Scottish Parliament, 22 June 2022

368 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Business Motions

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-05171, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on suspension of standing orders.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees, for the purposes of consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.—[

George Adam

]

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-05166, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to this week’s business.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Wednesday 22 June 2022—

after

followed by

Scottish Labour Party Debate: Delivering the Immediate Removal of Non-residential Social Care

insert

followed by

Legislative Consent Motion: Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill - UK Legislation

delete

6.10 pm Decision Time

insert

6.40 pm Decision Time

(b) Thursday 23 June 2022—

delete

7.15 pm Decision Time

and insert

6.45 pm Decision Time—[

George Adam

].

Motion agreed to.

Justice and Veterans

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is justice and veterans. I ask members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak button or enter R in the chat function during the relevant question.

I advise members that business is extensive this afternoon, so I add emphasis to the usual plea that questions and answers be as succinct as possible.

Abortion Clinic Protests (Antisocial Behaviour Laws)

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions justice ministers have had with ministerial colleagues regarding using antisocial behaviour laws to prevent people from carrying out intimidating protests outside abortion clinics. (S6O-01252)

The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans and I are kept up to date on the discussions that are held in the buffer zones working group, which is chaired by the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport. The group is looking at all the legislation that could be used in response to protests at abortion clinics. That

includes the antisocial behaviour legislation about which Carol Mochan has asked.

The application of antisocial behaviour legislation in response to protests is an operational matter for Police Scotland, which assesses each incident individually and will take appropriate and proportionate action in response. The Scottish Government fully supports Police Scotland to respond to protests at abortion clinics in such a manner if Police Scotland feels that a response is merited and is required to protect individuals and public safety.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The law states that a person is involved in antisocial behaviour if they act

“in a manner that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress”

to anyone, or if they behave in a way that is

“likely to cause alarm or distress to at least one person who is not of the same household”.

In what sense is deliberately seeking to scare or intimidate a woman who is simply pursuing the healthcare to which she is entitled not antisocial? Why cannot the antisocial behaviour laws be used? Will the minister ensure that those laws are used now to protect people who are seeking healthcare?

Ash Regan

There is no place in our society for harassment, abuse and intimidation of women and girls who access healthcare services. The Scottish Government has been clear about that.

Let me reiterate what the Scottish Government is doing on the matter. The

Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport has convened a working group, whose members include

Police Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and affected health boards. The group is looking at short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions to the issue.

Members will no doubt be aware that the First Minister is committed to finding meaningful solutions to the problem of protests outside abortion clinics. She will chair a summit on the matter on 27 June—just next week. The summit will focus on buffer zones, and it will be attended by members of the Scottish Parliament, COSLA, women’s rights groups and so on.

It is important that any action that is taken is proportionate and balances everyone’s rights under the European convention on human rights. The issues are complex, but I give the assurance that we are considering them all very carefully.

Hate Crime

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s recent report on hate crime in Scotland, particularly the findings that in 2021-22 disability aggravated charges increased by 44 per cent and transgender identity aggravated charges by 87 per cent compared with 2020-21. (S6O-01253)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Any form of hate crime or prejudice is completely unacceptable. Although the increase in disability and transgender aggravated hate crime may in part be related to a greater willingness among victims to report incidents, we are not complacent and remain committed to tackling hatred and prejudice wherever it occurs. Later this year or shortly thereafter, we will publish our new hate crime strategy, which will set out our priorities for tackling hate crime. To help to drive that, we have established a strategic partnership group, which is chaired by the Minister for Equalities and Older People and includes representation from the Equality Network and Glasgow Disability Alliance.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the figures that show that total numbers of hate crimes have decreased across the north and north-east

, but it is very concerning that Inverness has seen a rise in hate crimes related to sexual orientation and disability, especially since crimes of that nature are consistently underreported. What is the Scottish Government doing to support LGBTQ+ people and disabled people who have been victims of a hate crime to come forward and report it?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government stands shoulder to shoulder with all victims of hate crime, including LGBTQ+ people and disabled people, and we strongly encourage reporting of incidents directly to the police or by using one of the many third-party reporting centres that exist in every local authority. However, we recognise that for some victims, barriers to reporting hate crime remain. As we work to develop a new hate crime strategy for Scotland, we will consider how to build on the progress that has been made in reducing barriers in order to ensure that victims and witnesses have the confidence to report hate crime, and that they feel supported in doing so.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

It is shocking that in Scottish society hate crimes against disabled people and the LGBT community have outnumbered and overtaken religious or sectarian hate crimes for the first time. Intolerance seems to be reducing in one area but increasing worryingly in another. As Ariane Burgess pointed out, such crimes are markedly underreported in those communities. As well as the steps that have been mentioned by the cabinet secretary, what conversations have taken place with Police Scotland and the Crown Office to improve prosecution rates, which would surely act as a true deterrent to those who seek to abuse people from our disabled and LGBT communities?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I agree with Jamie Greene’s point. It is shocking to see the rises in hate crime, particularly crime against people with disabilities. We recognise that not all incidents of hate crime come to the attention of the police. We engage with the police and the Crown Office, not least in relation to “Tackling Prejudice and Building Connected Communities Action Plan: Overview of Implementation”, which showed encouraging progress in raising awareness and encouraging reporting of hate crime, including through execution of the annual public awareness campaigns that we undertake with partners.

As we work to develop a new hate crime strategy with the partners that Jamie Greene mentioned, we will consider how to build on the progress that has been made on tackling barriers to reporting, including third-party reporting, to ensure victim support and further confidence.

Police Scotland (Culture)

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the review by the Police Service of Northern Ireland into findings by a tribunal of a “sexist culture” in Police Scotland. (S6O-01254)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To quote the chief constable,

“Misogyny, sexism and discrimination of any kind are deplorable. They should have no place in society and no place in policing.”

I welcome the independent report, which has been commissioned by the chief constable and carried out by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I fully support the review’s findings and recommendations. I expect to see Police Scotland demonstrating progress towards implementation of the recommendations and—to quote the chief constable again—

“to lead a change which improves the experiences of all women … enabling and supporting those who speak up … to be heard without fear of detriment or victimisation.”

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response and I welcome the fact that the report has now been published. However, the facts are these: a promising young female officer was bullied out of the force; damages of more than £1 million were awarded; and an acting inspector is being investigated for perjury. Yet this report merely recommends a review of recruitment into firearms, training on standards and a refresher course on diversity. Is recommending diversity training in response to such serious issues not the very definition of tokenism? I find it incomprehensible that the report fails to offer any insight or recommendation on organisational or procedural reform. Given that officers at the most senior level were aware of it, I find it scandalous that the conduct of no individuals other than those who were directly involved was considered. In line with Dame Elish Angiolini’s recommendations in her report on police complaints, can we put an end to the practice of the police investigating themselves? Will the cabinet secretary write to the Scottish Police Authority chair and the chief constable to ask them to reject the report and undertake a robust and comprehensive examination of the culture—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is not a brief question, Mr Johnson.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will he meet me, Rhona Malone and Richard Creanor, who first brought the matter to my attention, so that he can examine the issues directly?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have already stated that I support the recommendations that were made by the police and I do not see them as being as trivial as Daniel Johnson suggests. The root of the issue is in the training and the culture in Police Scotland, and the recommendation was made—not by Police Scotland but by the Police Service of Northern Ireland—to tackle that through training and a number of other measures. The report has just been published and I appreciate that there is room for further discussion. I will take advice about meeting the other people whom he mentioned, but I am certainly happy to discuss the matter further with Daniel Johnson and see what else is possible. After this question time and the statement that I am about to make, I will meet Police Scotland and the SPA and I am sure that we will discuss the issue at that time as well.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

What steps is the Scottish Government taking to drive forward meaningful improvement and strengthen public confidence in the police?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are committed to supporting the changes that the chief constable has committed to lead, so that Scotland’s citizens and communities have trust and confidence in the policing system and the structures that underpin it. Of course, that has been impacted by the example that has been given already.

Working with partners, following the publication of Dame Elish Angiolini’s review, we have already taken significant steps towards achieving that. On 24 May, a 12-week public consultation was launched to seek views on 34 of her recommendations that would require possible legislative changes. We will continue to engage with partners and interested parties on those important matters, so that we can further improve transparency and strengthen public confidence in the police.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I have spoken with Rhona Malone and other female officers who have suffered from Police Scotland’s sexist culture, such as Karen Harper, a brave whistleblower who was forced from her job due to sexist bullying but who is still fighting for answers after seven damaging years. She says that there is a chasm between Police Scotland’s rhetoric and its actions. As Daniel Johnson has already asked, is the cabinet secretary willing to meet her and any other woman who fears that the PSNI report might not change anything?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have substantially responded to the points in answer to Daniel Johnson’s question, but I would say the same to Russell Findlay. I am happy to meet him. I do not know the proprieties of meeting someone else who might have a current case against Police Scotland, but I am willing to look into that and come back to the member if it is possible to do so.

I agree with the point about making sure that rhetoric is reflected in reality, but I have faith that the members of Police Scotland’s senior management team are committed to this work, whether that is through the report that was produced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland or through the recommendations of Dame Elish Angiolini’s review. They are committed to driving out those behaviours and I want to support them in doing that. If, after discussions with Daniel Johnson and Russell Findlay, there are further suggestions, I am happy to take those to Police Scotland.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about creating a culture in Police Scotland in which men and women can speak up and be heard. However, in many instances, the public interest has been affected to the detriment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in order to deal with all those issues in an appropriate way, the time has come for us to consider the case for an independent office of the whistleblower in Scotland?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We already have before us a substantial body of work that looks at complaints against the police, and that is the way we should address the matter. Other suggestions might be taken into account at the same time, but I am aware of how complex the landscape already looks with the different players who are involved in looking at the police, such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the

Police Investigations and Review Commissioner

. A lot of people are involved in doing that work.

We have to ensure that the public understand what that landscape is and what the quickest, easiest and most straightforward way to make a complaint is. Also, police officers themselves have a right to expect that there is a simplified process that they can understand. That is what we are aiming for. Of course, we are willing to listen to any suggestions in addition to that.

War Pensions (Appeals)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what support and advice is available to veterans in appealing to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland regarding war pensions. (S6O-01255)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Both the war pension scheme and the armed forces compensation scheme are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The Upper Tribunal administrative appeals chamber is also reserved and is administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. However, we understand that Legion Scotland offers advice and support to veterans pursuing such claims. Veterans may also be eligible for financial assistance with their appeals through legal aid. Additionally, the veterans welfare service, which is part of the Ministry of Defence’s Veterans UK, offers support to anyone claiming a war pension.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I am indeed aware of the excellent advice and support that organisations such as Legion Scotland offer military veterans to access their entitlements, including war pensions. However, once any appeals process for war pensions reaches the

Upper Tribunal for Scotland, appeals can be made only on points of law. That has left a constituent of mine with a significant advice gap, as support organisations cannot offer such legal advice and my constituent is unable to claim legal aid. Will the cabinet secretary review the advice and support that is available in Scotland—perhaps in partnership with his colleagues in the UK Government, given the reserved aspects of much of this—to see what steps can be taken to plug what is, certainly in my constituency case, an advice gap?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I have said, war pensions are wholly reserved and the appeals process is independent. Any changes to associated support are a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence but, as Bob Doris is hinting, there are substantial controversies around the administration of these schemes, whether it is in terms of pensions or compensations that are currently at Westminster.

In order to target funding appropriately, legal aid applications are subject to statutory tests, which cover the merits of the case and the means that are available to the applicant. The Scottish ministers are not involved in the decision-making process, but there are resources available that may be able to assist with advice for Bob Doris’s constituent, such as the local citizens advice bureau, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland, which are also able to provide assistance in finding advice providers.

Legal Aid

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure fair access to justice in light of its recent resource spending review reportedly freezing legal aid spending for the next five years. (S6O-01256)

The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)

The legal aid fund is not frozen. The legal aid budget in Scotland is demand led and all those who meet the eligibility criteria will have access to legal aid. We will continue to work with justice organisations to develop and co-ordinate their delivery plans in response to the high-level spending review allocations, including public bodies such as the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

In this financial year, we have increased the legal aid budget by £13.9 million, which is an increase of 10 per cent, and we have also made an investment of £1 million over two years in the future of the legal profession. We are working in partnership with the Law Society of Scotland to deliver a new legal aid traineeship scheme, which is the first of its kind in Scotland.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

The impact of the announcement of a budget freeze will paralyse the justice system, which is already struggling. The weight of the court backlog from the Covid period is already harming access to justice and this will only threaten any recovery.

In recent months, people across the Lothian region have been caught up in a mixture of court backlogs and industrial action from the legal profession in protest at frozen pay. There is delayed justice and strike action, and people across Scotland are stuck without access to legal representation. Is this the reality of the Scottish Government’s new vision for justice?

Ash Regan

I do not agree with the member’s assessment. The spending review sets out high-level multiyear spending parameters; it is not a budget. The annual budget will continue to be set through the normal parliamentary budgeting process.

The member mentioned the backlog. The Government has invested substantial amounts of funding into reducing the backlog.

In terms of legal aid practitioners, in addition to the increase in the legal aid budget this year, we have recently also offered a 7.5 per cent uplift in criminal fees and a 5 per cent uplift in civil fees. That has been rejected by the profession. However, we will endeavour to continue those negotiations in order to find an affordable solution.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

We can all agree that fair access to justice is vitally important, so I welcome the £13.9 million investment that the minister has outlined. How does the legal aid system in Scotland compare to other jurisdictions in Europe on scope, access and eligibility?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly please, minister.

Ash Regan

An independent review of legal aid, which was published in 2018, found that Scotland had a generous legal aid system by international standards, and that it had wide scope and no cash limit. Despite significant financial pressures, Scotland is one of the leading jurisdictions in Europe for its legal aid system in terms of scope, eligibility and costs: 75 per cent of people are financially eligible for some form of civil legal aid assistance, which contrasts with England and Wales, where only 25 per cent of people are eligible for that assistance. In England and Wales, there have been cuts to scope that have left many areas of civil law, such as family, housing and immigration, largely out of scope.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister will have seen Lyndsey Barber’s powerful video setting out why she is leaving the criminal defence system. She says that the system is at breaking point. Has the minister done an assessment of the impact on victims if the system breaks?

Ash Regan

Since 2019, the Scottish Government has increased legal aid fees by 8 per cent, and another 5 per cent was committed earlier this year. That was not a one-off payment: it is a year-on-year commitment of 13 per cent. Of course, that must be set against the current backdrop of difficult public finances. That demonstrates that the Government values legal aid practitioners, and that we are investing in that system. I will give the chamber my assurance that the cabinet secretary and I will continue to engage with representatives of the profession in order to try to find a sustainable way forward.

Police Pay Negotiations

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on police pay negotiations. (S6O-01257)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The police negotiating board’s process is on-going in relation to police officer pay for 2022-23. In line with police negotiating board protocols, it is not appropriate for me to comment on that. The Scottish Government is, of course, involved in officer pay negotiations, alongside the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, as part of the PNB’s official side. Police staff pay is negotiated under a separate process to officer pay, and it is a matter for the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, in consultation with trade unions, at their joint national consultative committee.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

The Scottish National Party Government

has broken its manifesto promise to protect the police budget in real terms, and hard-working police will pay the price for that. I have an answer to a freedom of information request that shows that last year’s police pay settlement cost Police Scotland £14.5 million, which is less than the £20 million that the SNP Government is proposing to spend on another independence referendum. Would the cabinet secretary rather the SNP Government spends £20 million on police pay or on another referendum that Scotland does not want?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I say to Jeremy Balfour that that is factually incorrect. Unless he has the ability to foresee what the budget is going to be, we have not broken any commitment—but we will not let the facts get in the way of a headline.

The wage increase that police officers in Scotland were awarded last year was an increase of more than 2 per cent. What did police officers in England and Wales get from the Tories? Nothing—an increase of zero. That is the way the Tories treat police officers. It is also true that Jeremy Balfour should realise that the budget that we receive is 5.2 per cent down this year—there has been a 5.2 per cent cut to the budget by the Conservatives. [

Interruption

.] I know that members do not like to hear that, but the Tories cut the budget in Scotland by 5.2 per cent at the same time as their economic mismanagement of the economy has led to 9.1 per cent inflation. The Tories are the cause of problems for all sorts of public sector workers across the country.

We will continue to do as much as we can for the police, and we have a very good record of doing that. For example, a police officer who is starting in Scotland has a starting salary of more than £26,000, whereas one starting under Tory England and Wales will be paid £21,000. That is the way we are looking after the police.

Water Safety Action Plan

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it will raise awareness of the water safety action plan ahead of the summer to ensure that people stay safe in and around Scotland’s waters. (S6O-01258)

The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)

The member has chosen an apt moment to raise the issue, as this week is the Royal Life Saving Society UK’s drowning prevention week.

On 18 May, I convened a further meeting with our water safety action plan stakeholders, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK, and plans to raise awareness of water safety issues in advance of the summer were discussed at some length. The discussion covered activities on several fronts, including on-going work with Water Safety Scotland to raise awareness about staying safe around the water, identify drowning hotspots and improve water safety signage and messaging.

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

As the minister said, this is drowning awareness week 2022. It is one of the largest summer water safety campaigns across the United Kingdom, which is a great opportunity for organisations to educate the public to enjoy water safely.

What impact has the £60,000 funding grant for Water Safety Scotland in March had on organisations that have an interest in water safety?

Ash Regan

The Scottish Government provides annual funding to enable the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—RoSPA—to deliver an effective programme of home and water safety activity for Scotland. This year’s total of nearly £180,000 includes an additional £60,000, which is purely to better enable RoSPA to expand the support that is provided to Water Safety Scotland, which is the key forum for relevant organisations to come together to share knowledge and learning and to reinforce one another’s efforts. It will enable Water Safety Scotland to develop its pivotal leadership and management role to ensure support for all organisations in its growing membership, and to fully support the diverse workstreams that are associated with the delivery of “Scotland’s Drowning Prevention Strategy 2018-2026” and the water safety action plan. One specific example is enabling—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, I will have to stop you there in order to get in question 8 from Emma Harper, who joins us remotely.

International Transfer of Prisoners

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed the international transfer of prisoners to Scotland with the United Kingdom Government. (S6O-01259)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Ministry of Justice negotiates prisoner transfer agreements on behalf of the United Kingdom, taking into consideration the views of the devolved Administrations. The Ministry of Justice has recently shared proposed amendments to the additional protocol to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which is intended to improve prisoner transfers between the United Kingdom and Council of Europe member states. I am currently considering those amendments.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

My constituent’s son is a UK citizen and he is currently in prison in Boston in the United States. Their son has severe mental health issues and has made four applications to the international prisoner transfer scheme to be brought to Scotland. My office has been liaising with the prison, the UK consul general and the Department of Correction in the US. We have previously been told that it is unlikely that his application will be successful, despite him meeting all the criteria. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary undertake to raise the case with the UK Foreign Office to see whether any further action can be taken to bring him home to Scotland, where he will have access to his family and receive the best possible treatment?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

If the member wants to write to me with the detail, it might be something that I could raise with the UK Government.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions on justice and veterans.

Finance and the Economy

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is finance and the economy. If members wish to ask a supplementary question, I invite them to press their request-to-speak button or place an R in the chat function during the relevant question.

Brexit (Impact on Economy)

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its latest assessment is of the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s economy. (S6O-01260)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

We know that Brexit is contributing to the 19th consecutive monthly rise in prices that are charged by businesses in Scotland, and it is causing United Kingdom food prices to increase by more than 6 per cent, which hits the poorest families hardest.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, next year the UK will have the lowest growth in the G20, apart from Russia, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, in the long run, Brexit will hurt productivity growth by twice as much as the pandemic.

Since 2019, goods exports have fallen by 20 per cent, largely driven by a decline in oil and gas exports, which amounts to a fall in goods trade with the European Union of 16 per cent, whereas trade with non-EU countries dropped by only 4 per cent. That said, Scotland’s exports are still outperforming the UK’s. Excluding oil and gas, exports to all countries from Scotland last year were down 1 per cent on 2019 levels compared with a fall of 8 per cent for the UK as a whole.

Even as Scotland tries to cope with the fallout of a reckless hard Brexit, the UK Government is risking a trade war with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

It is a significant concern that Brexit continues to harm Scotland’s economy and is a persistent reminder of the on-going cost that Scotland is paying for Westminster mismanagement. Last week, the Scottish Government published an analysis paper that showed that the status quo is not allowing Scotland to fulfil our full potential, and that the UK economic model and Westminster decision making are holding us back. Can the minister say any more about how, with full control of economic powers, we would be better placed to realise Scotland’s full economic potential?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The paper that was published by the Scottish Government last week shows that comparable European countries frequently achieve better—often significantly better—outcomes than the UK on a range of measures, including gross domestic product per capita, inequality, poverty, business investment and productivity.

Compared with those countries, many of which are smaller than or of a similar size to Scotland, Scotland under Westminster control is being held back. The damage caused by Brexit will result in Scotland finding it ever harder to achieve that potential.

With the full powers of an independent country, we can of course deliver more. Scotland is blessed with an abundance of resources that, in many cases, the comparator countries lack. If all those countries can use the powers of independence to create wealthier and fairer societies, why cannot Scotland, with our vast energy resources; globally recognised record of innovation, invention and learning; exceptional food and drink industry; stunning natural heritage; strength in advantaged engineering and cutting-edge industries of the future; and, above all, the talent and potential of our people?

Independence will put the levers that determine success into our hands. Just like those other countries, we can fulfil the vast potential that we have and build the wealthier, fairer, happier country that we know is possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If we are going to get through the questions, the answers are going to have to be significantly shorter.

Fife Economy

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the economy in Fife. (S6O-01261)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Our national strategy for economic transformation contains a specific action to realise the potential of the different economic and community assets and strengths of Scotland’s regions. The delivery plans for the strategy’s programmes will take full account of different regional circumstances across the breadth of Scotland, including for Fife.

We also support Fife’s inclusive economic growth through the Tay cities region deal programme and the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal programme. Furthermore, Fife receives funding from the placed based investment programme, the regeneration capital grant fund and the vacant and derelict land fund.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

It has been great to see Fife embracing Scottish Government initiatives such as developing the young workforce, which is the national strategy for strengthening links between business and education. Does the minister agree that the link between schools and employers to engage, inform and inspire our young people is proving to be instrumental in helping to support our young people to prepare for the world of work in our developing local economies?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Developing the young workforce has a strong track record of delivering positive outcomes for young people and employers. I agree that our network of employer-led DYW regional groups is pivotal for connecting young people with career inspiration and work experience to prepare for the world of work, including, of course, in Fife, where the regional group is championed by chair Bob Garmory.

We delivered our commitment to implement DYW school co-ordinators in every mainstream secondary school in Scotland. That additional in-school resource helped to create in excess of 195,000 young people and employer engagements in 2021-22. It is our ambition, as set out in “Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation”, to establish Scotland as a world-class entrepreneurial nation. DYW regional groups are working with Young Enterprise Scotland to increase the number of secondary schools and young people, including those with additional support needs, who participate in their school programmes.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last month’s announcement of the £30 million dry dock maintenance contract awarded by the United Kingdom Government to the Babcock Rosyth facility will sustain 300 jobs and further benefit the wider Fife economy. Does the minister agree that that illustrates the benefits that Fife and the whole of Scotland derive from continued membership of the United Kingdom, and that it would be extremely damaging to undermine that relationship?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I said in my answer to the previous question, Scotland is held back by being a member of the United Kingdom. The data on comparator countries—[

Interruption

.] The members on the benches opposite really need to take a hard a look at themselves and ask themselves why those other countries do so much better than Scotland without the natural resources, talent and industries that we have, and why the UK Government and membership of the UK are holding us back from achieving our potential, as demonstrated by those comparator countries. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We do not need the backing singers from either side to be lobbing in.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister will know that only eight of the 54 turbine jackets for the Neart Na Gaoithe wind farm in the Forth are being built in the yard in Methil. That is a pathetically small number. What are the investment plans for the yard, so that it is ready to win future orders for more jackets for the next offshore wind farm?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

T

he member will—or should—be aware that I co-chair the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council, which works closely with the sector to understand what needs to be done to put Scotland’s supply chain in a competitive position to win business for the impending ScotWind round. The member will also be aware that developers that are taking part in ScotWind—my colleague Michael Matheson is leading that work—have committed to spend £25 billion in Scottish content as part of that.

A huge amount of work is happening with the sector to ensure that the Scottish supply chain has the capacity and the capability to take advantage of ScotWind and other renewable energy opportunities.

Pay Levels

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve pay levels in the Scottish economy in light of the reported findings of the Office for National Statistics that United Kingdom annual growth in regular pay, excluding bonuses, fell by 4.5 per cent after adjusting for inflation. (S6O-01262)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Households and businesses across the country are facing a serious cost of living crisis, and where we have responsibility, we are acting. Our fair work policy promotes fairer work practices, including on pay. Scotland has proportionately five times more accredited living wage employers and, on average, public sector wages are 7 per cent higher here than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have continued to provide fair and affordable pay awards, in contrast to a pay freeze in 2021-22 for most public sector workers in England for instance

The 2022-23 public sector pay policy targets the lowest paid, introducing a new Scottish public sector wage floor of £10.50 an hour, representing a 10.5 per cent increase on this year’s national minimum wage.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The latest ONS findings reveal that average wages in the UK are falling at the fastest rate for more than two decades. Last week, the First Minister told Parliament:

“I want all public sector workers to get the fairest possible pay increases, particularly at this time of soaring inflation.”—[

Official Report

, 16 June 2022; c22.]

However, the Scottish Government’s pay policy is pitting different areas of the public sector against one another. It is clear that the policy is no longer fit for purpose. Will the minister outline what urgent action the Scottish Government is taking to support all public sector workers through the cost of living emergency?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I think that the member heard Keith Brown’s earlier answer explaining how the Scottish budget that the UK Government allocates does not take inflation into account. Understandably, workers across the Scottish economy are looking for inflation to be reflected in their pay negotiations. Those two positions cannot be squared.

The member mentioned UK figures. Ultimately, this issue is the UK Government’s responsibility, but it is more interested in going to war with the trade unions at the moment, to appeal to its base vote, than it is in sorting out the many serious situations that face workers not just in Scotland but across the UK.

I have just outlined that the Scottish Government has adopted a progressive public pay policy compared with other parts of the UK. We will continue to keep the matter under review. However, we need UK Government support and the Scottish budget to reflect the challenges that we are facing from inflation.

Budget (Infrastructure)

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how much it is allocating in its budget for infrastructure plans. (S6O-01263)

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

The Scottish Government’s capital budget for this financial year provides more than £6.4 billion of capital investment. All future final spending commitments will, of course, be outlined during the annual budget process in the usual way.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The Scottish National Party Government has admitted that it will not be able to fulfil all its infrastructure plans, despite the promises to dual roads such as the A9 and A96, which are essential upgrades for local residents and businesses.

The SNP has mismanaged the economy and it has wasted obscene amounts of Scottish taxpayers’ money. We are all familiar with the £250 million spent on ferries that will not sail. In Edinburgh, £12.2 million has been spent so far on the Hardie tram inquiry, with no date yet for its publication. It is a wonder that the Government has any money left for essential infrastructure upgrades. How can the SNP justify cuts to infrastructure projects that are critical to economic recovery when it continues to preside over such waste and overspending that has yet to deliver anything for Scotland?

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

I wonder whether Sue Webber could answer the question as to who will preside over the slowest economic growth in the G20 bar Russia over the coming years or who is presiding over the highest levels of inflation in the G7 right now. I think that she will find that it is a lot closer to home.

We have received a lower-than-expected capital settlement from the United Kingdom Government’s spending review: £15.8 billion compared with £16.6 billion over the next few years. That clearly reduces the capital funding envelope. Despite that, we have outlined our targeted investments over the next two years, which we are committed to delivering.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There are a number of supplementaries. I will try to get through as many as possible, but they will need to be brief, as indeed will the responses.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the cabinet secretary advise members what impact the UK Government’s cut of 9.7 per cent to the Parliament’s capital budget in the coming financial year is having on the Scottish Government’s investment in infrastructure at a time of rocketing inflation?

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

The member is right to talk about rocketing inflation, which is, again, being presided over by the Conservatives.

Within the constrained envelope of capital that we have received, which puts significant pressure on our capital programme, we have continued to invest, knowing that, ultimately, investing in construction and infrastructure is one way to manage the economic outlook at this hugely challenging time.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Last week, Liz Cameron, the chief executive officer of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, said that the Scottish Government should honour the commitment that the A96 would be dualled from start to finish. However, the A96 corridor review references only dualling from Inverness to Nairn. The consultation, which closed on 10 June, contained more than 100 questions—

not one mentioned dualling between Huntly and Aberdeen.

Will the Government honour its promise, which was made more than a decade ago, to dual the A96 from start to finish, or betray the north-east yet again?

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

As somebody who regularly drives on the A96 and the A9, I state that we are committed to improving the transport infrastructure throughout Scotland. The revised capital spending plan that I mentioned includes £1.9 billion of investment in motorways and trunk roads.

We are absolutely committed to completing the dualling of the A9—I know that that is not the question that the member asked—and to fully dualling the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness. Obviously, we have agreed to conduct a transparent, evidence-based review of that programme. That is under way and will report by the end of 2022.

We could do those things much faster if we had more capital funding and it was not being cut at every budget.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I apologise to members who I was not able to get to for supplementaries.

Resource Spending Review (Children and Young People’s Rights)

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how its resource spending review publication, “Investing in Scotland’s Future”, will ensure that children and young people’s rights to food, education and fun will be met. (S6O-01264)

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

The resource spending review outlines how we will focus public spending in the coming years, including by delivering our investment in education and skills. That is where the funding comes from for early learning and childcare, play opportunities and education. We will continue to deliver the measures that we have set out, and that will be updated in next year’s budget.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

At the weekend, Roz Foyer, the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, said:

“Child hunger is a political choice. We need to see the political will to fix it.”

Will the cabinet secretary give any further indication of the level of investment that is being made available to expand access to universal free school meals for primary 6 and 7 pupils and into secondary schools? Child hunger and child poverty do not stop at the gates of primary schools.

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

The member is right to quote the STUC and make the point that she has just made. She will be aware that pupils in primary 1 to 5 and in special schools already benefit from the offer of universal free school lunches during term time as well as there being investment in holiday food provision. We have set out our commitment to the expansion of free school meals further, and our commitment for next year will be updated in next year’s budget.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Will the cabinet secretary provide any further information about how measures to reduce the cost of the school day will be supported by investment presented in the resource spending review?

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

It is right that, alongside providing free school meals, we are investing significantly in reducing the cost of the school day, including by supporting families with children. That includes funding the school clothing grant, removing curriculum charges and providing free music tuition, to name just a few policies, although others have been allocated resources in this year’s budget. That investment will continue next year.

Audit Scotland (Budget)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how the reported proposed real-terms cuts to the budget of Audit Scotland could impact on its work. (S6O-01265)

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

As the member should know, although his question suggests that he might not,

the Scottish Government has no role in setting the level of Audit Scotland’s funding from the Scottish budget; its funding is agreed directly with the Parliament. Audit Scotland’s funding for next year and for future years will be set in the normal way, through the annual budgeting process.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government’s spending review, which was published just two weeks ago, delivers an indicative £1 million real-terms cut to Audit Scotland’s budget. Perhaps even more concerning are the reported comments in the media from senior Scottish National Party figures about “clipping the wings” of Audit Scotland. One source is quoted as saying:

“Audit Scotland has become too powerful. This has been talked about in government for years now.”

It would be atrocious if the Government tried to emasculate the very body that is doing such an effective job of shining a light on its failures. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to strengthen Audit Scotland, not try to cut it back?

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

What is atrocious is deliberately misleading on the facts. Members do not need to listen to my words on the issue; they can listen to the Audit Scotland spokesperson, who said:

“Our costs are met through a balance of the funding we receive from the Scottish Parliament and ... audit fees”.

The member might think that we should not let facts get in the way of a good headline, but the facts are pretty clear: the Parliament, not the Government, sets the budget.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Daniel Johnson, but this question must be shorter than his previous supplementary question.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

A further 7 per cent cut would take the total cuts to Audit Scotland’s budget since 2006 to 25 per cent. If Audit Scotland receives that cut, does the cabinet secretary expect the quality of its audits to go up or down?

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

Here we go, with more misleading on the facts. Audit Scotland is independently funded through the Scottish Parliament and the audit fees that public bodies pay it. Audit Scotland’s budget for next year will be set through the annual budgeting process in exactly the same way as its budgets have been set for years. Audit Scotland indicates to the Parliament the funding that it needs, and the Scottish Government accommodates that in the budget. Those are the facts.

Scottish National Investment Bank

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report published by Reform Scotland describing the Scottish National Investment Bank as “unfocused and ill-conceived”, having a “strategic deficiency” and recommending that the bank be “reset”. (S6O-01266)

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

I assume that the member is referring to the report that also states that the bank

“is exactly the kind of big, ambitious policy experiment that Holyrood should be embarking on”.

To date, within the first 18 months of its establishment, the bank has delivered investment commitments of more than £200 million to 16 projects across all three of its missions.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

There are selective quotes and there are selective quotes, and that is an incredibly selective quote. Reform Scotland says that it is all a bit messy. The bank has had 81 priorities set for it by ministers—how it is possible to have 81 priorities is completely beyond me. Given that the Scottish National Party Government has anything but a stellar record when it comes to industrial strategy—trains, airports, smelters, fabrication yards, green jobs and ferries come to mind—does the cabinet secretary agree that the best thing that the SNP Scottish Government could do is accept that, when it comes to these things, it is out of its depth and should just let the bank get on with setting its own priorities?

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

In fact, our views are probably not too dissimilar, because the bank is operationally independent. Ironically, every time a member of this Parliament does not like what the bank has done, they ask me what I will do about it. I will allow the bank to continue to make investments according to its three missions—on net zero, on place and on innovation—which were, I think, agreed on a cross-party basis. Despite the bank being, in essence, a start-up, money has gone out the door and there is a pipeline of investable propositions. I think that the bank has done a remarkable job in its first two years.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have a very brief supplementary question from Evelyn Tweed.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

As the cabinet secretary has indicated, Reform Scotland’s report notes that the Scottish National Investment Bank

“is exactly the kind of big, ambitious policy experiment that Holyrood should be embarking on”.

Does she agree that Opposition members could do with sharing in that ambition to realise Scotland’s economic potential and should wake up to the fact that we could do so much more to develop our economy with the powers of a normal, independent country?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.

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

The regular headlines about Scotland’s economic performance demonstrate that we are attracting investment, making progress and ensuring that there is long-term economic growth. We have already seen how small countries that are very similar in nature to Scotland, such as Sweden, Ireland, Denmark and Finland, use their powers of independence to achieve economic success. We could do the same.

Budget (Courts and Prosecution Service)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that any real-terms cuts in its budget may impact most on the courts and prosecution service. (S6O-01267)

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

We continue to deliver reform across the justice system, responding to the needs of individuals and making more than £50 million available annually for recovery and reform. In the current financial year, we have increased the resource budget for both the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Crown Office.

However, as the member will know, we can allocate only the funding that current forecasts determine that we will receive. We are currently contending with a 5.2 per cent real-terms reduction in this year’s budget, and the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s analysis demonstrates that our total funding is expected to be 1 per cent lower again, in real terms, for the next three years.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Reports suggest that the courts and the prosecution service will bear the brunt of public sector job cuts after the announcement of a real-terms budget cut that the cabinet secretary previously mentioned. That is despite the fact that the justice system is already struggling to deal with the effects of the pandemic.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the backlog involves 40,000-plus cases and that it affects victims, in particular. Allan Simpson, the national officer for the FDA trade union, which represents staff at the Crown Office, has said that

“There is no fat to cut”

and that

“Staff are already working at maximum capacity”.

I believe that the cabinet secretary is on record as saying that we may lose up to 17,000 full-time jobs. How many jobs does she expect to lose in the justice sector with cuts of this level?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.

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

With the investment of an additional £50 million in 2021-22 to support dealing with the backlog, as well as funding this year of a further £53.2 million, we are doing all that we can, through funding and other means, led by my colleague Keith Brown, to reduce the backlog and get back to where we were.

We have also extended funding to remote jury centres for an additional three months to support the transition back to having juries in court.

I think that we all agree that dealing with the Covid backlog is critically important. We will obviously update the budget when we come to next year’s budget, in line with the normal processes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions.

Deaths in Custody

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown, on deaths in custody. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

In November 2019, my predecessor commissioned an independent review into the response to deaths in prison custody, in recognition of the need for increased transparency and better engagement with families following a death in custody. The review report was published on 30 November last year. On that date, I made a statement accepting in principle all the recommendations that were made by the review. I also made a commitment to provide Parliament with an update on progress made against the recommendations by summer 2022, and I will now honour that commitment.

I wish to begin by refreshing members’ memories of the purpose of the review. Its primary aim was to make recommendations on areas in which improvements can be made in the immediate response to deaths in prison custody by the Scottish Prison Service and the national health service, including deaths of prisoners while in NHS care. The review did that and, most importantly, it highlighted ways in which the response to, and experiences of, families could both be made more consistent and improved, so as to provide prompt answers, transparency and compassion.

The review recommended that two pillars of trauma-informed practice should underpin every interaction with families, at all points along the justice journey, including when a family experiences bereavement through the death of a loved one in SPS care. The two pillars are choice and control. It is my absolute commitment that choice and control, as well as compassion and transparency, will be woven into our justice system so as to better deliver for families.

At the beginning of this year, I held a round table with key agencies and family members who had provided expert views and lived experience to the review, to map what needed to be done to deliver on the recommendations and to gain agreement from all to make the necessary changes at pace. It was agreed by all that there were real benefits to the work being externally led.

In April, I appointed Gillian Imery, formerly Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, as an external chair to provide independent oversight and leadership for the implementation of all the review’s recommendations. Ms Imery has already met with all relevant stakeholders, and has established a deaths in prison custody action group to oversee and drive forward the programme of work that is necessary to make the suggested improvements to operational practices and to meet the recommendations. The group met for the first time yesterday. Agencies have already indicated early changes to the way that they respond to families and handle deaths in custody internally, with a commitment to making longer-term improvements over the coming few months.

I also met with Ms Imery yesterday, in the first of a series of regular progress updates with her, and I am assured that improvements are being implemented by all agencies. The external chair has committed to publishing a written update in November this year. That will provide on-going transparency to all the important work that is being progressed across this policy area.

I move on to improvements that are being made by agencies. The SPS is piloting an electronic form that allows family members to flag any serious concerns that they might have about the health and wellbeing of a loved one in prison. The form and its submission process have been user tested by third sector partners and prison monitor co-ordinators, which has identified that mental health concerns and suicidality are readily flagged, but physical health concerns are not. The form has therefore undergone additional refinement and will be further tested for efficacy.

The SPS is also seeking to improve early access for prisoners to emergency bells, and for staff to equipment such as ligature cutters and privacy screens. Those practices are being reviewed, and in some instances they have already been actioned. Privacy screens are now in place in the majority of prisons, with the remainder in train to be put in place. Active consideration is being given to the best model for ensuring ready access to ligature cutters, and I am confident that that will be resolved in the very near future.

The SPS is in agreement with the review’s recommendation that prison governors should be the next point of contact with families, after the police, as soon as possible after a death. It has already implemented that as best practice in a number of establishments.

In relation to NHS improvements, the NHS has taken the lead on developing a suite of training packages for NHS and SPS staff, including ones that equip staff with coping skills for responding to deaths in custody. They have also developed a process whereby prison nurses can provide confirmation of death, thus reducing the pressure on the Scottish Ambulance Service. That process has already been cascaded to all health boards, and further training to prison nurses will follow as soon as possible. Linking to that, within the next two months, the NHS will have developed a pathway, agreed with the SPS, that outlines the responsibilities of healthcare and operational staff following a death in custody.

As the head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland, the Lord Advocate has responsibility for the investigation of all sudden, suspicious and unexplained deaths. Any decision of the Lord Advocate in that capacity is taken independently of any other person. In my previous statement to Parliament, I explained that the key recommendation would complement the independent investigation by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service into the circumstances of the death, the information provided to families by the Crown Office in terms of the family liaison charter, and the subsequent fatal accident inquiry, which is presided over by the judiciary. It was made clear that the recommendation around the independent body does not, and should not, replace any of the current inquiry processes. The Lord Advocate agreed in principle with the recommendation, and the Crown Office is providing a contribution as a key stakeholder.

I turn to the key recommendation, which is that an independent investigation should be undertaken into each death in prison custody and carried out by a body that is wholly independent of the Scottish ministers, the SPS, the private prison operators and the NHS.

My officials have constituted a working group of key agencies, the remit of which is to design a gold standard investigative process to review each death, identify lessons to be learned, and provide prompt answers and a single point of contact to families. The Scottish Government and the Crown Office are working closely and collaboratively to ensure that the new approach functions seamlessly in tandem with, and parallel to, existing investigative processes that need to take place when a death in custody occurs. The group is furthermore considering options as to the most suitable independent public body to take on the new approach in the current fiscal climate.

In April, my officials held a round table with the ombudsmen and senior investigators of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, to hear from them how deaths in custody are investigated in their jurisdictions. The implementation of the key recommendation will bring us in line with those jurisdictions, and there are lessons to learn from them in relation to good practice and key areas to be improved on when we create our own approach. A key takeaway from that meeting was the need for our approach not only to make recommendations but to have the statutory power to enforce them.

I want to ensure that changes that are made to processes when someone dies in custody are meaningful, that they meet families’ expectations, and that they radically improve the response to families when the death of a loved one occurs in prison. However, it takes time to effect meaningful change and, in order for changes to have teeth, they might require to be made in statute, which is dependent on parliamentary timetabling.

It is imperative that, as we move at pace to improve operational processes, we do not lose sight of the fact that, at the heart, we are striving to improve our response to bereaved families. I want to be clear that I regard families as our most important stakeholders, as key consultants as we progress with implementing the recommendations and as co-designers of the new investigative process.

I am adamant that we will consistently deliver a trauma-informed and compassionate service only when we afford families the twin loci of choice and control. I wish to reiterate my commitment to giving that choice and control to families at each and every touch point with public agencies—Police Scotland, the SPS, the NHS, the Scottish Government and the Crown Office—when a family experiences loss through a death in prison custody.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if all members who wish to ask a question pressed their request-to-speak button now.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of today’s statement, and I thank Gillian Imery for the work that she has done on the issue. We as a Parliament should send our deepest condolences to the many families who have been affected by a death in custody in Scotland.

The statistics are truly shocking. Scotland has one of the highest rates of deaths in prison in Europe. This past year, 54 people sadly lost their lives in custody, which was a 60 per cent increase on the previous year. Behind every single number is a life lost, such as Calum Inglis, Steven Sweeney and Reese Fairgrieve, and who can forget the tragedies of Katie Allan and William Lindsay’s deaths in Polmont? All of those deaths point to systemic failures around custody in Scotland.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations, especially that of an independent inquiry into each and every death in custody. I have three specific questions for the cabinet secretary on his statement. First, given that deaths in custody are already subject to fatal accident inquiries, it is vital that there should be no delay in those taking place as a result of any new potential investigative processes. Will that be the case or not?

Secondly, given that, shockingly, FAIs take three or four years just to commence, and given that nine in 10 FAIs make no recommendations for improvements when they conclude, does the cabinet secretary back families’ calls for much swifter commencement and resolution of FAIs, and more importantly, for them to result in meaningful change thereafter?

Finally, what steps will the cabinet secretary take to ensure that prison officers and families of the deceased are not retraumatised by the entire process of having to give evidence potentially multiple times to different inquiries?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

First, in relation to whether the FAI process might result in a delay—or, vice versa, whether the new process might result in a delay in FAIs—we have involved the Crown Office in all the discussions that we have had so far to try to avoid that situation. The Crown Office is a stakeholder in the various working groups that I have mentioned. It is about trying to make those two processes complement each other rather than get in front of each other. We are committed to doing that, and we are not doing it on our own but with the Crown Office.

The member also mentioned the need for swifter FAIs. Of course, that is for the Crown Office to answer, but it is committed to that and we have seen real progress on the matter in recent years, not least because of additional resources, particularly in relation to staff, which have allowed the Crown Office to further increase the pace at which FAIs are done. We are all aware of the one or two examples that have taken a very long time—I accept that point—but, generally, the picture is improving. It is for the Crown Office to take it forward.

On meaningful recommendations at the end of FAIs, again I cannot supplant the role of the Lord Advocate in that. However, I know that she is also seized of the need to make sure that meaningful actions come out of FAIs.

The member’s final point was about the need to try to avoid prison officers and others being retraumatised. That is a good point, and I made the same point when the report first came out. We have to consider the impact on prison officers, because they can be traumatised just as much as anybody else by witnessing a death in custody. We are seized of the need to work on that. We are aware of the danger of the different processes contributing to retraumatising, but we are trying to make sure that that issue is addressed as we work through the various workstreams that I have mentioned.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Scotland must have the highest standards of welfare and safety of persons who are detained in prisons and other facilities. As has been said, Scotland has an unacceptably high number of deaths in custody.

I welcome some of the commitments to improve the system, particularly by allowing families to flag up any serious concerns that they have about their family members’ physical health. It was mentioned in the statement that mental health and suicidality are already flagged up, but I know of cases in which families have raised concerns about family members who are in prison and are in serious distress, and those concerns have not always been acted on with the right level of urgency. I want to be clear that that will be included when we look at setting up new systems. I also seek the cabinet secretary’s assurance that families will be able to properly record welfare concerns.

I also want to ask about the pillars referred to in the statement. I would have thought that timely answers and timely information about the circumstances of a death in custody would have been an important principle to guide us in a new system. The independent report recommended “unfettered access” to information in the event of a death in custody, and I believe that the Government is committed to that. However, I will continue to ask what that will amount to. Will it ensure that families will be given access to information as the information unfolds? I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that one of the main purposes of changing the system is to give families full confidence in any new process that will correct the mistakes of the past. Families feel that information has been kept from them and that it takes far too long to get answers about deaths in custody.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I think that Pauline McNeill’s first point was about whether general health concerns rather than suicidality or mental health concerns are properly recorded. I tried to make the point that a new electronic process has been developed and, during the course of its development, it was found that it was not doing exactly what Pauline McNeill has asked for. That process is now being changed to make sure that general health concerns are also recorded.

On whether families can have full confidence in the process, that is what we are aiming to achieve, but we have something more basic to achieve before we get to that, which is to give families the courtesy of basic information whenever it is possible to do so. I am the first to concede that that has not always happened in the past. That is our intention.

On time limits, which goes back to Jamie Greene’s questions, it will be about trying to make sure that the two processes that might apply are dovetailed as far as possible. Our aim is to make sure that, especially in straightforward cases, the information that is available can be passed on to the family as quickly as possible. That is the intention. I also think that victims should have similar notification, and that has been addressed by some of the recommendations that the SPS has already taken forward by publicising on its website the fact that somebody has died in prison. Those are our aims and what we are trying to do.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to questions from back benchers. I point out that we are already over the amount of time that was allotted to the two front benchers for their questions. I hope that that will not impact on back benchers.

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

As the cabinet secretary and other members have said, it goes without saying that one life lost in custody is one life too many. Therefore,

I ask the cabinet secretary to reaffirm that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to treat this serious issue with all the sensitivity and priority that it deserves.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is exactly our intention. It has to be remembered that our prisons deal with some of the most vulnerable people in society, and there is no getting round the fact that, for most people, being put in prison is a traumatic thing to happen.

I am absolutely committed to making improvements to the response to, and the experience of families who are impacted by, a death in custody. It is a family member, not the family, who has been sent to prison. As Pauline McNeill said, we must provide them with prompt answers and ensure that a compassionate approach is taken. That is why we have commissioned independent reviews into the provision of mental health services to young people in Polmont prison and into responses to deaths in custody. As I have mentioned, I have appointed Gillian Imery as the external chair to oversee the work on the implementation of the recommendations.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Drugs kill far too many in society and in our prisons. The cabinet secretary previously said that he hoped to achieve drug-free prisons but, just this week, a senior boss at HMP Barlinnie said that drugs can never be eradicated inside. Indeed, prison officers tell me that they are often threatened by organised criminals to get them to smuggle drugs.

Under the new process, what support will be given to prison officers who find themselves involved in an investigation involving a drug death?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I recently discussed that very issue with the governor of Saughton prison. I know that members of the Criminal Justice Committee have visited HMP Edinburgh, which has well-developed practices for supporting prison officers. However, that prison does not yet have the kind of body scanner that Barlinnie prison has, which, I am told, has been extremely effective.

Through the use of such equipment, along with the photocopying of documents that is now being done in many of our prisons, real progress is starting to be made in reducing the incidence of drugs in prison.

Russell Findlay quoted someone at Barlinnie saying that it is impossible to eradicate drugs in prison. Regardless of whether that is the case, in that person’s view, we must aim to eradicate drugs from our prisons. We must continue to train prison officers and to make sure that they have the support that they need. Often, the issue butts up against serious organised crime and people who are convicted for such offences, but I am content that, by pursuing the new technological opportunities that we have, we can make further progress in eradicating drugs from our prisons.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

What steps are being taken to improve the transparency of data on deaths in custody?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have undertaken a number of initiatives in relation to data. I have mentioned, in relation to advising people of such deaths, that information will be put up on the Scottish Prison Service website. We must make sure that that information is collated and that the data is used.

That will be looked at by the working group as part of the work that is being done by Gill Imery, so I expect to be able to give more information on how we can improve data in a future statement.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The Sheku Bayoh inquiry, which, of course, relates to a police-related death, started taking evidence seven years after Sheku Bayoh’s death. It is currently in the first of four stages, and I understand that it may take four years to report.

How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the recommendations of that substantial inquiry are implemented?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We always listen very carefully to any recommendations that are made by a public inquiry. To be fair, I think that all Governments do that.

The member mentioned the length of time that it has taken for the

Sheku Bayoh inquiry

to get to this stage. I understand that concern. Other concerns have been expressed to me about the fact that people who are appointed to chair inquiries can sometimes be unwell, which causes delays.

As the member knows, such matters are not an issue for me. Public inquiries are independent, and we want to respect that independence.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The first death in custody since 2019 at Cornton Vale prison, in my constituency, is currently under investigation. I extend my condolences to the person’s family and friends.

What steps are being taken to minimise the risk of deaths in custody at Cornton Vale? How will the on-going rebuilding of the prison assist with that?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have set out bold and progressive plans for the new female custodial estate in Scotland. The plans

include the smaller national prison in Stirling that the member mentioned, which will be built on the current Cornton Vale site and will accommodate around 80 women with the most complex needs, together with an assessment centre that is focused on identifying the needs of all women who come into prison custody.

Alongside the new facilities, we will adopt a new approach to working with women in prison. The SPS, in partnership with multidisciplinary teams, will work to create a recovery-based ethos that responds to the specific needs of women in custody. All aspects of the approach will be gender specific and trauma informed.

The SPS strategy for women is aligned with the national trauma training framework.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement, and I welcome the recommendation that an independent investigation should be undertaken into each death in custody.

Will the Government set a maximum threshold for how long families might wait for such a review to begin? What guarantee can the justice secretary give families, who often find it incredibly difficult to navigate legal proceedings of that type, that they will get the support that they need to be fully engaged, including universal access to legal aid?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am sorry, but I perhaps missed the start of the question. I am trying to understand which inquiry Liam McArthur is talking about.

If his question related to the work that is on-going, we expect to report back to the Parliament in November, as I said. No inquiry process is related to that—unless the member was asking how quickly the matter can be processed when someone makes an inquiry. I am sorry that I did not catch the start of what he said.

If Liam McArthur’s question related to support for families when there is a public inquiry, I can tell him that we look at such issues. For example, as the member knows, because he has written to me on this subject, assistance is provided currently in a public inquiry. We have a role in funding and facilitating public inquiries, to ensure that they have the most comprehensive possible information and witness participation. We will continue to do that. In relation to this process, we want the maximum possible access to be given to families who have suffered as a result a death in custody. That might be consistent with some of the things that I said previously.

If I misunderstood the member’s question, I will be happy to get back to him.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call

Ruth Maguire, who is joining us remotely.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

[

Inaudible

.]—the cabinet secretary’s comments about families and accessibility and how people can—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Sorry, Ms Maguire. The sound cut out at the beginning of your question. Could you start again, please?

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I appreciated hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments on f

amilies, the importance of compassion and the steps that are being taken to increase accessibility.

Will the cabinet secretary update us on steps that are being taken to provide mental health support to people in prison, specifically with regard to suicide prevention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The safe treatment of mental health issues for all people in custody is a priority for our prisons, and the Prison Service takes the issue very seriously.

We know that people in custody present with higher levels of risk and vulnerability than the general population as a whole, for reasons that I have mentioned—they often have complex mental health needs.

A cross-portfolio ministerial working group has been formed to identify issues that the justice system currently faces in relation to mental health and to consider ways to bring forward urgent and creative solutions.

The SPS has reissued revised “Talk to Me” guidance to all staff, to make clearer the circumstances in which a risk assessment and/or healthcare assessment should be carried out. The guidance remains in place and was in place throughout the pandemic.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Maggie Chapman

, who is joining us remotely.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement, and I welcome his intention to implement the recommendations of the independent review.

One purpose of the new process of independent investigation is to improve the experience of the families of people who die in custody. That is vital. Another purpose must be to learn lessons about how to prevent future deaths in custody. Can the cabinet secretary say how any learning from the new process will make its way into appropriate changes in policy, practice or operations, to prevent future deaths? Will he also say what we can do to ensure that independent investigations and FAIs are held in a timely manner?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I assure the member that the people concerned—Gill Imery and HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland—

are well versed in the current situation in prisons and are well seized of those issues, but there is more work to be done on mental health issues, as I have just mentioned.

The member also mentioned the role of families. When I met the families, I was impressed with the knowledge that they had—first-hand lived experience of sometimes very traumatic events. We want to make sure that the lived experience of those families informs the new ways in which we can try to prevent further deaths in prison.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

We know that a preventative and supportive approach, and not a punitive one, is the best way to ensure that people in Scotland do not come to harm while in custody. Does the cabinet secretary agree that people in custody must have full access to mental health care and support, and will he outline how the Scottish Government is achieving that objective?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I imagine that there is unanimity in the chamber that those who are in prison should have the same level of care, whether for mental health or physical wellbeing, as those who are not in custody. We made that clear in our mental health transition and recovery plan, which was published in October 2020. I have already mentioned the ministerial working group.

In addition, the SPS is working in partnership with mental health experts to co-produce a revised mental health strategy for those in custody, which will be informed by a suite of health needs assessments on prisons, including one on mental health, which will be published by the Government later this year. The SPS is also working in partnership with NHS prison healthcare colleagues to ensure that due consideration is given to pre-liberation planning that will support transfer of care on release. That is about throughcare and a consistency of support for people who can be extremely vulnerable when they are in prison and when they are first released.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is reassuring to hear the cabinet secretary state that active consideration is being given to the best model for ensuring ready access to ligature cutters, which are a hugely important preventative piece of equipment that can save lives. In Scotland, SPS staff have to collect ligature cutters from a communal area; in England and Wales, they have been introduced for all front-line staff.

The cabinet secretary likes to use the phrase “at pace”, so when will that vital tool be made accessible?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have already made clear the pace at which we are considering that issue in prisons. In some cases, the issue is currently being dealt with, but I think that it is fairly obvious to most people that the presence of ligature cutters could also represent a threat in a prison environment. The fact that the SPS, Gill Imery and all those concerned are trying to do this in a way that maximises the safety of staff and prisoners shows that that is the right approach. The issue is being dealt with in many prisons, and they are not waiting for the further review that I mentioned or the further update.

I am sure that it will be rolled out in a safe way in all prisons in due course.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the statement. I will allow a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, in the event that front-bench teams wish to change places.

Retained European Union Law

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Angus Robertson on retained European Union law. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I wish to make a statement on the United Kingdom Government’s so-called Brexit freedoms bill, which will have a profound and, sadly, a damaging impact on this Parliament and Scotland as a whole.

The people of Scotland rejected Brexit by a margin of 24 per cent, and there was a majority for remaining in the EU in every local authority area in Scotland. Nevertheless, in February this year, the UK Government published a document extolling what it called the benefits of Brexit. At the time, I noted to members of the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs Committee the profound absence of Brexit benefits for people and businesses in Scotland. Indeed, the disbenefits were all too evident. Polling shows that 75 per cent of people in Scotland have a negative opinion about whether the UK has benefited from Brexit, and only 2 per cent believe that Boris Johnson has delivered a good deal.

Five months on—and with the Brexit freedoms bill potentially imminent—we find ourselves in an even more desperate situation; we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis.

The think tank UK in a changing Europe says that Brexit has led to a 6 per cent increase in food prices. The Centre for European Reform reports that the UK economy was 5 per cent—or £31 billion—smaller than comparator economies at the end of last year, primarily because of Brexit. Scotland’s total trade with the EU was 16 per cent lower in 2021 than in 2019, with food exports down by £68 million.

Now, with the UK in real danger of entering recession, and in the middle of the cost of living crisis, the Tory Government at Westminster seems intent on provoking a trade war with the European Union by tearing up an international agreement that the Prime Minister had hailed as a fantastic moment.

Therefore, despite much searching by the UK Government’s so-called minister for Brexit opportunities, the only thing to have changed since February is that the disbenefits of Brexit are now more pronounced.

Although Mr Rees-Mogg has been on his feet this afternoon in the House of Commons—hopefully providing the clarity that we have not yet received—the UK Government has declined to share the Brexit freedoms bill instructions with us, or provide any settled certainty of its policy intentions. Regardless, we should be under no illusion about the risk that the legislation presents to Scotland. We understand that the bill will end the supremacy of European law and repeal or reform regulations on business. The danger is now greater than ever of a race to the bottom, inspired by a hard Brexit.

Beneath the froth of crown marking on pint glasses and the adoption of imperial weights and measures, the UK Government’s intention to turn away from EU laws should trigger real concern for businesses, members of this Parliament and all those who hold dear the standards that the EU helped to embed in our society.

More than 2,000 pieces of legislation, which were carefully influenced or possibly proposed by the UK Government as a member state over 50 years, must be made to go through a legislative process or, according to media reports, will simply “sunset” and fall away from the statute book entirely.

There is no understanding in Whitehall about how much of that legislation falls within devolved competence. I have had a look at Jacob Rees-Mogg’s statement, in which he makes no mention whatsoever of the devolved consequences of his announcement. There is no desire to understand the consequent implications for devolved powers or legislation.

Apparently, those changes are to be made by 2026 or 2030—dates whose sole rationale is that they make good public relations as an anniversary of the Brexit referendum or the end of the transition period. They are not driven by the magnitude or importance of the task, or by the availability of time in this Parliament, the Senedd, Stormont or Westminster. The dates take no account of the fact that, as a direct consequence of the hard Brexit that the UK Government has chosen to prosecute, there is no Executive in place in Northern Ireland. Instead, yet again, the bill is driven by the same blind ideology that caused so much damage to Scotland in the first place.

The truth is that the pace of the exercise threatens parliamentary scrutiny and workloads. The UK Government is tilting at the windmills of EU standards, when it would be better advised to cease undermining the Northern Ireland protocol, an action that blocks implementation of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, and causes our continued exclusion, for example, from the horizon Europe research programme.

There is little to no appropriate consideration of the bill’s impacts—intended or otherwise—of doing away with the regulations and case law that have driven the high standards across Europe and from which we benefit.

The UK Government has said that it wants the Brexit freedoms bill to “utilise regulatory freedoms” by “lightening their burden” on UK businesses. Its main purpose appears to be to give the UK Government the freedom to abandon the legislation that has protected Scottish interests for almost 50 years.

The bill will create uncertainty for business and threatens to fire the starting pistol in a race to the bottom on standards with regard to food, the environment, animal and plant health, and workers’ rights.

The bill is a threat to devolution. Taken alongside the powers of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, devolved competences will be disastrously exposed and undermined by a UK Government that is searching for an answer to the self-inflicted pain of Brexit.

Our policy of aligning with EU standards will be at risk. The common frameworks process, which is designed to manage divergence and alignment, looks to be side-stepped or ignored completely.

Sensible standards and regulations will be kept only if they are re-enacted through this Parliament, and they will then be only temporarily protected if the 2020 act is directed to undercut them.

We do not yet know the exact implications for this Parliament’s legislative programme, as we have not been provided with the necessary detail. However, we know that, if we want to maintain the legislation, we will have to find a great amount of Government and parliamentary time.

When I met the minister for so-called Brexit opportunities, I was assured by him that the Sewel convention would be respected. If that commitment is to be honoured, it would mark a departure from the UK Government’s approach during the Brexit process, when it has repeatedly legislated on devolved matters despite this Parliament refusing its consent to do so.

An approach that “sunsets” EU law—which would see legislation automatically fall if unamended by a fixed deadline—takes no account of our priorities or our interest in staying aligned with EU legislation. It is unacceptable that the UK Government seems ready to unveil sweeping measures that could have profound consequences for Scotland with such little discussion with or indeed respect for this Parliament, the Scottish Government or the people of Scotland. This makes a mockery of the UK Government’s recent commitment to reset relationships with the devolved Governments.

I said that the minister of so-called Brexit opportunities has been searching for the benefits of Brexit since at least February. That has included the attempt to crowdsource ideas from the public via the media, presumably in the absence of suggestions from Whitehall departments.

The disaster of Brexit is becoming ever more apparent, and the attack on this Parliament by a UK Government that was comprehensively rejected by the people of Scotland is gathering pace. The question for all of us here is whether we are prepared to put up with this unfolding catastrophe, which is being imposed on Scotland against its wishes and interests, or whether we say that enough is enough and forge a better future for everyone who lives here.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have sat through many ministerial statements, many full of details and statistics, many with policy announcements and many with something that, as an Opposition MSP, one can get one’s teeth into, but never have I sat through a statement so thin, so devoid of detail and so empty of substance as this one.

No new information has been imparted; it is essentially one long complaint about Brexit, and that is it. There is no UK bill; it has not been published yet. The cabinet secretary has no idea what it contains. He knows that discussions between devolved Governments and Cabinet officials are on-going and it is at the discretion of devolved Governments to decide how they deal with retained EU law that is devolved. However, the Scottish Government might just have waited for the UK Government to set out its position and publish legislation, and then the Scottish Government could have come to the chamber with a properly researched and argued response, underpinned by the facts.

The cabinet secretary speculates that the bill will create uncertainty for business. Does he agree that what is really creating uncertainty for business and for people across Scotland is his Government’s own “blind ideology”, to use his phrase—its obsession with independence and another divisive, polarising referendum?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I disagree with much of what the Conservative spokesman has said on this issue, but I can agree with him on one thing—it is about the need for information. The UK Government should be sharing information on a measure that will have a profound impact on this Parliament and its ability to deal with business. However, to give just one illustration of the situation, I have had one meeting with Jacob Rees-Mogg on this subject. He travelled all the way to Edinburgh, he asked to meet me, and then he could not be bothered to make the last 200m of the journey to come to Scottish Government office buildings and discuss what was being planned. He could not even tell me how many of the laws that he was planning to “sunset” by some arbitrary deadline—as the media has reported—will impact on the devolved settlement.

In that respect, Donald Cameron is absolutely right in his point about needing information; the amount of information that has been shared with the Scottish Government has been woeful.

It follows an all too familiar pattern from the UK Government of little to no detail on proposed legislation beyond what can be gleaned from the media; broad assurances that devolution will be respected, with nothing on how that will be ensured; and performative engagement, rather than a genuine attempt to engage on policy substance or a willingness to adjust proposals to reflect the Scottish Government’s concerns.

I would have thought that that should concern every member of the Parliament across all parties—it is disappointing that that attitude is not to be found among members on the Conservative benches.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members who wish to ask a question to please check that they have pressed their request-to-speak button.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

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

I am equally disappointed with the ideology behind Brexit and with the UK Tory Government’s thoughtless dishonesty, which has impacted people in Scotland and right across the UK. We need to protect the Sewel convention and our devolution settlement. There is an irony that we have two Governments that are promoting their ideologies and seeking to divert attention away from their failures and their lack of support for our constituents, who are experiencing a massive cost of living crisis.

Scottish Labour supports aligning with our EU neighbours, protecting our labour, consumer and environmental standards, and enabling trade with our neighbours. We made those points in the recent debates on the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

As the cabinet secretary has admitted, his statement is light on content and, as he said, hard work needs to be done to protect our constituents and businesses from the damage and the uncertainty that have been, and will be, created by Brexit. What is the cabinet secretary doing now to identify how he uses our Parliament’s devolved powers to the max in order to protect labour standards, to incentivise our businesses to produce products that protect consumer rights and that meet standards of health and safety, and to deliver the environmental standards that we need? Although that will involve a huge amount of work, as the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee acknowledged, we need to monitor and track what is happening with alignment with the EU both at the EU level and, it appears, at the UK level. Those are the practical things that I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about in terms of his action plan.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Sarah Boyack for her questions and the positive way in which she has put them. I welcome the Labour Party’s commitment to protect the Sewel convention and to protect standards.

Sarah Boyack is absolutely right that we look at all means that are at our disposal to be able to protect those safeguards. She will understand what is involved in that, given the paucity of information that we have had from the UK Government—save for the mention of the quantum of the legislation that is being envisaged, which is more than 2,000 pieces of legislation.

Let us say for the sake of argument that the Parliament agrees that it will decline to give legislative consent for that UK Government’s measure. Unfortunately, our experience thus far in the Brexit context is that the UK Government overrides the Sewel convention. If that is the case, we will have to use a lot of parliamentary time to find ways of being able to protect and maintain the safeguards that have existed through EU legislation.

We are right at the beginning of that process. I say to Sarah Boyack that she is absolutely right to highlight that that is the key challenge for us all. We have been trying to find our way through it, together with colleagues in the constitution committee, and have been looking at how we have been able to remain aligned with the EU thus far.

What we need to do now is of an order of magnitude that is far beyond that, and a lot of work will have to go into that. I look forward to working across the chamber to make sure that we use all the powers that are our disposal, as a Parliament and as a Government, to protect and retain the benefits of the safeguards that have been legislated for in an EU context.

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

The cabinet secretary referred in his statement to the bill impacting on devolved nations, without any prior discussion. The Brexit freedoms bill seeks to “lighten the burden” on businesses. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that that translates to undermining workers’ rights and protections? As employment law is not devolved, how can this Parliament ensure that those areas remain protected?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Christine Grahame is absolutely right to home in on the specifics of different aspects of European Union law that we have enjoyed and that we value as a society. We have the EU to thank for some of our most cherished employment rights, including basic fundamentals such as written terms and conditions and equal pay.

Those rights are now at risk as a consequence of the UK Government’s reckless drive to heap yet more misery on millions of working families across this country. Creating the conditions for our citizens to secure safe and fairly paid work is not red tape; it is an essential requirement of every responsible Government.

At this stage, we simply do not know what the UK Government intends to do with employment rights in the future, as it has not told us—and it has clearly not told members on the Conservative front bench in this Parliament either. However, we know that the minister for so-called Brexit opportunities—I should always take the opportunity to say that—has said today that he might wish to retain only dozens of the 2,400 laws that have been identified. Therefore, there is a real risk that protections for workers might be undermined by the powers that are to be provided to UK ministers through the Brexit freedoms bill.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

When it comes to gene editing, the Scottish National Party has shown that it is perfectly capable of diverging from the UK standard and, potentially, from the future EU standard, which unnecessarily and unfairly punishes Scotland’s farmers for no good reason—

even the Government’s own chief scientific adviser agrees. Does the cabinet secretary agree that he should give the situation a serious rethink and stop holding back Scotland’s farmers?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Frankly, that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement, and I am sure that I would be rebuked for going down highways and byways that have nothing to do with—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, perhaps you could extract the general point that was being made and briefly respond to that.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The general point is that the question that has been asked has nothing to do with the bill that is being proposed by the UK Government.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It is up to the chair to determine that, and I had felt that, in broad-brush terms, something could be extracted. However, the cabinet secretary has responded to the member in the way that he considers appropriate.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

On “Brexit freedoms”, “getting Brexit done”, and “levelling up”, does the cabinet secretary feel the same frustrations that many of my constituents feel about the UK Government’s list of empty post-Brexit slogans, and is the Scottish Government dismayed, as I am, about the potential damage that will be done by such heavy-handed and sweeping legislation, despite its light title?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Yes and yes. The title given to the bill would be laughable if its potential impact were not so deadly serious. The only freedom that is on offer is that of being worse off, more polluted, and less safe as a consumer, customer or employee.

While all this untold damage is being inflicted at breakneck speed—

all to meet an artificial public relations-drive deadline—this Parliament will have no freedom whatsoever to pass the measures that the member’s constituents and mine actively want to see. Frustration and dismay are just two of the many words—some of which are more colourful—that I would use to describe our reaction.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The negative impact

of Brexit on Scotland and on the whole of the UK is clear, as is the Conservative Government’s failure to work with all the devolved institutions. Will the cabinet secretary outline what he can do to ensure that legislation on matters such as agricultural subsidies, for which it is clear that there is devolved responsibility, is brought before this Parliament as soon as possible? What work is being done on how, for example, public procurement will be affected, and what legislation can this Parliament enact?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Katy Clark for the positive way in which she

asked her question. It mirrors the point that was made by her Labour front-bench colleague.

We will have to ascertain which of the UK Government’s proposed list of 2,400 pieces of legislation—which has apparently gone up by 700 in the past week—might or might not have an impact, depending on how the UK Government decides to treat the Sewel convention. Incidentally, if the UK Government wanted to take devolution seriously, it could legislate and limit the scope of its legislation to England or to England and Wales only, such that retained legislation could remain on the statute book in Scotland.

I give a commitment to Katy Clark and to any of her colleagues who have a close interest in particular policy areas that, over the months ahead, we can discuss what needs to be done to protect safeguards, and the most appropriate way of doing that, and to protect the Parliament’s ability to better understand the proposals that are being made, while at the same time having a conscious understanding of the scale of the potential job at hand, given the way in which the UK Government is planning to go forward with this measure.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As the Scottish Government begins setting out the progressive, hopeful vision for a wealthier, happier, fairer Scotland in the European family of nations, the UK Government instead continues to drag the devolved countries through a regressive and damaging Brexit, epitomised by the disastrous proposal of the so-called Brexit freedoms bill. Does the cabinet secretary believe that, now more than ever, the people of Scotland must be given the democratic choice for which they have repeatedly voted: a referendum on independence and a decision on Scotland’s future?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Yes. The one lesson that can safely be drawn from this sorry episode is that for as long as Scotland is misgoverned by Westminster, the UK Government will continue to inflict on the people of Scotland the long-running psychodrama that is Brexit and its dire unfolding consequences.

The real freedom that we need to be talking about is for the people of Scotland to be free to make their own choice about the future of their own country. The bill will merely serve to make it more obvious which choice the people of Scotland should and will make.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Brexit is a disaster and the Tories are terrible at government, but none of that is new. Although that is always worth repeating, in my mind, I am not sure that this statement of endless speculation moves us any further forward.

I support the keeping pace powers, but the lack of co-operation reflects badly on both Governments. Both the Scottish and UK Governments are responsible for this terrible relationship. What steps will the cabinet secretary take to improve that relationship, so that he does not have to make another speculative statement to this Parliament?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

First, let me identify the thing that we agree on—that would be a good way to start. Willie Rennie said that he supported the keeping pace powers. I think that he is trying to say that he supports the Scottish Government’s position on safeguarding European legislation and retaining pace with that. If that is what he meant, I welcome that.

On the equivalence in Willie Rennie’s question criticising the state of relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, I say to him that there is no such equivalence. I have already informed Parliament that when the Scottish Government tried to have a conversation with the UK Government and asked specific questions of it, the minister responsible was not even prepared to come and meet in person.

I ask members to please not propagate a false equivalence when they are aware of the facts. The Scottish Government has asked for but has not received the information. [

Interruption

.] There is no point in members shaking their head; I am telling Parliament the facts. I asked the questions but did not receive the answers. I asked to meet the minister in question, but he was not prepared to do so. Those are the facts, and if Willie Rennie takes them to heart, he will stop drawing a false equivalence, as he so often does in this chamber.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Four more members wish to ask a question. In order to get all of them in, I would appreciate short and succinct questions and answers.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Retained EU law has been a buffer for Scotland against the damaging and far-reaching effects of a hard Tory Brexit. Now that the UK Government is seeking to shake aside those safeguards, does the cabinet secretary believe that the Scottish Government’s firm commitment to continuity with European law will be undermined and made more difficult by the obsessive Brexit freedoms bill?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As members will be aware, this Government passed the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 with the express purpose of providing Scottish ministers with the powers needed to ensure that Scotland can keep pace with future developments in EU law, where appropriate. EU laws have set high standards for our environment and air and water quality, for example. They have upheld workers’ rights and employment law, and they have protected animal welfare, plant health and biosecurity. Those are far from trivial matters; they are the very substance that underpins what we recognise as important to our society and our environment.

I very much hope that parties can work together across the Parliament to do everything that we need to do to protect those safeguards in our public life and national legislation, and maintain the alignment that Scotland has had over the decades with the rest of the European Union in those important areas of life.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Jacob Rees-Mogg is so desperate to find a benefit of Brexit that he has outsourced research to

The Sun

and the far right

Daily Express

. That is clearly intended to advance the Tories’ decades-long campaign for British workers to have the weakest rights and protections in Europe. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, with little prospect of workers’ rights being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the only way to protect those rights is through independence and membership of the European Union?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Ross Greer is, of course, correct. Ultimately, our only way to safeguard being part of the European Union’s legislative framework is to be in the European Union. That is exactly where an independent Scotland shall be, and that is exactly the choice that people should be able to have, given that we live in a democracy.

In the meantime, we need to do everything we can, in this Parliament, to make sure that we do not have the rug pulled from underneath us by the UK Government removing safeguards from the statute book and acting in a way that will deluge the Scottish Parliament through its having to find precious time to legislate to retain the safeguards—[

Interruption

.] Clearly, that is something that Conservative members do not take particularly seriously.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary suggests that there will be a race to the bottom on the environment, but the opposite is true. The UK Government is going further than the EU on the environment. It is targeting a 68 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 versus a reduction of just 55 per cent by the EU. Furthermore, it is ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030, versus 2035. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the UK Government’s actions simply do not match his rhetoric?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

No, I do not. However, perhaps we can find some common ground on that question. If it is the case that the member and his colleagues are happy to see EU standards as a minimum, they will no doubt be happy to impress on the UK Government that it respect the Sewell convention and this Parliament’s decisions on legislative consent. If the UK Government then wants to legislate on devolved matters while excluding Scotland, it should take the praise for that.

Why do we not work in partnership on that challenge, make the UK Government proceed for England, and let the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government work on the standards that are based on the safeguards of European legislation that we agree should be retained? I look forward to that. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me. There is a lot of sedentary commentary.

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

In the lead-up to the European Union referendum, Brexiteer Tories insisted that they were not seeking a race to the bottom on food, environmental standards and workers’ rights, despite all the evidence to the contrary. We are now seeing undeniable proof that our standards and rights are being eroded with dodgy trade deals and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, undoing decades of progress within the European single market, which is 10 times bigger than the UK internal market. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the UK Brexit freedoms bill, whenever it appears, will accelerate that politically motivated downward spiral in trade standards?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Willie Coffey has every reason to be concerned. During the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, we warned that it would open the door to lower standards across a range of areas in which EU laws used to apply. We are already seeing that threat being played out in relation to trade deals. Whatever the views of this Parliament or the people of Scotland, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act means that there is little that we can do to stop goods entering this country that do not meet the EU rules on, say, animal welfare or food standards.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the statement. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to change position, should they wish to do so.

Cost of Living Support

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-05106, in the name of Mark Griffin, on cost of living support. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button or place an R in the chat function now or as soon as possible.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

On the day on which inflation has broken a 40-year record, Labour members are using our debating time to call on the Scottish Government to unlock a further £10 million for local cost of living support for families on low incomes. Clawing back additional payments of the £400 October energy bill discount from people with second homes, which the Scottish Government amendment appears to accept the principle of, would close a loophole that allows those who are best off to get a double or, potentially, treble payment from the cost of living measures that the United Kingdom Government announced.

The cost of keeping our homes running, safe and warm is at the heart of the crisis. It is summer, but there are already hundreds of thousands of families that dread winter and desperately wonder how they will survive. Mortgages are up £90 a month. Rent increases now surpass those in England and Wales, as the Office for National Statistics confirmed this morning. Water bills are up 4.2 per cent and, as of Monday, the energy cap is estimated to go up by £1,000 in only 100 days.

We often talk about people having to choose between heating and eating, but that is a polite way of putting it. The reality is that thousands will choose between starving or freezing. People will die this winter. The crisis will only get worse, so the Government must respond with action.

The people who are best off—those who are able to afford to run not one but two homes—are set to pocket a windfall of almost £10 million between them simply because they have another home that is not their main residence. The irony of that will be lost on no one.

Homes are for living in. A cost of living support package should benefit the people who need help most. That is what we have demanded agreement on and I believe that we have secured it. Allowing a select few to pocket a £400 bung because collectively they own or rent 24,000 second homes, which is 1 per cent of all stock in Scotland, will not deliver the fairness that we expect.

We welcome the fact that Rishi Sunak and the Scottish National Party finally listened to Labour’s calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies that were making bumper profits.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will Labour also support my amendment, which looks towards increasing the single-person council tax discount from 25 per cent to 35 per cent to help families now?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

No, we will not support the Conservative amendment because it deletes large swathes of what we are trying to do. We are trying to focus acutely on the £10 million that is going to second home owners, who should not receive it.

We welcome the fact that the chancellor has introduced the payment but he took too long to accept that it was necessary and his support package rewards people with second homes with their own windfall, thereby wasting £10 million of taxpayers’ cash. That was Rishi Sunak’s error but, following pressure from Labour, the Scottish Government appears to be willing to act.

Local authorities, which are required to be consulted under the amended Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, will be desperate for the powers to unlock a further £10 million to help the most vulnerable in their communities. I am delighted that the Government has chosen to change course on that because, only two weeks ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands told me that we would have to wait for the remote, rural and islands housing action plan and, as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government had previously done, indicated that the additional dwelling supplement was enough to tackle second homes.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will not do so at the moment because I still have a lot of progress to make. I apologise to Mr Balfour.

I hope that, when the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth stands up, we can get a cast-iron assurance that the Government will not hang about on the matter. The powers are already in play. Councils already remove discounts on second homes and charge a 100 per cent surcharge on homes that are left empty, raising £45 million a year for local house building.

The work has to be done, with money being with councils by the autumn. We cannot accept the matter being kicked into the long grass, which is what the Government has done with issues such as the transient visitor levy. We also cannot accept quibbling over issues such as patchy collection of council tax on empty homes. We cannot play politics on the matter. We need to recover funds and get them to those who need them most.

There is a wider moral argument for taxing second homes more. Until today, Scotland was the outlier across Great Britain in that it lacked plans for a surcharge on second homes. Even Michael Gove is introducing a surcharge on second homes, which seems to have passed by the Conservative amendment.

Even before the pandemic, tens of thousands of Scots were unable to find a place that they could afford to call home. They have been stuck on waiting lists, unable to get their foot on the property ladder, and have been struggling to make ends meet to pay private rents. They do not have a warm, affordable and safe home.

Broadly, second homes are left empty for much of the year—they are furnished holiday homes or, for some, crash pads. They are a luxury that communities that are crying out for family homes cannot afford. With inflation set to reach double figures by the end of the year, and with 100 days until the cap is increased, the Government must use the summer to prove its willingness to act.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that, under the UK Government’s Energy Bills Support Scheme, second home owners across Scotland will receive a double payment of the £400 credit for their energy bills; considers that this funding would be better used to support low-income households struggling with the cost of living crisis, and calls on the Scottish Government to allow local authorities to recover this money through a one-off increase to the council tax levied on second homes in order to support local cost of living responses.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

During portfolio question time, I alerted members to the fact that we are really tight for time across the afternoon, and decision time is later than usual, so I would appreciate it if members could stick to their speaking allocations. They might get a little bit of time back for interventions, but really not an awful lot.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government welcomes this debate, because the issue that the Labour Party has raised is important.

Shortly, I will turn to the Government’s response to the motion and our wider response to the cost of living crisis, but, before I do so, let me set out the Government’s position on second homes. We recognise that good-quality affordable housing is essential in supporting communities across Scotland to prosper. Although second homes bring benefits to those who own them and to the tourism businesses that they support, we know that, in some communities, second homes can have an impact on the availability of properties to meet local needs. Just as important, second homes can have an impact on a community’s sustainability.

That is why we have already taken action on second homes. Since 2013, councils have been able to vary council tax discounts on second homes and, since 2017, they have had the power to remove the discount in all, or in part of, their council area. In January 2019, we increased the additional dwelling supplement to land and buildings transaction tax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent of the total purchase price of any additional home of £40,000 or more. That is intended to protect opportunities for first-time buyers in Scotland, but it can act as a disincentive to second home purchases.

We will consider all options as we take forward our commitment to introduce powers for local authorities to manage the number of second homes in their areas. The powers will recognise that urban and rural areas face different challenges, and we will explore fiscal and non-fiscal options to support the housing needs of different communities across Scotland.

Turning to the issue that is raised in today’s motion, we agree that it would clearly be wrong for second home owners to benefit from the £400 energy rebate that the UK Government is making available. Using the council tax system to recover the £400 has merit, but that would not be straightforward, so we will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government in examining all options to recover the money, including through a council tax levied on second homes. In fact, we will explore options beyond those that apply only to second homes; we will consider applying a similar measure to long-term empty homes, too. We will explore using the funds that will be raised to support local cost of living responses on a fair and equitable basis across councils, and I confirm that I will write to COSLA this afternoon.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome what the minister has said about exploring the issue with COSLA. Obviously, we are living through a cost of living crisis and, given that emergency, we need to ensure that additional support goes to those who most need it. We do not have time to waste in recovering the money, so what are the timescales for that engagement?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The member may have missed that I am writing to COSLA this afternoon on the matter. I want the discussions to begin in earnest, because I recognise the issues that he raises.

I am conscious of time, so I turn now to cost of living support. This Government has shown that we respond quickly and effectively to economic crises, ensuring that appropriate support is in place for those on low incomes. At the height of the pandemic, we moved at pace to introduce our £100 Covid winter hardship payments for families, becoming the first Administration in the UK to introduce such vital support. Through that measure, we put more than £14 million in the pockets of low-income families in December 2020.

We followed that with our £69 million investment in a £130 low-income pandemic payment to support more than 530,000 low-income households that were in receipt of council tax reduction, or were exempt or not liable for council tax, by the end of November 2021.

Through the budget for 2022-23, the Scottish Government has allocated almost £3 billion to a range of supports that will contribute to mitigating the impact of the increased cost of living on households. That includes work to tackle child poverty, reduce inequalities and support financial wellbeing, alongside social security payments that are not available anywhere else in the UK. Our resource spending review prioritises £22.9 billion for social security assistance.

In responding to the crisis, we took the decision to uprate eight Scottish benefits by 6 per cent and to invest a further £10 million in our fuel insecurity fund to support households at risk of severely rationing their energy use or self-disconnecting. That is significant financial support for those living in Scotland; it will provide protection for those on the lowest incomes that people in the rest of the UK do not have.

However, while we do all that we can, we must not forget that it is Westminster that holds most of the powers that are needed to tackle the cost of living crisis, both in the immediate and longer term. Those include powers over energy, the minimum wage, national insurance and 85 per cent of social security spending.

The Scottish Government has continually urged the UK Government to use all the powers and fiscal headroom at its disposal to address the cost of living crisis. As part of that, on 25 May, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting out policies that would offer a long-term solution to the cost of living crisis. By ignoring our call for a comprehensive funding package to fully address the unprecedented cost of living crisis, the chancellor’s piecemeal approach makes it highly likely that more support will be needed when energy bills rise significantly again in the autumn.

I say again that the Government welcomes the issue being raised in the motion. We will constructively examine all options to recover the money through a council tax levied on second homes and long-term empty properties in order to support a local cost of living response on a fair and equitable basis. We will engage with COSLA and local government on the most effective ways to do that. Taking that approach fits with this Government’s commitment to tackling the cost of living crisis with all the tools that we currently have at our disposal.

I move amendment S6M-05106.2, to leave out from “calls on” to end and insert:

“agrees that the Scottish Government, in consultation with COSLA, should examine all options to recover this money through a council tax levy on second homes and long-term empty homes in order to support local cost-of-living responses on a fair and equitable basis.”

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I, too, thank the Labour Party for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Every MSP will be acutely aware of the cost of living pressures that are currently facing people across the country, and the need for every level of Government to work to help support individuals and families during this difficult time.

The economic pressures that we are facing are considerable. Those pressures are created by global events—rises in fuel prices, Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the fact that the country is still recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic are causing a strain on all aspects of the cost of living, and families and businesses are being negatively impacted due to inflation and the rises in everyday prices. That is why the debate is welcome, and why I have lodged my amendment.

The UK Government has taken a number of key actions that will support the most vulnerable households in our country, with £1,200 in support payments. The new measures that UK ministers are bringing forward to help address the cost of living crisis are welcome, and they represent the start of what must be a concerted effort to drive down cost of living pressures.

The energy bill support scheme will see every household receive £400 off their energy bills, with additional funding being provided to those on benefits, people with disabilities and pensioners. It is also important to note that raising the national insurance threshold and cutting the universal credit taper rate will allow people to keep more of the money that they earn, in addition to actions to cut fuel duty and lower fuel costs. Taken together as a package, that is £37 billion of focused spending on the most vulnerable families in Scotland and across the UK.

From next month, around 8 million people on the lowest incomes in the country will also receive a cost of living payment of £650—support that is worth well over £5 billion—to give them the support that they need during these challenging times. The Department for Work and Pensions will make those payments in two lump sums, the first in July and the second in autumn, with payments from HM Revenue and Customs to those on tax credits following shortly after. The Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill was tabled at Westminster today and is progressing through Parliament there. That is welcome and worth reflecting on.

We know that pensioners and disabled people are disproportionately impacted by higher energy costs. That is why, from the autumn, the UK Government will deliver additional support to more than eight million pensioner households that receive the winter fuel payment: the extra, one-off pensioner cost of living payment of £300. Direct help is being provided to people, and we need to make sure that every level of government is doing just that. Many disabled people will also receive a payment of £650, taking their total cost of living payments to more than £800. That is real action from the UK Government.

However, we on the Conservative benches want to see more—

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

If I can get the time back.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You will get only some of it, I suspect.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In addition to the things that Miles Briggs has mentioned, is there anything happening at UK Government level to deal with the regulation of fuel costs?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Discussions are taking place as we speak, and it is important that they are being developed. We have seen action already with the 5 per cent cut. I think that we all want to see more action, and I am pleased that the chancellor has been leading on that.

On the Conservative benches, we also want to see more action from the Scottish Government, which we are here to debate today. That is why I have proposed in my amendment—indeed, we stood on the proposal in our manifesto at the council elections—that we look towards increasing the single person discount on council tax from 25 to 35 per cent. That measure could be used directly by SNP ministers now to help every single person in Scotland save, on average, £134 a year for an average band D property. That would not require a bureaucratic process; it is a measure that this Parliament could pass to deliver support that is needed.

I am disappointed that the Labour Party and, I take it, SNP ministers will not be supporting that—

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are not going to get any more time back, Mr Briggs.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In that case, I cannot give way.

Scottish Conservatives want to see, and support, the measures that have been brought forward by the chancellor, Rishi Sunak in the spring statement and in the cost of living statement to deliver support, which all of our constituents are looking for.

Supporting people across Scotland and the UK with the cost of living crisis is critical, but we also need to focus on building a stronger economy. That is why we must see a relentless focus from both Scotland’s Governments on creating more well-paid jobs, cutting taxes for working people, driving business investment and innovation, unleashing a new skills revolution and levelling up across all parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

I move amendment S6M-05106.1, to leave out from “second home” to end and insert:

“every household in Scotland will receive £400 off their energy bills, with additional funding being provided to those on benefits, people with disabilities and pensioners; further notes that raising the National Insurance threshold and cutting the Universal Credit taper rate will allow people to keep more of the money they make; agrees that cutting fuel duty will help tackle this crisis by lowering fuel costs; notes that the £243 billion that the UK Government spends on welfare will support some of the most vulnerable families in Scotland; believes that the huge £251 million cut to Scottish local authorities has resulted in higher council tax rates across the country, and supports increasing the single person discount on council tax from 25% to 35%.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Willie Rennie. You have up to four minutes, Mr Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

There is no doubt that Miles Briggs presents a very reasonable case. However, the truth is that his amendment deletes the central purpose of Labour’s motion, which is to pull back from the owners of about 25,000 properties about £400 each.

He never defended that position today, and he also did not defend the reprehensible behaviour of some of his colleagues, particularly at Westminster, who seek to blame the poor for their budgetary difficulties at times. That has included saying that they should cook better and budget better.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

rose—

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will take an intervention from Miles Briggs if he is going to explain that.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

We do not have the mechanism that the Labour Party and the Scottish Government are proposing, so it is quite clear that that cannot happen now. My amendment proposes something that can happen, so that a £134 discount can be delivered. The fact that the Scottish Government has asked COSLA to look at doing something is one thing, but it is not delivering help here and now.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The motion and the fact that the Government accepts the principle of the action indicates that it is possible to do it. I am disappointed that Miles Briggs was not prepared to even explore that proposition in his speech.

The scale of the problem is significant. The ONS data that was released today is really quite stark. Food, drink and clothes costs for a typical family are now at £5,780 a year—up £425 in one year. The fuel costs for a typical family are up £310. In addition to the Conservatives’ tax hike, which is running at about £640, that is a £1,300 hit, and that is before we even get to energy costs. That is an enormous cost.

The increase in value-added tax take means that an extra £8.6 billion will go into the Government’s coffers over the next year, so the UK Government could go much further than it does currently. I would have liked to hear Miles Briggs put pressure on the UK Government to do something along those lines, which would mean another £430 per family. We should take immediate action to cut VAT from 20 per cent to 17.5 per cent, which would bring immediate help to families. That is what we should support.