Scottish Parliament, 28 June 2022

499 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader is Theo Ogbhemhe, teacher of religious, moral and philosophical studies at Kirkwall grammar school.

Theo Ogbhemhe (Kirkwall Grammar School)

Presiding Officer and members of the Scottish Parliament, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

In these difficult times of the pandemic, we should take the time and care to speak and listen to others with an open heart. Once we share our stories, joys, shared experiences, hopes and truths, we can connect and find solutions. This presents us with the opportunity to see the value of life and what it can be, seeing and appreciating the value in others with love in our hearts.

As the philosopher Bertrand Russell put it,

“Love is wise, hatred is foolish.”

We must learn to understand each other; we must learn to put up with the fact that we can live together only if we learn the types of charity and understanding that are vital to achieve the inclusive Scotland that we all desire.

The Dalai Lama recommends the path of compassion. For him, all traditions, cultures and religion share a common root, which is limitless compassion. They emphasise human improvement, love, respect for others and compassion for the suffering of others. In so far as love is essential in every tradition, culture and religion, we could say that love is a universal way of life, but the various techniques and methods for developing love differ widely between the traditions. As there are so many different types of people with a range of tendencies and inclinations, it is quite fitting that there are differences in how we express love. For me, love is always the right approach.

Scotland must continue to reflect on and understand her role in colonial legacies, which continue to impact the lives of many communities. Racism impacts our historical identities, and society in general. Our multiple intersecting identities around race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, neurodivergence, religion and class need to be much better understood in Scotland. We are heading in the right direction, in my opinion, and Scotland is ready for an inclusive and a more diverse future.

My dear MSPs, you all represent beautiful constituencies and different parties across Scotland, and you belong to the Scottish Parliament, striving to do your best for the people of Scotland. I wish you success and Jah’s itinual guidance and protection in your work to continue to entrench the Parliament’s core values of wisdom, compassion, justice, integrity, inclusiveness, respect and stewardship.

Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-05249, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out changes to today’s business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Tuesday 28 June 2022—

delete

7.30 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

and insert

9.15 pm Decision Time—[George Adam]

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is topical question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and responses.

Abortion Services (Safe Access)

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update following the summit on safe access to abortion services convened by the First Minister. (S6T-00821)

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

The First Minister hosted a summit on safe access to abortion yesterday. The summit focused on making progress in ensuring that women do not feel harassed or intimidated when accessing abortion services.

The discussion agreed that primary legislation will be needed to provide a long-term solution for Scotland, but that any legislation must be carefully considered to ensure that it is consistent with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it can withstand any legal challenge. The First Minister and I confirmed that the Scottish Government wishes to continue working closely with the member on her legislation and to take particular account of the forthcoming Supreme Court judgment in relation to the Northern Irish Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill.

The summit also considered a number of short-term actions that could be taken while the legislation is progressing. In particular, local authority representatives indicated a willingness to look again at what can be done in areas that are facing regular protests or vigils. We will have further discussions with them to consider the potential for local authorities to pilot the use of byelaws to provide for safe access zones.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I welcome the offers from the First Minister and the minister for women’s health to work collaboratively on my bill. Members from every party are now committing to back me on that issue. We know, however, that legislation takes some time. What can the Government, local authorities and the police do in the meantime to ensure that we reduce the impact on those entering clinics?

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

As the member says, legislation takes time. At yesterday’s summit, we discussed finding shorter-term solutions that will ensure that women can access the healthcare that they need in the meantime. Our programme for government included a commitment to support any local authority that wishes to establish byelaws to create protest-free safe zones outside clinics that provide abortion services. The First Minister reiterated that at yesterday’s summit and committed that she, and the Scottish Government, will meet local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as soon as possible. I am pleased that COSLA and Glasgow City Council in particular indicated yesterday that they are willing to look further at that. The Government also continues to support Police Scotland taking appropriate action in response to any issues that arise at protests or vigils.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

Abortion rights are under attack in many countries and last week saw the devastating rollback of reproductive rights in the United States of America. I am sure that members would like to express their solidarity with those in the US. We also see legislation similar to mine that was introduced in Northern Ireland by my Green colleague Clare Bailey being challenged in the Supreme Court. It is more important than ever to protect access to abortion and to support to those who need reproductive healthcare. How can the Government ensure that people who are affected by protests outside clinics, including staff and patients, receive any emotional support that they might need? Will the minister join me in expressing solidarity with all those in the US and elsewhere who do not have access to safe legal abortion care?

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

I thank the member for her question and for the opportunity to offer my whole-hearted solidarity to women in the United States following the decision to overturn Roe v Wade and to women elsewhere in the world who do not have access to safe and legal abortion care. At a time when women’s reproductive rights are being eroded in other parts of the world, I reiterate my firm commitment to ensuring that the rights of women in Scotland remain intact. The Scottish Government will continue to work with healthcare providers to ensure that the appropriate support mechanisms are in place for patients.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I, and many others with an interest in abortion rights, have seen comments—some from close to home—by people who seek to limit our right to access that form of healthcare. In light of the Supreme Court in America overturning the Roe v Wade decision, what can the Scottish Government do to support women and the LGBTQI community in Scotland, who might be concerned about the ramifications of the ruling for their ability to access services safely?

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

I reiterate my solidarity with all women, including LGBTQI women, in the United States following the overturning of Roe v Wade last week. The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to ensuring that the rights of women in Scotland remain intact, and we will continue to work with healthcare providers through the buffer zones working group and its members to ensure that the appropriate support mechanisms are in place for anybody who is concerned about this.

What has happened in the US has sent a shock wave around the world, and all of us, as women with concerns about women’s rights, are feeling frightened about the ramifications of the decision. However, I can absolutely understand why many minority groups are feeling more threatened today than they felt this time last week.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I was pleased to join the First Minister and other colleagues at yesterday’s summit on abortion services. I reiterate that we support the comments that our colleagues have made today.

In keeping with that collaborative theme, a woman’s democratic right to safe healthcare services is vitally important. When will the minister issue a revised approval under section 1(3A) of the Abortion Act 1967 to allow mifepristone to continue to be taken at home where that is considered clinically appropriate?

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

I thank the member for the question. I have already made it clear that the system of being able to take both medications at home, which was introduced during the pandemic, will continue. I expect the review that we have asked to be done of the safety and efficacy of the processes that we have in place to report towards the end of this year. Of course, as with any healthcare provision, we will take on board any lessons that the review gives us in relation to refining the system going forward.

What I also expect from that piece of work is that we might well be better informed, bearing in mind that the systems were brought in during an emergency situation in the pandemic. There are variations around Scotland in how the services are delivered, and I expect to understand those variations better and to be able to iron them out to ensure that there are absolutely no barriers to women accessing early medical abortion at home. As we are all aware, it is safer and it is much welcomed by women and by healthcare providers as being a real advance in our ability to deliver equitable abortion services.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The summit was constructive and I pay tribute to all who took part, and welcome the First Minister’s commitment to a follow-up summit.

Unfortunately, during the summit, Mr Mason MSP continued his dangerous disinformation campaign. His comments are not just his views; they are disinformation. He is talking down healthcare workers and claiming that women do not have informed consent. We have already heard from the chief medical officer that there is no evidence to back that up. What will the Scottish Government do to tackle disinformation to ensure that all MSPs have the facts in front of them? It is not about our views; it is about the facts. What will the SNP do to ensure that Mr Mason does not continue with his dangerous disinformation?

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

I thank the member for that question. It gives me an opportunity to put on the record again that I profoundly disagree with Mr Mason’s views and that I am absolutely confident that services that are provided in Scotland around informed consent relating to abortions are good and meet the legal standards, but also that, in my experience, people who work in sexual health go above and beyond to deliver an exemplary gold standard around informed consent. They get right alongside their patients and, without judgment, help them to understand what they need to know to make a good decision. They do that day in, day out, and we are grateful for it.

I cannot speak for the party; I am simply an MSP in the party. What I can say is that our manifesto committed us to improving access to abortion and retaining our current abortion legislation.

On misinformation, I agree—

The Presiding Officer

Very briefly, minister.

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

I agree that it is vital that each of us who are in positions of power in the Parliament take our responsibility very seriously to ensure that the information that we give is accurate, and I am more than happy to liaise with the chief medical officer to ensure that every member has the opportunity to understand the issues that are at hand.

Legal Aid Payments

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on reports that the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association says that the impasse on legal aid payments has meant that the entire criminal justice system is in “imminent danger of collapse”. (S6T-00828)

The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)

To put it simply, that is not accurate; the justice system is working through and reducing the Covid backlogs. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed that the trial backlog has reduced by nearly 1,500 trials since April, and cases concluded are above pre-Covid levels in the High Court and the sheriff courts.

The court recovery programme is progressing in line with the expected pace. Our recent offer to the profession in May represented an increase of more than 20 per cent over four years. Unfortunately, that was rejected by the profession, but I can update members that we have drafted a new proposal, which will be put to the Law Society of Scotland this week.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

On 25 April, criminal practitioners voted to refuse all new instructions in summary cases in specific domestic abuse cases. They stated that that was necessary due to the Scottish Government’s decision not to adequately fund legal aid. In 1999, a summary legal aid case attracted £550, but in 2022, that figure is £550.76, so the headline figures on increases do not reflect the reality of those fees. Another example is representing under-21s in remand cases—for complex cases, there is no longer a separate fee.

The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, which is the nation’s biggest defence lawyer group, has said that negotiations have been a failure so far. A proposal on the table in order to engage with the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association would be welcome. It has also said that it has no choice but to decline cases because they are not financially viable, and it warns of a total withdrawal from the scheme by the beginning of next year if there is no negotiation.

Does the minister accept that if we do not resolve the issue, there will be a crisis in the service, and what will she do address those concerns?

Ash Regan

I will pick up a couple of the member’s points. There was a substantial set of reforms over many years prior to 2008. For clarity and purposes of discussion going forward, it is probably best if we stick to fee rates since 2008.

One point that the member raised was about DASA—Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018—cases. I have said in the chamber previously that prior to notification about action by the profession, DASA cases and the fee rates for those cases had not been raised with me. Had they been raised with me prior to that point, I would certainly have tried to address the issue.

The Scottish Government is, and continues to be, in active negotiations with the profession. Members will understand that I need to balance interests across the justice landscape and that I am operating in a very challenging public finance environment. Nonetheless, our actions and our investment in legal aid to date show that we are a Government that is listening and that wants to work with the profession to find a way forward.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

If the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association has not raised those issues with the minister, I am raising them with her now. In the 10 years prior to the pandemic, there was a 25 per cent loss in the number of solicitors who were engaged in legal aid work. I am sure that the minister will take the point that there is not only a crisis in fees; there is a crisis of not having a properly resourced defence service. That is the direct result of the dramatic reduction in public spending on legal aid over the past 20 years.

In 2008, which is the benchmark that the minister is happy to accept, public spending on legal aid was £155 million, but in 2019-20, it had gone down to £130 million. There has been a fall of £85 million when inflation is taken into account. It is important that the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association says that the average rate for a newly qualified defence solicitor is £25,000, against £48,000 for someone who works for the Crown Office.

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, Ms McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

We can see that we are not attracting people into the profession. Given the loss of solicitors in the sector and the huge pay discrepancies, does the minister believe that, if Scotland is to stand up and say that we have properly resourced and good access to justice, we need to resolve that crisis now?

Ash Regan

I remind members that Scotland is one of the leading jurisdictions in Europe on legal aid in terms of scope and eligibility. I am afraid that I cannot accept Pauline McNeill’s characterisation of the figures that she uses because—I know that she knows this—the legal aid budget is demand led. Therefore, it reflects the work that has been done, usually up to around two years before, although, obviously, that varies from year to year.

Members will be aware that negotiations with the profession have been going on for some time. I know that a number of sets of figures and different percentage rates are bandied about, and I want to be very clear about what has been agreed so far.

In 2019, the Scottish Government put forward a 3 per cent uplift on all legal aid fees across the board and, in 2021, it did a 5 per cent uplift on legal aid fees across the board. That was followed by a further 5 per cent uplift across the board in 2022. In addition to that investment, there was £9 million in Covid resilience funding and £1 million in traineeship funding, which were particular to Scotland.

An issue was raised with me that I managed to resolve. I set up an entirely new payment for holiday courts.

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, minister, please.

Ash Regan

Unfortunately, we were not able to accept the profession’s previous ask, which it raised with me prior to May, of a 50 per cent rise in legal aid fees. That was in addition to the investment that the Government had already put in. We put forward a rise, the total of which, as I mentioned in my previous answer, amounts to a 20 per cent increase. For context, that is much more than what has been offered in England and Wales.

Members will understand that the process is time consuming.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister.

Ash Regan

We are in active negotiations, and I am committed to finding a way forward.

The Presiding Officer

I will take two brief supplementary questions.

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

How does investment in fee uplifts in Scotland compare with that in England and Wales? For those who are seeking access to legal representation, how does Scotland’s legal aid system compare with that of England and Wales in terms of scope and eligibility?

The Presiding Officer

You should be as brief as possible, minister.

Ash Regan

The Scottish Government has provided fee uplifts and grant funding that are much greater than what has been offered—it has not yet been accepted—in England and Wales. Combined with our latest offer to the profession, that totals 20.5 per cent since 2019.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The minister might be aware of comments that have been made by her Scottish National Party colleague Mr Dave Doogan MP, who took to Twitter last night to mock well-respected members of Scotland’s legal profession as they raised valid concerns about Scotland’s justice sector. He aimed his comments at a female lawyer who is quitting the profession due to the mental health impact that the workload is having on her. For the record, does the minister condone or condemn his comments?

Ash Regan

I am afraid that I have not seen those comments, but I will endeavour to have a look at them. I can then come back to Jamie Greene on them.

As I said, we are in active negotiations, and I am very committed to finding a way forward. I have also reminded members that Scotland is a leading jurisdiction in Europe on legal aid. We have put forward to the profession a substantial package of investment, and we have, of course, retained the scope and eligibility in Scotland. I remind Jamie Greene that that is not the case in England. More than 70 per cent of Scotland’s citizens are eligible for some form of legal aid; in England, the figure is just 25 per cent, following some quite dramatic cuts there. I do not think that anyone in Scotland would want me to follow the example of the Conservatives on legal aid.

Independence Referendum

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on an independence referendum. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The campaign to establish the Scottish Parliament was long and hard. It was rooted in the belief that self-government would improve the lives of those who live here—and so it has proved. There were—and still are—honourable differences about the ultimate destination of Scotland’s self-government journey, but all who campaigned to establish this place were united in and by this fundamental principle: the democratic rights of the people of Scotland are paramount.

That principle of self-determination was encapsulated by these words in the Scottish Constitutional Convention’s claim of right:

“the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.”

The late Canon Kenyon Wright, who led the convention, addressed Westminster’s refusal to accept the democratic demand for a Scottish Parliament with this question:

“What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, ‘We say no, and we are the State’?”

His answer—

“Well, we say yes, and we are the people”—

was simple but powerful. It is as relevant now as it was then.

Last May, the people of Scotland said yes to an independence referendum by electing a clear majority of MSPs committed to that outcome. The democratic decision was clear. Two weeks ago, the Scottish Government started the process of implementing that decision with the first in the “Building a New Scotland” series of papers. That paper presented compelling evidence of the stronger economic and social performance, relative to the United Kingdom, of a range of independent countries across Europe that are comparable to Scotland.

That should be both a lesson and an inspiration to us. Scotland, over generations, has paid a price for not being independent: Westminster Governments that we do not vote for, imposing policies we do not support, too often holding us back from fulfilling our potential. That reality has rarely been starker than it is now.

The Conservatives have just six MPs in Scotland—barely 10 per cent of Scottish representation—and yet they have ripped us out of the European Union against our will, created the worst cost of living crisis in the G7 and saddled us with the second-lowest growth in the G20. They are intent on stoking industrial strife, demonising workers and provoking a trade war. Businesses and public services are struggling for staff because freedom of movement has been ended. Our young people have been robbed of opportunity.

The Scottish Government will do everything in our power to mitigate the damage, but that is not enough. Our country deserves better, yet this Parliament, which is looked to for leadership by so many across Scotland, does not have the power to tackle the root causes of the financial misery being inflicted on millions. We lack the full range of levers to shape our economy and grow our country’s wealth. We are powerless to stop our budget being cut. We cannot block the Tories’ new anti-trade-union laws, or prevent them from tearing up human rights protections. We are not able to restore freedom of movement. While we invest billions of pounds in measures to help with the cost of living, tens of thousands of children can be pushed deeper into poverty at the merest stroke of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s pen.

It does not have to be this way. Independence is about equipping ourselves to navigate the future, guided by our own values, aspirations and interests. It is about helping us to fulfil our potential here at home and play our part in building a better world. That takes more than a changing of the guard at Westminster.

I fervently hope that the Tories lose the next election—they thoroughly deserve to. However, on the big policy issues of our time, from Europe to migration, to human rights and fairness for workers, Labour is more of a pale imitation than a genuine alternative. Labour will not take Scotland back into the European Union or even the single market, and neither will the Liberal Democrats. They will not restore freedom of movement for our young people. They will not prioritise tackling child poverty over investment in nuclear weapons. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

I have asked that there be no interruptions during the First Minister’s statement and I would be grateful if we could have some silence. Thank you.

The First Minister

Independence will not always be easy—it is not easy for any country—but it will give us the opportunity to chart our own course; to build a wealthier, greener, fairer nation; to be outward looking and internationalist; and to lift our eyes and learn from the best.

Now is the time—at this critical moment in history—to debate and decide the future of our country. Now is the time to get Scotland on the right path—the path chosen by those who live here. Now is the time for independence.

This Parliament has a clear, democratic mandate to offer Scotland that choice. Regrettably, however, the UK Government is refusing to respect Scottish democracy. That is why today’s statement is necessary. The UK and Scottish Governments should be sitting down together, responsibly agreeing a process, including a section 30 order, that allows the Scottish people to decide. That would be the democratic way to proceed. It would be based on precedent and it would put the legal basis of a referendum beyond any doubt. That is why I am writing to the Prime Minister today to inform him of the content of this statement. In that letter, I will also make it clear that I am ready and willing to negotiate the terms of a section 30 order with him.

What I am not willing to do—what I will never do—is allow Scottish democracy to be a prisoner of Boris Johnson or any Prime Minister. [Applause.]

The Presiding Officer

Members, there should not be any interruptions—of any kind. Thank you.

The First Minister

The issue of independence cannot be suppressed. It must be resolved democratically and that must be through a process that is above reproach and commands confidence. That is why I am setting out today the actions that the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate will take, in the absence of a section 30 order, to secure Scotland’s right to choose. My determination is to secure a process that allows the people of Scotland—whether yes, no or yet to be decided—to express their views in a legal, constitutional referendum, so that the majority view can be established fairly and democratically.

The steps that I am setting out seek to achieve that. They are grounded in and demonstrate this Government’s respect for the principles of rule of law and democracy. Indeed, those core principles—respect for the rule of law and respect for democracy—underpin everything I say today. Respect for the rule of law means that a referendum must be lawful. That, for me, is a matter of principle, but it is also a matter of practical reality. An unlawful referendum would not be deliverable. Even if it was, it would lack effect. The outcome would not be recognised by the international community. Bluntly, it would not lead to Scotland becoming independent.

It is axiomatic that a referendum must be lawful, but my deliberations in recent times have led me to this further conclusion: the lawfulness or otherwise of the referendum must be established as a matter of fact and not just opinion. Otherwise, as we have seen again in recent days, Opposition parties will just keep casting doubt on the legitimacy of the process so that they can avoid the substantive debate on independence that Scotland deserves but that they so clearly fear. That is not in the country’s best interests.

Let me turn to the detail of the steps that we will now take to secure the objective of an indisputably lawful referendum and then ensure that, from today, we can focus on the substance of why Scotland should be independent.

I can announce that the Scottish Government is today publishing the Scottish independence referendum bill. I will draw attention in particular to three key provisions of the bill. First, the purpose of the referendum, as set out in section 1, is to ascertain

“the views of the people of Scotland on whether Scotland should be an independent country.”

In common with the 2014 referendum—indeed, in common with the Brexit referendum and the referendum to establish this Parliament—the independence referendum that is proposed in the bill will be consultative, not self-executing.

Just as in 2014, and as recognised explicitly in the 2013 white paper, a majority yes vote in the referendum will not in and of itself make Scotland independent. For Scotland to become independent following a yes vote, the legislation would have to be passed by the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments.

There has been much commentary in recent days to the effect that a consultative referendum would not have the same status as the vote in 2014. That is simply wrong, factually and legally. Let me be clear: the status of the referendum that is proposed in the bill is exactly the same as that of the referendums of 1997, 2014 and 2016.

The next provision in the bill to which I want to draw attention relates to the question to be asked in the referendum. The bill states that, just as it was in 2014, the question on the ballot paper should be:

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

Thirdly, the bill includes the proposed date on which the referendum should be held. In line with the Government’s clear mandate, the date is in the first half of this session of Parliament. I can announce that the Scottish Government is proposing that the independence referendum be held on 19 October 2023—[Applause.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. Members!

The First Minister

Those are the key elements of the referendum legislation that the Scottish Government wishes this Parliament to scrutinise and pass.

I turn to the aim of establishing as fact the lawfulness of a referendum, which, as I have already indicated—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

—I consider to be of the utmost importance.

I will start with what we know already. We know that the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to pass the bill in the absence of a section 30 order is contested. We know that legislative competence can be determined only judicially. We know that, for as long as there is no judicial determination, opinions will differ and doubt will continue to be cast on the lawful basis for the referendum. That benefits only those parties that are opposed to independence, because it allows them to avoid the substance of the independence debate. Finally, we know that if this Parliament seeks to legislate without a section 30 order, the bill will go to court—that is inevitable. The only questions are when it will end up in court and at whose hand.

If the issue of legislative competence remains unresolved at the point of formal introduction of the bill, the UK Government will almost certainly use section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 to refer the matter to the Supreme Court after the legislation has passed. It is also possible that one or more private individuals will lodge a judicial review of the bill. Indeed, last week, it was reported that Tory supporters are already planning to do so. A challenge by private individuals could also go through successive courts and therefore be a very lengthy process. Either way, at the point of Parliament passing the bill, there would be no certainty about when or even if the legislation could be implemented. A court challenge would still lie ahead and the timetable that I have set out today would quickly become difficult to deliver.

Of course, between now and then, claim and counterclaim, good faith arguments and bad faith fearmongering about so-called wildcat referendums will continue to muddy the water, cast doubt and taint the process. That may well suit politicians who are opposed to independence, but none of that would be in the interests of the country and none of it would serve democracy.

The fact is that neither legal opinions nor political arguments will resolve that point. We must establish legal fact. That is why, in my view, we must seek now to accelerate to the point when we have legal clarity and legal fact. Crucially, in doing so, we would, I hope, establish and safeguard the ability of this Parliament to deliver a referendum on the proposed date.

It is to that end that, some weeks ago, I asked the Lord Advocate to consider exercising her power under paragraph 34 of schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 to refer to the Supreme Court the question whether the provisions in the bill relate to reserved matters. That power is exercisable by the Lord Advocate alone, not by the Scottish ministers collectively. Accordingly, whether she exercises it is a matter solely for her.

However, I confirm that the Lord Advocate has considered the request. She has taken into account the following factors: the Government’s democratic mandate; the constitutional significance of the issue; the fact that the bill raises a genuine issue of law that is unresolved; and the importance of ensuring that this Government and Parliament act lawfully at all times.

She has now informed me of her decision. I advise the Parliament that the Lord Advocate has agreed to refer the provision in the bill to the Supreme Court. Indeed, as I speak, the process is under way for serving the requisite paperwork on the UK Government by lawyers and messengers-at-arms, and I confirm that the reference will be filed with the Supreme Court this afternoon.

Whether the reference is accepted, how long it takes to determine and what judgment is arrived at are all matters for the court to determine. I accept that. As I have made clear throughout, this Government respects the rule of law. However, by asking the Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the court now, rather than wait for others to do so later, we seek to deliver clarity and legal certainty in a timely manner and without the delay and continued doubt that others would prefer.

Obviously, it is this Government’s hope that the question in the bill—proposing a referendum that is consultative, not self-executing, and that seeks to ascertain the views of the Scottish people for or against independence—will be deemed to be within the legislative competence of this Parliament. If that outcome is secured, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the referendum is lawful, and I confirm that the Government will then immediately introduce the bill and ask the Parliament to pass it on a timescale that allows the referendum to proceed on 19 October next year.

It is possible that the Supreme Court will decide that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate even for a consultative referendum. To be clear: if that happens, it will be the fault of the Westminster legislation, not of the court. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

Obviously, that would not be the clarity that we hope for. However, if that is what the law that established this Parliament really means, it is better to have that clarity sooner rather than later—because it will clarify that any notion of the UK as a voluntary union of nations is a fiction and that any suggestion that the UK is a partnership of equals is false. Instead, we will be confronted with the reality that, no matter how Scotland votes, and regardless of what future we desire for our country, Westminster can block and overrule—Westminster will always have the final say. There would be few stronger or more powerful arguments for independence than that, and it would not be the end of the matter—far from it.

Earlier, I said that two principles would guide what I said today: the rule of law, and democracy. Democracy demands that people must have their say. Finally, therefore, in terms of process, I confirm the following—although it describes a scenario that I hope does not arise. If it transpires that there is no lawful way for this Parliament to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence in a referendum, and if the UK Government continues to deny a section 30 order, my party will fight the UK general election on this single question: should Scotland be an independent country? [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Members! Regardless of the content of any statement, it is important that we adhere to parliamentary standing orders and hear the statement without interruption.

The First Minister

The path that I have laid out today is about bringing clarity and certainty to this debate. Above all, it is about ensuring that Scotland will have its say on independence. I want the process that has been set in train today to lead to a lawful constitutional referendum, and for that to take place on 19 October 2023. That is what we are preparing for. However, if the law says that that is not possible, the general election will be a de facto referendum. Either way, the people of Scotland will have their say.

As the Lord Advocate is now referring the question of legality to the Supreme Court, that need no longer be the subject of sterile political debate. Indeed, the sub judice principle and our standing orders demand that the arguments on competence now be made in court, not here in the chamber. That means that we can, and we should, now focus on the substance. That is what this Government intends to do. In the weeks and months ahead, we will make the positive case for independence. We will do so with commitment, confidence and passion. Let the Opposition parties, if they can, make the case for continued Westminster rule, and then let the people decide.

To believe in Scottish independence is to believe in a better future. It involves an unashamedly optimistic view of the world—the belief that things can be better than they are now. Above all, it means trusting the talents and ingenuity of all of us who live here, no matter where we come from. It is not a claim to be better than anyone else. It is about looking around at all the other successful independent countries in the world—so many of which are smaller than we are and without the resources that we are blessed with—and asking, “Why not Scotland?” Think of all our talents and advantages: unrivalled energy resources; extraordinary natural heritage; exceptional strengths in the industries of the future; brilliant universities and colleges; and a highly skilled and creative population. There is no reason at all why an independent Scotland would not succeed.

Nothing in life is guaranteed, but with hard work and the independence to chart our own course, Scotland will prosper. The people of Scotland have told us—all of us in this chamber—that they want the right to decide. Today, we have set out the path to deliver it. [Applause.]

The Presiding Officer

The First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow about 40 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I wonder whether that Scottish National Party applause was to make up for the people in the public gallery walking out as the First Minister was speaking.

Nicola Sturgeon is at it all over again. Her eye is off the ball once more. The real priorities of people across Scotland are on the back burner. Instead, the First Minister is putting her plans to divide Scotland front and centre.

Nicola Sturgeon has shown again today that the SNP’s selfish obsession with another divisive referendum is always its top priority. She will use Government time and resources to further her plan to break up the country, just when we need to be pulling together and working as one. All our focus should be on tackling the huge challenges that we face right now: helping families with their bills, supporting front-line services and creating good jobs. A potentially illegal referendum next year is the wrong priority for Scotland. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Members! We will hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

SNP members are unhappy about what I have said. The matter is being referred to the court because the legality of a referendum is not known. Therefore, it is a potentially illegal referendum. It would distract from our recovery, and it would damage our efforts to rebuild the country after Covid. It is also the last thing that a clear majority of Scottish people want.

The First Minister speaks of fear, but what concerns all of us is the price that Scotland pays for her continued obsession with another referendum. Therefore, we will not play Nicola Sturgeon’s games and we will not take part in a pretend poll when there is real work to be done on the global cost of living crisis, and to invest in public services and rebuild our economy. Those are our priorities, and they are the real priorities of people across Scotland, as well.

Instead of focusing on the right priorities, Nicola Sturgeon is railroading Parliament into talking about the SNP’s obsession. On the First Minister’s watch, this is becoming a do-nothing Parliament. Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed today that she will introduce a bill for another independence referendum, but what is she doing about the country’s top priorities? Nothing. No bills on education, no ideas about drugs and no ferries that float. That is Nicola Sturgeon’s Scotland.

This is beginning to become a Parliament that does not get to act on the people’s real priorities, and which exists only to further the SNP’s interests: it is a do-nothing Parliament with a First Minister who is obsessed with holding another referendum at all costs.

Why should the people of Scotland’s real priorities be put on the back burner for another divisive and damaging independence referendum?

The First Minister

At the last count, Douglas Ross had three jobs. He might be a do-nothing MSP, but this is certainly a do-much Parliament—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Members! Thank you.

The First Minister

Douglas Ross has also demonstrated an apparent inability to listen to what was said in the statement. I know that the legality of a referendum that is agreed by Parliament without a section 30 order is contested. That is why I have asked the Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, so that that legality can be put beyond any doubt. A referendum that goes ahead will be undisputedly legal, because the Supreme Court will have deemed it to be so.

At that stage, any claims about boycotts will sound even sillier than they do now, and will demonstrate one thing and one thing only—that the Conservatives have no confidence in the arguments for continuation of the union.

We have a strange conundrum in Scotland, whereby the Tories suggest that nobody in Scotland wants the opportunity to choose independence in a referendum, yet the people of Scotland have somehow managed to elect a majority of MSPs in Parliament who propose an independence referendum.

Douglas Ross also says that a clear majority do not want independence. I gently suggest to him that if he were confident about that, he would be desperate to put the question to the people of Scotland in a referendum.

My plans are to equip Parliament, and this country, with all the powers and resources that other independent countries take for granted, and that we need in order to navigate the challenges that Scotland, in common with the rest of the world, faces now.

The truth is that Scotland is paying a price for not being independent. We were ripped out of the European Union and the single market completely against our will, and we are suffering one of the worst cost of living crises in the developed world because of that. We have higher inflation than any other G7 country and lower growth than any G20 country other than Russia.

We are seeing children being pushed into poverty by a Conservative Government that we did not elect. Scotland needs independence in order to better navigate those challenges, so that all the focus, power and resources of this Government and future Scottish Governments can be on exactly that point: addressing the priorities of the Scottish people, in line with mandates that have been given by the Scottish people.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

It is important to establish the legal basis of a referendum, but it is also important to consider its timing, context and effect. The First Minister gave the game away in the latter part of her statement—that this is actually more about the general election and the SNP having some relevance in it than it is about the Scottish people.

It is important to recognise the context of last year’s election campaign. We were still a country living under Covid restrictions, and more than 10,000 of our fellow citizens had lost their lives. Nicola Sturgeon said during that campaign that people who did not support a referendum or independence through the recovery should vote for her, safe in the knowledge that Covid recovery would be her priority. Covid has not gone away and our recovery has not even started.

Since that election, when Nicola Sturgeon gave that pledge, 4,000 more Scots have lost their lives; in the past week, 43 have died due to Covid. More than 700,000 Scots are on national health service waiting lists. More than 10,000 children and young people are waiting for a mental health appointment. There are almost 20,000 fewer businesses in Scotland today than when the pandemic began. This week, the Office for National Statistics warned that inflation could reach 11 per cent, which will mean higher bills and a deepening of the cost of living crisis. For households across the country, it does not feel like the crisis is over.

Is not it the case that the pandemic Nicola, who said that she wanted to pull us through, is gone, and that the partisan Nicola Sturgeon, who wants to divide our country, is back, pursuing a referendum that two thirds of Scots do not want right now? Worse still, is she not using the thank you that she was given and the promise that she made to lead us through the recovery to pit Scot against Scot and to focus on her priority, her obsession and her purpose instead? Frankly, Scotland deserves better.

The First Minister

Democracy is not pitting anyone against anyone. Democracy is allowing the people of the country—all of the people of the country—to choose. That is not just the right way to resolve differences of opinion on the constitution; it is the only way to resolve them.

It does not surprise me to hear the Conservatives say different, but it does still surprise me to hear Labour set its face so firmly against that fundamental concept of democracy. Anas Sarwar said that it is all about the context and timing of a referendum. He might have more credibility in saying that, if his position was not exactly the same as that of the Tories, which is that Scotland should never get the right to choose independence in a referendum.

The First Minister who is standing here is the First Minister who does believe, and always has believed, that the right thing for Scotland is that we have the powers, the levers and the resources in our hands to chart our course in line with our values, our interests and the aspirations and ambitions that we have for the country.

I do not want a recovery in the mould of Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party. Anas Sarwar is right that Covid has not gone away, but a Westminster Tory Government that we did not vote for has taken the funding for dealing with Covid away from this Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking money away from the poorest people in our society. The way to build a recovery and to build the kind of country that we want—which Anas Sarwar and I probably agree on—is to put the levers and the control of that in the hands of the people of Scotland. That is what independence is about. I suspect that, as long as Anas Sarwar and his party set their face against that, they will continue to struggle as they have over the past decade and more.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Well, here we are again. What an appalling waste of energy and focus this is. Frankly, I can think of better uses of our time, and I am not alone. I am sure that those who are waiting for cancer care in the longest queue on record can think of better uses of our time; those children suffering from long Covid who were left disappointed after waiting to meet the First Minister in the cold outside the Parliament this afternoon can think of better uses of our time; and island ferry passengers, Ukrainians stuck in hotels and victims of violent and sexual crime who have been left waiting for justice can all think of better uses of our time.

The First Minister is putting disquiet in her party ahead of the needs of this country. Why will her fixation with breaking up the United Kingdom always trump the needs of the people we are all here to serve?

The First Minister

We have so many Ukrainians here in Scotland right now who are in the process of being given refuge because we fought to get a supersponsor scheme in order to speed up the process for those fleeing the war in Ukraine. We would be able to give more refuge to people fleeing conflict and famine around the world if we were not trapped in a hostile environment immigration policy by a Government that we do not vote for and that does not have the support of people across Scotland.

Yes, it is this Government’s responsibility to support the national health service into and through recovery and to deliver for long Covid patients, but I pose this question: will we be better able to do that if we are in charge of our own budgets and resources than if we are still subject to a Government that cuts this Parliament’s budget at every opportunity?

Not many years ago, Alex Cole-Hamilton and I were on the same side of a debate in the Brexit referendum. He told people across Scotland that Brexit would be a disaster and so it is now proving. The difference between him and me is that his party no longer even says that it would try to take Scotland back into the European Union. I do not want to give up on that European ideal and aspiration. Now, the only route for Scotland back into the European Union and the European family of nations is by becoming an independent country.

The Presiding Officer

Members will wish to be aware that I have 20 members who wish to ask a question in a 20-minute period. I will certainly do my best to get through as many questions as possible but we will have to focus on more concise questions and responses.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Following the 2014 referendum, Opposition parties promised through the Smith commission that nothing would prevent Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. Therefore, does the First Minister share my view that it is indefensible for the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer and Opposition members in this Parliament not to respect that pledge and the clear mandate secured by the Scottish Parliament for a referendum to be held on Scottish independence?

The First Minister

In the 2014 referendum, the leaders of the no parties at the time said:

“Power lies with the Scottish people and … it is for the Scottish people to decide how we are governed.”

That is, of course, until Scotland might take a decision that they do not like and then they think that their right is to block it.

The Smith commission report said that there was nothing in it that prevented Scotland from becoming independent. The truth is this: the Opposition parties in the Parliament will always try to block an independence referendum. They do that not out of concern for the country but because they fear the debate and the verdict of the Scottish people on independence.

I was reminded the other day that, in June 2017—I have here the front page of the Scottish Daily Mail from that month—the Conservative Government said:

“We’ll block a referendum for five years”.

Here we are five years later and it is still blocking a referendum because it fears Scottish democracy and the verdict of the Scottish people on independence.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given the centrality that the First Minister accords to the Lord Advocate in the process, and having set the precedent a few years ago with the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, will the First Minister commit as a matter of urgency to having the Lord Advocate appear in the chamber to answer questions from MSPs on the legality or otherwise of the proposals that the First Minister has just outlined? Sub judice rules do not apply in Scottish proceedings until parties’ pleadings have been finalised.

The First Minister

I cannot and will not seek to commit the Lord Advocate to anything because she acts independently and, on the matter in question, the power that she has agreed to exercise is one of her retained powers under the Scotland Act 1998. However, I am sure that the Lord Advocate would be more than happy to answer questions from MSPs.

I make it clear that the course of action that has been set out is to ask the Supreme Court to opine on the legality of a referendum, not to make it the matter of opinion—even the matter of esteemed legal opinion—but to get that judgment from the Supreme Court to put the lawfulness of a referendum beyond any doubt. I cannot imagine how anybody in the chamber could find anything in that aspect of my statement to disagree with in any way, shape or form.

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

Aside from the fact that it is our sovereign right as Scottish citizens to determine the democratic path that our nation takes, in the current cost of living crisis, the most vulnerable in society are consistently being failed by the UK Government, while the Scottish Government is doing more than any other UK Administration to tackle poverty and support hard-pressed households. Does the First Minister think that all that serves to highlight just how important it is for Scottish citizens to exercise their democratic right to decide which Government they can trust to address the urgent crisis and our recovery from the pandemic via a referendum on independence?

The First Minister

That is the nub of the matter. In my view, the right to self-determination is absolute. Scotland has a right to self-determination, and the minute that another Government tries to dictate when or how often that right can be exercised it ceases to be a right.

However, this is not abstract. Independence is about addressing better the key challenges that we face as a country and about being able to better fulfil our full potential as a country. Other members will argue, as they have done today, that independence somehow distracts from the challenges and the priorities that many of us share. On the contrary, it is about giving us the wherewithal to better meet the challenges.

On the cost of living, as I have already said, much of the world is facing a cost of living crisis but, in the UK, it is being deeply exacerbated by a Brexit that was imposed on Scotland against our will. That is the price of not being in charge of our own destiny and of not being independent, and people across Scotland are paying that price right now. Independence is about enabling us to fulfil our full potential; it is about the priorities of people across this country.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Even SNP voters do not want a referendum on the First Minister’s timescale. They want action on the cost of living crisis and they need action now. They do not want division, deflection or excuses from the First Minister’s Government, which has the powers to deliver the support and change that they need; they do not want to have to choose between heating and eating. Fuel poverty pre-dates Brexit and the pandemic.

How does a referendum in just under 16 months help people who cannot afford their bills now, never mind this autumn or winter? When will the First Minister’s Government take responsibility and use to the max the powers that it already has?

The First Minister

Of course, we are using the powers; let me set out how we are using them in that regard. Benefits that Social Security Scotland is in control of are increasing by 6 per cent rather than 3 per cent, so we are putting more money into people’s pockets. Indeed, many of those benefits do not exist anywhere else in the UK; they have been established in Scotland only, because we are using the powers that we have. The most important of those is the Scottish child payment, and a child payment of that type does not exist in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It exists in Scotland because we are using our powers.

What are the root causes of the cost of living crisis when it comes to energy? They are fuel prices and the energy market, all of which is reserved to the Westminster Government.

I will give a direct response to Sarah Boyack’s question on what difference a referendum will make. By being able to exercise those powers ourselves, we could do more than just mitigate; we could address some of the root causes of the problems that people are facing. That is what independence is about; it is about empowering this Parliament and this country to take the action that people want on these priorities.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

For Opposition members, the time is never right, and they use every opportunity to deny our democratic mandate for an independence referendum. Will the First Minister confirm that the “Building a New Scotland” papers will ensure that the national conversation ahead of the referendum will be of a high standard, informed and an example of open democracy in action? Will she again invite Opposition members to drop their empty posturing against the referendum’s mandate and, instead, join the debate?

The First Minister

Absolutely. The “Building a New Scotland” series of papers will continue. It will set out the positive case for independence, and it will take on and answer the tougher questions and challenges that people want answered. It will be about the substance of the choice that we are asking people to make.

It is perfectly legitimate in the chamber and in the democracy that we live in that people have different views and will want to make the opposite case. The issues of process will now be determined, I hope, through the Supreme Court, so let us have the debate on substance. I and my colleagues will make the case for independence, so I challenge Opposition members: why do they not come and make the substantive case for Scotland continuing to be part of the union? I suspect that I know the answer to that question. Let us have the debate on substance and then do the democratic thing: let the people decide.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The statement proves beyond doubt that the Scottish Government is committed to deliver its democratic mandate and give the people of Scotland the opportunity to build a fairer and greener independent nation. The very same Conservative Party that has been rejected here again and again is now trying to stop that democratic exercise, aided by a Labour Party that seems equally intent on obstructing Scottish democracy. Does the First Minister agree that pro-independence parties winning more seats and more votes than our opponents is the gold standard of democratic mandates for putting Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands, through a referendum on our independence?

The First Minister

Ross Greer is absolutely right to point out that the mandate for an independence referendum that exists in this Parliament is stronger than any mandate for Brexit that ever existed in the UK Parliament. The mandate is undeniable. The only question is whether Opposition parties and the UK Government are prepared to respect Scottish democracy. So far, they have not, which is why I have set out the path today.

Scotland has the right to choose. I want that to be in a legal constitutional referendum—that is the path that I have set in train today. Come what may, Scotland must have the right to choose independence, because that is the right of self-determination.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Scotland should believe that she is hopeless, helpless, worthless and voiceless—that is the ambition that the unionists have for Scotland. Their belief that they can prevent the Scottish people from having a vote on Scottish independence is based on the fundamentally undemocratic idea of the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament and the denial of the principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Does the First Minister agree that attempts to block the right to self-determination and the sovereignty of the Scottish people cannot be sustained while, simultaneously, attempting to claim that democracy matters?

The First Minister

I absolutely agree with that, and that will not be sustained. The UK is either what we have always been told that it is, which is a voluntary union of equals, or it is not and it is a structure in which Scotland has no legal democratic right to decide a different path—that cannot be sustainable.

This is about the right to self-determination, but, more than that, it is about the willingness of politicians who disagree, legitimately, to let the people decide and to respect the democratic process and the democratic outcome. In recent days, I heard some unionist politician—I cannot remember which one; they all begin to sound the same after a little while—say that they had worked it out, and that I did not really want a referendum and I did not think that we would win one if we got one.

Do you know what? I suspect that if any of the unionist parties thought that either of those things was the case, they would be rushing to call my bluff. This is an invitation to all of them: come on, call my bluff.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

In his address to the Royal United Services Institute think tank, General Sir Patrick Sanders says that his “singular focus” is on mobilising the British Army to help to prevent the spread of war in Europe, by being

“ready to fight and win alongside our Nato allies and partners”.

These are serious times. Putin continues to invade Ukraine, we have a cost of living crisis due to global inflation, and public services are trying to recover from the pandemic. Every year, for the First Minister, now has been the time. Why is her constitutional obsession more important than global peace, security and recovery?

The First Minister

That is utterly shameful and I think that people across the country will see it as that. All of us stand united behind the people of Ukraine and none of us should seek to use their plight and the horror that they are living through for our own political ends.

We do live in very serious times, which is why I want to see an independent Scotland being truly international by rejoining the European family of nations and playing our full part, albeit as a relatively small country, in trying to build a better world today and for future generations. I do not think, and I really do not believe, that the response to what is happening across Europe right now and to the gravity of this moment should be to try, in our own country, to block democracy. Quite the reverse is the way to respond to that.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

First, I congratulate the First Minister and the Cabinet for delivering on the voice of the people first, because Westminster is clearly intent on destroying the idea of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations. A Tory UK Government with only six MPs from Scotland, supported on this issue by Labour, is seeking to deny the people of Scotland the democratic right to choose their own future. Does the First Minister share my concern, and indeed anger, at that total disdain for the democratic will of the people of Scotland? Why are they so afraid of respecting the right of the people of Scotland to choose their own future?

The First Minister

They are afraid of allowing people in Scotland to choose their own future because they are afraid, and suspect, that when people get the opportunity, they will choose to be independent. In the years since 2014, we have seen all the things that were promised by the no campaign turn to dust. We have seen many of the things that the no campaign said would happen if Scotland voted yes happen because Scotland did not vote yes, chief among those being taken out of the European Union against our will.

More and more, people see that the best way to build the Scotland that we want to see is by being in charge of our own destiny and not having it governed by politicians like Boris Johnson, who nobody, even in this Parliament, thinks is fit to be Prime Minister. The Opposition parties want to block Scotland’s right to choose because they think that Scotland will make a choice that they do not like, but that is not democratic.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

How can the First Minister give serious attention to addressing the fact that sexual crimes have increased by 15 per cent to the highest level since 1971—an issue that I know she cares deeply about—and to resolving the crisis in legal aid and the fact that morale in Police Scotland is so low that we are losing hundreds of police officers, if most of her Government’s attention will be focused on preparing the arguments for independence? Does that mean that she expects to put those issues on hold for the next 16 months? The people of Scotland have the right to know.

The First Minister

No, of course it does not. If that is the best that the Opposition can do, they are clearly going to struggle to sustain a position in this debate.

After years of my party being in Government, we have crime rates that are at their lowest level since 1974. This Government, with the support of the Parliament, has passed legislation on domestic abuse to make it more possible for people to get justice before the courts. We are supporting our justice system into and through recovery from Covid.

I come back to the central issue. We will be better able to build the public services that we want, and to support the recovery of our public services, if we are in charge of the resources that we have to do so, rather than being in the position that we are in right now, where we are having budgets cut and constrained by a Westminster Government that we did not elect.

The case for independence and the priorities, on which I am sure that Pauline McNeill and I agree a great deal, are two sides of the same coin. It is about equipping this Parliament and this country to better meet the challenges that we face.

The Presiding Officer

We have several members who still wish to put a question. I will try to get to the end of the list, but I would be grateful for more concise questions and responses. I call Sandesh Gulhane, to be followed by Joe FitzPatrick.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

One in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime. This morning, new statistics revealed that cancer waiting times are the worst on record, but what are we talking about this afternoon? Another divisive referendum.

Someone waited 277 days for treatment. In Glasgow, someone waited 210 days. When will the First Minister realise that a referendum is the wrong priority, and when will she shift the focus away from division and grievance and on to real issues such as addressing those dire waiting times and preventing the resultant, and totally unnecessary, deaths?

The First Minister

This Government is focused on supporting our NHS and our public services and on supporting the country through the remainder of Covid and the recovery from it. Every single day, we focus on those priorities, in common with Governments elsewhere. Health services in countries around the world are dealing with those challenges.

I come back to the central point. A Government, Parliament and country that has the full powers and resources of independence will always be better able to meet those challenges than one that has one hand tied behind its back.

The Presiding Officer

My apologies—I call Jenni Minto, who will be followed by Joe FitzPatrick.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As the MSP for Argyll and Bute, I am regularly reminded of the valuable contribution that European Union nationals make to our communities. I am also very aware that the tourism and hospitality industries, which have relied on EU nationals coming to Argyll and Bute for work, have struggled to fill job vacancies post Brexit. Will the First Minister advise us of the Scottish Government’s plans to rejoin the European family of nations on our independence?

The First Minister

The Government wants to see Scotland rejoining the European Union and the European family of nations: that is one of the key benefits of independence. Indeed, independence is now the only possible route for Scotland to do that. We know that there will be processes that an independent Scotland will be required to go through to achieve that: one of the papers that we will publish in the series that I have already referred to will set out the route to that in more detail.

I think that the key point that is understood across Scotland is that there is no route back to the European Union without independence. Not only are the Tories against that, but we now, disgracefully, have a position in which neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats want to take Scotland into the European Union or even into the single market. They are now happy to allow the damage caused by the Tories to continue. That demonstrates that the only route for Scotland to get back into Europe is by becoming an independent country.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The First Minister has already mentioned the Scottish child payment, which is being delivered by Social Security Scotland from its headquarters in the “Yes” city of Dundee. Will the First Minister say more about how the powers of independence would enable this Parliament to go much further to deliver a fairer and more equal society that improves people’s lives, as we see in so many comparable countries in Europe and beyond?

The First Minister

One of the biggest arguments for independence is that we would be in charge of our own resources so that we could dedicate all our efforts to tackling poverty and, in particular, to lifting children out of poverty. We can illustrate how having only partial power over social security holds us back. This Parliament, using its limited devolved powers, has established the Scottish child payment and has now decided to double that and then extend it further. That is lifting thousands upon thousands of children out of poverty but, at the stroke of the chancellor’s pen, £20 a week was taken away from families on universal credit, which pushed children back into poverty. We need all the powers of a social security system to make sure that everything that we do is lifting children out of poverty, rather than being in the situation that we have now, in which everything that we do is undermined by a Government that is pulling in the wrong direction.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the First Minister clarify a point about the process that lies behind her statement? Did the Lord Advocate refuse to certify the referendum bill as being legally competent? Is that why the Lord Advocate is taking it to court, rather than the bill being brought before Parliament today?

The First Minister

I will not breach the ministerial code by getting into legal advice. [Interruption.] Members should listen to this point, because it is important. I asked the Lord Advocate to consider exercising the powers that she has under schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. I did that because I know that the power of this Parliament is contested. If the ministerial code were otherwise, and even if I were to bring forward and publish a dozen legal opinions on competence, the Opposition would say, “Ah, but that’s only an opinion. The referendum’s gonnae be illegal,” and they would undermine the process. It is better to ask the Supreme Court for its judgment on the lawful basis of the referendum and then nobody can gainsay that, because it is no longer a matter of opinion; it is a matter of legal fact.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As MSPs, we are all acutely aware that Scotland faces a workforce crisis throughout every industry and sector. With an ageing population, it is impossible for us to magic up people to fill those roles. Does the First Minister agree that it is only as an independent Scotland with normal powers over things such as immigration, employment law, energy and borrowing, to name a few, that we can start to recover from the Covid crisis and to address the cost of living crisis?

The First Minister

If you speak regularly, as I do, to people in public services and businesses across the country, one common theme will emerge—the shortage of labour that makes it more difficult to tackle the backlog in our national health service and more difficult for businesses to recover. That has been caused and exacerbated by the ending of freedom of movement, which came from us being taken out of Europe against our will and comes from a highly restrictive and, in many cases, deeply inhumane immigration policy.

Scotland needs to be able to determine our population and we need to be able to determine who can come to the country so that we can grow that population, because that is in the interests of our economy, our public services and our society more generally. The only way to do that is by Scotland becoming independent, with the powers that independence brings in that regard. That is another key argument for taking those powers out of the hands of Westminster and putting them into the hands of this Parliament.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Did Westminster have the final say on 18 September 2014?

The First Minister

Westminster and, in fact, all the better together parties in this chamber, ahead of the referendum in 2014, said that if Scotland voted yes, we would be taken out of the European Union. Then, of course, we were taken out of the European Union because we did not—[Interruption.] I will come on to an important point. Actually, Oliver Mundell probably did not mean to be helpful in that question, but he has been. However, I will come back to that in a second.

The UK that existed in 2014 does not exist now, because we are out of the European Union, and that is one of the many reasons why people in Scotland should have the choice.

Of course, it is the case that, in the lead-up to 2014, the then Westminster Government respected democracy and agreed a process with the Scottish Government. We accepted that we disagreed but, nevertheless, agreed a process that would allow the Scottish people to decide. If this Westminster Government had any respect for democracy, that is exactly what it would be doing. I think that Oliver Mundell has actually put his finger on the deeply undemocratic nature of the Westminster Government that is in office right now.

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

Does the First Minister agree that the unionist Opposition in here has nothing to do with the mandate and nothing to do with the argument that now is not the right time? It is actually saying, “Never”, defending a permanent veto by one partner nation to prevent another partner nation from simply exercising its right to choose its constitutional future. In those circumstances, does the First Minister agree that the Opposition parties in here should be ashamed of themselves? [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, members.

The First Minister

On so many matters, I agree with that, but on this matter, yes. It is entirely legitimate for us to disagree on the merits and the substance of independence. That is the stuff of democracy. What it is never acceptable to do is to try to block democracy because of a fear of the outcome of the democratic choice that people will make. That is what the Conservatives are doing. Shamefully, it is what Labour and the rather misnamed Liberal Democrats are doing—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you.

The First Minister

—but the right of the people of Scotland to self-determination is there and it will be exercised.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is clear to me that the Lord Advocate has been unable to sign the referendum bill, which is why it has not been introduced to Parliament, but the important issue is that the First Minister was in the position of answering questions on behalf of the Lord Advocate. Given that the referral to the Supreme Court is an independent process that is free from the influence of the First Minister, surely the Lord Advocate should make a statement to the Parliament and answer questions about that process. Will the Presiding Officer, as a matter of urgency, consider that alongside the Parliamentary Bureau?

The Presiding Officer

I thank Ms Baillie for her point of order. I have no doubt that the bureau will consider this in due course. Thank you.

There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 9A, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the first amendment in the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Amendment 1, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendments 8, 2, 6 and 7.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 1 is the only amendment to the bill that I have lodged. I did so at stage 2 and it was not passed, but I thought that it was crucial to come back with the amendment and raise the issue in the chamber.

I have been clear from day 1 on the COVID-19 Recovery Committee that I support a lot of the bill and that a lot of it should be supported but, after following the evidence, I have consistently raised concerns about the so-called Henry VIII powers. They take powers away from the Scottish Parliament—the legislature—and put them into the hands of the executive, which cannot be right.

As a parliamentarian, I consistently try to follow the evidence, consider the evidence and not simply take party political lines on issues.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the member accept that the Deputy First Minister made major concessions on the bill and that the Parliament now has much more of a veto than it had previously?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Deputy First Minister made major concessions, but it is a sentence of six words that I propose to remove. Although major concessions were made, and I will come on to those, for me and my party, they were not enough. There is no justification for taking powers away from the legislature—this Parliament—and putting them into the hands of the executive.

Following on from the most recent debate, I have persistently and continually argued that the Parliament should have significantly more powers than it has, and that those powers should not be put into the hands of the executive. Mr Mason made the point at stage 2 that, if this is the way that Governments take powers when they have majorities, a precedent could be being set for the future.

I want to pick up on that point, because it was in the evidence. Mr Swinney said at stage 2 that the academics who gave the committee advice and put forward their views on the so-called Henry VIII powers welcomed the change that had taken place, and I accept that. After Mr Swinney made those comments, I found something from Dr Andrew Tickell on Twitter.

He said:

“Much of the critical attention on this Bill has focused on the first section of the legislation, which recasts public health law in Scotland in important ways in the light of recent experience. As first introduced, the proposals were described by some as a ‘power grab.’

The committee asked me and my ... colleague @ProfABritton for a view about what legal merit—if any—this claim had in terms of the public health provisions in the Bill. It is fair to say we reached ambivalent conclusions.

On the one hand, the Bill updates Scots law to reflect public health powers already held by UK ministers since 2008, enshrining powers which fit into the World Health Organization’s ‘all hazards’ approach to emergent threats to public health and appropriate legal responses.

On the other, as first drafted, the Bill gave Scottish Ministers extensive and problematic powers (often described as Henry VIII powers) to amend any legislation during a public health emergency without resort to parliament. We suggested this required scrutiny and justification.

After committee scrutiny @JohnSwinney introduced important amendments which will significantly enhance the role of parliament in sanctioning any legal changes. In essence, a gateway vote in favour will now be required to exercise any such emergency powers.”

I accept that the academics give credit to Mr Swinney for the changes that he has made, but my view is that the approach did not go far enough and that the bill should not be introducing these Henry VIII powers. For that reason, I will move my amendment.

I move amendment 1.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I thank Mr Rowley for setting out his arguments, and I recognise the important points that he has made about protecting the vital role of the Parliament in the legislative process. I support that perspective.

I recognise that there was reasonable concern that that role was not given sufficient recognition in the bill as originally drafted. As Mr Rowley has fairly put on the record, we acted at stage 2 to address that, and many commentators have recognised the significant movement that the Government has applied on that question.

As a result of the changes announced, the bill now requires that any regulations that are made under proposed section 86A(1) of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, to modify primary legislation—that is to say, the so-called Henry VIII provision—could be made only under the draft affirmative procedure. That means that the Parliament will always have full opportunity for scrutiny before primary legislation can be modified under proposed section 86A and that the made affirmative procedure can never be used to diminish that role. I hope that the Parliament recognises that that demonstrates that we have listened to concerns and made real improvements to that part of the bill.

I also note—as I did at stage 2—that the amendment adds to the considerable safeguards that were included when the bill was introduced. I spoke to those at length during stage 2, so I will not set out that detail again. What I will say is that it is imperative that Parliament retains its scrutiny role, and I am grateful to those who have pointed out that we had not done enough to achieve that. However, we have now remedied that so that modifications to primary legislation using those public health powers can never be made without the consent and full scrutiny of Parliament. Members can therefore safely resist Mr Rowley’s amendment with confidence that their vital role has been protected and that the power itself is suitably limited.

Amendment 8 is of a minor and technical nature, so I hope that it is uncontroversial. It will simply ensure that the correct cross-references are inserted in the new sections that the bill will add into the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008.

Amendment 2 would remove the public health regulation-making power entirely from the bill. I have already documented clearly throughout the bill process why we consider it vital to have those public health powers, having learned lessons from the recent pandemic. I will therefore not repeat the points that have already been made against the amendment. I will simply say that the Government amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 add significant safeguards to those that were already included when the bill was introduced. I hope that that reassures members that their voices have been heard and that the bill is better as a result.

I have substantive and, I believe, compelling objections to amendments 6 and 7. However, before I set out those objections, I must point out that, even if members were sympathetic to them, the provisions that they refer to will come into force automatically on the dates that are set out in section 46 of the bill, as agreed at stage 2. Amendments 6 and 7 cannot prevent that from happening. However, even if they could achieve the desired effect, I cannot support them for the reasons that I already set out at length in my comments on similar amendments at stage 2.

We know that there is a gap in our legislative framework. Crucially, that gap does not exist in England and Wales, where such powers have been held for more than a decade. It would be ill-advised to delay closing that gap. In the last few months alone, we have seen unusual presentations of hepatitis in children and the outbreak of monkeypox, so nobody should be in any doubt that public health threats can and do emerge with very little warning. Faced with that reality, the Scottish Parliament would rightly be criticised were another threat to emerge and once again, we had to resort to emergency legislation, as we did during the early days of the Covid pandemic.

That same rationale underpins my resistance to amendment 7. Without wishing to presuppose any findings, I acknowledge that there could be a call for further changes to the statute book once the public inquiry reports. However, that should not prevent us from acting now to remedy an area where we have already identified a weakness in our statutory framework.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At the start of what might be a long afternoon, I remind members of my relevant interests: I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, I derive some income from rental properties and I am a member of the Church of Scotland.

I have three amendments in the group. Amendment 2 seeks to remove section 1, which deals with the public health provisions, from the bill entirely. It goes to the heart of our concerns. Is it necessary to legislate now to make permanent what were extraordinary emergency powers that were granted to the Scottish ministers to deal with a public health crisis?

We debated those issues at great length at stage 1 and stage 2. I will not rehearse all those arguments this afternoon. It is fair to say that there was substantial public opposition to the bill from stakeholders and the public. The consultation that was run by the COVID-19 Recovery Committee showed 90 per cent opposition to what the Government proposed. There is a great deal of concern about the way in which the bill approaches public health issues and there was an alternative route that the Government could have taken should it have so wished.

Should amendment 2 not be agreed, amendment 6 seeks to qualify section 1, which would require ministers to conduct an assessment of the impact of regulations before they are introduced and, insofar as practical, consult with the affected parties. That seeks to recognise the concerns that have been raised by the business community with many members, the COVID-19 Recovery Committee and other parliamentary committees about the impact of measures brought in at very short notice by Scottish ministers, with little or no prior discussion or consultation, or any assessment of the likely economic impact.

We saw that happen, for example, in the case of vaccination passports, which were brought in at short notice, were vigorously resisted by the business community, who believed that the policy was very damaging, and which were very quickly withdrawn by the Scottish Government when it realised that the policy was not having the intended impact. That is the sort of policy that we could avoid if we were to accept amendment 6 and introduce such a change to the bill.

In the COVID-19 Recovery Committee at stage 2, similar amendments to amendments 2 and 6 were both rejected only on the convener’s casting vote. That is why I have brought them back to the chamber for discussion this afternoon.

Amendment 7 states that section 1 and parts 2 and 4 of the bill cannot come into effect until after the conclusion of the public inquiry into the Covid pandemic. That is important because we need to learn the lessons of what has happened during the past two years before we can move on to legislate for future events.

I introduced a similar but broader amendment at stage 2. Amendment 7 has a much narrower focus and applies only to certain aspects of the bill. I think that that is a reasonable compromise on my part.

We have seen public inquiries run for years. I believe that the Edinburgh trams inquiry is still running, eight years after it was first established. It seems extraordinary that the second Edinburgh tram line is being built at a time when we have not even learned the lessons from the construction of the first tram line.

We should not make the same mistake twice—that is what amendment 7 seeks to address.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Would the member accept that we do not know when the next pandemic or some other emergency might arise and that it is better to be prepared for it, rather than to wait for some inquiry?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That goes to the heart of the issue that Mr Mason and I, and other members of the committee, have been debating for some weeks, which is whether we need to legislate now or whether some other approach could be taken. Parliament demonstrated two years ago how quickly it could move to legislate in an emergency situation. I believe that we should trust Parliament to make such decisions and not hand powers over to ministers, as Mr Mason proposes to do.

Finally, on the other amendments in the group, I can see no difficulty with amendment 8 from Mr Swinney. I am happy to support Mr Rowley’s amendment 1, which seeks to remove the Henry VIII powers. I supported a similar amendment from Mr Rowley at stage 2. When he spoke to amendment 1, Mr Rowley made some powerful points about the overreach by Scottish ministers in terms of Henry VIII powers. I hope that Mr Rowley will not be tempted by the cabinet secretary not to press amendment 1, because it makes an important point.

We have heard from the Scottish Government throughout the passage of the bill that it reflects legislation already in place in England and Wales. However, in this respect, that is not the case, because the Henry VIII powers in this bill do not reflect comparative legislation south of the border. Even though the Scottish Government has brought in some qualifications compared to what we had previously, it still does not go far enough. I believe that the Henry VIII powers should be removed entirely, which is why I support amendment 1, in the name of Mr Rowley, and I hope that Parliament will support it, too.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I agree with much of what Alex Rowley and Murdo Fraser have said. As has been rehearsed previously in debates, this is effectively an emergency powers bill without an emergency. As a result, Parliament is diminished by the bill. Parliament has shown previously that, when it matters, we can come together, see the seriousness of the occasion and expedite powers for the executive to cope with the pandemic. I see no reason why we cannot follow the same model, with the benefit, this time, of being able to learn lessons from the public inquiry and come up with a new set of powers, which we will debate over the coming years, in order to have legislation on the shelf, ready to be implemented when an emergency occurs. That is a far preferable route. What is the point of having a public inquiry if we do not learn the lessons of the public inquiry? That includes lessons for legislation.

The Liberal Democrats will support amendment 1, in the name of Alex Rowley, to prevent the Henry VIII powers. We should also support Murdo Fraser’s call for a meaningful consultation in amendment 6, and his amendment 7, on learning the lessons of the public inquiry. Those amendments are perfectly reasonable. There is no doubt that Mr Swinney has improved the process for approving regulations in future, but it is still not sufficient. There is no reason why we have to have emergency powers when we do not have an emergency. We need to learn the lessons and produce legislation for this Parliament that is fit for purpose.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have acknowledged that the Government and Mr Swinney have introduced changes—they have listened—but I am afraid that that does not go far enough. This is a matter of principle. I do not believe that we should take powers away from the legislator and hoard them into the executive. That is a dangerous precedent and, for that reason, I will press amendment 1.

Business Motion

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In my eagerness to get us into the guts of the substance of the amendments, I unfortunately bypassed consideration of business motion S6M-05228, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill.

Let me turn back time and invite any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

It is the story of my life, Presiding Officer—always forgotten.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am glad that we have been able to rectify that.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 15 minutes

Groups 4 and 5: 2 hours 30 minutes

Groups 6 to 8: 3 hours 15 minutes

Groups 9 to 11: 4 hours

Groups 12 and 13: 5 hours.—[

George Adam

]

Motion agreed to.

We have righted that wrong.

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a short suspension as we proceed to the division on amendment 1.

15:49 Meeting suspended.

15:56 On resuming—

We proceed with the division on amendment 1. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted no.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Group 2 is on regulation-making powers in the bill: impact assessments. I draw members’ attention to the procedural information that relates to this group, as set out in the groupings. Amendment 96 in group 2 is pre-empted by amendment 92 in group 13; therefore, if amendment 92 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 96.

Amendment 29, in the name of Stuart McMillan on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, is grouped with amendments 54 and 96.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I have lodged amendments 29, 54 and 96 on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. They are probing amendments, in the first instance.

As members will know, the committee recently held an inquiry into the use during the pandemic of the made affirmative procedure, which led to our recommending a set of principles that might provide the basis for considering the delegated powers, in bills, that can be exercised subject to the made affirmative procedure. Reflecting those principles, our stage 1 report on the bill recommended that the Scottish Government lodge amendments for each of the five powers that can be exercised subject to the made affirmative procedure.

Those statutory requirements are threefold. First, each Scottish statutory instrument should be accompanied by a written statement explaining, and providing evidence on, why the regulations need to be made urgently. Secondly, the Government should

“include an assessment of the impact of the instrument”

on all those who are likely to be affected. Thirdly, such SSIs should be subject to a sunset provision so that changes to the law do not continue to be in force indefinitely.

In considering the bill as amended at stage 2, the committee welcomed the Scottish Government’s amendments that require a statement of urgency to be provided and a sunset provision to be included when the made affirmative procedure is used. However, the Government did not lodge any amendments to require an impact assessment. Instead, it stated in response to the committee’s stage 1 report

“that current scrutiny frameworks ... are fit for purpose and that there is no need for such an amendment.”

The committee agreed to lodge the amendments in this group because it considers that it is important that those who will be affected by changes to the law understand the impact of the regulations. That information should be assessable, clear and published in a timely manner.

I know from our evidence session at stage 1 that the Deputy First Minister accepts “the sentiment” of the committee’s position “unreservedly”. Therefore, I look forward to hearing his views.

I move amendment 29.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As the convener said, we carried out an inquiry into the use of the made affirmative procedure. Our unanimous view was that the procedure has been overused and that checks and balances should be put in place. That was our approach when we considered the bill.

At stage 2, I lodged a number of amendments, none of which were agreed to, based on the casting vote of the convener of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee. Therefore, I welcome Stuart McMillan’s amendments on behalf of the DPLR Committee. It is important that we provide checks and balances when the made affirmative procedure is used. To be frank, during the pandemic, the Government went somewhat haywire with its use of that procedure.

The amendments in the group are sensible. If Mr McMillan chooses not to press amendment 29 and not to move the other amendments in the group, I will.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Following amendments to the bill at stage 2 to provide for an explanation of urgency if the made affirmative procedure needs to be used in urgent circumstances and for a sunsetting provision to be included when appropriate, a supplementary delegated powers memorandum was considered by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

In its report of 24 June, the DPLRC welcomed amendments that had been made at stage 2. The committee also recommended, as it had done in its stage 1 report, that if made affirmative powers were used, an assessment of the impact of the regulations should be provided. This group of amendments follows on from paragraph 10 of the DPLRC’s report.

The Government made it clear in its response at stage 1 that processes that are currently in place already provide the required scrutiny. Policy notes are prepared and, when appropriate, impact assessments are carried out for any SSI, not just for those that are urgent. We do not wish to add complication or delay when there is a need for urgent action.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

If the Deputy First Minister is arguing that the Government already produces impact assessments, there cannot possibly be a problem with the amendments in this group.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am simply making the point that the Government has made those commitments, and I have just set out and reflected the Government’s routine practice. Indeed, when the Minister for Parliamentary Business gave evidence to the DPLRC last week, he made it clear that the Government already carries out impact assessments and that the Government can continue to engage with the Parliament on this question.

Therefore, I do not think that there is a need for amendments 29, 54 and 96, so I invite Mr McMillan not to press amendment 29 and not to move amendments 54 and 96.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that reply. We discussed potential amendments with the Minister for Parliamentary Business in committee last week during the private session. The committee considered that any amendments that it would lodge would be probing amendments, in order to establish any further information from the Government. Given the points that the Deputy First Minister has raised, I am content not to press amendment 29.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr McMillan wishes to withdraw amendment 29. Does any member object?

Members

Yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The vote is now closed.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to enter the PIN, so I could not cast my vote. I would have voted yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Boyack. We will make sure that that is recorded.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether my vote registered. I would have voted yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It was not recorded. I will make sure that it is, Ms White.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is frozen. I would have voted no.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will make sure that that is recorded, Ms McAllan.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr MacGregor. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I, too, could not connect. I would have voted yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Whittle. We will make sure that that is recorded also.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 disagreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Murdo Fraser].

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

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Group 3 is on

educational regulations: use of powers and safeguards. Amendment 30, in the name of Oliver Mundell, is grouped with amendments 31 to 43, 9, 45, 10, 47, 49 to 52, 55 to 61, 11, 62, 63 and 65.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

The majority of the amendments in this group were debated during stage 2. I have brought back my amendments not to debate them again in full or to reheat the arguments that were had at committee, but to give the Government an opportunity to change its mind. There have been only two areas in which I have been able to work with the Government to bring back amendments that we agree on. It is welcome that I have been able to do that, but the amendments are very small, given the scale of the challenges that arose in education during the pandemic, and they provide quite modest protection for our young people in the future.

There are three key things behind the amendments in my name in this group. First, the bar should be very high when it comes to closing schools. Denying our children the right to in-person education is not something that should be done lightly. We therefore have to balance the power that ministers want to take on by putting in place additional protections. The same is true in other areas of our education system beyond schools. It is right that, with that power come criteria that have to be met, and it is important that some of those are put in the bill.

Secondly, during the committee debates, we heard a lot about what I termed the John Mason principle, which is that the people who are in government now might not be in government in the future. That cuts both ways, of course. There is a chance that we could have something better, but there is a fear among those of us on these benches that it could be the same people making the same mistakes.

That takes me to the third point behind many of my amendments: they address some of the lessons that we learned during the pandemic. They seek to push the Government a bit harder to get on with meeting some of the promises that it made to young people. That particularly applies to amendment 41—which, I have to admit, is a redrafted version of a stage 2 amendment by Stephen Kerr. It makes an important change.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the member agree that one of the challenges that we face is that, even before the Covid investigation has taken place, assumptions are being made by the Government about what is and is not needed following Covid?

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

That is true, although there are some lessons that we definitely learned. There is the fact that we were so slow, in so many parts of the country, to get the appropriate electronic devices. The amendments change that—

expanding the appropriate electronic devices to laptops, which addresses one of the Government’s concerns.

Most young people and families whom I speak to would be happy with any device, frankly. A laptop would be an improvement on nothing. In other parts of the country, it has been possible to get devices out very quickly. My amendments put into the bill a challenge to ministers to get on with it and make available the resources to deliver those laptops before they consider shutting schools in the future.

Amendment 38 makes a similar point about consulting local authorities, rather than ministers just taking decisions all by themselves. There is also amendment 49, which it should not be hard for the Government to support, as it encourages a greater role for the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in ensuring that the wider rights of children are explored when the powers are used.

There are also balancing provisions that ask Government ministers and key decision makers to look beyond the narrow health focus. One of the mistakes that we made is that, certainly in the early stages of the pandemic, we focused narrowly on one aspect of health and did not fully understand—or, in the Government’s case, recognise even when told—the considerable strain that was being put on our children or the long-term consequences of that. We must be more balanced in future.

I am interested to hear what the Government has to say on the amendments and whether it feels able to support any of them.

I move amendment 30.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This is a large group of amendments, many of which are the same or similar to those that were debated at stage 2, as Mr Mundell just put on the record.

First, I will speak to amendments 9 to 11 in my name. At stage 2, I set out that the Government had worked closely throughout the pandemic with the Covid-19 education recovery group and that we would expect to do similarly in future. I agreed with the principle behind the amendments on consulting stakeholders during a public health emergency and committed to look further at an amendment on that for stage 3.

Therefore, amendment 11 in my name provides that ministers must seek views about educational continuity regulations, and any regulations under sections 9 or 10 that may be in force at the time, at least every 28 days while those regulations are in force. Ministers must seek views from representatives of education establishments and from users of those establishments—including, importantly, representatives of children and young people—along with staff and any other stakeholders that are considered appropriate.

Amendments 9 and 10 are technical amendments that bring sections 9 and 10 into line with section 8 by requiring that all regulations under those two powers are limited to “a specified period”.

I now turn to the other amendments in the group.

At stage 2, the Government introduced amendments that further strengthened the safeguards that were already in the bill and established a process by which the education powers could be used only with parliamentary approval of a public health declaration by ministers. That ensured that those powers could be used only with parliamentary authorisation in the event of a future threat to public health. Amendments 57 and 58 would remove that gateway vote mechanism. I cannot understand that. Why remove a significant safeguard to the use of the powers to which Parliament has already agreed? I urge members to keep the gateway provisions in the bill and reject those amendments.

Amendments 30, 33, 35, 43, 45, 47, 52, 55, 61 and 65 would leave out sections 5 to 14 of the bill. Throughout the progress of the bill through Parliament, we have made clear the importance of those powers in the bill.

Amendment 56 would provide that education regulations could be in place only when public health protection regulations are in place. It may not necessarily have that effect, as some regulations made under the public health provision may be permanent preparedness regulations, in which case the amendment would not achieve its purpose.

Amendment 49 is similar to amendment 130 that was lodged at stage 2. We remain concerned about how the children’s commissioner could provide a view on whether regulations were proportionate or necessary without access to the full information and advice on public health that ministers would have. My amendment 11 now also ensures that the views of children and young people will be sought when education continuity regulations are in place.

Amendment 41 is similar to amendment 119 that was lodged at stage 2. It requires ministers to provide an electronic device and an internet connection where regulations under section 8 have been made. The Government is already committed to ensuring that every child has access to a device by the end of this parliamentary session and, indeed, made a significant investment to that effect during the pandemic.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am grateful for the Deputy First Minister’s comment and am cognisant of the commitment that he made on behalf of his party to provide every child at school in Scotland with a device and an internet connection.

However, given the feedback that he gave when the issue was considered at stage 2, I am completely at a loss to understand why the Government is now not minded to put it into law. It would surely be an underscoring of the commitment that he has already made to the young people of Scotland—this way, no child would get left behind. It must surely be our objective that, in such an emergency that the bill envisages, everything possible is done to ensure that no child is left behind. The Government is honour bound by its manifesto commitment to put it into the bill.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We do not put all policy commitments into legislation. That is a statement of representative fact on the approach to legislation.

The Government has made the commitment that I have set out. We are working through the commitment with our local authority partners. We are working in partnership with local authorities in the best means possible at local level to implement schemes—many local authorities are taking them forward—and we are supporting them on the effort to deliver on that commitment.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I do not want to be unreasonable, but I have not heard a reason why that precaution cannot be part of the bill. There is no reason at all; in fact, as I said earlier, it is a way of underscoring our commitment that no child gets left behind. That is a commitment that the Deputy First Minister has already made, so why can it not be in the bill?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

With the greatest respect to Mr Kerr, I gave an answer to the question why it is not in the bill: it is because we do not legislate for all policy commitments. If I could give Mr Kerr some advice, I note that a way of supporting the implementation of the policy commitment—about which I acknowledge that he cares deeply—would be to vote for the Government’s budget that gives effect to those provisions. However, he did not do that earlier this year.

Amendment 38 would, in effect, give local authorities a veto over the closure of local authority-run schools in their area, which is undesirable in terms of managing a future public health emergency that requires a co-ordinated, national response. The same goes for amendments 39 and 36.

Amendments 37 and 51 are identical to those that were debated at stage 2, and I remain of the view that they would prevent regulations swiftly and effectively addressing a public health emergency.

Amendment 40 was also debated at stage 2, and I remain of the view that it is unnecessary, because any regulations would be expected to include provision relating to ensuring continuity of educational provision and to be accompanied by guidance. Similarly, amendment 42 ignores the existing guidance and regulation-making powers in the bill, which we could use to make clear that pupil-school contact should be facilitated and to give operators appropriate flexibility for different stages of education or needs.

Amendment 50 would put in statute a requirement on ministers to seek voluntary arrangements with education providers before making any regulations. The amendment would significantly delay bringing forward any regulations. Where appropriate, ministers would expect to use voluntary arrangements where possible, but that might not always be the case.

Amendments 59 and 60 were debated at stage 2. They would add an additional requirement to review any regulations within seven days of a new member of the Scottish Government or a junior minister assuming responsibility for the regulations. That would undermine the principle of collective responsibility under the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 62, regarding relevant authorities using their professional judgment, could give them significant scope to make different decisions for their establishment despite national advice, guidance or regulations.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Why does the Deputy First Minister believe that the Government knows better than those people on the front line who teach and look after our young people and who have to make difficult practical decisions?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am not making the argument that the Government knows best. I am saying that, in the case of a pandemic that has national effect, the Government is required to put in place guidance that will have to be reflected and followed at local level. In those circumstances, we as a Government have a duty of care to the country, in general, to ensure that guidance is clear and accessible to professionals at local level, so that they can use their judgment in the context of the guidance. That is an important factor in establishing the framework that is envisaged in the bill provisions that are before the Parliament.

There is already scope for deviation from guidance or advice, where necessary, in line with the legal responsibilities that are exercised at the local level. Nothing in the bill is intended to undermine the professional judgement and knowledge of those in educational establishments. A provision such as the one contained in amendment 62 does not provide clarity on the action that providers need to take, and it would hinder swift and decisive national action.

Similarly, amendment 63 would place another unacceptable delay on ministers when they are, in effect, responding to a national emergency.

For the reasons that I have given, I invite Parliament not to vote in favour of any of the amendments in this group, with the exception of my amendments 9, 10 and 11.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

We have heard the Government’s approach: it is its way or no way at all. That is sad, because there was an opportunity to work together and make sure that the principle of professional judgment was built into the legislation. That is the least that our hard-working educational professionals deserve. Yes, it is right that we have national measures, but there has to be a recognition that, if broad and blunt approaches are to be taken quickly in an emergency in an effort to get things right across the country, there needs to be room, at a local level, for people to take pragmatic and sensible decisions that are in the best interests of our young people.

To say that Government ministers can make rules nationally that fit all scenarios is wrong, and it does not speak to many of the challenges that we saw during the pandemic, when things that were announced here or on television did not work out so well when it came to their implementation. There needs to be more discretion and flexibility.

On amendments 57 and 58, I reassure members who are worried about the provisions that those amendments seek to take out that I intend to press them only if we manage to get the rest of the education sections removed. That is my preference. The legislation is not fit for purpose, and it is not right for such issues to be grouped in a catch-all bill. As we will argue in the closing debate, and as we have said throughout, the preparation work should have been done and the legislation should have been on the shelf, ready to go. We should not be putting some of the proposed sections on to the statute book and handing broad powers to ministers.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. My app would not connect.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device is not connecting to the parliamentary system. I would have voted yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Mountain. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Craig Hoy, who is online, has a point of order.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze and I would have voted—[

Inaudible

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Sorry, Mr Hoy—could you repeat how you would have voted?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I would have voted yes. My app froze.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Hoy. I will make sure that that is recorded.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment

30 disagreed to.

Section 6—Duty to have regard to public health advice

Amendments 31 and 32 not moved.

Amendment 33 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Sorry—my app is still having problems and I could not get logged in. I would have voted yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Hoy. I will make sure that that is recorded.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 disagreed to.

Section 7—Guidance on public health measures

Amendment 34 not moved.

Amendment 35 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 35 disagreed to.

Section 8—Regulations on continuing operation of educational establishments

Amendments 36 to 40 not moved.

Amendment 41 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 41

disagreed

to.

Amendment 42 not moved.

Amendment 43 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 63, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 43

disagreed

to.

Group 4 is on educational regulations: issues consequential to making of regulations. Amendment 44, in the name of Oliver Mundell, is grouped with amendments 46, 48, 53, 12 and 64.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Like the previous group, many of these amendments—in this case, all but one—were presented at stage 2. We then had a lengthy debate and discussion, and the Government went to great lengths to explain why we did not need a catch-up plan for young people, why it was not necessary to ensure that historic data would not be reused when determining future exam grades, and that we did not need to worry about the financial impact of some of the decision-making powers that were being used, because any future Government would, of course, go out of its way to ensure that students were well supported.

I do not believe that we can take anyone at their word on those things, partly because of the John Mason principle and partly because we have lived through a recent pandemic in which students and those who were sitting exams were treated exceptionally poorly. At times, the way that some of the decisions were handled bordered on heartlessness.

Without being unkind, I think that the Deputy First Minister’s biggest mistake during the pandemic was to allow the chaos around the first set of examinations. Young people have gone on, whether to further study or into the world of work, feeling scarred and let down by that process.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that, if we are genuinely to see a recovery from the pandemic, we need a proper analysis of what has happened in our schools and of the impact on young people? Does he agree that that should be accompanied by a proper recovery plan and not just a restatement of previous policies, with people being told that they can now address the even greater needs that are presenting themselves post-pandemic?

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

The member is absolutely right. As we have seen, the response, the resource and the general commitment from the Government towards education do not match the scale of the challenges that are faced by our young people. This is obviously not something for this debate, but the past 15 years have not been Scotland’s greatest in terms of education. In the past period, the SNP Scottish Government has been found wanting. At times, it has treated teachers and young people themselves with disdain, dismissing their concerns and saying that existing resources are enough. It has told us how fantastic it is that it has brought in new teachers, but, every time it restates that, it fails to mention that they are just replacing the teachers that it cut—the teachers who were missing during the pandemic, which put our schools under such pressure.

It is important that the bill speaks to those challenges. The very least that our young people deserve is a commitment in the bill, which will be enshrined in law, that they will not be treated badly or disadvantaged by the use of the powers.

I am not expecting an awful lot here. There is one amendment in the group on which I have been able to work with the Government. Amendment 12 proposes a very modest reporting mechanism whereby we will at least know in 12 months’ time how the Government is getting on with delivering electronic devices. I am hopeful that it will be well ahead of target on that. There are many parts of the country where local authorities and others have managed to get devices out to young people, but the fact that we are now two years on from the start of the pandemic and there are young people who still cannot properly access remote learning is a disgrace.

I move amendment 44.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The measures that are set out in amendment 44 would cut across the statutory obligations of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. As I noted at stage 2, the SQA worked closely with partners during the pandemic to ensure that young people were able to achieve fair and credible grades in spite of the disruption caused by Covid. That included informing them of decisions on the timing of the return to an examination diet, with appropriate notice of such decisions taking into account public health advice at the time.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

In retrospect, when the Deputy First Minister looks back at that period, does he feel that he got things right? Were mistakes made? Do young people not deserve to know that they will be protected from that in the future?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have been absolutely candid with Parliament about the mistakes that were made in the SQA exam diet in 2020. If Mr Mundell wants to use the opportunity of the bill going through Parliament to revisit that, I am quite happy to do that, because, in all honesty, I took the best decisions that I thought were available to me on the evidence that was in front of me. I respected an independent examination authority that was undertaking the assessment and adjudicating that process.

I did not think that it was right for ministers to circumvent the law and take away an independent exams body’s responsibility; that was the judgment that I arrived at. I point out that that was the judgment that the secretary of state in England, the minister in Wales and the minister in the north of Ireland arrived at. I did not take a unique decision—I just respected the law. I am a great believer in respecting the law, which is what we have been talking about for a large part of this afternoon.

If Mr Mundell wants to use today as an opportunity to poke away at me about 2020, I have been completely candid with Parliament about the difficulties that I faced in 2020, and I faced up to the challenge that came from his colleagues. Thanks to consideration in Parliament, those challenges were addressed by the way that we responded to the challenges that young people faced, and we addressed them into the bargain.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the Deputy First Minister recognise the impact of the decisions that he took and that part of the purpose of the amendments in this group is to talk about that impact and make sure that there is appropriate resource and redress for young people, to ensure that they can recover from the situation, instead of just a restated set of SNP policies that predated the pandemic?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That is where Mr Marra and Mr Mundell are joined at the hip in making the same argument by, in essence, running down Scottish education. [

Interruption

.] I am sorry, but here we are—the joint runners-down of Scottish education are at it again, and I will not have that this afternoon. There is enormous strength in Scottish education, but the Labour Party and the Conservatives are totally belittling it on a constant basis, and they do no service to young people or educators.

Mr O’Kane is wagging his finger at me, so let me wag my finger back at him. He was involved in a local authority that presided over a good record on education, so why is he ashamed of East Renfrewshire Council’s record when he makes his contributions here, in Parliament?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The reality is that the figures for Fife have gone backwards, the attainment gap has got wider and the number of children who are accessing the sciences has gone down. When I speak to the leader of Fife Council, he tells me that all of that is a direct result of Covid and that progress was being made up until then.

We need to look at the figures in more detail, but the point is that I am more interested in what the recovery plan for education will be, and tackling those issues and problems. It is not about blame; it is about asking what we will do to recover from what was undoubtedly a severe impact on children’s education.