Scottish Parliament, 20 December 2023

264 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. There is a lot of interest in both portfolios, so I would appreciate brief questions and responses.

Sand Eel Fishing (Closure)

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it will report on its consultation on proposals to close fishing for sand eel in all Scottish waters. (S6O-02894)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The consultation on proposals to close fishing for sand eel in all Scottish waters closed on 13 October, and my officials are carefully considering all the responses that we received. Following that analysis, we will publish the consultation outcome report, which is scheduled to be published by spring 2024.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Scotland is important globally for its large seabird colonies, which support more than 65 per cent of the British and Irish seabird population. Our seabirds, including the Manx shearwater, are under multiple man-made pressures, from predation and adverse weather conditions that may be a result of climate change to a lack of food as a result of climate change and fisheries. The RSPB described proposals to ban industrial sand eel fishing as

“the single greatest thing we can do right now to help our most threatened seabird species”.

Does the minister agree that Scotland’s wonderful seabirds, including the Manx shearwater, are a hugely important part of Scotland’s coastal ecology and that actions to protect populations in the face of current and future threats are vital?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes—I absolutely do. The RSPB quote that Ruth Maguire read out about closure being the biggest thing that we can do to protect our seabirds is warmly welcomed and I agree with it.

The results of the recent seabird census show that Scotland’s internationally important seabird population is suffering as a result of on-going pressures—Ruth Maguire mentioned man-made pressures that have resulted from climate change. Given the importance of the sand eel to the wider ecosystem and the subsequent benefit in aiding long-term sustainability and resilience, sustaining the sand eel population is a priority.

It is not just the Manx shearwater that benefits from that population. Iconic species such as puffins feed on sand eels, so we are prioritising the matter to help to boost the seabird population.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for being clear on that. I remind the minister and members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a partner in a wild salmon fishery. Salmon eat sand eels, but I will talk about the damage that our seabirds have faced as a result of avian flu, which has been catastrophic. There will undoubtedly be some losses when ScotWind is up and running, so surely we must make sure that our seabirds are in the best possible condition and that there are as many as possible to offset those losses. Does the minister agree that sand eel fisheries should therefore be suspended immediately?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thank Edward Mountain for that positive and constructive question and for his support in what we are doing about sand eel fisheries. He rightly points out that quite a lot of other factors are involved in the decline of seabirds. This summer, we had a very unseasonable bout of pernicious avian flu, which particularly affected our gannet and gull populations. We must do everything that we can, within our powers, to mitigate the effects of things such as avian flu. We cannot really control the source of that, but we can control how we respond to it.

North Sea Fish Stocks (Catch Limits and Measures)

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the recently announced trilateral agreement on total allowable catch limits and management measures for jointly managed fish stocks in the North Sea will have on fishers in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland. (S6O-02895)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Fishing agreements with our coastal state partners include a number of positive outcomes for Scotland, which provide key opportunities to vessels and coastal communities. The trilateral agreement includes quota increases for all six of the jointly managed North Sea stocks, and those opportunities are worth an estimated £199 million to Scotland, which is an increase of £68 million on the previous year. That is welcome news for Scotland’s fishing industry as a whole, and the benefit to fishers in the north-east from the trilateral agreement is estimated to be about £47 million, on the basis of 2022 prices.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I understand that there has been an agreement to set quotas for North Sea cod at levels that reflect the latest science. What scientific data and analysis are used in such determinations? What was Scotland’s overall approach to the negotiations?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

T

he Scottish Government fully supports the headline scientific advice and, whenever it is most appropriate, setting fishing opportunities that are consistent with the maximum sustainable yield approach. Although we used the MSY approach from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in a benchmark report from February, there was a significant change in the 2024 scientific advice for North Sea and west of Scotland cod. That new advice structure shows that the stocks in Scottish waters are doing well, particularly the north-western sub-stock, which spawns in the north-west North Sea and the west of Scotland.

That ultimately reflects what we know our fishers have been seeing on the ground, and it is a step change away from the previous zero total allowable catch advice for the west of Scotland. However, the scientific advice for the whole northern shelf was based on the poor state of the southern stock component, which we think is an illogical approach.

My priority ask for the annual negotiations was to secure catch limits that reflect the positive outlook for the north-western stock, including an appropriate and evidence-based allocation for the west of Scotland. I am pleased that the negotiated outcome was a 15 per cent increase, which was supported by that robust evidence.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If I am to get both supplementaries in, I will need briefer responses.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will recognise that the deal was made possible because, as the United Kingdom is out of the hated common fisheries policy, that allows us to set our own total allowable catches, license foreign fishing vessels in UK waters and regulate fisheries in Scotland. Will she accept that Scotland’s future is outside the CFP, with decisions being made, in consultation with our fishermen and our fishing communities, here in Scotland and in the UK, and not in Brussels, as the Scottish National Party would have it?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The member

has failed to read the trade and co-operation agreement that his colleagues in the UK Government signed up to, which resulted in a poorer deal for our fishermen than when we were in the CFP. I strongly urge him to read that and perhaps come back and offer comments at that point.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The North Sea and the trilateral agreement are important to Shetland’s fishing fleet, and the cabinet secretary recently committed to exploring solutions for several important fish stocks that scientists class as data deficient. How will the Scottish Government work with international partners to ensure adequate resource to ascertain the scientific advice that is so critical to sustainable fisheries management? What timeline can we expect for that?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am happy to engage further with the member on that issue. The work that we undertake and our relationships with our international partners are critical. Our chief negotiator and our negotiating teams have done a fantastic job in the negotiations this year, and they work incredibly hard to foster the key relationships so that we can work together on the areas where problems are presented. I am more than happy to follow up with the member via correspondence and provide further information.

Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill (Licensing Schemes)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what proportion of the costs of the licensing schemes contained within the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill will be covered by the licence fees. (S6O-02896)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

NatureScot does not currently operate any licences on a cost-recoverable basis, and the bill does not mandate charges for the three new licence schemes that are set out in the provisions. However, the Scottish Government has committed to reviewing the wider species licensing system and assessing the potential to apply the principle of full cost recovery to species licensing. The bill therefore allows for the introduction of charges for issuing licences by providing that the licensing authority may charge a reasonable fee.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Why does the minister think that the full cost should not be recovered through fees? Without that, there would be a subsidy from the public sector.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree with the sentiment of John Mason’s challenge. We want any changes to the policy to be fair and proportionate. That is why our commitment to reviewing species licences includes consideration of the potential to apply the principle of full cost recovery.

Every licence will have individual complexities associated with it, so we want to ensure that the approach is proportionate. Mr Mason can be assured that I am actively looking at the idea of full-cost recovery for all licences.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Grouse shooting sustains 2,640 full-time-equivalent jobs in fragile and rural communities in Scotland, and it contributes £30 million to the Scottish economy. Does the Scottish Government have no idea of the socioeconomic impact of the proposed licence scheme for grouse shooting and muirburn on land managers, as it may cause job losses and disinvestment in the sector? When will the minister publish an impact assessment of the effect of the Government’s legislation on each region in Scotland?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is clear from all the exchanges with Rachael Hamilton on the topic that she is fundamentally against licensing shooting estates. Such licensing will bring them in line with a lot of other practices that require licences to operate. That will be a good thing for the sector as, if people are licensed to operate within the law, that will give the public confidence in the sector. It is also in keeping with many other shooting estates across Europe.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

What about an impact assessment?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am not prepared to be shouted at—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Hamilton, you have asked a question—allow the answer to be given.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will leave it there. I think that that is best.

Agriculture Funding (Bew Review)

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when the previously ring fenced £33 million of funding allocated to the agriculture sector as a result of the Bew review will be returned to its budget for the portfolio covering agriculture. (S6O-02897)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Deputy First Minister made it clear in her budget statement that we are committed to returning all of the funding to my portfolio to be invested in agricultural priorities at the appropriate time. During the coming financial year, £15 million will be returned and it will be spent entirely on agricultural priorities. We will also provide the same level of support through direct payments to farmers and crofters that was available before Brexit. We are currently providing farmers and crofters with the most generous package of direct support anywhere in the UK. I am sure that the member will welcome and support that.

It is right that uncommitted spend is deferred to mitigate the on-going cost of living crisis, and all portfolios have been asked to make similar and very difficult choices. However, I assure the member that agriculture spending is ring fenced for the portfolio and that it will be returned to ensure that it delivers for the needs of the rural economy.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The National Farmers Union Scotland is rightly furious that the Scottish National Party-Green devolved Government has failed to return £61 million of withdrawn agriculture funds in the draft budget. Today, we heard that only 25 per cent of that funding will be returned, while, at the same time, the Government is cutting other agriculture funds. Can the cabinet secretary explain to Scotland’s farmers and crofters why the SNP is not standing up for rural Scotland? When will our farmers get all of their money back?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The SNP-Green Government is standing up for our rural communities and for our farmers and crofters—[

Interruption.

] I would be grateful if I could answer the question that Douglas Lumsden posed.

I absolutely understand the NFUS’s concerns. That is why I reiterate that the £61 million of deferred spending is ring fenced and therefore must be returned to the portfolio. As the Deputy First Minister confirmed to the NFUS—as well as to the Parliament—every penny of it will be returned to the portfolio, to be spent on agricultural priorities. I point out exactly what was in the budget yesterday and the levels of protection that we have offered in relation to other schemes that are not available elsewhere in the UK, and I ask the member whether he welcomes that. Our basic payment scheme, greening and the less favoured area support scheme—LFASS—are all are absolutely critical for our farmers and crofters, and they are still being maintained as part of the budget.

Every single portfolio has had to make difficult choices and difficult decisions—as the Deputy First Minister outlined yesterday—but I reiterate the commitment that the money is due back to the portfolio and will be returned to the portfolio.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take a supplementary question. I remind Conservative members that they can ask a question but they cannot then provide a running commentary throughout the answer.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Agriculture funding is paid to devolved Governments under historical EU settlements rather than through the Barnett formula. That formula sees Scotland receive about 17 per cent of agriculture funding due to the greater proportion of farming and crofting land. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that cutting the agriculture budget could put the payment framework in jeopardy and that it certainly does not help those of us who are making the case for a greater share of that funding?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I reiterate the points that I made in my previous response: it is deferred spending that will be returned to the portfolio, and it has to be returned to the portfolio, as the Deputy First Minister outlined yesterday. Critically, we are still protecting, and ensuring that we are delivering at the earliest possible point, that direct support for our farmers and crofters. We are trying to deliver it early, to ensure that their cash flow continues to be maintained.

I give an assurance in that regard, but one of the biggest threats that we face is having no clarity on what our budget settlement will be from the UK Government beyond this coming financial year. I hope that all members in the chamber will join me in asking that we get that clarity, so that we know what funding will be available going forward.

Land Reform (Urban Areas)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether urban areas will be included in its land reform legislation. (S6O-02898)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Land reform is an on-going process and each piece of work that we do builds on the legislation and policies that have gone before. In our forthcoming bill, we will bring forward a set of robust land reform measures whose key aim is to tackle the scale and concentration of land ownership in Scotland. In 2016, we extended the community right to buy and the funding that went with it to urban communities.

Our proposals for the forthcoming bill are based on recommendations from the Scottish Land Commission. They will take account of the views of all those who responded to our consultation and, in line with the established process, final decisions on the bill’s contents will be made in due course by ministers. The bill will, of course, be published on the Scottish Parliament website following its introduction.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

People owning land or a building that they are not using can severely impact urban communities, especially if the use of that land or building is not beneficial to the community. In that situation, urban communities need to be able to buy that land and use it for a purpose that will benefit communities. Will the cabinet secretary advise exactly what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that urban communities’ rights are protected under the land reform legislation?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The member raises a really important point. First, I emphasise that, currently, we have four community rights to buy, which exist under various pieces of legislation. There are also community asset transfers, through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which are currently being reviewed. We have made commitments previously in relation to considering compulsory sales orders. That is a really complex piece of work that still needs to be undertaken. I know that the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning, Joe FitzPatrick, is currently undertaking a piece of work on compulsory purchase orders, which I think will also consider that piece on CSOs.

We have the forthcoming land reform bill and, as I have said, we will set out the proposals in relation to that. It is also important not to forget the existing rights, although we need to make sure that they are operating as they should. There are also those on-going pieces of work. I will be happy to follow up with the member and provide him with more information on each of those.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is a brief supplementary from Alasdair Allan.

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

Given that, through the new legislation, the Scottish Government is continuing to support both rural and urban areas through the community buy-out process, will the cabinet secretary outline whether the new land reform bill will go further than before in terms of increased land ownership transparency?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Yes. That is certainly what we hope it will do. We really want to ensure that the bill is as ambitious as possible. I reiterate that we are committed to introducing a bill that is ambitious and that will be a significant step forward in ensuring that our land is owned and used in the public interest and, ultimately, for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

Low-welfare Pets

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had regarding the sale of low-welfare pets ahead of the Christmas period. (S6O-02899)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government works throughout the year to highlight the responsibilities of pet owners and those who sell domestic animals. Although we have not had specific discussions on the sale of low-welfare pets in the run-up to Christmas, we work closely on an on-going basis with key stakeholders including the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, local authorities and other United Kingdom Administrations to raise awareness of low-welfare breeders and to inform prospective buyers on how to buy a pet safely throughout the year.

We have run comprehensive public campaigns to raise awareness among prospective buyers of pups of the realities of the unlicensed puppy trade. The information and messaging for those campaigns is available online.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Organised crime contaminates many legitimate areas of Scotland’s economy, including through its lucrative trade in puppies and dogs. Those poor animals often suffer chronic ill health, with one drug-dealing dog breeder being prime suspect in a terror campaign that forced a Scottish councillor to quit his post and leave his home. The criminals do not care about people, and they certainly do not care about animal welfare. Will the minister discuss with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs how to tackle those despicable groups?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Russell Findlay

has laid out that it does not matter what the commodity is; unscrupulous people will use any commodity, regardless of what it is. In this case, it is live animals, which affects the lives of the people who take on those animals. They will be left heartbroken when their animals are too ill to make it past a certain point. It is an absolutely disgraceful trade.

I point to the message from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which has done its own campaign on the issue this Christmas. It has been very helpful and anyone can find the campaign online. It is about highlighting the dangers of buying a puppy from unscrupulous people, as Russell Findlay has mentioned, and how that activity could be funding organised crime. It is a very effective campaign. I urge everyone in the chamber to look it up and share it on their social media channels over Christmas, because it is very powerful.

Energy Performance Certificate Reform (Impact on Island Communities)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to its cross-Government co-ordination on islands policies, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any impact on island communities of its proposed EPC reforms. (S6O-02900)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Ministers and officials across portfolios are aware of the need to recognise the impact of new policies on island communities. The Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights has taken forward a long-standing Scottish Government commitment to reform energy performance certificates based on the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations, on which we consulted this year. Our current proposals to reform EPCs do not suggest any new duties or obligations on building owners. We are considering the impact on island communities as we go through the analysis of the consultation responses in the new year, as is required by the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Given the rocketing levels of fuel poverty in off-gas areas, in particular, and the upcoming heat in buildings bill, what specific support with advice and funding will the Scottish Government offer home owners to help them to increase the energy efficiency of their properties by installing insulation to lower their carbon emissions, by installing affordable heat options and by upgrading their homes? For example, can home owners access grants to install solar panels to heat or power their homes?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I refer Sarah Boyack to the raft of initiatives run by Home Energy Scotland, such as the home heating fund. She will have seen in the budget announcement yesterday that there was an uplift in the amount of money that was given in Mr Harvie’s portfolio for the things that she has outlined in her question. Rural fuel poverty is an issue that is disproportionately affecting Scotland. If she has not done so already, I encourage Sarah Boyack to support my calls for a social tariff, which I have been calling on the United Kingdom Government to put in place ever since I was appointed.

Fisheries Negotiations (Stakeholder Engagement)

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

8. To ask the Scottish Government how it engaged with fishing industry stakeholders as part of the annual fisheries negotiations. (S6O-02901)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

We work closely and collaboratively with our stakeholders throughout the negotiation period. When the scientific advice is published, officials meet stakeholders from the fishing industry and environmental groups to discuss priorities to feed into the negotiating strategy. We have to seek the best outcome for Scotland’s environment, fishing interests and coastal communities, which means that we have to balance environmental, economic and social considerations, as well as looking at the short and long-term impacts on fish stocks and the fishing industry.

Throughout live negotiations, there are regular stakeholder meetings with the chief negotiator at which they provide updates and allow stakeholders to ask questions. If the Presiding Officer will allow, I will take a brief moment to thank all the stakeholders who have invested so much time and expertise in engaging with us and informing our approach to the negotiations. I also thank our negotiators, who always work tirelessly to do their best for the fishing industry in Scotland.

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

I agree with the cabinet secretary

about the stakeholders and how they negotiate their business. I was delighted to read that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation had praised the work of the Scottish Government in that area and that North Sea haddock and North Sea whiting were among the quota increases that were reported for Scottish fishers.

However, labour shortages are an acute problem in the seafood sector, particularly in seafood processing. I ask the cabinet secretary to continue to represent the views of the north-east fishers to the UK Government, to ensure that the opportunities that are presented by the increased quotas are not undermined by Brexit-related workforce shortages and the Tory visa rules that were announced this month.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The member raises an important point. I emphasise that, in Scotland, we do not share the United Kingdom Government’s approach to migration and we categorically reject its hostile environment rhetoric.

Of course, we continue to support new domestic entrants to the Scottish seafood industry, but we also recognise and value the vital contribution that migrant workers make to the sector, the wider Scottish economy and our coastal and island communities.

By ending freedom of movement from the European Union and imposing new visa requirements for qualifications and salary thresholds, the UK Government has made it significantly more difficult for us to access labour and attract people to Scotland. I have repeatedly called for urgent reform of UK immigration rules. That has included offering to work with the UK Government to identify pragmatic ways to balance border security and enabling that access to labour. I will, of course, continue to do that.

NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is national health service recovery, health and social care. Again, any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. As with rural affairs, there is a lot of interest in asking questions. I would appreciate brevity in the questions and the responses from the front-bench team.

Obesity

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what steps it is taking to address obesity. (S6O-02902)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Addressing obesity is a public health priority and we continue to take forward a wide range of preventative actions to improve diet and promote health across the life course, as outlined in our diet and healthy weight delivery plan. That includes provision of core funding of £8.25 million to health boards in 2023-24 to deliver adult, child and young people’s weight management services, in line with our national standards and the type 2 diabetes prevention framework.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Statistics published by Public Health Scotland reveal that, this year, 22 per cent of primary 1 pupils were at risk of being overweight or obese. In 2018, the then First Minister made a commitment that the Scottish Government would halve child obesity by 2030. Our current primary 1 pupils were born in that year. By 2030, when those pupils will be in secondary 1, will half of the 22 per cent who are at risk of being overweight or obese be within acceptable standards?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The intention of the Government is to ensure that we have halved child obesity by 2030, from the original weights. I am working closely with my officials and third sector organisations to work out the best way that we can do that.

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

We know that junk food promotions can encourage overconsumption and impulse buying. Can the minister provide an update on work that is under way on plans to restrict in-premise marketing of food and non-alcoholic drinks that are high in fat, sugar or salt in order to reduce consumption and related harms?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I have said, the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to legislation to restrict the promotion of less-healthy food and drink. As part of an extensive consultation process, we have just concluded a series of round-table events with public health and business stakeholders, which will further inform the development of our consultation document on the detail of proposed regulations. The consultation document will be published early next year and it will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the detail of the proposed regulations, with a view to our laying regulations subject to the outcome of that consultation.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Apart from its impact on personal wellbeing, obesity is also a significant drag on our economy. There is a high level of economic inactivity in Scotland, and remedying that will require behavioural change with regard to diet and access to physical activity. The minister will know of my passion for the education environment as the battleground in which we need to fight in that regard. What work is she doing with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to deliver solutions to that problem?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the member’s passion for exercise and healthy eating. In its work on such issues, the Scottish Government takes a cross-portfolio approach. I engage with both the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise.

Wishaw Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will reconsider its reported plans to downgrade the Wishaw neonatal intensive care unit. (S6O-02903)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The aim of the national health service and this Government is to ensure that everyone gets the best possible care. That is especially true for neonate babies and their families.

The restructuring of neonatal intensive care units was based on expert clinical evidence that showed that the proposed change was necessary to improve outcomes for the very smallest and sickest babies. The most pre-term and sickest babies do best when they are cared for in larger specialist neonatal units. To undo that would be to choose poorer outcomes for those babies, and that is not a choice that we would make. The member will agree that parents would very much expect us to act on such evidence in the best interests of their babies.

Local neonatal units across Scotland, including the unit in Wishaw, will continue to offer care to babies who need it, including a level of neonatal intensive care.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The minister’s answer will infuriate and worry my constituents in Lanarkshire, and it represents a further blow to Wishaw’s award-winning neonatal workforce. Almost 20,000 people have now signed a petition to stop the Scottish Government downgrading the award-winning, vital, life-saving service in Wishaw. We have a flawed proposal and a flawed process that has produced a flawed decision. It is vulnerable babies, their mothers and families who will be failed unless the minister listens, looks again and does her job properly. Will she extend some festive good will to my constituents, the Wishaw Neonatal Warriors, and finally commit to a full independent review in the new year?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the member for her question, but I do not recognise some of the picture that she has painted. I will meet the chief executive of NHS Lanarkshire tomorrow to discuss the situation.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

It is certainly welcome that local neonatal units, including the one in Wishaw, will continue to provide care to the vast majority of babies who need it. The decision to move to three national neonatal intensive care units has been made in line with strong evidence and advice. Does the minister agree that, if we are to deliver the best care outcomes for the smallest and sickest babies born in Scotland, it is important that the expert advice is listened to? Does she also agree that it is vital that the voices of local people are listened to and recognised as part of the process? Can she advise the Parliament what steps the Scottish Government is taking?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with Stephanie Callaghan. We must follow the best advice available. We are moving to three national neonatal intensive care units to give babies who are born at the extremes of prematurity—we are talking about babies who are born before 27 weeks of pregnancy—the best chance of survival. Larger specialist neonatal units have specialist staff and services available on site to give those tiny babies the very best care.

I met families from Lanarkshire in November to hear their concerns, and we will continue to consult families in affected areas so that they have the opportunity to input to the design of service delivery.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The minister has said again that the decision to downgrade the Wishaw unit is based on clinical advice. That is why, back in October, I asked whether the minister would meet the award-winning clinicians in Wishaw. The minister agreed to meet them, and I subsequently wrote to clarify the arrangements for that. However, in its letter, the Government now makes no commitment to meet the clinicians who lead the unit. Why has the minister gone back on her promise to meet the clinicians who run that life-saving unit?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I said earlier, I will meet the chief exec of NHS Lanarkshire tomorrow, and—

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

That is not what I asked.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I know that that is not what the member asked. I ask him to let me finish my sentence. The issue in question will be discussed at that meeting.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I urge members to ask their questions and then allow ministers to respond.

NHS Forth Valley Assurance Board

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work of its NHS Forth Valley assurance board. (S6O-02904)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The latest version of the improvement plan was agreed recently by both the health board and the assurance board, and there is a clear expectation from all who are involved that progress needs to continue to be made across a range of areas including leadership, culture and governance.

The NHS Forth Valley assurance board continues to meet regularly, with the most recent board meeting taking place on 20 December 2023. The assurance board will continue to monitor and scrutinise the board’s agreed improvement plan. Minutes of the NHS Forth Valley assurance board meetings are published and can be viewed at the www.gov.scot website. A copy of the improvement plan is available on NHS Forth Valley’s website.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that welcome update. The waiting times at Forth Valley royal hospital accident and emergency department have been a long-running concern, and they have highlighted the strain that our dedicated national health service staff are under, particularly in winter. What assurance is there that staff across health boards, including in NHS Forth Valley, will be properly supported through the winter, particularly so that we can get safe staffing levels with proper breaks and hot meals being provided to all staff?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

In a range of areas, the improvement plans that are being taken forward by NHS Forth Valley are starting to indicate improvements in the way in which the board is performing. We have seen that over the course of recent weeks. The firebreak that the board is presently operating has been extended for a further two weeks in order to support and sustain some of the improvements that have been made.

During the winter period, our NHS is under enormous pressure, particularly at the front door around our A and E departments. We expect boards to ensure that there are appropriate welfare arrangements in place to support staff during their clinical duties.

Scottish Medicines Consortium

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

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Scottish Medicines Consortium. (S6O-02905)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There are quarterly meetings between the chief pharmaceutical officer and medicine policy officials and the Scottish Medicines Consortium. The most recent one took place in September 2023 and the next one is scheduled for January 2024. In addition, both the chief pharmaceutical officer and the head of medicines policy meet representatives of the SMC on a regular and routine basis.

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

A new drug, trastuzumab deruxtecan, has been approved for use in Scotland for a type of breast cancer called HER2-low. The treatment slows the spread of the cancer and improves the patient’s chances of survival when compared with chemotherapy, which will come as very welcome news to people living with the disease. There will be an eagerness for treatment to begin as quickly as possible. What steps will the Scottish Government take, in tandem with the Scottish Medicines Consortium and NHS Scotland, to ensure that hospitals have access to that life-saving drug as soon as possible?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am delighted to advise that patients in Scotland will be among the first in the United Kingdom to receive that life-extending medicine to treat HER2-low breast cancer. The Scottish Medicines Consortium published advice on 11 December recommending trastuzumab deruxtecan for routine use to treat patients with HER2-low breast cancer in NHS Scotland. As with other new medicines, once the SMC publishes its advice, it is expected that health boards across Scotland will make the medicine available for routine prescribing within 90 days of the publication of that advice.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as a practising NHS general practitioner.

The Scottish Medicines Consortium does not consider that drugs such as paracetamol and ibuprofen require significant advice, given that they are readily available over the counter and through pharmacy first. However, schools in Fife state that they will not give basic medication such as paracetamol or ibuprofen unless a GP has prescribed it. Does the minister think that that is an appropriate use of GP time, given the pressure that we are under? Will she undertake to work with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to ensure that the issue is resolved?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would be happy to speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and my chief pharmaceutical officer with regard to that, in order to understand more about the situation that the member has raised.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

People across Scotland are waiting to find out whether life-changing drugs such as Orkambi, Symkevi and Kaftrio will be available on the NHS for those suffering from cystic fibrosis, including those under two years of age. I know that the Scottish Medicines Consortium is working with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, but will the minister commit to ensuring that, whatever the outcome, those life-saving drugs will be available to everybody in Scotland without a postcode lottery at health board level?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Along with Jackie Baillie, I recently met families representing the cystic fibrosis community, and I was able to reassure them that, in Scotland, although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium multiple technology appraisal is on-going, all existing and new patients who are on, or who are started on, a treatment for cystic fibrosis will continue to have access to that treatment after they issue their final recommendations, irrespective of outcome.

“Infant Feeding Statistics Scotland”

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent Public Health Scotland report “Infant Feeding Statistics Scotland”. (S6O-02906)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I a

m delighted that the current infant feeding statistics show that breastfeeding rates across Scotland continue to increase, with more than two thirds of all babies being breastfed at birth and more than half continuing to receive breast milk at 10 to 14 days. Rates at six to eight weeks have risen to 47 per cent, which is the highest rate on record, showing that many more babies are being breastfed for longer than ever before.

We are committed to protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding as the normal nutrition for babies and giving them the best start in life, with more than £9 million in additional investment over the past five years.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I welcome that further investment. Encouragingly, increases in breastfeeding over the past 10 years have been greatest among those groups with low rates historically, such as young women and those living in the most deprived areas. However, only 34 per cent of babies born in Scotland’s most deprived areas were breastfed at their

six to eight-

week review, which compares with 63 per cent in the least deprived areas. What further steps is the minister planning to take to improve levels of breastfeeding in deprived areas, and will she consider making additions to the baby box?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am pleased to see that the latest infant feeding statistics show a continued narrowing of the breastfeeding inequalities gap. Our additional investment has been both targeted and based on best evidence of what works. Scaling that up is part of planned next steps. Our infant feeding teams are pivotal in that effort, and we will continue to use all means necessary, including Scotland’s baby box, to normalise breastfeeding in Scotland. The Family Nurse Partnership has had a crucial role in supporting teenage parents, many of whom are in the lowest Scottish index of multiple deprivation areas, to breastfeed.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The disparity between income deciles on breastfeeding rates is a matter of great concern. Will the minister consider enhancing support for general practitioner surgeries, particularly around aspects such as community link workers and connections with charities such as Home-Start UK, to further enhance the promotion of breastfeeding in the most deprived communities?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I

highlighted in my previous answer the important work of the Family Nurse Partnership. I agree that there is a lot of work to do, and it is clear that third sector organisations with which the Scottish Government is working are doing that.

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

Does the minister agree that, although we want breastfeeding rates to increase, it is not always easy or appropriate for all women to breastfeed? We should not stigmatise those who find that they are unable to breastfeed. All mums need to be equally supported.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Bob Doris raises an important point. I do not disagree with him. It is important that all new mums are supported. I hope that the Family Nurse Partnership is able to support mothers and families in all situations.

Endometriosis Services

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

6. To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to establish a specialist endometriosis centre within every national health service board in Scotland. (S6O-02907)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The role of specialist endometriosis centres in Scotland is to provide co-ordinated, multidisciplinary treatment to individuals with complex systems of endometriosis and to those requiring complex surgery. Scotland operates three centres, which are in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. That was recommended as the optimal approach for effective treatment in Scotland by a specialist working group of expert clinicians and representatives from patient groups and Endometriosis UK. There are no plans to establish a specialist centre within every NHS board.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Local charities in the south of Scotland are dedicated to improving endometriosis treatment. One of them, Endometriosis South of Scotland, which is known as Endo SoS, said:

“Having local centres saves money for patients and the NHS, travel times are reduced, missed appointments are lower and referrals to specialist care are faster.”

It added:

“We need more locations to support the rural population and to reduce diagnostic and general waiting times.”

Will the cabinet secretary find some time to meet me and local campaigners to discuss the need for a specialist endometriosis centre in the Borders?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would be very happy to meet Rachael Hamilton and her constituents.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

We know how substantial an impact endometriosis can have on women’s lives. It is clear that we need to continue to press forward with research into the condition to ensure that the most effective treatment options and support can be provided. Can the minister provide any further information regarding work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to support research into endometriosis-associated pain?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are jointly funding a £250,000 endometriosis research project with the charity Wellbeing of Women. The research project, which will primarily be run by researchers at the University of Edinburgh, will look at the drug dichloroacetate in the management of endometriosis-associated pain. It is a fantastic project, which I was privileged to visit in the summer.

In addition, in January 2023 our chief scientist office announced funding for the ENDOCAN project, led by researchers at the University of Edinburgh, for a large-scale United Kingdom-wide trial. The research will investigate whether a cannabinoid can reduce endometriosis-associated pain. Funding of just under £300,000 has been committed to the 30-month project.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

As well as expanding the number of specialist endometriosis centres, it is also critical that the impacts of endometriosis are recognised in the workplace. I was pleased to learn that East Ayrshire Council has become the first local authority in Scotland to officially recognise the impact that endometriosis has on female employees by signing up to the endometriosis friendly employer scheme. What engagement has the minister had with that important scheme, and will she take the necessary steps to encourage all councils to engage with it?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I think that such schemes are so important. I recently launched one for NHS Scotland staff in relation to menopause and various other areas. It is incredibly important that workplaces appreciate the impact that various conditions have on their workforce and get the right policies in place to ensure that workers are able to be there and do the best in their jobs.

General Practitioner Services Model (Appointments)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has reviewed the general practitioner services model, including in relation to whether patients are getting appointments when they need them. (S6O-02908)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am clear that patients should always have access to general medical services and that all local national health service boards should ensure that general practitioner services continue to be provided to all patients. Patients should always be able to see GPs when they need to.

Five years on from the joint agreement between the Scottish Government and the British Medical Association on the 2018 GP contract, our health and social care partnerships have made significant progress in recruiting multidisciplinary teams to support general practices. We have more than 4,500 staff working in those teams, providing services including physiotherapy, pharmacy and phlebotomy.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

A

rapidly increasing number of patients are seeking GP appointments, but that demand, combined with cuts to the primary care development fund, is placing immense pressure on GP services and leaving many patients to face long delays or simply unable to get an appointment when they need one. GPs are often taking double, if not triple, the recommended limit of 25 consultations a day, and Audit Scotland has said that the Government is “unlikely” to deliver its promise of 800 new GPs by 2027.

I ask the cabinet secretary to address a specific point about the design of the appointment system. Some patients report that they use one system and can get an appointment, and other patients report that their GP uses a completely different system and that they have to wait longer for an appointment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that every patient across Scotland should expect the same service design—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

—

so that they get the same efficient service from their GPs?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The issue that the member raises with regard to the appointment system is down to individual GP practices, because the vast majority of those practices are independent contractors. It is their responsibility to design a system that best meets the needs of the contract in order to deliver appointments to patients.

The member might be aware that, in October, we published the outcomes from the general practice access principles work, which was taken forward to look at how to get greater consistency. It came up with a set of principles that GP practices have been asked to apply. However, because of the independent contractor model, it is down to individual practices to decide on the model that they use locally.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Despite the heroic efforts of GPs and their teams, too many of our constituents are struggling to see their doctors. Earlier this year, a constituent in the Scottish Borders received a positive bowel cancer test, with a letter saying that a blood test was urgent. The local GP practice said that an appointment would take at least 10 days. With cases like that happening right across South Scotland, is it not time that the Scottish Government properly invested in GP services and matched the Scottish Conservatives’ commitment to invest 11 per cent of the national health service budget in primary care?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We are, of course, investing in primary care services. I recognise the concern that the member has raised, but there is variation in how GP practices operate, how they approach certain issues and how some patient services are provided. I have witnessed that at first hand from my personal experience and from my experience as health secretary. It is important that we ensure that people receive good-quality services from GPs, which is why we are increasing the recruitment of GPs and why the number of GP specialty training places that we are offering has been increased this year and will increase again next year. We will continue to invest in primary care.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am afraid to tell the cabinet secretary that the recruitment of additional staff that he has talked about—pharmacists, physiotherapists, mental health staff and phlebotomists—is not progressing well in my constituency of North East Fife. Last week, I met people from GP practices who told me about recruitment difficulties with NHS Fife. Will the cabinet secretary consider transferring responsibility for the recruitment of additional staff over to GP practices, so that they can make progress?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The challenge with what Mr Rennie suggests is that it would introduce further variation, because GP practices could take different approaches, some of which might not involve the provision of the wider multidisciplinary team that we are trying to achieve. However, I have said to the British Medical Association that I am open to looking at alternatives to the existing model that operates, although the outcomes for patients must continue to be improved as a result of expanding the multidisciplinary team. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the BMA on that, but it is essential that there is a consistent approach to how multidisciplinary teams are provided across the country.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

With apologies to the members whom I was not able to call, that concludes portfolio questions on NHS recovery, health and social care. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow the front-bench members to change.

A9 Dualling

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Màiri McAllan on the A9 dualling programme. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, hence there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Following the Deputy First Minister’s budget statement yesterday, I am pleased to have the chance to provide more detail on completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. I know that this statement is keenly anticipated, especially by those who are concerned to see safety improvements developed on the A9 and by the many Scottish communities and businesses for whom the A9 is essential. I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling on the issue.

The programme has faced challenges, and I acknowledge that it has not progressed at the pace that we would have liked. There have, of course, been particular challenges, with sky-high inflation causing slippage in major capital projects. However, the A9 is the backbone of Scotland. It must be safe, reliable and resilient, and that is what the Government will deliver.

When I assumed responsibility for transport in Cabinet in June, my primary objectives for the A9 project were threefold. The first was to oversee amendments to Transport Scotland’s approach to procurement of its design and build contracts in order to improve prospects and avoid a repeat of last year’s experiences with the section between Tomatin and Moy. The second was to finalise a delivery plan for dualling the remaining sections of the programme that foregrounded certainty of delivery but carefully balanced that against considerations of market capacity, affordability and the need to minimise disruption on the network. Finally, in the meantime, the objective was to progress interim safety interventions short of, and in anticipation of, dualling. I will address each of those issues.

Although my remarks will focus principally on the remainder of the programme, I will first say a word on the Tomatin to Moy section. Following the outcome of the first procurement for that section, Transport Scotland undertook extensive market consultation with the construction industry to gather views on how its major road projects could generate improved tender competition. As a result of that engagement, the new engineering contract, with amendments, was adopted for use for a new procurement for the Tomatin to Moy section.

The change in contracting approach was welcomed by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. The new engineering contract is preferred by the industry and is widely used across the United Kingdom, with the terms and conditions that have been adopted by Transport Scotland now offering a more balanced approach to the sharing of risk between Scottish ministers and those to whom we provide contracts.

I confirm that, on 11 December this year, invitations to participate in dialogue were issued to three short-listed contractors, and it is expected that the contract will be awarded in early summer 2024, with the completed dualling expected to be operational by the end of 2027.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has been determinedly considering procurement options for dualling the remaining eight sections. Options that have been considered include procuring all projects using either a design and build contract or a mutual investment model, which is used by the Welsh Government, or using public-private partnership contracts. Indeed, we considered a hybrid of both approaches.

We have also considered carefully how works will be sequenced to provide an efficient overall programme that aligns with the market’s capacity to deliver, that minimises disruption to road users and that is achievable within the wider financial constraints. As the Deputy First Minister outlined yesterday, the UK, having not inflation proofed its capital budget, has left us with a nearly 10 per cent real-terms cut in our capital funding between 2023-24 and 2027-28.

This has been a complex exercise, but the Government has concluded that a hybrid approach is the best way to complete the A9 dualling programme. I therefore confirm that the Government will progress the three remaining A9 dualling projects at the southern end of the route via three capital-funded design and build contracts. We then anticipate progressing the five remaining projects in the north and central stretches via two resource-funded MIM contracts. That is subject to on-going due diligence and further decision making in late 2025, and it will be based on an updated assessment of expected market conditions.

I confirm that, in progressing the delivery plan, work will begin immediately on preparations for the procurement for the next design and build contract, which will be for the Tay crossing to Ballinluig project, with the contract notice planned for publication in spring 2024 and the award anticipated to be made in summer 2025.

In addition, procurement for the Pitlochry to Killiecrankie project and, subject to completion of statutory processes, the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing project will commence in summer 2025 and summer 2027, respectively.

Subject to decision making in late 2025, procurement for the two remaining northern projects, under a single MIM contract, could commence in winter 2026-27, with procurement for the second MIM contract comprising the remaining three central projects commencing in 2028-29.

The hybrid approach will create a rolling programme of construction that will lead to the progressive opening of the dualled sections. Under the new plan, we anticipate that, by the end of 2030, nearly 50 per cent of the A9 will be open as dual carriageway, rising to 85 per cent by the end of 2033 and, eventually, to 100 per cent by the end of 2035. That means that we will see significant benefits from the dualling programme years ahead of the backstop in 2035. We have published all the details of the programme on the Transport Scotland website today.

As part of our work, we have prepared updated scheme cost estimates for each project. The total cost of the programme is now estimated to be £3.7 billion at April 2023 prices. When adjusted for inflation, that is equivalent to £2.45 billion at April 2008 prices, which members will note is well within the original cost estimate of £3 billion at 2008 prices.

Having talked about cost, I now want to talk about safety. The improved safety that is expected from dualling is crucial. I take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt sympathies and my condolences to anyone who has lost a loved one or, indeed, been injured in collisions on the A9.

Dualling will reduce driver stress and accidents. Likewise, the severity of accidents and journey times for emergency vehicles will be reduced. Dualling offers resilience, limiting the need for lengthy diversions. At the same time, the A9 is critical to the movements of freight and of business and leisure travellers. Dualling improves reliability and average journey times by 20 per cent. That is transformative for a route that serves 35 per cent of our land mass and carries around 10 per cent of Scotland’s gross domestic product in terms of cargo.

Investment in the route will help to grow the economy, but the impact will be wider than the economic aspect. The A9 is the backbone that connects central and highland Scotland and, for the 10,000 people who live along it, it is often the only connection to vital services. Investment will also maximise the range of opportunities for contractors and their long supply chains. The programme will ensure that the link between two of Scotland’s great cities is safe and fit for purpose for everyone who needs to use it now and in the future.

Comprehensive stakeholder engagement on the delivery plan will begin early in the new year, building on the extensive engagement to date. As a first step, I will write to interested MSPs today to invite them to a briefing in the Parliament. Regular engagement will continue as the programme progresses, including, of course, with local communities on individual projects.

In the meantime, anyone with an interest in the A9 can sign up for updates at www.a9dualling.scot, prior to the full launch of a new A9 dualling website early in the new year. We will advertise engagement opportunities here and through traditional and social media.

Decisions to complete the statutory process are now complete for more than 92 per cent of the programme. We will complete the statutory process for the three outstanding schemes with ministerial consent next year and will acquire the necessary land to support the procurement timetable.

The only project not to have started that process is the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing. I thank the local community for their valuable input through the co-creative process and, today, I can announce that the preferred route for that section is confirmed and that it includes a number of the elements of the community’s preferred options, including a roundabout at Dunkeld and the junction layouts at the Hermitage and Dalguise. Further details of the preferred route, such as the programme, are available on Transport Scotland’s website, and local communities and road users will have the opportunity to comment on the plans at public exhibitions in January.

I would like to say a word on safety in the time that I have left to speak. Having provided an update on Tomatin to Moy and the remainder of the programme, I want to close with the issue of safety because, since 2007, the Government has invested £300 million in the maintenance and safety of the A9 and a further £3.6 million on average speed cameras.

Following the tragic loss of life that has occurred on the route, particularly in 2022, we have been investing an additional £5 million, approximately, and I am pleased to confirm that those safety measures are progressing at pace, with a number of elements completed. Those include enhancements to signage and road markings, with particular emphasis at junctions and those transitions between dual and single carriageway sections. As is the case with the rest of the trunk road network, the safety performance of the A9 will continue to be regularly reviewed.

Time is against me, so I will conclude. Today, this Government restates its commitment to dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness, which we are doing with a concrete plan. The approach that I have set out means that the Highlands can have confidence that the considerable benefits of the A9 dualling programme will be delivered and in full. Now that we have reached that point, there will be no let up. When construction starts on Tomatin to Moy next year, under this delivery programme, it will roll continually until the route between Perth and Inverness is fully dualled.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement, although we have been waiting for the update since February and here we are, on the second-last sitting day of the year. However, our wait here is as nothing to the wait of the people of Perth and Kinross and the Highlands and Islands, who have been waiting for years to see this vital project completed, with an SNP Government in power that has delivered a mere 11 miles of dual carriageway in 16 years.

Throughout that period, too many lives have needlessly been lost, and more will die as a result of the delays that we have heard about today. At best, we will wait another 12 years for the project to be completed, and that is the most optimistic outcome that we can hope for.

The cabinet secretary did her best to deflect criticism on to the UK Government, but I would gently remind her that, if the SNP had kept its promise to complete the dualling by 2025, the challenges that she identified with inflation and her Government’s capital budget would not have been an issue.

Today, we were expecting to hear that a contract had been placed for the Tomatin to Moy section. Even that has not been delivered. Instead, the best that we have is an expectation that there will be a contract award in summer next year. One year on from where we were at the start of this year, we are precisely no further forward.

I will therefore ask the cabinet secretary three things. First, what guarantees can she give us that the contract award for the Tomatin to Moy section will, in fact, now be done, and on the timescale that she has outlined, given all the slippage in timescales that we have seen in the past? Secondly, in relation to the remaining sections, what confidence can we have that the timescales set out today are, in fact, deliverable, even supposing that the funding can be found? Thirdly, how confident is the cabinet secretary that there is appropriate civil engineering contracting capacity to carry out those works, and what discussions has she held with industry to determine its willingness to tender for the contracts that are being proposed?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I begin by acknowledging Murdo Fraser’s point about there having been a delay in my update. I had hoped to give this update some weeks ago, and I am always seeking to expedite progress in this regard. Unfortunately, the A9 dualling project is a complex project—indeed, it is 11 complex projects—but, as of today, it is a complex project with a comprehensive delivery plan. I hope that even Murdo Fraser can welcome that.

The critical theme in all the points that Murdo Fraser raised is about certainty regarding both the Tomatin to Moy section and the remainder of the programme. The plan that we have set out today has sought to foreground certainty of delivery. However, as I said in my statement, we have carefully balanced that with the other factors that we must consider: the need to minimise disruption, market capacity and, of course, affordability.

With all of that taken into account, the plan that we have published today provides the greatest certainty that I am able to provide, bearing in mind that this is a large project with significant complexities and interdependencies, all of which are susceptible to a variety of external factors, not least the financial volatility that we have become so accustomed to under Murdo Fraser’s Government.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The SNP first

committed to dual the A9 back in 2007. Today, 16 years on and excuse after excuse after excuse later, the cabinet secretary expects us to be happy that, by 2030—23 years after the 2007 commitment—it will have completed less than 50 per cent of the project.

With a new date of 2035 for completion of the dualling between Perth and Inverness, some 28 years after the initial promise, one has to wonder how on earth the cabinet secretary can say with a straight face that the Highlands can have confidence that the A9 dualling programme will be delivered in full. Does the cabinet secretary have the confidence that this Government is even capable of delivering infrastructure projects of that scale?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

This Government has a proud history of delivering major projects. [

Interruption

.] There is a plethora of major projects, and I have absolute confidence—but, at the same time, I am not complacent. That is why we have spent the time. As I set out, since I have had responsibility for this, I have been determined to spend time finding all the ways possible to increase certainty in this project. That has involved updating our business case and spending considerable time—and Transport Scotland spending considerable time—engaging with the industry to update our approach to contracting under design and build contracts. That has all brought together this new plan, which, for the first time, anticipates using a hybrid model of funding options that are available.

That is an example of the Government using every tool at its disposal and working exceptionally hard to give the Highlands and everyone who, I accept, has been waiting too long confidence that the plan will be completed on a rolling basis of construction—50 per cent completed by 2030, 85 per cent by 2033 and 100 per cent dualling by the end of 2035.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I welcome the reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to dual the A9, which builds on the successful completion of a range of capital projects—including the Queensferry crossing, the M74 completion, the M8 completion, the Aberdeen western peripheral route completion, the Airdrie to Bathgate railway and the Borders railway—and the cabinet secretary’s acceptance of a number of the proposals that my constituents in the Dunkeld and Birnam area made regarding the design of the route at that particularly challenging site. Does the cabinet secretary agree to herself, the Minister for Transport and their officials engaging further with community groups in Dunkeld and Birnam about the design issues and, crucially, on short-term improvements that could be made to road safety in advance of the dualling works that are being undertaken?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank Mr Swinney for eloquently reeling off the plethora of major projects that the Government can be proud of having delivered.

On the point about his locality, I thank the Birnam to Ballinluig A9 community group for its work with us in a co-creative process, which has helped to broaden our vision for the A9 dualling project through that important route. The Minister for Transport and I truly value the input that the group has made to the process.

Building on the positive relationship that has been established, I reassure Mr Swinney that we will continue to engage with him and his local community as we continue our development of that section of the A9, which is taking a big step forward today. Indeed, I advise members that Transport Scotland officials are meeting the Birnam to Ballinluig A9 community group later this afternoon to discuss the preferred route option. As I mentioned in my statement, we will hold public exhibitions for the community in January.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Time and again, SNP ministers came to the chamber, appeared in front of committees or pledged in public that the A9 would be dualled in full between Inverness and Perth by the promised 2025 date. That was despite all evidence being to the contrary. We now know that, since 2018, they were not being honest. The Scottish Government knew, because officials told it, that the 2025 date was unachievable. However, it was not until last year—nearly five years later—that SNP ministers finally came clean.

How can local businesses, people who live along the route of the A9 and those who have lost loved ones on the road trust the Government to finally deliver on those new, even more vague promises when they have been lied to so many times before?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Presiding Officer, I am not sure that that was parliamentary language, but that is entirely your decision to adjudicate on.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, please resume your seat. I heard what the member said and I noted carefully the way in which he phrased it. It is, of course, absolutely unacceptable to refer to another member as having lied or been untruthful, but I felt that the way in which it was phrased did not quite fall within that bracket. Indeed, it would be a matter for me, in the chair.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As I said, it is for you to adjudicate on.

The member’s question centred on the inquiry that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is undertaking, which is a retrospective look at the progress of the programme to date. My statement is concerned with looking forward, but I have agreed to appear in front of the committee to assist it in its important inquiry. Indeed, some of the documents that Mr Halcro Johnston referred to are part of the very many that the Scottish Government has handed over to the inquiry.

I think that Mr Halcro Johnston will find that he will have to correct the record at some point in the future. The papers make it entirely clear, and I will certainly reiterate at committee, that Transport Scotland did not know for certain until late 2022 that the 2025 date was not deliverable. A number of the papers that Mr Halcro Johnston is speaking to talked, for example, about moving only to a MIM and the deliverability of that by 2025; they did not mention capital design and build.

As I said, I am happy to appear in front of the committee to discuss those matters, giving a retrospective account. Today, I am looking forward with the optimum delivery plan.

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

Will the cabinet secretary say a bit more about the mutual investment model that she referred to in her statement? What does it entail and what are its advantages?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Yes, I am happy to say more about it. As I said in my statement, the mutual investment model is one that has been developed and used by the Welsh Government. It is a form of public-private partnership that is similar in many respects to the non-profit-distributing contract, which was previously used in a number of major road projects, including some of those that Mr Swinney narrated.

The principal advantages that such a contract offers are that it provides additionality of investment through the use of private finance to deliver infrastructure projects and reduces the level of annual expenditure by spreading payments over a longer period. However, it represents a significant long-term financial commitment and requires a detailed consideration of market conditions, especially inflation and the cost of borrowing. That is why, in a prudent manner, we have built-in decision-making points in the programme, whereby we will consider how appropriate it is to move to a MIM, given the prevailing market conditions at the time.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The announcement that one section will be dualled in the next four years is not going to pacify my constituents’ anger about the lack of progress. The Government knew that it was not going to meet its 2025 promise, yet it tried to hide that.

Will the cabinet secretary give details of the key differences between the design and build model and the mutual investment model and say where the risk for each lies? Given the Government’s deception in the past, will she tell my constituents how they can realistically gauge progress towards completion for themselves?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I hope that the member was listening to my response to Jamie Halcro Johnston, when I made it absolutely clear that it was not until 2022 that Transport Scotland knew for sure that 2025 was not achievable. The Scottish ministers updated the Parliament shortly thereafter.

In referring to one section being completed in the coming years, Rhoda Grant is missing the point that I have been stressing, which is that, although this is a 12-year programme, it is one of rolling construction. Once spades are in the ground for the Tomatin to Moy section next summer, we will see rolling construction right through to 2035. As I said, following that progressive opening, there will be dualling of 50 per cent by the end of 2030, 85 per cent by 2033 and 100 per cent by the end of 2035, so that people—I accept that they rely fundamentally on the route—can enjoy the safety, economic and other benefits that come from dualling in advance of the entire programme’s completion.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

On the way to the chamber this afternoon, and quite by chance, I bumped into an Invernessian who reminded me that he had lost friends on the A9. That was a salutary reminder of the force behind the campaign.

In any campaign, it is wise to accept victory where it occurs and to be magnanimous. It is said that to be prepared is half the victory, and I think that the cabinet secretary will agree that we are not yet fully prepared. Will she acknowledge that many people, including me, will continue to remain sceptical until they see the diggers on the road, and that the statement today, although encouraging, involves a huge amount of work ahead? There must be no more slippage, no more delays and no more broken promises.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank Fergus Ewing for his question and for his determined campaigning on the matter since I have been in post and long before that. He mentioned in his opening remarks the loss of life, which is the principal issue that is at the forefront of the matter. Over the summer, I attended with him an event that was organised by

The Press and Journal

and the

Inverness Courier

, where we were joined by family members of the bereaved. I assure him and the chamber that that experience will never leave me and has been with me in all the work that we have been seeking to do as a team ever since.

I would not expect Fergus Ewing to be anything other than sceptical—helpfully sceptical, I hope—but I assure him, as I have other members, that what we have tried to produce today is the greatest possible certainty in a fairly uncertain world. I assure him that, although I cannot prevent issues from arising, where they arise, the Government will seek to overcome them as quickly as possible.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Yesterday, we heard of another serious crash on the A9 near Invergordon, and my thoughts are with those who were taken to Aberdeen royal infirmary after the collision. That highlights the known dangers of the A9 in its current state.

There was news last week that, in 2018, it was thought that the target to dual the A9 between Inverness and Perth by 2025 was unachievable, but ministers did not change course to address that, so 77 miles of the A9 are still not dualled. The new timeline will mean years of delay from the original commitment, and I must say that I am surprised that there was no apology for that anywhere in the cabinet secretary’s statement. What guarantees will the Scottish Government provide that its new dates are realistic and that we will see completion by the new date?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I echo to Beatrice Wishart what I said to Fergus Ewing and a number of others—I reassure her, in the first instance, that the certainty of delivery that she and others seek has driven the development of the plan. Although it would be a little foolish to suggest that, in a project of this scale and complexity, issues will not arise—of course they will—I give her the same commitment as I gave Fergus Ewing and others, which is that, where issues arise, the Government will seek to address them as quickly as possible.

Beatrice Wishart is absolutely right to acknowledge the accident that occurred near Tomich this week. My sympathies and those of all my colleagues are with those who were involved. We are awaiting further details. I thank the emergency services who were so promptly on the scene. That relates to another part of Beatrice Wishart’s question, which is about dualling being principally a safety issue. I have it at the forefront of my mind that dualling will reduce driver stress and frustration and will reduce the severity of accidents, because head-on collisions are the most difficult and fatal. In addition, emergency vehicles’ access will be quicker not just when there are accidents on the road but for the 10,000 people who live along the route.

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

I declare an interest in that I spend about 10 hours every week on the A9. The cabinet secretary may recall that, just a matter of weeks ago, the Tories said that dualling the A9 would take a century, so I have never been more thankful that she is in charge, with an updated deadline of 2035, and not them. I also pay tribute to the highlanders who have waited patiently for the A9 to be dualled, and to their spokespeople—not least the

Inverness Courier

, which is represented here today.

Certainty matters and, to restore trust, we have to keep communities regularly informed so that there are no surprises. How do we do that so that they can trust the Government’s pronouncements and trust that progress is genuinely being made?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I understand entirely the sentiments that Kate Forbes expresses. My clear objective today is to set out that this is a new optimal delivery plan and that it is concrete. The approach that we have set out means that people in the Highlands and those who travel there can have confidence that we will realise as efficiently as we can all the considerable benefits of A9 dualling that we know exist.

I repeat that now that we have reached this point, there will be no let-up. Under the plan and the rolling delivery programme, there will be continual work and construction until the route is finished. Kate Forbes is right to point out that recent so-called research by the Conservative Party pointed to the work potentially taking 111 years. I hope that even it will welcome the fact that the work will take about a tenth of that time.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In the dark days of winter, we now get the promised autumn statement on the A9—I suppose that it is better late than never, considering the time that we have been waiting for this project. Given the Government’s record, how can Scots believe that it can deliver only a miserable seven miles a year of dualling to complete the project by 2035? Given the Government’s failure to deliver a long-standing promise, surely we should expect more.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I again point out to Edward Mountain the irony that, while his party was compiling what it calls research—and what I would call a little ridiculous—and press releases, the Government was, thankfully, taking the issue seriously and working hard to overcome the barriers that we needed to in order to present the comprehensive plan today. That includes, as I said, looking closely at and updating our business case and working with industry to improve how we procure design and build contracts. It also includes building a plan that, as I said, foregrounds certainty of delivery while considering market capacity and affordability and ensuring that there will not be unmanageable disruption on the route.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary rightly highlighted safety on the A9 as the overriding priority. The Green group is behind the appropriate action that is needed to cut casualties and tragedies on the road. However, given that the A9 programme will not be completed until the mid-2030s, what other options have been reviewed to improve safety on the A9 while staying on track to meet our legally binding climate targets?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for highlighting that, as far as the Government is concerned, the principal driver of the work is improving safety. As I mentioned in my statement, since 2007, the Government has invested £300 million in the safety and maintenance of the A9 and a further £3.6 million in average-speed cameras. I think that everybody would accept that those measures have made a difference, but they do not go as far as dualling will.

Following the marked increase in 2022 in the number of accidents, we responded with an additional £5 million for road safety measures, including enhancements to signing and road markings with an emphasis on junctions and the transition between dual and single carriageway, which we know can be difficult. The introduction of average-speed cameras, the work of Police Scotland, targeted education campaigns and the on-going management and maintenance of the route have helped to reduce the number of accidents and casualties from the the long-term trend that we were seeing, with the exception of 2022. That remains at the foreground of our thinking.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the statement. I apologise to the few members whom I was unable to call.

Point of Order

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. The statement on the Scottish Government’s response to the section 35 order judicial review was sent to me at 3.16 pm this afternoon. Ministers’ statements are usually sent in sufficient time to allow MSPs to read them over and scrutinise them before arriving in the chamber. Sending a statement through four minutes before business is scheduled to begin is discourteous to elected members in the Parliament.

Can the Presiding Officer assist me in understanding why the Government is withholding statements from MSPs until the last minute? Does she believe that that is good practice, given that MSPs are restricted from being able to do their job in holding the Government to account?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank Ms Gallacher for her point of order. In terms of the guidance from the Presiding Officer, the provision of statements in due time is very important and is a mark of the Government showing courtesy and respect to individual members. Vis-à-vis the specifics of this case, I advise Ms Gallacher that the Presiding Officer, Alison Johnstone, who will take the chair for the next item of business, will address that issue further. Thank you.

Section 35 Order Judicial Review

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on the Scottish Government’s response to the section 35 order judicial review. Members will be aware that some of the content of the statement is in the public domain following media coverage. I have received a letter of apology from the Deputy First Minister, and it is appropriate that an apology is made to the chamber—[

Interruption.

] Members, I would be grateful if I could make my remarks.

I have received a letter of apology from the Deputy First Minister, and it is appropriate that an apology is made to the chamber. Ministers are answerable and accountable to the Parliament for their actions in their ministerial capacities, and it is essential that members, as elected representatives of the people of Scotland, have the first opportunity to hold ministers to account. For that reason, announcements must be made here first.

Having considered the content of the statement, I consider it important that I allow it to go ahead in part. I invite the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice to focus on those matters that are not already in the public domain. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Before I begin my statement, let me respond to your comments, Presiding Officer. Media speculation on the Government’s decision in relation to the section 35 order is deeply disappointing and regrettable. I am aware that the Deputy First Minister responded to direct questions that were put to her and, although she did not confirm or deny whether the Scottish Government intended to appeal the decision, she has recognised that the Government’s position was inferred from the comments that she made. She in no way meant to pre-empt the statement today, and I know that she has written to you to apologise for the comments that she made in response to the direct questions that were put to her in interviews on the budget.

I would also like to apologise to you and the chamber. The discussions between me and your office, Presiding Officer, led to the late arrival of the statement with Opposition spokespeople, for which I genuinely apologise.

I turn to my reduced statement. One year ago, this Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill after much discussion and careful consideration. Not everyone agreed with the bill—some strongly opposed it—but the will of the Parliament was clear: two-thirds of members voted to pass the bill, with members of all parties voting in favour. However, within four weeks, the Secretary of State for Scotland blocked its submission for royal assent with the first-ever use of a section 35 order. The Scottish ministers petitioned for judicial review, as it was clear to us that allowing that unprecedented veto over a decision of this Parliament to go unchallenged would undermine Holyrood’s democratic will and, by extension, the will of the people whom we are sent here to represent.

Let me be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government remains committed to supporting and empowering the LGBTQI+ community, including trans people. We will continue to build on our work across Government to strengthen that. We work closely with the LGBTQI+ stakeholder group and third sector organisations to ensure that the voices of those with lived experience help to improve outcomes for those communities. We are also delivering the non-binary equality action plan to improve conditions for the non-binary community in Scotland. The plan includes actions that are already under way, such as meaningfully including non-binary people in decision making.

We remain committed to consulting on a bill on ending conversion practices in Scotland for both sexual orientation and gender identity, and detailed proposals for legislative change will be published early in the new year. Conversion practices that aim to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are damaging and destructive acts that violate the human rights of those who undergo them.

We remain committed to our work with NHS Scotland to improve access to and delivery of gender identity healthcare. We are working closely with people with lived experience, organisations that represent trans people and NHS Scotland to implement the actions in the “NHS gender identity services: strategic action framework 2022-2024”, which was published in 2021.

We have established a national gender identity healthcare reference group and commissioned a range of work, including robust collation and reporting of waiting times, a transgender healthcare knowledge and skills framework with training opportunities for NHS Scotland staff, a programme of research on long-term health outcomes for people who access gender identity healthcare, and the development of national standards for accessing and delivery of gender identity healthcare. That work is well under way.

We are also delivering the recommendations of the LGBTI inclusive education working group. The implementation group has, in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, promoted effective delivery of LGBTI inclusive education in all Scottish schools and engaged with young people to seek their views and experience, and it is delivering improved learning environments for all children and young people.

Before the end of the parliamentary year, we will introduce a new human rights bill for Scotland.

I turn to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill specifically. The bill’s reforms remain the Government’s policy and, as we can see from the cross-party support for the bill, they remain what this Parliament would like to see enacted. However, the United Kingdom Government’s intervention means that the bill cannot proceed to royal assent. It remains a bill that has been passed by the majority of this Parliament and we will not be withdrawing it.

There is a strong indication that any divergence of approach would be unacceptable to the UK Government, as Alister Jack stated in the Westminster Parliament:

“In short, two different regimes create adverse effects.”—[

Official Report, House of Commons

, 17 January 2023; c 218.]

It is therefore impossible to see how progress can be made, particularly when the rules of this Parliament require that amendments at reconsideration stage are consistent with the bill’s general principles as agreed at stage 1.

Nonetheless, our offer is still there. If the current UK Government is willing to work together on the issue, we will happily sit down with it. If a future UK Government is willing, we will work with it so that the section 35 order can be lifted and the bill can progress. It seems clear that the current Government will not do that. It remains to be seen what a future Government will do.

Parliamentary discussion of the Scotland Act 1998 shows that the section 35 power was always intended as a long stop or last resort, and one that would never be needed. It was envisaged that the UK Government should raise issues at an early stage and that the two Governments should seek to resolve them. That is in black and white in the devolution debates in the Westminster Parliament in 1998 and in the memorandum of understanding between the Governments. However, that is not how the Secretary of State for Scotland used the power.

It is the Scottish Government’s view that this UK Government and the secretary of state see section 35 as a veto that they can apply to any legislation that is passed by this Parliament that they disagree with. To ignore the memorandum of understanding sets a very worrying precedent for the democratic powers of this Parliament. Regardless of people’s views and opinions on gender recognition, that is a very worrying place for our Parliament to be in.

Due to the intransigence of the current UK Government, I am confident that any repetition of our offer to seek compromise would again be rebuffed. We will therefore focus on working with an incoming UK Government, which we hope will have more respect for devolution and be willing to work together, even when, at times, we disagree.

I recognise that many trans people will be disappointed by that decision. To them, I say this: the Scottish Government will never waver in our commitment to your rights. You deserve to be respected, included and supported. You are not a threat, and you will always be able to live your lives free from prejudice and abuse in the type of Scotland that we all want to see. We will continue to work towards a society that is equal and fair and one where people can live as they are, just as we will continue to protect the democratic powers of this, Scotland’s Parliament.

The Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question would press their request-to-speak buttons.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments on the late arrival of her statement. When Nicola Sturgeon said last year that the debate would be over by Christmas, I do not think that she meant this Christmas. The Scottish Conservatives repeatedly told the Scottish National Party Government that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was fundamentally flawed. We warned all along that this would happen, but the SNP Government did not listen. Instead, it has spent time and taxpayers’ money on a doomed legal battle to revive laws that the majority of the Scottish public do not want—laws that undermine the rights and safety of women, girls and vulnerable young people. Women’s groups were ignored throughout the debate, and I am delighted that their hard-fought campaign has been won. However, the debacle leaves the SNP’s relationship with the Greens in tatters. I wonder whether Green MSPs will follow through on their threat and quit the Government after the announcement. It might be a lot better for Scotland if they did.

We know that self-identification has been a failed experiment that the Scottish public oppose. Will the cabinet secretary outline whether lessons have been learned? If so, can she reassure women’s groups that their concerns will be listened to in the future to prevent this sorry saga from ever happening again?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Meghan Gallacher for the way in which she took my apology. I know that she and I have had many cross words, including yesterday, but I appreciate the way in which she has responded to my remarks.

However, in my opinion, there were no amendments at stage 3 that would have prevented the secretary of state from laying a section 35 order. I say that because, as I mentioned in my original statement, he has been clear that he is concerned about a divergence and there being two different systems within the UK. On that basis, it is genuinely difficult to see how we could have a bill that could be approved by this secretary of state in the current UK Government.

When it comes to listening to diverging opinions on the issue, I know and I fully appreciate that, in the Parliament and in wider society, there is a range of opinions on the issue. However, those views were listened to. We may not have agreed with them, but I, the now Deputy First Minister and many ministers held meetings both with groups of people who agreed with the bill and with groups of people who did not, and there were two public consultations.

I would say that the legal judgment is about the use of section 35; it does not take any position on the bill itself or the merits thereof. That is why the Government will not be withdrawing the bill.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I, too, voice my disappointment at the late sight of the statement, but I also accept what the cabinet secretary has said in mitigation.

In the six years since the beginning of the process of gender recognition reform in Scotland, Scottish Labour has striven to ensure that the relevant legislation is progressive and that it updates the system while upholding rights and protections for everyone. From the beginning, we sought to engage all parties, including the Government, raising potential issues, offering amendments and seeking repeated assurances that the legislation was secure in law. Indeed, in that regard, the cabinet secretary will recall my amendments that were dealt with this time last year and previous questions that I have raised on issues such as meetings between the Governments about the section 104 process and calls to see the Scottish Government’s legal advice.

Ultimately, I recognise that this will be a difficult day for many people. The simplification of the process of gender recognition has not moved forward, and I welcome the cabinet secretary outlining what further action the Government will take to support trans people in Scotland, which I have been keen to raise each time that we have had the opportunity to discuss the issue. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary could further outline how activity across Government will be co-ordinated to measure improvements, particularly in healthcare.

I recognise that many women feel that their concerns have been dismissed and that the debate has become too polarised. The cabinet secretary has essentially said that the bill will remain in limbo after the smoke from the court wrangling between the two Governments clears. I also heard what the cabinet secretary said about people’s willingness to try and work together.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the court has judged that the bill modifies the law as it applies to reserved matters? What analysis has the Government carried out in the light of those parts of the judgment that could form the basis for any future dialogue with the UK Government on moving the process forward?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I recognise that the health aspect is an important issue for the trans community. The Government has been working on it for some time and it is important that I recommit the Government to that today.

I have spoken about gender identity services and the strategic action framework, which describes how we are working to improve access to and delivery of national health service gender identity services. Importantly, we will continue to work with those with lived experience to ensure that matters are improved for them, not just in the healthcare sector but in other aspects as well.

Paul O’Kane mentioned the use of section 104 orders. That is a different and technical process to ensure that bills can work correctly. Unfortunately, that would not have got us out of the situation that we are in at the moment. As I said, the secretary of state has made his position clear on having two different systems, but we will continue to work with any Government on that issue.

It is important that, right across Government, we work together to support the trans community in everything that we do, as well as continuing the work on delivering the equally safe strategy, to protect women’s rights and to protect them from violence, intimidation and discrimination.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

This time last year, the majority of MSPs voted in this chamber to respect the right of trans women and men to self-identify in accordance with their human rights. The intervention of the UK Government to block that has defied the democracy of this Parliament and shattered the trans community. Will the cabinet secretary expand on the decision that the Government has taken following the legal advice?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the legal advice that the Government received, but I would say that the decision not to appeal that judgment has not been an easy one. We have, of course, reflected on that legal advice and the policy advice, covering a wide range of factors. I know that the legal process and the on-going scrutiny that it brings has taken its toll on the trans community. It is the Government’s opinion that the worst possible outcome would be to draw the matter out further and still not be able to have a bill to enact. We want to avoid that outcome, and that is the reason why the Government has come to the decision that it has.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

When she announced the Scottish Government’s intention to take the UK Government to court, eight months ago, the cabinet secretary told Parliament that it was keen to be as transparent as possible on the matter. Now that the Scottish Government has abandoned its legal battle against the UK Government, will it publish its legal advice? Given that the Scottish Government has spent more than £230,000 of taxpayers’ money on the failed court action so far, will it also publish the estimates of the costs that would have been incurred if it had challenged the ruling?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I have already said, the Scottish Government does not publish its legal advice. Given that the UK Government would not publish its legal advice about the court decision, it is a bit hypocritical for Miles Briggs to suggest that the Scottish Government should publish its legal advice. I am happy to stand to be corrected, but I do not think that he would make the same call on the UK Government.

When it comes to wasting public money on court cases, I say gently to Miles Briggs that the UK Government has spent more than £2 million on a case to ensure that it can—how should I put this? It has spent that money on a case to enable it to take some of the most vulnerable people—[

Interruption

.] Scottish Conservative members might find this funny, but I certainly do not. The UK Government has spent £2 million in an effort to take some of the most vulnerable people in our society—people who have been persecuted right across the world—and send them to Rwanda. It has spent £2 million on that, yet Scottish Conservative members have the hypocrisy to criticise the Scottish Government for standing up for the powers of this Parliament. It is a shame that the Scottish Conservatives have once again shown that they have no interest in defending this Parliament or democracy but are quite happy to defend the Rwanda policy on immigration.

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

First,

I want to acknowledge the harm that the arduous process associated with the bill—particularly the UK Government veto and the court ruling—has had on trans people, their families and their friends.

Will the cabinet secretary update the chamber on the significant impact that the way in which the section 35 order has been used has had on devolution?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Karen Adam is quite right to point out the impact on the trans community in Scotland and, importantly, the impact on devolution. That is exactly why the Scottish Government took the case in the first place. We recognised that, unfortunately, the UK Government has a record of attempting to undermine devolution. The judgment is about how the section 35 power was used with respect to gender recognition, but it is important that we continue to challenge the use of section 35 orders in the future.

I accept the judgment. I accept that the ability to use section 35 is part of the devolution process, but the way in which it has been used in this case is a worrying precedent for anyone who is genuinely interested in Scottish democracy. There is an emerging pattern of interference. For example, although there were no deliberate breaches of the Sewel convention for the first 20 years of devolution, it has been breached 11 times since 2018. That is what happens when power is unfettered. That is why we will continue to challenge the UK Government, if we choose to do so, in the future in relation to any use of a section 35 order.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

A year on from the passing of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, what we have is a sorry and salutary tale for the Scottish Government. It needs to accept and reflect on its level of responsibility, not just for that failed piece of legislation but for how its actions influence wider discussion on a complex and sensitive issue.

In her discussion of upcoming work, the cabinet secretary did not refer to the upcoming final report of the Cass review. What plans is the Scottish Government making to respond to that report, which is due in the new year? Is the national gender identity healthcare reference group considering the delivery of gender identity healthcare for children and young people?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

In relation to the section 35 order and the judgment, we all need to reflect on how this Parliament is treated. Regardless of people’s views on gender recognition, there is an on-going issue over how section 35 has been used. Yes, the Government will reflect, and I suggest that it is time for reflection for us all on this.

On the Cass review, the member will be aware that the on-going findings of the Cass review and their implementation by NHS England are being closely considered by the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland. I would be happy to get the minister who is more deeply involved in that issue to write to the member on the specifics.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The cabinet secretary knows that I was and am opposed to the bill, but Westminster should not be interfering in what is, rightly, Scotland’s business. Is the cabinet secretary concerned that future UK Governments might use a veto just because they do not like our legislation?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Yes. The bill is an example, it is fair to say, where the member and I have completely opposing views. However, he is quite right to point to the significance of the section 35 order to devolution. The issue was, rightly, also focused on by Mark Drakeford, who said that the UK Government’s decision to use powers that have never been used in the history of devolution was “a very dangerous moment”, which is the point that I was trying to make to Claire Baker earlier.

This is a turning point in devolution, and it is up to us all to reflect on what we do about that. The Government has taken the matter to court. As I said, we absolutely accept the judgment of the court and will not appeal. However, I think that the UK Government has a worrying habit, if I can put it that way, of interfering in devolution, and I fear that that habit may increase in the future.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

The bill commanded support from members of all five parties across the chamber because it sought to allow trans people to be recognised for who they are without trauma in the legal architecture that underpins their lives.

Many trans people suffer discrimination and stigma every day. The process will have harmed them further and left them feeling let down and exposed. That is a great shame, and a humane approach to gender recognition is a problem that remains unresolved. They now look to us to make meaningful progress against the other barriers that stand between them and equality, such as a ban on conversion therapy and ready access to trans-inclusive healthcare. The cabinet secretary touched on some of those issues in her remarks, but, to reassure those who are watching us today and who are hurting, will she commit to a meaningful timeline of action and regular reporting to the Parliament on each of those areas?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Absolutely. Alex Cole-Hamilton is right to begin his remarks by saying that trans people simply want to be accepted for who they are. We should be able to say that about all members of our society. I appreciate that they feel let down, exposed and vulnerable. There is a responsibility, which I feel very heavily on me and my Government, to ensure that we move forward on the issue with whatever we can do across Government.

We have already discussed healthcare, but I will give an example on conversion therapy. We fully intended to have the consultation on the ending conversion practices bill out by the end of the year, but we listened to the concerns of stakeholders—including faith groups and LGBT groups—and the fact that they wished that to happen in the new year, in particular because people might feel particularly vulnerable over Christmas and new year when support services might not be available. That consultation is ready to be launched at the beginning of the new year, when the Parliament returns. Alex Cole-Hamilton has my absolute assurance that the minister will take that forward in due course. Either she or I would be happy to meet him to discuss it in further detail.

The Presiding Officer

We have much interest. I would be grateful if we could have short and concise questions and responses in order to get as many members in as possible.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Following the court’s decision on the use of section 35 to block the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, does the cabinet secretary agree that devolution is fundamentally flawed and that only full independence can ensure that Scotland’s democratic decisions are implemented? [

Interruption

.]

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I heard groans following that question—[

Interruption

.]—and I can hear more groans now, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear the cabinet secretary.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Let me be very clear:

i

f the Scottish Conservatives do not want the conclusion to be that we need independence to ensure that the will of the Scottish Parliament is recognised, they must also reflect on the fact that section 35 is part of the devolutionary set-up, but how it is used is very important to how this Parliament feels that it is being treated and the respect that it is given.

Anyone who is interested in getting devolution to work—which, allegedly, the Scottish Conservatives are—would also wish to reflect on the use of section 35 in the future. Prove us wrong. Prove that there is a way to get devolution to work. Until then, Evelyn Tweed is quite correct that only with independence will we have Scotland’s democratic decisions implemented.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Women across Scotland were told that their views were not valid, so I applaud their hard-won victory, with the SNP’s dangerous Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in the bin where it belongs.

I would like the cabinet secretary to explain why female prisoners are still being used as guinea pigs in the SNP’s gender self-identification experiment. Why should the most vulnerable women in society be told to accept that a rapist such as Isla Bryson or any other male-bodied sex criminal is a woman?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, I make clear that the bill is not in the bin; it awaits an incoming UK Government that has more respect for devolution.

I point out to Russell Findlay that the examples that he gives are under a gender recognition process that has been in place throughout the UK for many years. What has happened in the Scottish Prison Service has nothing to do with gender recognition certificates, and he should not conflate the issues.

Russell Findlay will also be well aware of the recent Scottish Prison Service policy on the issue. I would suggest that he looks at that in detail, if he is genuinely interested in the safety of women and transgender prisoners.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The court ruling 12 days ago came as a bitter blow to trans people across Scotland. I know that many of them are feeling very hurt and vulnerable right now, and they now must wait indefinitely for the reforms that the legislation that we passed here overwhelmingly 12 months ago would have delivered.

Trans people are targets just because of who they are. Given that their lives have been and continue to be weaponised as part of a toxic culture war, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give to trans people who need some hope and clear demonstration that they matter and that we value them?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I put on record my thanks to Maggie Chapman for all her work on the issue over the years. I look forward to continuing to work with her as we move forward to protect and enhance trans rights.

It is very important that we provide the reassurances that she has asked for. I hope that my words today in some way reflect my concern about the trans community’s vulnerability at this difficult time and the Government’s commitment on the issue.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

Last year, the Scottish Government told us that the bill would make just a small administrative change; that it would grant no new rights; that it would not interfere with the operation of the Equality Act 2010; that safeguards were not required; and that there was no evidence of harm to women. All that was wrong.

This sorry and sad episode created a culture in which women were dismissed as transphobes and bigots. The Scottish Government failed in its duty to analyse the potential impact on women, and it misled Parliament. It must provide clarity on next steps, as the bill must never be implemented.

I renew my calls for the Government to apologise, as its conduct has fatally undermined public trust in Government, and it has no one to blame for that but itself.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I say to Ash Regan that, although the Scottish Government introduced the bill, it was passed by the Parliament. It is now the Parliament’s bill, and the Government will protect the will of the Parliament in any way that we can.

I also say to Ash Regan, as I have said before, that the judgment was about the use of section 35 with respect to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. It did not discuss the merits of the bill itself, and it is very important that those two items are not conflated.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I fully welcome the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to LGBTQ people and hope that the trans community will be offered the relevant support in the days and weeks following these events.

Will the cabinet secretary share further information on the reason behind the Government’s decision not to appeal?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I have laid out already in some of my answers, the decision was one for which the Government had to take a view of not just the legal advice but the policy advice that we had. Reflecting on that advice and on our view that carrying on the process would impact negatively on the trans community, we feared that, because of the Secretary of State for Scotland’s intransigence on the issue, the bill would still not be able to pass. It is for those reasons that we chose not to appeal.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Scottish Conservatives warned time and again that the SNP-Green gender self-ID bill threatened women’s single-sex spaces, and that was proven by the case of Isla Bryson. [

Interruption

.] The bill would have impacted on equality laws right across the United Kingdom.

The Presiding Officer

Members!

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

If the SNP was so caring about the impact of its GRR bill on vulnerable women, why did it vote against those key amendments?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I fully respect that Rachael Hamilton and I have very different opinions on the bill. I appreciate that there are different views on the bill, but, once again, I am very firm in my opinion that we can improve the rights of trans people—one of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in our society—while ensuring that we protect women’s rights, as well.

I would make the point that there were no amendments lodged at stage 3 that would have prevented a section 35—even if the Government had accepted all the amendments, that would not have been prevented. I say that based on the secretary of state firmly stating—he said this in the House of Commons—that he does not believe in having two systems within the United Kingdom. That is where we run into an intractable problem.

That is why we will continue to support trans rights, but we will also always support women’s rights and protect women from discrimination.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Regardless of the various views on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I think that we can all agree that it did not quite work out as intended. Indeed, it has soured relationships across multiple groups in our society.

Our job is simple: to scrutinise and pass good and competent law at best value to the public purse. With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary outline what specific review processes the Scottish Government plans to undertake on its role in this matter and the outcome that we have today?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Again, I think that we are in danger of conflating a judgment that was based on the use of a section 35 order with the merits of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The bill, as it was passed by the vast majority of this Parliament, remains a bill that this Government would like to see implemented. We will, of course, reflect on the judgment, but, very importantly, we will also reflect on the use of the section 35 order and how that impacts on the devolutionary process, because that is what the judgment was all about.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary has spoken a lot today about diverging views and having respect. Many women and girls opposed the SNP-Green legislation in order to protect their rights and safety. Therefore, on behalf of the Scottish Government, will she thank them for everything that they did during the passage of the bill to stand up for those freedoms?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

There were obviously diverging views on the bill among the Scottish Conservatives, as some members of Douglas Ross’s group voted for it, although I accept that the majority of them voted against. I have no doubt that every single member of this Parliament respects the rights of women and their need for protection against discrimination and violence. The Government and, I think, the Parliament have already demonstrated that that is the case on many occasions in the past, and they will continue to do so in the future.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes the ministerial statement.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Throughout the cabinet secretary’s answers to questions on the statement, she referred to the fact that there were no amendments lodged at stage 3 that would not have resulted in divergence from United Kingdom legislation. There were such amendments, and they were in my name.

The Presiding Officer

I thank Ms Webber for her contribution. I do not believe that it is a point of order, but it is on the record.

We will move on to the next item of business. I will allow a couple of minutes for the front bench members to organise themselves.

Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 21A, the marshalled list, the supplement to the marshalled list and the revised groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button—or, if they are joining us remotely, type RTS in the chat function—as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of—[

Interruption

.] Anyone who was not paying attention is now paying attention. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on the resignation and removal of trustees. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 2A, 3 and 4.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The amended section 5 provides that a sole trustee must have

“accepted office in writing”

or otherwise have

“acted in a way which indicates that they have accepted office”.

I understand that the policy intention behind the stage 2 amendment was to make sure that the office of sole trustee is not forced upon someone against their wishes. Amendment 1 provides flexibility in the way that the office can be accepted but does not fundamentally alter the policy intention. A sole trustee would still have to accept office, but that could be done verbally, in writing or by some other means.

Moving on, I support Stuart McMillan’s amendments 2 and 2A. Amendment 2, if amended by amendment 2A, will mean that, where two or more professional trustees have been appointed who are each no longer a member of the regulated profession or are not entitled to practise, when it comes to a decision to remove either of them, neither of those trustees is to be regarded as able to make the decision. That will prevent a potential and undesirable impasse.

I understand that Mr McMillan, in the light of comments from the Law Society of Scotland, has decided not to proceed with the provisions in amendment 2 that would have built on the stage 2 amendment that I lodged that allowed co-trustees to remove one of their own where the trustee being removed has been appointed in their capacity as a member of the profession but has ceased to be a member of that profession. The relevant provisions in amendment 2 would have extended that to professional trustees who provide their services through a company or partnership. I understand that, although the Law Society agrees with the principle, it has concerns about potential unintended consequences. It is therefore sensible to take more time to look at the issue, and I am happy to continue to work with Mr McMillan to consider how further changes might be made to other legislation.

Amendments 3 and 4 are in my name. A person who has been removed from office as a trustee may require to take certain actions after being removed. That might include updating information that is held in statutory registers, and failure to do so may result in criminal liability. Although I believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, trustees would take the sensible action of informing removed trustees of their date of removal, I understand that that would not always be the case. For example, in a small family trust, relationships between trustees might be so strained that what appears to be sensible and practical to us would not be to them.

My amendments provide a clear statutory statement that will be of assistance to professional and non-professional trustees. When a trustee is removed from office, they must be given notice of their removal as soon as is reasonably practicable after the decision is made.

I ask members to support the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 1.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

First, I want to speak about amendments 2 and 2A, in my name, which are hand-out amendments from the Scottish Government following my discussions with it about an amendment that I had proposed. I thank the Scottish Government for working with me on the issue.

Amendment 2A came about because of an issue that was raised with me by constituents. The existing provision provides a loophole in relation to a scenario in which a trust appoints three trustees but two of them could be removed under section 7(1) because of their being

“incapable ... convicted of an offence involving dishonesty ... sentenced to imprisonment on conviction of an offence, or ... imprisoned for contempt of court or for not having paid a fine”.

When it comes to a decision to remove either trustee, amendment 2 states:

“neither ... of those trustees are ... to be regarded as able to make a decision”.

The majority for making a decision would therefore be one, which would help to maintain the integrity of any trust.

Proposed section 7(1D) goes further, as the minister touched on, as did members of the regulated profession. On Friday, the Law Society contacted the Scottish Government to highlight two potential unintended consequences of the provision. That is why I lodged manuscript amendment 2A, which I am pleased the Presiding Officer agreed to accept.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

We heard from the minister who is guiding the bill through the Parliament that the issue will be looked at. Is Mr McMillan aware of any specific legislation that might be introduced over the next few years of this parliamentary session in which any changes could be encompassed?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

My discussions with the Government have centred around the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which is currently being considered by the Parliament. I will be working with the Government on that bill to try to tighten the provision in that regard.

The Law Society advised that the provision in proposed section 7(1D) could be used inappropriately, that it would act as a deterrent to the use of corporate trustee bodies and that that would have an economic impact. I do not fully agree with the Law Society’s considerations, but I respect its opinion. I was therefore content to attempt to go partway to fixing the issue, rather than not trying at all. That is why I lodged the manuscript amendment.

I therefore ask members to support amendment 2, as amended by amendment 2A.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

In this debate on the first group of amendments, I put on record that the Scottish Conservatives will support all the stage 3 amendments. I recognise that the minister has listened to stakeholders and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in order to strengthen the bill at stages 2 and 3. Following Stuart McMillan’s explanation for the addition of manuscript amendment 2A, we are content that the amendments that are before us represent the views of stakeholders and strike the right balance.

I therefore do not plan to make any further comments on the other amendments, but I will make some broader points in the main debate. I understand that my colleague Jeremy Balfour might have further comments on the amendments that he continues to take an interest in.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the minister to wind up. Do you have anything to add, minister?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

No, I have nothing to add.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 7—Removal of trustee by co-trustees

Amendment 2 moved—[Stuart McMillan].

Amendment 2A moved—[Stuart McMillan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 2, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Removal of trustee by beneficiaries

Amendment 4 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on minor and technical changes. Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 and 14 to 20.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Moved, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Do you not wish to speak to the amendments?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I am sorry. Are we moving on to the next group?