities across the country. In recent years, parts of my own constituency have been affected by that and I have seen the distress caused. I hope that the changes will help to alleviate the situation.

We are working with trading standards officers to assess the impact of the restrictions and will engage with Police Scotland and other partners in monitoring their impact. We will also take input from animal welfare organisations such as the SSPCA and the British Veterinary Association, which played a constructive role as members of the firework review group.

The penalties for breaching the new regulations include imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000. Other offences with higher penalties may also be relevant to cases of serious misuse.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Every year, in the run-up to bonfire night, the fire brigade responds to hundreds of calls about the uncontrolled bonfires and misuse of fireworks that terrorise communities at this time of year. We thank the Fire and Rescue Service for protecting our communities.

As part of my casework in Glasgow, I have been sent videos of fireworks being launched horizontally down streets, causing damage to property and even trapping residents in their homes until either the police arrive or those who are responsible move on. I whole-heartedly welcome the new regulations and the work that the minister, Ash Regan, has done on the issue. If we see the same patterns in our communities this year, with residents being terrorised by the misuse of fireworks, how tough is the First Minister prepared to be to protect our communities from that misuse?

The First Minister

I have developed, largely because of experience in my own constituency, a bit of a zero-tolerance attitude to fireworks over the years. I have seen instances, like those that Pauline McNeill outlined, in the Pollokshields area of my constituency. I have worked on a local basis with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the police and others to try to alleviate some of that impact. I think that the new restrictions that are in place will make a difference. If they do not make a sufficient difference, we will be willing to look at going further and being tougher.

I say this simply as a statement of fact, but there is a devolved/reserved split of responsibilities that means that the Scottish Government cannot necessarily go as far as we might like to go. There has been liaison and I know that my constituency MP colleague, Alison Thewliss, raised the issue in the House of Commons to try to get more collaboration between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments in tackling it. We will be willing to look at the issue if this year’s changes do not have the desired impact.

Obviously, people want to enjoy bonfire night, which is tomorrow, but I say to people across the country to do that responsibly and to remember the impact that the misuse of fireworks can have. At best, the impact is inconvenience, anxiety and distress; at worst, it can be serious injury and even death. Therefore, it is absolutely paramount that everyone acts responsibly.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

A few weeks ago, there was a tragic explosion in my constituency in Kincaidston in Ayr, and a family of four remain in hospital. Within days of the explosion, some members of the public let off fireworks, which caused the community a lot of fear and concern. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with Police Scotland in relation to enforcing the new firework regulations?

The First Minister

As I outlined, the Scottish Government had extensive engagement and consultation with the police and other partners and stakeholders over a long period of time in coming to the new, tighter restrictions that are now in place. We will continue that engagement in terms of the enforcement and assessment of the restrictions.

I appreciate the local issue that has been raised. I think that any of us who saw the pictures on social media that evening of the explosion in Siobhian Brown’s constituency understand the shock and that therefore there will be particular sensitivity in the area around fireworks this bonfire night. I will ask the relevant minister to engage with the police locally and nationally, and with Siobhian Brown as well.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jackie Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the First Minister what immediate steps the Scottish Government is taking to address the reported continuing inequalities in cancer—

The Presiding Officer

I am sorry Ms Baillie, but I am still taking supplementary questions at the moment. We will get to you in due course.

We move on to question 4, from Stephen Kerr.

Carbon Emissions (2045 Net Zero Target)

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister whether Scotland is on track to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2045. (S6F-00402)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I think that we are, but I do not think that it will be easy and I do not think that we can take success for granted. We will have to work hard to achieve it. The scale of the challenge to bridge the global emissions gap is immense. In Scotland right now, we are over halfway to net zero and we have decarbonised faster than any G20 country, but we have much more to do. Through our updated climate change plan and associated commitments, we have set out a comprehensive credible package of policies for reducing emissions over the next decade, putting us on track—I believe—for a just transition to net zero by 2045. Our priority is obviously to deliver on those policies.

Of course, the recent United Kingdom Government decision not to support the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster does not make that easier and is a serious mistake. I am therefore today writing to the Prime Minister calling on him to reverse that decision and accelerate the Scottish cluster to full track 1 status without delay.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The First Minister’s climate change strategy stated that local authorities are on the front line of Scotland’s response to the climate emergency, but an extensive piece of published research by my own office reveals that the Scottish Government—

[Laughter

.]

The Presiding Officer

Do continue, Mr Kerr.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Some members may laugh at this research, but I think that they should take it seriously. Research by my office reveals that the Scottish Government has given little or no support to councils in preparing their plans, has agreed no targets and has not even bothered to read them. Why, then, does the First Minister have any confidence that local authority plans will deliver cuts to emissions when she and her Government have shown so little interest in them?

The First Minister

I do not think that that is true, but I would be fascinated to read the research that Stephen Kerr’s office has prepared, and I mean that genuinely. I am sure that he will send me a copy and I give a commitment to read it in full and come back to him with any comments that I feel are appropriate.

Local government has a big part to play in meeting the targets, and I have confidence in the priority that councils across the country are giving to that. I have had discussions with council members in the context of the United Nations climate change conference of the parties this week and, more generally, I have also had the privilege of meeting local government representatives from other parts of the UK. Yesterday, I met the mayors of London and Paris. All local governments are grappling with those challenges, and there is a real intent to share good and best practice.

However, our responsibility is to meet our targets. We are halfway there, but the next part of the journey will be more difficult, so we cannot afford to be undermined on any of the key strands of our work. In return for my commitment to read the research that his office prepared, I wonder whether Stephen Kerr would join me today in writing to the Prime Minister to ask for the short-sighted decision on the Acorn project and the Scottish cluster to be overturned, so that we can get back on track with carbon capture and not allow his Tory colleagues to take the feet from under us on that. Perhaps he will give consideration to that.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Meeting our net zero target by 2045 requires us to hit the interim target in 2030, which was designed to be ambitious but achievable and depends on Government action. Given that the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee believes that the target now looks “overcooked”, and the Scottish Government has already missed the last three emissions targets, what does the First Minister plan to do differently to get us back on track to meet that interim target?

The First Minister

First, it is right that we are ambitious. The target of a 75 per cent reduction by 2030 was a decision of Parliament, and I would rather that this Parliament was said to be overambitious than underambitious, because that charge could be levelled at too many Governments around the negotiating table at COP. If memory serves me correctly, the Committee on Climate Change expressed its reservations about the 75 per cent target when Parliament was considering it, but Parliament took a decision to be that ambitious, and I think that it was right to do so. It is now incumbent on the Government to lead by example, and all of us must do everything necessary to meet that target.

With regard to the missed targets, again, to be open, our targets are stretching and, in the past three years, we have fallen short of quite meeting them. To hit our targets, we should have cut emissions by 55 per cent. We have not done that, but we have cut them by 51.5 per cent. That is halfway to net zero, and we have decarbonised faster than any G20 country.

Scotland is leading by example, but we must do more. We set out details of what we are doing differently in our climate change update plan, and the catch-up plan was published last week. The most recent target was for 2019, so much of what we are doing to catch up on that, which we are legally bound to do, has already been set out in the Parliament. The plans and targets are ambitious, but we all have a responsibility to step up and make sure that we are meeting that challenge head on.

Cancer Mortality Rates (Inequalities)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

5. To ask the First Minister what immediate steps the Government is taking to address the reported continuing inequalities in cancer mortality rates across Scotland. (S6F-00410)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We continue to focus on ensuring equitable access to cancer services throughout the pandemic. For example, mutual aid across health boards means that every patient is seen according to their priority. We continue to provide support through the screening inequalities fund, in order to increase screening rates across all groups in our society, and we have recently completed a second funding round of our more than £100 million national cancer plan, where the impact on equalities was a key criterion in the award of funding. Finally, the most effective means to reduce mortality from cancer is early detection, which is why we continue to invest in our detect cancer early programme.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Public Health Scotland published cancer figures for 2019 that showed that 28 per cent of people who live in deprived areas are more likely

to get cancer, and a staggering 66 per cent are more likely to die from cancer, and that was before the pandemic. There is a substantial backlog in screening; early detection rates are falling; health boards are cancelling operations due to the pressure; and more people are likely to die, simply because they are being diagnosed too late. Will the First Minister ensure that, at the very least, cancer surgery and treatment is not cancelled or delayed this winter? Will she take urgent action to improve cancer outcomes for everyone, including those who are the most disadvantaged in our society? Frankly, those figures are a national scandal.

The First Minister

First, to be very clear, cancer treatment and surgery is always prioritised by health boards, and I would hope that Jackie Baillie would recognise that. Indeed, any operation for cancer would be cancelled only in the most extreme circumstances. Health boards have given that a priority right throughout the pandemic.

Jackie Baillie is right to point out the Public Health Scotland mortality statistics that were published this week. I will not repeat the statistics that she has quoted, because they were absolutely correct, but it is important to give the context. The statistics also show that the overall risk of dying from cancer in 2019 fell by nearly 10 per cent. That is positive, but there are significant inequalities in outcomes from cancer. That is why a range of work is under way that we must make sure gets the priority that it merits. It aims to raise awareness, provide equitable access to screening, and—yes—catch up on the backlogs that have been caused by Covid. It includes early detection and making sure that early detection efforts are focused not just on the most common symptoms of cancer but on some of the less common symptoms as well. The early cancer diagnostic centres have been set up to ensure that that happens.

Jackie Baillie is right to raise the importance of the matter, and the Government is right to have the focus that we do on putting forward solutions and ensuring the priority of cancer care.

COP26 (Platform for Unheard Voices)

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

6. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is working to ensure that, during COP26, it provides a platform for unheard voices, including citizens, young people and those from the global south. (S6F-00418)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government is committed to amplifying the voices of young people and those who are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change in the global south. We have provided almost £950,000 of funding to support young people of all backgrounds to participate meaningfully at

the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and beyond. That includes £300,000 for the conference of youth, which will present its global statement to COP26 tomorrow. We are also ensuring that the representatives from the global south are heard through the global climate assembly, the Glasgow climate dialogues and events, including a youth-focused event with Malawi climate leaders that will take place on Monday.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Women and girls are likely to suffer disproportionately as a result of the climate crisis, which is why the Glasgow women’s leadership statement, jointly sponsored by the Scottish Government and UN Women, is so important. It recognises that women must be part of the response.

Does the First Minister hope that, when small nations lead, it will galvanise other organisations and world leaders to follow by making similar ambitious statements and commitments during COP26?

The First Minister

I absolutely agree with Jackie Dunbar about the importance of the issue. We know that women and girls across the world are disproportionately impacted by climate change, but we also know that they must be more involved in the solutions to it.

I have been delighted to work in recent times with UN Women to put forward the Glasgow women’s leadership statement, which we launched at COP26 earlier this week. I did that alongside women leaders from both large and small nations, and I have been very encouraged by the response, with more and more signatures representing Governments and civil society that have come forward to join the initiative.

I am also looking forward to taking part in gender day at COP next Tuesday, when I hope that we will see many more countries come forward with very strong commitments on gender-responsive climate action.

Glasgow City Council (Industrial Action)

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to Glasgow City Council cleansing workers taking strike action from 1 November and throughout COP26 due to low pay. (S6F-00412)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I recognise and appreciate the extraordinary efforts of council workers at all times, but particularly over the past 18 months. That is why, although the Scottish Government has no formal role in the local government pay negotiations, we supported efforts to find a solution, with a one-off offer of additional funding of £30 million. I was pleased to see that that intervention, along with a contribution from councils, enabled the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to submit a significantly improved pay offer to trade unions last Friday. The unions subsequently confirmed that they would suspend strike action while members voted on the revised offer. I welcome that.

It is therefore disappointing that the GMB in Glasgow has chosen to pursue strike action at this stage, although of course I respect its right to do so. I urge all parties in Glasgow to quickly find a resolution.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

As a member of the GMB trade union, I think that Glasgow City Council threatening to union bust by using anti-trade union laws and busing in blackleg private contractors to try to break the strike is disgraceful and a paltry short-term fix to this long-running dispute. If the First Minister agrees with that position, will she please intervene and provide the leadership that has sorely been lacking so far and, if necessary, commit additional financial resources so that COSLA and Glasgow City Council can settle that dispute, pay those key workers fairly and treat them with respect?

The First Minister

The things that Paul Sweeney talks about would be disgraceful if they were happening, but let us be clear that they are not. As I understand it, although I am not party to the matter, Glasgow City Council made clear last Friday that it would not take legal action.

On the suggestion of breaking the strike, I know that the council issued a statement last night and that it has a concern about bonfire night posing an additional fire risk if rubbish is not collected. Although it is considering cover to mitigate those risks, it is not considering the use of contractors to fulfil the regular duties of striking staff. Labour should know all about the latter, because that is what it did during the cleansing strike under the Labour administration in 2009, so perhaps a bit of reflection on the Labour benches would be welcome.

The situation in Glasgow has arisen out of a national pay dispute. The Government made additional resources available last week to allow COSLA to make a renewed offer, which it has done. The unions rightly suspended strike action to allow members to vote on that renewed offer, and that process should be allowed to take its course.

I have the utmost respect for cleansing workers in Glasgow—those who do that job in my constituency and across the city—so I hope that Glasgow City Council and the union can get around the table and find a resolution that puts an end to the dispute and allows industrial relations to move forward positively.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s questions.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The First Minister mentioned that strike-breaking activity took place in 2009. For the record, no such strike-breaking action took place, and the statement that the Glasgow City Council issued to that effect is inaccurate. I would be happy for the chair to confirm that that is the case.

The Presiding Officer

The member will be aware that the content of members’ contributions is not a matter for the chair. A mechanism exists however, by which members can correct any inaccurate information.

Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-01767, in the name of Gillian Mackay, on abortion clinic buffer zones. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the campaign by Back Off Scotland for the Scottish Government to introduce 150m buffer zones, or protest-free areas, around clinics that provide abortion services across Scotland; understands that buffer zones around abortion clinics already exist in other countries, such as Australia and Canada, as well as some local authorities in England; believes that safe and legal access to abortion services is a vital human right; further believes that everyone who chooses to have an abortion, including those in the Central Scotland region, should be able to do so without fear of harassment, intimidation or abuse; understands that there have been concerning reports of patients across Scotland, experiencing intimidation and harassment from protesters when accessing sexual and reproductive health services, and notes the view that buffer zones would help to ensure patients can continue to access these services safely and without fear of harassment.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I open the debate by recording my sincere thanks to all those who have worked so hard on abortion clinic buffer zones, including the Back Off Scotland campaign and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

I thank those members who have signed the motion. I know that support for buffer zones exists across the chamber and that I am not the only MSP who has raised the issue in the Parliament. I particularly thank my colleague Maggie Chapman, who asked questions about this at the start of the session.

I want to state clearly that this is not a debate on the morality of abortion. I hope that members will put their views on abortion aside and focus on the fact that the debate is about access to healthcare, which, according to the United Nations and the World Health Organization, is a human right.

I do not want to inhibit anyone’s right to protest; the Greens would never be in favour of such a move. People who feel strongly about abortion have many opportunities and platforms to share their views, but I feel strongly that it is not appropriate to do that outside a hospital or clinic. Everyone should be able to access healthcare unimpeded and no one should face harassment or intimidation while doing so.

Protests outside hospitals and clinics are widespread. BPAS is aware of seven hospitals and clinics that are experiencing protests, including Forth Valley Royal hospital in my region. Seventy per cent of women of reproductive age live in a health board area that has hospitals or clinics that have been targeted by anti-choice groups in the past five years.

It is not just people who are accessing abortions who are impacted. Anyone who accesses healthcare at premises that deliver abortions can be targeted. I will read out a few examples provided by BPAS of people who have been affected by demonstrators and protests. Here is testimony from someone who visited the Chalmers centre in 2021:

“I was a victim of sexual assault and had to book an appointment with Chalmers. Already blaming myself and terrified to tell anyone, I was 17 and completely by myself. A small group of individuals, mostly male, were standing on the other side of the road. I was repeatedly called out to by one of the men, and when I glared at him and ignored him, he called me a teenage murderer. I have never been pregnant. I have never had an abortion. I have never even used contraceptive medication, but they tried to publicly humiliate me for it. I felt threatened and terrified at a time when I needed protection and comfort.”

I have another example from the Royal infirmary in Edinburgh.

“I felt incredibly angry. At the time, I was pregnant with my second child. On attempting to engage with them, one of the group marched over to me and was extremely aggressive. He screamed in my face several times. He told me that I was going to get cancer. I had disclosed that I had had an abortion between pregnancies.”

No one should have to face such appalling treatment while accessing healthcare. Implementing 150m buffer zones around abortion clinics would allow women and people who are pregnant to access the care that they need without fear of harassment. It would allow them to enter and leave the abortion clinic without being seen or having to interact with protesters, affording them their right to privacy. Not affording people that right can prevent them from seeking the help that they need.

During lockdown, access to healthcare was reduced as resources were targeted at tackling Covid and fears about patient safety meant that people were discouraged from seeking treatment. It seems fair to assume that lockdown might have prevented some people from accessing abortions. As our health services recover, we should be encouraging those who need reproductive healthcare to access it. There is a risk, however, that faced with the distressing experience of encountering a protest when visiting a clinic or hospital, some will simply not go.

Polls have shown that the public is in favour of buffer zones. A poll conducted this year by the Scottish humanists showed that 82 per cent of Scots want to end targeted harassment outside abortion clinics. Buffer zones have also been successfully implemented in other countries. They are already in place in the Isle of Man, Canada, Australia, some local authorities in England, and in the USA.

My fellow Green politician Clare Bailey MLA is currently taking her Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill through Stormont. Scotland is behind on this issue. In England, Sister Supporter successfully campaigned for a public space protection order around the local Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing, London. That was implemented in 2018, and now the space outside the clinic is a harassment-free safe zone. The decision on that was subject to legal appeal in 2019, but it was dismissed by three Court of Appeal judges. There is therefore a legal precedent in the United Kingdom.

I am aware that there have been discussions about buffer zones being implemented by local authorities in Scotland. In February, the City of Edinburgh Council voted in favour of a motion to enact 150m buffer zones around abortion clinics citywide, following a 4,700-strong petition by Back Off Scotland, while Glasgow City Council has debated the issue of anti-choice harassment outside local hospitals. However, Scottish local authorities have stated that they do not have the ability to introduce buffer zones under the current law and progress appears to have been halted.

I believe that there is a risk that leaving it to local authorities to implement buffer zones could result in a postcode lottery, whereby some women are able to access abortion services without fear of harassment but others are not. I believe that a national approach is required. Therefore, I am very pleased to announce my intention to introduce a member’s bill on buffer zones around abortion clinics. I will be honoured to introduce such important legislation, and I intend to consult a wide range of individuals and groups to hear their thoughts on the proposal.

I want to make it clear that it is not my intention to target national health service workers who may want to picket outside healthcare premises. I am keen to engage with trade unions on the issue to minimise any unintended consequences.

I again thank everyone who has tirelessly campaigned for buffer zones. We would not have reached this point without them. I look forward to working with them and with members across the chamber to ensure that women can access abortions while being afforded the safety and dignity that they are entitled to.

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

I thank Gillian Mackay for securing the debate.

Abortion is a legal right in Scotland; it is essential healthcare for women, and access to abortion services absolutely must be unimpeded.

Women and women’s organisations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades. Increasingly, international human rights law supports their quest, despite the current rolling back of rights that we are seeing in some places.

Safe and legal access to abortion services is a basic healthcare need. Anyone who chooses to have an abortion or to access sexual and reproductive health services should be able to do so without fear of harassment, intimidation or abuse.

As we know, abortion is legal here in Scotland, and women must be able to access abortion services freely and without harassment. The reports of patients across Scotland who have experienced intimidation and harassment from protesters outside abortion services, examples of which Gillian Mackay read out, are deeply concerning. No woman should be harassed or intimidated for accessing abortion services, and no woman should feel scared to access that vital human right because of protests or vigils taking place near abortion services. After all, according to Engender, one in three of us will use such services in our lifetimes.

In our 2021 manifesto, the Scottish National Party committed to supporting local authorities to use their powers to establish byelaws to create protest-free buffer zones outside clinics that provide abortion services. The Scottish Government’s women’s health plan, which was published in August this year, is the first stage of a long-term commitment to reducing health inequalities for women, and it pledged to improve access to abortion and contraception services.

As a former Women’s Aid worker, I have seen at first hand the emotional strength that is required of women when they make the decision to have an abortion. I have supported women to access such essential healthcare after they have had previous forced pregnancies, as contraception was forbidden by their abuser. Collectively, let us imagine having every aspect of our existence controlled by an abuser, finally managing to escape that hell, finding ourselves pregnant in a Women’s Aid refuge, perhaps with a few children in tow, making the decision to seek an abortion and having to run the gauntlet of a protest or a vigil simply to access lawful healthcare. Women who are already under immense pressure and about to go through an already traumatic process should not have to deal with anyone else’s opinion when accessing such healthcare.

Establishing byelaws at a local government level should be the simplest and quickest way to create protest-free zones around abortion services. If local councils can act in such instances, they should, but examples such as the recent attempts by the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council to establish buffer zone byelaws highlight the need for clarity at a local level. It cannot be a postcode lottery. Right now, we must ensure that local government has absolute clarity and is empowered to take swift action to pass such byelaws to ensure that all women can access clinics free from harm.

As abortion rights are under increasing threat around the world, I was heartened to hear recently in the chamber the First Minister assure us, in her response to Monica Lennon, that she is open to exploring all options to ensure that women are able to access abortion free of harassment. I look forward to supporting her in that endeavour.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank Gillian Mackay for securing this members’ business debate on such an important topic. Members of the Scottish Parliament will have differing views when discussing issues relating to abortion and abortion services. The comments that I make are my own; I respect the rights of others to disagree and to debate the points that are raised.

I believe in freedom of speech and expression, which should be cherished and protected. However, I do not believe that an individual or group has the right to prevent someone from accessing a healthcare service. Regrettably, that has been the experience of too many women in Scotland who have tried to access abortion services.

The debate is not on the issue of abortion or to argue whether it should be legal; it relates to the safety and wellbeing of women who need to access abortion services. Unfortunately for many women, they have felt intimidated, harassed and unsafe when attending a clinic or hospital. Some groups hold vigils, put leaflets into the hands of women, hold placards showing pictures of developing foetuses, prevent staff and women from attending appointments, and, more concerning, film individuals as they enter and leave premises.

I recognise that not all groups are aggressive when holding demonstrations. The question is: do they need to be there in the first place? We must put ourselves into the shoes of the young women who access services. How would we feel if we were greeted by such a reception?

BPAS has advised that, since the beginning of 2017, seven hospitals and clinics in Scotland have been repeatedly targeted, which has had an impact on people who have accessed services—not only those accessing abortion services, I note—and who have felt degraded and traumatised by the actions of those who have created a picket line outside facilities.

I have always agreed with the concept of my body, my choice, because I believe in freedom of choice. I also believe that private concerns such as abortion should not be a matter of debate for a woman who has already made an informed choice. After all, the woman having an abortion could be a victim of rape or domestic violence, or could be attending a clinic on medical grounds.

As Gillian Mackay has mentioned, Back Off Scotland is campaigning to introduce buffer zones outside hospitals and clinics to allow women to access services without feeling pressured to justify their decision. The zoning would apply to pro-choice and anti-choice groups, which creates a fair balance for those on opposing sides of the debate.

I sympathise with the campaign, given some of the first-hand experiences that I read while preparing for the debate and the experiences that Gillian Mackay outlined during her speech. As I said at the start, I support freedom of speech and expression, and groups could gather in other places away from hospitals and clinics.

The introduction of 150m buffer zones is supported by a wide range of groups. I hope that the Scottish Government considers it to ensure that women’s right of access to legal and safe healthcare is always protected.

I understand that this is a delicate subject and that members should treat one another with respect in discussing it. I welcome the campaign to introduce buffer zones and I hope that the Scottish Government will recognise its importance.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank Gillian Mackay and the campaigners at Back Off Scotland for bringing this vital issue to the Parliament.

My colleague Monica Lennon has, unfortunately, had to withdraw from the debate. She sends her full support for the spirit of the motion and the work that has gone into highlighting the issue. Members know that Monica has shown firm commitment to the needs and rights of women, and I am pleased to pass on her message.

For some people, abortion is a difficult political issue and most people make their case respectfully and constructively. However, a very vocal and influential minority do not. Standing outside a clinic that is committed to helping people in dire need and shaming those people for seeking help is bullying, no matter how well meaning someone thinks that they are.

Those who seek to oppose a woman’s right to make her own choice are not a new quantity by any means. For decades and centuries, an ever-decreasing section of society has felt it incumbent on it to police women’s decisions and indeed their bodies. Fortunately, due to the efforts of so many brave individuals, that grip has loosened, in our country at least, to the point of being almost non-existent. However, I can only say “almost”, because it is still there, and this debate is about a current pernicious example.

For Dani Garavelli’s fantastic piece on the phenomenon in

The Scotsman

, she spoke to those who have experienced such intimidation, and they reflected on how uncomfortable it made them feel during an already difficult time in their lives. The discomfort is not solely reserved to them; it is also felt by those who work in the clinics, who are left feeling vilified and forgotten by the authorities, despite simply wanting to do their jobs.

As we have heard, these vigils, as the organisers call them, take place regularly in the health board areas where 70 per cent of women in Scotland live. It is difficult to quantify just how many women will have encountered them, as many will prefer to keep quiet. The groups behind these vigils are often funded by highly questionable US-based pressure groups with a history of homophobia, sexism and indeed racism. Why are they being allowed to intimidate women at a point in their lives that is always difficult, but for many is absolutely necessary? I can only imagine that, if the same sort of intimidation was happening to men, we would not need to have this discussion, as it would have been dealt with long ago.

Well, enough is enough. We all understand that a law is not currently in place to prevent such instances of intimidation, but that needs to change. I fully support Back Off Scotland’s call for the enforcement of 150m buffer zones around the clinics. I understand that other organisations will be fearful that that could curtail the right to protest in other instances, but there is no reason why legislation could not be introduced that reflects those nuances and does right by those who seek vital healthcare.

The women behind Back Off Scotland have first-hand experience of the issue. I was glad to hear that they have met Maree Todd to discuss it, but I am not surprised to hear that they came away with little more than reasons and excuses why it cannot be done or why it would be difficult to do it at this time. That is not how government should work. We cannot pass the buck on the problem and hope that it will go away. Equally, we cannot simply fob it off on to local authorities, which are already overburdened.

More and more people are becoming increasingly aware of the practice and we will soon get to a point, through the commitment of campaigners such as Back off Scotland and others, where the Government has no choice but to carry through. Why wait until then? Introducing legislation as soon as possible would alleviate the distress of so many women, and especially those who are already in vulnerable circumstances with little in the way of a support network.

Let us push forward and move beyond this very necessary members’ business debate. Members’ bills can take years to go through and are often unsuccessful. Let us make this a priority for the Parliament. It would certainly be a legacy that we could all be proud of and one that future generations would thank us for. Let us be brave. I ask the minister to do the right thing, and to do it now.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I, too, thank Gillian Mackay for bringing her motion to the chamber for debate. Women in Scotland have a fundamental right to access pregnancy healthcare services and they should have the right to access them without harassment and intimidation. The targeting and harassment of women who access abortion services, as well as of those who provide them, is unacceptable and I condemn it completely.

Opting to end a pregnancy is seldom a straightforward decision for any woman, nor is it one that is taken lightly. Many women attend their abortion appointment alone, too. It is almost unbearable to imagine how women feel when approached, harassed or intimidated by anti-choice protesters in those circumstances, but that is exactly what I ask all members to do right now—to pause and imagine exactly how that feels for women. I hope that, when members do that, they will agree that all women must be protected from having their privacy invaded at such an emotionally sensitive time.

In 2019, more than 100,000 women were targeted outside clinics across the UK, and 70 per cent of women in Scotland live in a health board area where protests have taken place. Women have reported being followed, photographed, prayed at, jeered at, lied to and generally degraded. There have been instances where women have been prevented from entering clinics, too.

It is distressing for anyone to be hounded by strangers in the street but, at such a personal and private moment, the impact of those protestors’ actions has left already vulnerable women traumatised. Yes, we have the right to protest and the right to free speech, but we do not have the right to harass, intimidate and bully other people. Those are not reasonable expressions of free speech, and there is a difference between protest and harassment, just as there is a difference between free speech and misinformation.

Although anti-choice protestors may not intend to intimidate, there is no doubt that most women attending an abortion feel intimidated when so-called vigils are taking place. That is why I support buffer zones and why I support the Scottish Government’s commitment to work with the national health service and local authorities to find ways of preventing women from feeling harassed and intimidated when they are accessing abortion services.

Since a buffer zone was declared around a clinic in Ealing in 2018 through a public spaces protection order, the situation has improved dramatically. The clinic reports that instances of harassment have virtually disappeared since the order came into force.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with abortion, the issue is about women being able to access their fundamental right to healthcare. Introducing buffer zones does not impede the right to free speech. Protests can still be held, just not directly outside clinics. People can still contact their MSP and share their beliefs—they have every right to do so.

Ultimately, what women really need is to feel empowered to continue their pregnancy, not pressured by strangers in the street who know nothing about their personal circumstances. Women need to know that they will be supported in the changes that they make and that their life opportunities will not be impeded by choosing to continue with their pregnancy.

As Engender Scotland said,

“Access to safe abortion healthcare is essential for the realisation of women’s economic and social human rights.”

I believe, therefore, that the establishment of buffer zones is essential. Aligned with the Scottish Government’s women’s health plan, they will create a safe place for women attending clinics. I disagree with those who say that creating buffer zones should not proceed due to the threat of legal action. Doing nothing is not an option and women deserve better.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am conscious of the number of speakers who still want to contribute to the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Gillian Mackay to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

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

Gillian Mackay

]

Motion agreed to.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I commend the exceptional quality of all speeches that have been made in the debate and praise Gillian Mackay for bringing the topic to the chamber. I also thank organisations such as Back Off Scotland for their work on the issue. I congratulate Gillian Mackay on announcing her intention to introduce a member’s bill on the issue, which I will be supporting.

I have supported the introduction of buffer zones around any healthcare facilities that offer termination of pregnancy since I first entered this place, five years ago. I have sought out meetings with anti-abortion campaigners to discuss that issue with them. They maintain that there is a clash of rights at the heart of this debate, which I reject entirely. I do not believe that one’s right to freedom of speech should come at the expense of a woman’s right to medical privacy.

Campaigners have said time and again that the facilities are not used solely for abortions or terminations. I would say to them that, in that case, they are making things worse. They are creating a picket line to cross for people who are trying to access the most intimate forms of medical care. They say that they are not trying to be intimidating and that they are not being intimidating. I am sorry, but that is not for them to judge. If someone is in what is possibly the most vulnerable situation of their life, the last thing that they want to do is cross a picket line where they are being hectored and intimidated by people of a different view to theirs.

This is not a debate about free speech. Protestors are entitled to their freedom of speech—of course they are. Gillian Mackay has rightly indicated the very many platforms that are available for people who believe that abortion is wrong. Nothing about buffer zones impedes that right. The right to freedom of speech does not mean that one has the right to intimidate people—it just does not go there.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is very seldom one that is taken lightly. We know that there are situations in which those who are pregnant change their mind about the procedure, but they deserve to be supported in that change of mind—that reversal of decision—by staff who are trained to navigate the complexities surrounding pregnancy, not by those who want to impose their personal opinion or judgment, often through a form of intimidation that, as I said, effectively asks people to cross a picket line. As a society, it is our duty to protect the mental and physical wellbeing of our fellow citizens. There are no caveats to that very human obligation.

I am proud to say that my party has long supported and campaigned on the issue. There is no incongruity—I speak as a liberal—between creating buffer zones and protecting freedom of speech, as I have already covered. We need to protect some spaces in our society that are free from any judgment or intimidation—such as those medical facilities that offer, as I have said, the most intimate forms of medical care—and we have been campaigning on those rights for years.

Three years ago, I wrote to the then Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing following the picketing outside the Chalmers sexual health centre. I also give particular credit to my colleague in London, Sarah Olney, who, in March last year, tabled legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament that seeks to prohibit anti-abortion protests within 150m of abortion clinics—as Back Off Scotland has asked for.

I have met anti-abortion campaigners and I will continue to engage with them, but my party will fight for the existence of buffer zones, because what is happening is simply not good enough. As we have heard, 70 per cent of people in Scotland live in health board areas where anti-abortion protests take place. In 2019, 100,000 people attended abortion clinics that were targeted by demonstrations. The people who are targeted by those protests do not report feeling supported or helped; instead, they report feeling embarrassed and shunned. I am sure that none of us is comfortable with the knowledge that thousands of people in Scotland face such intimidation.

I support Gillian Mackay’s motion, and I will certainly support her member’s bill.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Gillian Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber and for giving us the opportunity to discuss a sensitive subject.

I realise that some would argue that men should not have an opinion on abortion or speak on anything that relates to it. I might accept that if I was convinced that life begins at birth. That is the key point, is it not? If life begins at birth, we are talking solely about a woman’s body and her right to choose whatever healthcare is necessary and suitable for her. If life begins at conception, there are two lives from that point onwards—the mother’s life and the baby’s life. If that is the case—as I believe it is—someone has a duty to speak up for the baby, who has no voice.

I accept that this is a highly contentious and emotive issue, and that it can be difficult to discuss the matter in a calm way. However, I hope at least that we can all accept that either of those two positions can be validly held and that we can respect those who take a differing view on when life begins.

Moving on to the issue of gatherings, vigils or protests outside clinics or hospitals and to the question of whether we need buffer zones, I realise that there have been aggressive protests and even violence, especially in the United States and elsewhere. Having been invited to visit a gathering back in 2018, I attended one—this was almost exactly three years ago—outside the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow. It was held across a fairly wide road from the hospital; as folk might know, the hospital occupies a huge site, so the gathering was not close to any medical facility.

From memory, there were perhaps a dozen people there, at most, and much of the time was spent quietly saying prayers. There was nothing that could really be called a protest, in my opinion, and certainly nothing loud, aggressive or even close to “harassment, intimidation, or abuse” as the motion suggests.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is probably better that I do not take an intervention. The tone of the debate has been good so far, so I will just carry on, if the member does not mind.

My starting point is that, if there is not any real problem in Scotland, why would we need legislation? As I understand it, Police Scotland has been asked, via freedom of information requests, about whether there have been any incidents in Edinburgh or Glasgow. Apart from two incidents that were reported at the Chalmers sexual health centre in September 2020—on which no action was taken—there appear to have been no serious problems in either city since the FOI requests began in January 2018. Therefore, the existing law seems to be effective, and local authorities can use byelaws if that is required.

Another angle is whether all women who go for abortions are able to make a choice—or realise that they have one. Evidence suggests that, at least in some cases, partners or family members are coercing pregnant women into having an abortion when they do not really want to do that.

After coverage of the subject in the media a few weeks ago, a woman contacted me. I will quote her for the rest of my speech:

“we are there … for the women who are, in their heart of hearts, not at peace about going ahead with an abortion. They need a last-minute life line—many women literally pray for a ‘sign’ that they should keep their baby”.

She continues:

“There are many women in this position (and I was one of them at the age of 20). These women often live with torment and regret for the rest of their lives. I have met one woman during the vigil (in her sixties) who said unequivocally that abortion had ruined her life. She has had 4 decades of trauma.”

She further says:

“I, myself had 3 decades of various problems … My experience of the NHS was that as soon as I expressed doubt about going ahead with the pregnancy I was put on a conveyer belt all the way to the termination. We really need to hear the other side of the debate in parliament”.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank my colleague Gillian Mackay for bringing the motion to the Parliament and Back Off Scotland for the work that it does to protect women from harassment.

I also put on record my solidarity with, and support for, all women who have experienced targeted harassment outside abortion clinics. Accessing an abortion is a vital form of healthcare. Abortions are not only a fundamental human right but, in many cases, life-saving. That is why I was horrified to see anti-abortion protesters outside hospitals in Scotland and, in particular, in Glasgow, which I represent. Harassment, intimidation and abuse are always unacceptable but they are particularly vile at a time that is often deeply distressing for the person who is attending the clinic. The introduction of buffer zones around abortion clinics is desperately and urgently needed.

As Engender has said, unlike typical protests against states, or typical organisational action, the presence of anti-abortion campaigners at services directs disruption at individual women and their predetermined course of action. Women who experience multiple forms of discrimination might encounter harassment not only underpinned by sexism, but imbued with racism, ageism and ableism. Campaigners frequently carry materials that are directed at individual women urging them to avoid abortion. Those materials often have extremely distressing images and messages. Worryingly, some of the material is also inaccurate.

The presence of protesters or vigils outside clinics that provide abortion services not only affects the women who access abortions, but harms the staff and other patients who seek sexual and reproductive health services, from contraception to sexually transmitted infection checks. That can dissuade people from accessing vital and urgent treatment.

There are countless, varied and personal reasons why people access abortions, but one thing is certain: those women should not be shamed outside hospitals for having done so. I wonder whether the protesters outside hospitals have stopped to think about the women whom they are harassing at that moment. Have they considered the impact that forcing a woman to complete a pregnancy against her will could have on her physical and mental health?

As a disabled woman, I know only too well what it is like to be denied access to healthcare, including to have people tell me what I should and should not do with my body. I cannot begin to describe how dehumanising it is to have people subjugate my bodily autonomy.

We need to guarantee that people are free to make decisions without harassment, coercion or intimidation when they access services. People who argue against abortion rights have claimed in some cases that people who have abortions would later regret the decision. However, studies show that almost all women who have an abortion later say that it was the right choice.

It is important to note that reducing access to abortion, or making it more difficult or intimidating to access it, does not decrease demand for it. Evidence shows that, when access is restricted, it leads to a higher rate of unsafe abortions, which has devastating consequences. Across the globe each year, there are around 47,000 deaths due to unsafe abortions. That is why the protests outside our hospitals are so abhorrent and why it is crucial that women are able to access free, safe and legal abortions without harassment.

As a nation, Scotland prides itself on values such as liberty, equality and respect for human rights. As a Parliament, it is our responsibility to uphold and protect those values in law. That means that it is our job to ensure that people have access to abortions freely and safely without fear of harassment. It is their human right and it is integral to achieving gender equality. Introducing 150m buffer zones around abortion clinics is one way in which we can do that and ensure that people across Scotland can access abortion care without the needless extra pain and distress that is being inflicted on them.

I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care almost a month ago to ask if and when the Government will implement buffer zones. I hope that the Government will give me an answer soon and treat the issue with the urgency that it deserves. We have the power to act now to protect women’s human rights, and I urge the Government to do so.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank my colleague Gillian Mackay for lodging this important motion for debate. I echo her remarks, and those of other people, about the work that Back Off Scotland and others have done to raise awareness of the issue. I am of course delighted that she will lodge a member’s bill on the issue and take it through Parliament—well done, you.

Earlier this session, I asked the minister what the Scottish Government could do, other than support local authority byelaws, to create protest-free buffer zones outside clinics that provide abortion services. The answer that I got was a little bit disappointing, because it simply reiterated the local authority byelaw mechanism. Although I am pleased that the programme for government outlines a clear commitment that the Government will support any local authority that wishes to use byelaws in that way, we have to do more.

As a Green, I believe passionately in the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most local level that is consistent with their resolution. Local decision making and local empowerment are central to my politics. So, on the face of it, it may seem appropriate for local authorities to have the powers over the issue that we are discussing today. However, the key part of the definition of subsidiarity that is relevant today is the bit about the appropriateness of the level of decision making.

As Gillian Mackay and others have outlined, this is about access to healthcare. It is about a fundamental right. I do not want that right to be contingent on geography. If we believe—as it seems that most of us do—that all people in Scotland should have the legal right to make choices about their reproductive health and must be able to access health care without intimidation, coercion, harassment or stigmatisation, then we have the obligation to act, regardless of the views of any local authority. We would not find it acceptable if people of colour in one part of Scotland were protected by anti-racist legislation while people of colour in another part of Scotland were not.

To pick up on the comments that were made in a previous contribution, just because Police Scotland does not have a long list of examples of harassment or intimidation, it does not mean that it does not happen. We know that it does. We also know only too well that, sometimes—especially on issues that affect women, such as this one—women do not go to the police and do not report things. That is therefore not an excuse not to act.

We need a national approach. We need buffer zones outside all hospitals and clinics, and we need them urgently. It should never be acceptable for people to be harassed, bullied or stigmatised as they access healthcare. Such buffer zones will also allow the healthcare professionals who work in those facilities—whether or not they have anything to do with abortion services—to go to and from their work without harassment, bullying or stigmatisation. That is a right that all workers should be able to rely on.

I look forward to supporting Gillian Mackay as she works with people across the chamber and across Scotland on her member’s bill. We must legislate to protect the rights of people to have their safety, wellbeing, privacy and dignity protected.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank Gillian Mackay for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also commend her for the tone that she is taking in approaching the debate. It is important to say that it does not really matter what our view on abortion is—the issue is about the fact that women making difficult decisions should not be intimidated or prevented from accessing healthcare.

I also put on record that I respect the tone and contribution of John Mason, who holds a different view. However, I ask him to consider this point. If women are looking for a sign when making a difficult decision, I hope that we can agree that that sign can never be someone screaming in a woman’s face and that it can never be a woman feeling intimated in any way. I hope that we can agree on that point.

The decision to have an abortion is not one that any woman takes lightly. There are many reasons why women want to choose that route, but that is not what the debate is about. At such a difficult time, women do not need to hear the judgment of people who do not know or understand their personal circumstances.

The Back Off Scotland campaign says that it accepts, as I do, campaigners’ right to speak out against abortion, but that those campaigners should not be allowed to target and force their views on women attending appointments. The co-founder and director of the campaign, Lucy Grieve, has said:

“We support freedom of speech and the freedom to protest. While we are all pro-choice”

in the campaign,

“we understand people have different views. But go to parliament, don’t stand outside clinics.”

She thinks that doing so is “inappropriate”, saying:

“You can’t politicise someone’s body when they are going for a legal medical procedure.”

Research by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has found that, in the past five years, there has been an anti-abortion presence at 42 clinics in England and Wales, and that 100,000 pregnant women were subjected to anti-choice harassment in 2019 alone. Moreover, as other members have said, seven hospitals and clinics in Scotland—Aberdeen maternity hospital, Chalmers sexual health centre in Edinburgh, Ninewells hospital in Dundee, Glasgow royal infirmary, Forth Valley royal hospital in Larbert, Queen Elizabeth university hospital and the Edinburgh royal infirmary—have been targeted repeatedly since the beginning of 2017 by anti-choice groups standing outside clinic and hospital entrances and displaying signs with graphic images.

I have seen many of those graphic images. Although I have never been in this particular situation myself, I have been subjected to what I thought was totally inappropriate treatment when an anti-abortion group leafleted my entire street and neighbours with such images. I was never asked to explain my position on this matter—indeed, I think that this is the first time that I have spoken on it. I want to emphasise that I have always been concerned about the tactics of some groups that go too far. We can disagree on things, but some lines have to be drawn.

Many women have talked about feeling targeted and alone and finding the experience deeply intimidating. Gillian Mackay’s proposal for a member’s bill on buffer zones is, I think, the right approach, and I am likely to support it. It is time to recognise that it is not acceptable to harass women into making a different decision. People have the right to protest and, like everyone else here, I will stand up and enthusiastically defend that right with regard to what is a very sensitive issue. However, no one has the right to bully, harass or scream in women’s faces, and for that reason we might need to take action to protect the women who make those very difficult choices.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

First, I point out that we are not here today to debate whether abortion should be available to people who want or need it; instead, we are debating whether people exercising their right to choose and their bodily autonomy should be able to do so without threat of harassment or abuse. That anyone would argue against that is, to me, abhorrent and unforgivable, but that does not stop the usual suspects using the debate on this incredibly important, worthy and apparently necessary motion lodged by Gillian Mackay to remind us that they are still waiting in the wings to remove our rights.

I am very grateful to Gillian Mackay for securing this debate, and I make it clear that I have nothing but contempt for those who are loudly and unashamedly seeking to hijack it to pursue their agenda of policing my body and the bodies of others. I also remind my Scottish National Party colleagues that we are a progressive social democratic party. I do not know what social democracy means if it does not include defending reproductive rights. Our clear policy is that abortion is a legal right in Scotland and that we will protect it.

Abortion is a deeply personal and often traumatising decision and experience. It is disturbing to read a Back Off Scotland activist say that in that moment of trauma she found herself focusing more on the looming need to walk past a group of hostile protesters rather than the process that she had been through, but this is a situation that countless women across the country are facing and it needs our urgent attention.

Freedom of speech, which has been mentioned a lot in the debate, is an important concept, but it is dangerous if people do not understand what it means. People are absolutely free to think what they like, to speak up on their views on policy and to protest Government decisions. However, there is a difference between deciding that abortion is not for you and rocking up to a clinic to harass and judge those who chose differently. There is a difference between having personal views and showing up to Parliament as a legislator seeking to restrict the freedom of others and prevent them from exercising freedom of choice. There is a difference between exercising your personal freedom and restricting the ability of others to do the same. I would never advocate for forcing abortion upon someone. Equally, I will always fight against forcing pregnancy and childbirth upon someone.

We must be clear that these people are not protesting against policy. They are standing outside hospitals, not Parliaments. They are not harmlessly and peacefully making their views heard. They are violently preventing people from accessing healthcare and harassing vulnerable patients as they walk towards what should be a place of care and safety. However quietly they claim to pray, the act of praying at someone while they access health services or trying to persuade a stranger whose individual situation they know nothing about to carry a child because that is their purpose is disgusting however you spin it.

Whether it is someone seeking an abortion, staff caring for patients or people accessing a clinic that offers abortion services to seek help with sexual assault or another medical issue, we know that protecting them is the right thing to do. Let us not leave it up to local authorities to decide whether they fancy protecting human rights. Acting is within our power in this place, it is within the commitments of the governing party’s manifesto, and it is within our duty to our constituents. I plead with the women’s health minister to act.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Roddick. I call the minister to respond to the debate. Ms Todd, you have around seven minutes.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Gillian Mackay for lodging the motion, and I thank members for their contributions to the debate.

As many members have said, abortion is

an issue on which there can be quite polarised views, but we can all agree that we do not want to see people being harassed or intimidated when they are accessing healthcare services. Women in Scotland should have access to abortion services as part of routine care, free from stigma. Abortion is a very personal decision, so for a woman to face scrutiny in that way when accessing the service after she has made her decision is incredibly difficult. Our programme for government and “Women’s Health Plan—A plan for 2021-2024” include undertakings on that, which I hope indicates the importance that we attach to the issue.

I appreciate that many of the people who attend protests or vigils say that they do not aim to intimidate or harass women who seek an abortion. However, the fact remains that some women are reporting feeling harassed or intimidated when they access the services; we have heard many accounts of that today. When I met members of Back Off Scotland in September to hear about their campaign, I also heard about their personal experiences of accessing abortion. Theirs were powerful testimonies; I admire their tenacity in pursuing the campaign.

Therefore, I am very aware of the frustration in the chamber, and on the part of campaigners, that more progress has not been made on the issue. However, I am afraid that there are no easy solutions. I know that Back Off Scotland and many MSPs here would like to see legislation to create buffer zones to ban gatherings, vigils or protests around all abortion services in Scotland. I totally understand the motivation behind such calls and I sympathise with the concerns that have been raised.

However, it is important that any action that is taken is proportionate and balances the rights, under the European convention on human rights, of people who access healthcare and people who attend vigils or protests. Patients should be able to access healthcare without feeling intimidated or harassed, but we must, at the same time, recognise the rights of people to protest peacefully and to express their views.

I appreciate the point that has been made that where the protests or vigils take place is important and can be distressing for patients. However, we must also take into account that they are focused on a limited number of locations—currently in Edinburgh and Glasgow—rather than affecting all abortion clinics in Scotland.

Although we believe that buffer zones can be justified in certain circumstances, the Scottish Government does not consider that imposing blanket buffer zones around all abortion clinics would be appropriate.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister recognise that, as per the Back Off Scotland briefing that we received, 70 per cent of Scottish women live in a health board area in which there is a hospital or clinic that has been targeted by anti-choice groups in the past five years?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I recognise that

, but members will be aware that our view is that byelaws are the most appropriate way to tackle the issue, when making of a byelaw can be justified in the specific circumstances of a particular case. That is because byelaws can be tailored to local circumstances. It is also the fastest way of dealing with such issues, because pursuing primary legislation takes time.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In relation to targeted measures and byelaws, does the minister agree that groups could move to other areas if such byelaws were to be introduced for an area, and that therefore, instead of tackling the issue throughout Scotland, we would be moving the issue between areas?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I am aware of that concern, which was raised with me at the meeting in September.

The former Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing, Joe FitzPatrick, wrote to all local authority chief executives in May 2019 to make them aware of the option of using byelaw powers when appropriate, but I am aware that some local authorities have taken a different view. I will seek to discuss the issue further with them, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other stakeholders, because I am determined to find a way forward so that we can limit the impacts of protests or vigils on women who are accessing services. I assure Meghan Gallacher that officials have been in discussion with COSLA and local authorities for some time on the issue, and that I hope to continue that dialogue.

It is worth noting that the restrictions that the motion refers to that are in place in England are also local rather than national. The small number of abortion clinic buffer zones in England have been put in place by local authorities using public spaces protection orders. Those are similar to our byelaws in that they can be made where local circumstances justify such a measure. The United Kingdom Government carried out a review of the issue in 2017 for England and Wales and concluded that the local approach remained appropriate.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I am struggling to understand the circumstances in which it would be appropriate not to legislate to have a buffer zone. Could the minister explain that further?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The precedent in the UK is that such measures are introduced on a local basis. We have looked at other countries’ legislation; I have mentioned before that there are broad-scale buffer zones in countries including Australia and Canada, but in those countries the legislation is at state level rather than at federal level

. We must also note that those countries are subject to their own legal systems.

We need to consider the position in Scotland based on the circumstances and facts that are presented in each case and in the context of our law. It is useful to look around the world and the UK—I will continue to do so as I seek to find a way forward—but, although we are keen to make progress on the issue, the Scottish Government does not feel that a national ban is an option.

Similarly, we know that local authorities are unlikely to make byelaw proposals at the current time. We will consider what other avenues might be available to us to ensure that women can access abortion services without feeling harassed or intimidated. As part of that work we will consider other types of protests that take place outside healthcare facilities, such as those that take place outside vaccination clinics. I acknowledge the strength of feeling on the issue. We want to find a way to ensure that women do not feel harassed or intimidated when accessing the services.

I look forward to Gillian Mackay’s member’s bill being introduced and would be happy to discuss it with her. I would need to see the bill before forming an opinion, but I am clear that the Government supports the principle of protected spaces, which is why we support use of byelaws.

I do not pretend that it will be easy, but I relay the message to members in the chamber and all those who are listening that we will continue to seek to find a way forward.

13:45 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I remind members that Covid-related measures are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The next item of business is portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letter R in the chat function during the relevant question. As always, succinct questions and answers would be appreciated.

War Memorials (Protection and Preservation)

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what measures are currently in place to ensure the protection and preservation of war memorials. (S6O-00319)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government recognises the importance of Scottish war memorials in ensuring that the memory of those who gave their lives in conflict is not forgotten. It is a long-standing policy of both the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments that the cost of maintaining memorials should normally be resourced by public subscription, private fundraising or a combination of both.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

There has been an increase in the desecration and vandalism of Scotland’s war memorials since 2015. One such memorial that was targeted was the Duchess of Hamilton park war memorial in Motherwell, an area that I represent as a councillor and member of the Scottish Parliament. Given that statistics show that vandalism has increased dramatically since 2015, does the cabinet secretary agree that any vandalism of such important memorials is unacceptable and that better protection for such sites, which hold a special place in the heart of Scotland’s communities, is needed?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Vandalism of war memorials is a crime, regardless of the motivations for it. The Scottish Government condemns all acts of malicious vandalism and graffiti. Such behaviour is unacceptable in modern Scotland and those indulging in it can expect to face criminal charges. There is legislation to deal with the vandalism and desecration of statues and memorials, including war memorials. The Scottish Government has no current plans to introduce new legislation for that specific purpose. The Scottish Government supports the police and prosecutors in using the powers that are available to them to deal with any incidents of vandalism that arise.

Peace Institute

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government which conflicts its new institute for peacekeeping will aim to resolve and by when. (S6O-00320)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As a global citizen, Scotland aims to contribute to peace efforts through conflict resolution with others. That is why we are committing to establishing a peace institute by the end of 2022. Discussions on the role and remit of the peace institute are at an early stage. I look forward to updating Parliament once we have developed our thinking further. I would welcome Mr Rennie’s contribution in the development of the peace institute.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I appreciate that the institute will not have an overnight impact, but I am interested in the work that has been done so far, because the situation is urgent.

Has there been any early engagement with the warring factions in the Tigray war in Ethiopia? What has been the response from the Israeli and Palestinian authorities? The member had a particular interest in Afghanistan when he was a member of the Westminster Parliament. Can he share any correspondence that he has had with the Taliban?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I must confess that I was not expecting the end of that question. I have not been in correspondence with the Taliban, and I do not intend to be.

The peace institute for Scotland will be one of the integral parts of our overall framework for the Scottish council for global affairs. Fundamental to everything that we do is our determination to be a good global citizen. That is reflected in our international development programme and the priority that we give to human rights. The peace institute will contribute to those values.

I welcome Willie Rennie’s enthusiasm and I assure him that I will keep him updated. I am interested to hear input from Mr Rennie and members of other parties in the development of the peace institute.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Edward Mountain, who is joining us remotely, has a supplementary question.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As perhaps the only member of the Parliament who has served with the United Nations peacekeeping force—and not just pontificated about it in the newspapers—I know how important it is for peace to be negotiated and then, more often than not, policed. Is that not why we need to get behind the established peacemakers, rather than supporting self-promoting idealist plans that undermine the organisations that can actually deliver peace and then police it, such as the UN?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, the sound quality was not great, but I hope that you caught that.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I did. I commend Edward Mountain and anybody else who has served with United Nations peacekeepers. I have had the good fortune of visiting UN peacekeeping operations, including those from the Irish Republic on the Golan Heights. The Irish Republic is one of the few countries that has continuously provided UN peacekeeping service personnel since the UN’s inception.

Scotland’s peace institute will operate within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government. We are already engaged in peace work. Our women in conflict 1325 fellowship programme with Beyond Borders Scotland is a good example of Scotland’s contribution to peacemaking activity. Scotland also has a proud academic tradition of international relations in conflict. The foundations are there, and Scotland’s peace institute will bring together that work and enhance our peace offer in the future.

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

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s details about Scotland’s international responsibilities, including its peacekeeping responsibilities. Does he feel confident—as I do—that Scotland is increasingly recognised across the world as a progressive and outward-looking country with a positive role to play on the global stage, especially this week, as the eyes of the world are on Glasgow?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Indeed—I agree with my colleague. Scotland is a proudly internationalist nation, and we will embrace the opportunities of international connection and co-operation, and act as a good global citizen to champion our values-based approach on the world stage. We are welcoming the world to Scotland for the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and hosting world leaders alongside tens of thousands of negotiators, Government representatives, businesses and activists from around the globe for 12 days of talks.

There is much that we are already able to deliver, and there is much more that we will be able to deliver in the future. I look forward to the peace institute playing a distinct role in Scotland’s offer to the rest of the world and in our support of peace and reconciliation efforts around the world.

International Development Fund (Equality for Women and Girls)

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed £500,000 fund for local organisations in international development partner countries to take forward work to ensure women and girls are safe, equal and respected. (S6O-00321)

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

The pandemic has widened the gender poverty gap, and it is expected to drive 47 million more women and girls into extreme poverty in 2021. That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Government will introduce a new cross-cutting equalities programme across all four of our partner countries, with a particular focus on supporting the promotion of equality and the empowerment of women and girls. That new programme is currently at the design stage.

The fund that we will establish will aim to work more directly with our in-country partners, in keeping with the conclusions of our international development review. I know that President Chakwera of Malawi welcomed the Scottish Government’s strong support for women and girls in Malawi when he met the First Minister on Sunday.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Does the minister agree that it is important that we spend that money as wisely as possible? We know that women are underrepresented in decision-making processes. What thoughts does she have on how we can ensure that the voices of women are heard in those processes?

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

As Katy Clark knows, women and girls have been impacted by the pandemic far differently from the way that men have been impacted. There is a real danger that we could go backwards on gender equality.

Katy Clark has made a number of points. She has my commitment that we plan to spend the funding as wisely as possible. The programme is at the design stage at the moment.

Katy Clark mentioned the underrepresentation of women. That is, of course, a huge challenge in United Kingdom politics. It is still a challenge in the Scottish Parliament and in our partner countries, although some of them are doing better, or have done better historically, than Scotland.

On the work itself, I want to recap where we are in respect of our funding in Scotland. We already provide scholarships for women and girls in Pakistan. We provide master of business administration scholarships in Zambia through Heriot-Watt University, and we provide scholarships in Malawi through the Mamie Martin Fund. However, the fund that Katy Clark asked about has a unique opportunity to improve the lives of women and girls in our partner countries. I would be happy to have conversations with the member about how we can go further forward in developing it, taking on board absolutely her point about the underrepresentation of women.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

It is reassuring to hear that the Scottish Government continues to target international development support to those who are most in need of it—in many cases, that will be women and girls. In the light of that, can the minister comment on the announcement earlier this week of £1 million from the climate justice fund to help vulnerable communities to repair and rebuild from extreme weather events?

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

We have a moral responsibility to acknowledge the urgency of global action on loss and damage, and Scotland is proud to show solidarity, through our work on climate justice, with those who are most impacted by climate change. However, we cannot act alone, which is why, on Monday this week—as the member alluded—the First Minister announced a £1 million grant over two years to the climate justice resilience fund as a partnership to help some of the world’s most vulnerable communities to prepare for and adapt to climate change, as well as tackling structural inequalities and recovering from climate-induced loss and damage.

Vaccination Certification Scheme (Major Events)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the organisers of major events since the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccination certification scheme. (S6O-00322)

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

Ministers and officials are in regular contact with major event stakeholders. That includes, but is not limited to, my meeting on 26 October last week with the chair of the events industry advisory group, which was established to provide a co-ordinated voice for the sector during the Covid-19 pandemic and the on-going recovery work. We will, of course, continue to engage with stakeholders on any further feedback that they may have on vaccination certification.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

When the scheme was first established, it was made clear to those in the industry that they would have to absorb the costs of getting ready for its roll-out. What assessment has been done of the financial impact on the sector as a result of the roll-out?

Given that 42,000 people have been unable to obtain a Covid identification card, what assessment has been made of the loss of revenue and loss of attendance, and will the Government make good on that loss?

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

The most important thing for the events industry in Scotland right now is that event organisers are able to operate. In addition to meeting the events advisory group last week, I met a number of theatre groups. They relayed to me the clear message that they like the passport scheme because it gives them certainty, and they can stay open and operate.

However, the scheme does not just offer business certainty; it is also about audience confidence, which is a huge challenge for the sector as we continue to move out of the pandemic. Time and again, the industry has told me that the scheme encourages the audience and gives them confidence to return to major events, the importance of which should not be underplayed.

As for the specifics of Mr Cole-Hamilton’s questions regarding the financial impact, I do not have the data in front of me, but I will come back to him on that.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

An “unmitigated disaster” is how industry experts described dealing with the vaccination passports last weekend. We have seen queues, confusion, abuse of staff and loss of business, all as a result of an app that does not work and a public who are unaware that they even need it. That could have been avoided, if only a proper public information campaign had been put in place. The FACTS campaign was drummed into every mind in the country, with wall-to-wall coverage and posters plastered on every wall, so why has the Scottish Government not bothered when it comes to vaccination passports? Can the minister explain why there has been no campaign? Will we see one in the coming weeks?

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

I am not sure that I would agree with the member’s assertion that the vaccination passport scheme has been an “unmitigated disaster”. As I said in my response to Alex Cole-Hamilton, those in the industry—I meet them regularly—tell me that the scheme provides them with a level of comfort and is helping businesses to stay open.

As we know, the events industry was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic, because it involves massive numbers of people gathering together, which, as we know, can cause the virus to spread. We need to go back and reflect on the reason why we have the vaccination passport scheme, which is to protect public health.

I hope that that gives the member an assurance, but, if she would like to meet me to discuss the issue—and, equally, if she thinks that we are not getting the message through to some businesses—I am happy to take that feedback on board.

Expert Advisory Group on Migration and Population

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it is acting upon the recent recommendations of the expert advisory group on migration and population. (S6O-00323)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Migration to Scotland supports economic growth and the delivery of public services, and it helps to address the serious issue of long-term demographic change and enhances and sustains our communities. I welcome the report on “Family Migration: Understanding the Drivers, Impacts and Support Needs of Migrant Families in Scotland” from the expert advisory group, which proposes actions to encourage and support families who are moving to Scotland. We will use that report to inform the development of a migration service of Scotland and rural visa pilots.

The current restrictive rules on family migration are, of course, set by the United Kingdom Government, and I urge it to accept the expert group’s recommendations and support family reunion by removing the minimum income requirement, which causes heartache for so many families. We need a different approach to migration that is based on evidence and that reflects Scotland’s needs and values.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is reassuring to hear that the Scottish Government’s approach to immigration remains not only demographically well informed but deeply compassionate and humane. Does the cabinet secretary agree that continued close attention to migrant families’ welfare is a key part of upholding Scotland’s reputation as a welcoming and internationalist nation and a good global citizen?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree whole-heartedly. Scotland is a welcoming and inclusive nation and we value everyone, no matter where they were born, who has chosen to make Scotland their home and to live, work, study, raise their families and build their lives here.

Without powers over immigration, there are limits on what we can do to mitigate the United Kingdom Government’s restrictive approach to family migration. We do what we can with the powers that are available, which is why we made a commitment in the programme for government to develop a migration service for Scotland that will support those migrants and their families who have chosen to make Scotland their home.

Culture Sector Recovery (Covid-19)

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support opportunities for the culture sector to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic this winter. (S6O-00324)

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

The Scottish Government recognises that the culture sector has been among the hardest hit by the pandemic and will continue facing challenges as we head into the winter months. We know that recovery will take time, with many audiences remaining cautious about returning.

Since the pandemic started, we have provided £175 million to the culture, heritage and events sector. Further rounds of the culture organisations and venues recovery fund and the performing arts venues relief fund provided further emergency support to organisations. The programme for government also set out a number of commitments to support the culture sector, including via Scotland on tour, a fund supporting opportunities to bring new concerts to towns and villages across Scotland next year.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

I am glad to hear that Scotland’s artists and venues have cause for hope. Will the minister join me in welcoming

the return of Edinburgh’s Hogmanay celebrations as an example of the resilience of the Scottish culture sector?

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

I am delighted that we will see the return of Edinburgh’s Hogmanay this year, with the necessary adjustments in place to ensure that it is compliant with Covid measures. Edinburgh’s Hogmanay 2021 has been supported by the Scottish Government and the Edinburgh festivals expo fund. The party at the bells street theatre programme is supported by the Scottish Government, City of Edinburgh Council and Creative Scotland’s place fund. Message in the skies, which members might recall from last year, is also supported by the expo fund.

Other cities and towns across Scotland will be holding their own Covid-compliant Hogmanay celebrations. Those include the Biggar bonfire, drams in Dufftown and the ceilidh at the Beach ballroom in Aberdeen. The country was still in a national lockdown last Hogmanay, so this year promises to be a particularly important moment. We remain committed to working with the sector and with our public bodies to ensure that it is a success.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In last week’s United Kingdom budget, Rishi Sunak announced that the culture sector in England would receive £850 million in additional support. Will the minister commit to passing on the full Barnett consequentials arising from that to Scotland’s culture sector, in the light of the many and varied difficulties faced by that sector in the wake of Covid, especially by smaller, independent organisations and individuals whose livelihoods depend on that?

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

I would love to pass on those consequentials, but we have yet to receive £31 million of outstanding consequentials that are due to us from the UK Government. I will look at the consequentials that Mr Sunak is going to give to Scotland, but the UK Government is already indebted to us by more than £30 million of culture funding. The culture sector absolutely needs that support, so, if Mr Cameron can use any power that he may have with his UK Government colleagues to call for that funding to come to Scotland, I would be extremely grateful.

COP26 (Culture and Heritage Sectors)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what support it has offered Scotland’s culture and heritage sectors in connection with

the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26

. (S6O-00325)

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

A wide range of activity taking place alongside COP26 is being supported by the Scottish Government and our cultural bodies. The Scottish Government provided £100,000 of direct support to the climate beacons project, which is a series of seven partnerships across Scotland run by Creative Carbon Scotland. Historic Environment Scotland and our national performing companies are delivering a wide range of activity at COP to highlight the relationship between heritage and culture. We have also provided £15,000 to bring STORM, a project that delivers a powerful environmental message about the sea and how we can all play a part in protecting our coastal waters, to Glasgow during COP.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

COP26 in Glasgow is a once-in-a-lifetime event and we should celebrate the fact that Scottish artists have an opportunity to enrich that historic global movement. Does the minister agree that culture and the arts are a vital part of any society’s response to moments of crisis, such as climate change or the pandemic, and that Scotland’s artistic community is well placed to speak on the global stage?

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

I whole-heartedly agree with Mr MacDonald’s assertion. COP26 is a real opportunity for Scotland’s culture sector to play a key role in creating a climate legacy. This morning, along with the education minister, I met the organisation Fashion Revolution to explore the opportunities in the textile industry for sustainable development and cultural recovery. Sustainability is a key issue in the sector at the moment, because people are becoming increasingly aware of the negative impact that fast fashion can have on the environment.

The culture sector is an important part of Scotland’s character, our attractiveness and our connectivity to the rest of the world. The support from the Scottish Government that I mentioned in my initial response to the member will help to showcase some of Scotland’s diverse cultural voices. COP26 provides Scottish artists and communities with a platform to work openly on the international stage and with other nations that share the same net zero ambitions. I am really looking forward to hosting a cultural reception in Glasgow later this month to celebrate that important contribution.

Devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government (Interactions)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what actions the constitution secretary is taking to continually improve interactions with the other devolved Administrations as well as the UK Government. (S6O-00326)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government is committed to effective interactions with other devolved Governments and the UK Government on the basis of a partnership of equals. However, repeated actions such as the approach to Brexit and the imposition of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, despite the explicit withholding of consent by this Parliament, make effective interactions with the UK Government much more difficult.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. He knows, however, that the agreement on joint working that was put together to maintain positive and constructive relations was based on mutual respect. He also knows that there has been a very welcome agreement in recent days between his colleague Kate Forbes and Simon Clarke at the Treasury about the parameters for the future of the fiscal framework discussions.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland fares very much better when both the Scottish and UK Governments, and the other devolved nations, work together and there is not a constant focus on another referendum?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree with Liz Smith that it is a good thing that Governments on these islands work together, but I can give her a concrete example of when that does not happen. This Government has sought to discuss issues relating to migration, for which this Parliament has responsibility, including related policy areas such as education, housing and health. After 19 requests to meet were turned down by the Home Office, finally, because it was so embarrassing, the UK Government relented. Do you know what? It was a hugely productive meeting.

I agree with Liz Smith, therefore, and appeal to her to speak to her party colleagues in London and impress on them that we should have good working relations but that, to do that, people have to be prepared to meet and, when they meet, to do so in a spirit of partnership and not as a box-ticking exercise purely to prove that one has spoken with the devolved Administrations. That means co-operating on agendas, co-operating on contents and actually co-operating on the issue at hand. Too often, unfortunately, that is not the case with the UK Government. I regret that, and I appeal for Liz Smith’s assistance in trying to rectify that.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

A constructive relationship between the Governments of the UK—whether devolved or independent—is in everyone’s interests, and I commend the cabinet secretary for his work in that regard. However, would he agree with me and the First Minister of Wales that maintaining a healthy dialogue with Westminster is difficult when the principles of devolution are, in the words of Mark Drakeford,

“breached daily by the present UK Government”?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government agrees with Mark Drakeford and, indeed, with Neil Gray that recent proposals from the UK Government for improving interactions will have only limited value unless they are accompanied by much greater levels of respect for devolved responsibilities and institutions than is currently being demonstrated by the UK Government. There is so much more that the UK Government could do; I just wish that it would get on and do it.

Social Security Benefits

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that Covid-related measures are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The next item of business is a debate without motion on accessing Scottish social security benefits. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call Shona Robison to open the debate.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am pleased to open the debate on accessing Scottish social security benefits. Access to social security is a basic human right. It is a principle that is enshrined in our Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, as is the view that social security is an investment in people. Within the act is the important duty on the Government of promoting the take-up of Scottish benefits. The Scottish Government is clear that we will ensure that anyone who is eligible for our range of benefits can access them simply and easily, and we will actively work to promote the financial support that is available to people.

This debate comes after the publication of our second benefits take-up strategy at the end of October and as the nation focuses on recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Households are also facing increased living costs and an imminent rise in national insurance, so it is more important than ever that people who are entitled to our benefits know about them, apply for them and get the financial support that they are eligible for.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for

publishing the new strategy, which she helpfully sent to us this morning. Can she tell us what she has learned since 2016 about how long it takes to implement new social security benefits? We expected implementation to happen much earlier, because she promised that it would happen almost instantly, so why has it taken five years just to get to this stage?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

A lot has been achieved in the three years since the Parliament agreed the powers to establish Social Security Scotland and the benefits. There are 11 benefits, seven of which are brand new to Scotland—that is a very good record for Social Security Scotland in the three years since it has been able to build its capacity and deliver those benefits. I hope that Willie Rennie will take that on board. If he has not already done so, I encourage him to visit Social Security Scotland to find out for himself the complexity that is involved in setting up some of the benefits, particularly the new ones.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking another intervention so soon after having responded to one.

With the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I had the benefit of meeting Social Security Scotland earlier in the week, and I found that really helpful. It was clear—it was said a few times in the presentation—that the agency’s role is to deliver the benefits that it has, so, as the cabinet secretary knows, it is focusing on the Scottish child payment and other benefits. However, it was also made clear that the Government’s role is on policy and direction around that. Given the separation of those responsibilities in that sense—they are as separate as they can be—could the Government not move quickly on policies around eligibility criteria and adequacy of payment, in tandem with Social Security Scotland, which is clear that it has a separate duty in relation to delivery?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Both roles are important and both have to work in tandem. On her visit to the agency’s headquarters in Dundee, the First Minister announced the massive expansion of Social Security Scotland because of the disability benefits that will be coming over the next year to 18 months. That expansion is happening because of the build-up of the organisation’s capacity, so the two roles are in tandem.

We will always look at what more we can do. We are already looking at the doubling of the Scottish child payment, as the member knows, and we will set out more plans for that as part of the budget process.

I want to make a progress on my speech now, if that is okay.

Increasing social security and maximising income are important components of our work to tackle poverty. Our tackling child poverty delivery plan sets out that increasing incomes through social security and benefits in kind is one of the key drivers of reducing child poverty. Taken together with actions to increase incomes from work and earnings and to reduce household costs, the plan will help to lift families out of poverty and provide the financial security that they need to thrive.

We have seen the reduction in United Kingdom Government reserved benefits over the past decade take its toll on people and reduce their income, and that is not the approach that the Scottish Government is taking. In the three years since we have had the powers to do so, we have introduced a raft of benefits to support the people of Scotland.

As I said, our agency, Social Security Scotland, is now delivering 11 benefits, seven of which are brand new and unique in the UK. We will also continue to deliver through our local authority partners the Scottish welfare fund, discretionary housing payments—which mitigate in full the bedroom tax—and council tax reduction. Despite the challenges over the past 18 months due to the pandemic and its obvious impact on our timetable for delivery of Scottish benefits, over the past year we have introduced four new benefits, and I think that that is a pretty good record.

In addition to that range of continuing support, we have introduced specific one-off payments to support people during these very difficult times. That includes paying around 90,000 unpaid carers an additional £230 in their carers allowance supplement last year and this year. We introduced bridging payments for families in receipt of free school meals, so that they receive the equivalent of the Scottish child payment. This year and next, £520 is being paid in support to around 150,000 children and young people in advance of the roll-out of the Scottish child payment to under-16s.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The committee has heard concerns about applications for the young carer grant. Has the Government looked into that issue, given that take-up has not been what was expected?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Minister for Social Security and Local Government promoted that grant last week as part of its two-year anniversary. There are always opportunities to promote, and we are having this debate to get the message across that people should apply and that they are entitled to those supports.

We also delivered a low-income pandemic payment of £130 to everyone who received a council tax reduction in April, and around 500,000 households had benefited from that payment by the end of last month. That demonstrates that we are using the powers that are available to us to put cash directly in the pockets of those who need it most. I want to thank our local authorities for the role that they play in supporting us to do that.

Delivery is vital in accessing benefits, and I am very proud of the central role that Scotland’s newest public service agency, Social Security Scotland, also plays in that. The agency is fundamental to ensuring that every person who requires access to that assistance is empowered and fully supported to access it.

In the last financial year, Social Security Scotland invested around £430,000 in marketing the 10 benefits that were available at that time. We know that that is making a difference. For example, Facebook advertising alone helped to drive more than 50,000 applications last year. Inclusive communications are at the heart of Social Security Scotland’s approach, and we ensure that information is also available offline for all campaigns, so that it is accessible to everyone in the way that suits them best.

We know that, in the past, access to social security was not always straightforward. We know that there are complexities and hurdles related to some UK benefits even now that make the benefit system challenging to navigate for many. Indeed, we know from previous committee sessions on the subject that the UK system is not backed by any plan or strategy to promote the take-up of social security, such as we have in Scotland. In October last year, the then Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People joined Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts in writing to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to urge a more strategic approach to maximising the take-up of reserved benefits. To date, unfortunately, no response has been received.

Our 2021 benefit take-up strategy sets out the Scottish Government’s approach to maximising the take-up of Scottish benefits, as well as providing our best estimates of the take-up of the benefits that are currently being delivered.

Acknowledging that social security must be part of a more holistic approach to income maximisation in order to support recovery from Covid, the strategy is built around five key principles that were developed through extensive stakeholder engagement and experience panel research.

First, we will prioritise person-centred approaches. We recognise that one size does not fit all and that we need to adapt and deliver tailored approaches. Secondly, we will communicate and engage effectively and send out the right messages at the right time and in the right place for the target audience. Thirdly, we will bring services to people: we will simplify processes and ensure that we bring advice and support services to people where they need it, rather than always expecting them to come to us. Fourthly, we will encourage cross-system collaboration and ensure that other public sector and third sector organisations help to deliver. Finally, we will continuously learn and improve, building on the evidence that we know and taking it on board to do things differently if required.

Each of those five principles is important when taken alone. Bringing them together in the 2021 strategy means that they will work in combination and yield far greater impact.

Inclusivity is at the centre of the social security system that we are building and is fundamental to our approach to promoting the take-up of benefits. We know that many barriers exist that prevent take-up and that vary across different segments of the population. Our commitment to engaging with seldom-heard groups and those that represent protected characteristics is driving new and bespoke approaches to supporting people to access assistance.

In January, we will launch our social security advocacy service. The Scottish Government has invested up to £20.4 million in the service, which will be delivered independently of the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. That service will mean that anyone who identifies as having a disability and requiring help to communicate will have free access to the support that they need to participate fully in social security processes and decisions that affect them.

We are also investing £10 million over the current session of Parliament to increase access to advice in accessible settings, to maximise incomes and tackle poverty. That work includes the expansion of welfare advice and health partnerships through funding of £2.9 million over three years and the placement of welfare rights advisers in up to 150 general practitioner surgeries in Scotland’s most-deprived areas. We will also consider opportunities to extend that model in education settings. Good evidence exists that placing advice in those trusted settings is a powerful tool for getting information to the people who need it, in the right place and at the right time.

We know that, for many, a fear of being stigmatised can overshadow the need to access benefits. We want to change that by challenging that discourse and empowering people to recognise their rights and access the benefits to which they are entitled. To do that, we are working alongside stakeholders and engaging with those with lived experience.

Later this month, we will launch a marketing campaign that will focus on financial wellbeing, beginning with a focus on removing the stigma around benefits. Our primary audience will be those people whom the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted and who are struggling financially as a result.

The Scottish Government is committed to building a robust and accessible Scottish social security system. We are investing in supporting access to social security and committing substantial resources to develop and implement our strategy. I look forward to hearing what members have to say in the debate.

The Presiding Officer

Members might wish to be aware that we have time for interventions, and I will give that time back whenever possible. Any member who wishes to contribute this afternoon should ensure that they press their request-to-speak button.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I apologise, Presiding Officer—I have just pressed the button.

I welcome today’s debate on accessing Scottish social security benefits and the on-going discussions across Parliament about the priorities around the reforms that are needed. I was pleased to visit Social Security Scotland this Monday alongside fellow members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. I thank those who work in the organisation for that helpful visit, which Pam Duncan-Glancy has already mentioned, and for the work that they have undertaken to date to help establish the organisation.

As the cabinet secretary has said, it is clear that, despite the pandemic, Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions are working in close partnership to build the systems in Scotland that can help to develop a new institutional knowledge as well as deliver the successful benefits system that Scotland requires. I thank the organisations that have provided useful briefings ahead of the debate.

The Scotland Act 2016 introduced sweeping devolution of welfare powers. Scottish ministers now have full control over 11 benefits that were previously administered by the UK Government. The Scottish Government is also now able to top up UK-wide reserved benefits as well as create its own suite of new benefits.

Building a sustainable and responsive social security and benefits system is in all our interests. We, in the Conservative Party, want to make sure that the system that the next Scottish Government will inherit is fit for purpose and will deliver for the people of Scotland.

It is extremely important that Parliament scrutinises the costs of setting up Social Security Scotland. It is estimated that the costs now stand at approximately £651 million. Four years ago, the SNP said that it would cost approximately £307 million to create the new agency under the devolved powers that were being delivered. Social Security Scotland is clearly costing more than that, and Parliament has the important responsibility for scrutinising that.

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

I appreciate the importance and significance of the points that Mr Briggs has raised, and I believe he does so in good faith. However, I ask him to consider that Social Security Scotland is delivering more benefits than were envisaged in 2018, because of the seven new benefits that have been created, and that we are at a key point in the conception of Social Security Scotland in that we need to build its strength not just for the years to come, but for the decades thereafter. We need to make sure that it is a strong institution for the people of Scotland, as Mr Briggs rightly said he wants it to be.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I accept the minister’s point, but it is important that Parliament and the committee, especially, scrutinise the costs of establishing the operation. In fact, we were told on Monday that operating costs, including agency agreements with the DWP, are sitting at around 10 per cent of all current benefit expenditure that is being made in Scotland under the suite of benefits that the minister has outlined. I welcome the assurances that we have been given that that is a prediction and that that figure will come in line with the DWP figure, which currently stands at around 6.3 per cent of benefit expenditure. All of us in this chamber will want to make sure that every taxpayer pound is being put into payments for claimants, not administration costs.

The use of technology and new working can reduce those costs, and that is an important argument that we have not had about how we modernise our welfare system. As I have said, I am sure that every member wants to see the money that we are putting into welfare in Scotland through this Parliament or Westminster going to claimants.

An important part of today’s debate is about looking to the future and the proposed reform of the ways in which people will be able to access social security benefits under the new system and new models that are being outlined. The Scottish Government has already signalled that it intends to replace their personal independence payment with ADP. At the moment, however, the new criteria and assessment protocols in accessing the benefit are not clear.

In its useful briefing, SAMH states that approximately 39 per cent of people who are in receipt of PIP in Scotland have a mental health problem. We all know that that group of clients faced some of the greatest challenges during the pandemic, and SAMH research has found that such applicants often find that accessing processes and frequent reassessments cause additional stress. I know that all members of the committee want to know what the reforms will actually look like and what processes will be put in place for those individuals to have awards made. Organisations such as SAMH and the MS Society Scotland are looking for those details ahead of any potential reforms, and it is important that Parliament also has the opportunity to properly scrutinise them.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

Will the member give way on that point?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

If I have time, I will take both interventions.

The Presiding Officer

Yes.

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

Mr Briggs will be aware that the Scottish Commission on Social Security has given its feedback and recommendations on the draft regulations for the adult disability payment; the Government will respond to that soon. The committee will also have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations when they are laid in Parliament.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I agree, but it is not clear how the changes will be put in place, what criteria will be used or who will undertake some of the assessments that might be needed.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Miles Briggs for giving way.

I am very much looking forward to there being divergence on policy and eligibility in relation to the adult disability payment and the child disability payment, compared with the previous position on PIP. According to evidence that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee has received, the Scottish Fiscal Commission predicts that, by making it easier for people to apply for ADP, the additional cost to the Scottish Government will be £500 million, which will need to be found from elsewhere in the Scottish budget. That highlights how much easier ADP will be to access, compared with PIP. Would Miles Briggs care to reflect on the fact that that means that PIP is a big barrier to disabled people accessing support?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I agree with Neil Gray, but it is still early days. We do not necessarily know what uptake will look like or whether payments will be easier to access.

I also agree with Neil Gray in relation to the new assessments that might be needed. At the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, we have discussed who will undertake those assessments and whether that could put people off applying, as is the case under the current system.

It was interesting to hear on Monday about the work that has been undertaken on supportive documentation, because I think that there is a need to consider reform in that area. We already know about the challenges that exist in building an integrated system that involves general practitioners, health boards and local authorities. It is not clear from the conversations that we have had whether that will be any easier under the new system. It is clear that the public organisations that I have mentioned need to consider how they can become an integral part of the process of designing and developing any new system.

In the time that I have left, I want to touch on the Social Security Scotland charter. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, section 3 of the 2018 act places a duty on ministers to promote the take-up of benefits. The act specifies that ministers must publish a strategy for promoting the take-up of benefits, on which they should consult individuals and organisations. The review has recently completed its work on that, and the thinking in that regard is being considered by the Government. It is important that the many organisations that work in this area and the many people with lived experience are an integral part of what comes out of the review.

The Social Security Scotland charter sets out what people can expect from the Scottish social security system and how Social Security Scotland will uphold those principles. However, it is important that, as part of that, a commitment is made that people’s wellbeing will be assessed. It would be interesting to hear from the minister or the cabinet secretary—I do not know which of them will close the debate—what evaluation there has been to date of the new system and the efforts that have been made to embed the charter and the values that it embodies, on which we all agree.

Today’s debate provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss the new Social Security Scotland systems that are being put in place, and I hope that it will give all members an opportunity to contribute to what should be a cross-party effort to establish those systems.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

One of the things that I say most in the chamber is that I welcome the Government’s policy intentions but I do not feel that its actions go far enough to make them a reality, so members will be unsurprised to hear that my speech today will be no different in that respect.

I give the Government a lot of credit for recognising the importance of addressing access to social security. The rhetoric is good, but, in my view, the solutions that have been set out with regard to addressing access to social security will not go far enough in doing what the Government wants to deliver. As many members will know, I do not think that the pace or scale of what the Government is doing on social security will quite deliver the policy intentions or the charter or reduce poverty in Scotland at the pace or on the scale that we need it to.

Low take-up of benefits is an age-old issue and one that requires new and revolutionary solutions.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

All of us are impatient to move away from the broken Westminster social security system that let down so many people who sought support. Does Pam Duncan-Glancy agree that the feeling that we got from senior members of Social Security Scotland on Monday, including those who have previously worked for the Department for Work and Pensions, was that the move towards the delivery of new benefits was happening at “an incredible pace”, to use their words?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I am not surprised that they described it in that way, because the organisation is new, we are in the middle of the pandemic and, as was highlighted earlier, four benefits have been delivered in an unexpected way.

I do not deny that, as an organisation, it has been quick to deliver those benefits, but I am frustrated and impatient for a change in policy direction. As Neil Gray knows, the change from DLA to PIP has already excluded a number of disabled people. As he also knows, and as the committee heard, there are tens of thousands of unpaid carers who are unable to access the support that they need. We need to move faster on that.