Scottish Parliament, 29 May 2024

312 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. As ever, I make a plea for succinct questions and answers, in order to get in as many members as possible.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact on the food and drink sector of reports that many food and drink businesses are owned and controlled from outwith Scotland. (S6O-03484)

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

The food and drink industry is a major contributor to Scotland, generating £15 billion of turnover from more than 17,000 businesses and employing around 129,000 people.

Our approach to growing Scotland’s economy is focused on strengthening Scotland’s domestic industries and ensuring that our economy is open, outward looking and internationally focused. It really is important that we secure investment from global companies to enable that growth.

Although we know that some larger food and drink businesses are owned outwith Scotland, statistics show that 98.8 per cent of enterprises in the sector remain United Kingdom-owned, with their registered office address in Scotland.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I note the cabinet secretary’s points about the turnover and the jobs being in Scotland, but profits are clearly going overseas. The majority of the top five whisky and salmon business owners are from outside of Scotland. Surely, the Government should be concerned that the profits are leaving Scotland.

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

I appreciate the point that the member raises, and we want to ensure that we maximise the benefits for Scotland wherever we can.

As part of our overall approach to increasing economic growth in Scotland, we have the national strategy for economic transformation and Scotland’s inward investment plan, which aim to support and create a positive business environment that contributes to improvements in commercial confidence and investment, as well as to Scotland’s overall attractiveness as a location for inward investment.

The benefits of carefully targeted inward investment can be seen across Scotland’s economy. There are supply chain opportunities, and we also see productivity improvements through innovation. Those additional spillover benefits act to create opportunities for existing Scottish-owned businesses by providing them with access to markets and technologies that they might not otherwise have benefited from.

Through Scotland’s inward investment plan, we seek to attract the knowledge, know-how, products and technologies that do not readily exist in Scotland, to enhance and complement our clusters, supply chains and communities.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Can the cabinet secretary comment on the need to support the rural economy, support local suppliers and ensure that public food procurement is as strong as it possibly can be?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Cabinet secretary, you may answer that question to the extent that it relates to the primary question.

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

I absolutely agree with the points that Brian Whittle has made. He has repeatedly raised in the chamber the importance of public procurement and how we can strengthen that as much as possible to benefit our local producers and our local suppliers. I am happy to continue to discuss that with Mr Whittle.

In order to address some of the issues around that complex landscape, the key vehicle that we can look at is the good food nation plan; we have recently consulted on the plan and are considering the responses. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the member.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what forms of community engagement the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill mandates in relation to the creation of a land management plan for large land holdings. (S6O-03485)

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

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill seeks to empower communities and ensure that the benefits of land ownership, and decisions about how land is owned, managed and used, are more widely shared. The bill sets out that owners of very large landholdings will be required to engage with local communities on the development—and significant changes to—a land management plan. The detail of what is required to meet the engagement requirements will be set out in regulations, following further consultation, to ensure that there is meaningful collaboration and community engagement in decisions about land.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Landowners, farmers and crofters also struggle with fly-tipping and its negative effect on their time and money. Constituents report that the problem is getting worse, with some councils instituting a booking system for tips. What is the Scottish Government doing to tackle fly-tipping?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have to repeat that the supplementary question should relate to the question in the Business Bulletin , which in this case is from Mr Choudhury himself. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could respond to the extent that the creation of a land management plan in the context of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill might mandate attention to the issue that Mr Choudhury has raised.

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

The member raises a hugely important point, because fly-tipping is a blight on our countryside. Fly-tipping, our overall litter strategy and how we tackle those issues sit within another portfolio, but I would be more than happy to follow up with the member to give a more detailed and specific response on the issues that he has raised.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have two supplementary questions, which I hope are supplementary to the principal question.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Although there are some good examples of landowners utilising the potential of a holding’s natural capital, does the cabinet secretary share my view that, if someone can afford to buy an estate that costs millions of pounds, they can also afford to ensure that the natural capital potential of the piece of Scotland that they have the privilege of owning is fully utilised for the community as a whole?

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

I thank the member for her really important question. Ultimately, we want Scotland to be a country where rights and responsibilities in relation to land and our natural capital are fully recognised and fulfilled. Investment in restoring and protecting Scotland’s natural environment is essential if we are to have any hope of addressing the nature and climate emergencies that we face, especially at the pace and scale required.

It is a public responsibility, but it is also a private responsibility, so we will ultimately need both sources of finance to work well together if we are to achieve our very ambitious climate and biodiversity goals.

It is important to point out that our forthcoming natural capital markets framework will set out the requirements for all market participants to contribute to our vision for a values-led, high-integrity, responsible investment in natural capital.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill policy memorandum states:

“The Bill makes no provision in respect of public funding, but measures are being brought forward in the Agriculture and Rural Communities Bill that will enable the Scottish Ministers to attach certain conditions when providing financial assistance.”

Will the minister confirm what those conditions are and what landowners will be subjected to?

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

As the member will no doubt be aware, and as I have talked about a number of times in the relevant committee when I have attended it, it is fundamental to our approach and how we develop our policy that we work with our farmers, crofters and land managers to ensure that we have a policy that is deliverable, works and does everything that we want it to do for food production and tackling the climate and nature crises.

I will continue to keep the member and the Parliament updated as that work progresses, but we have set out the staging of that work in our agricultural reform route map.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how much money it has distributed to farmers to address any damage caused by recent flooding. (S6O-03486)

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

More than £306,000 of agricultural flood bank repair grant scheme payments have been processed, and because many farmers have been unable to carry out repairs due to the exceptionally wet spring, with areas of flooding only now drying and river levels dropping to normal levels, making it finally possible to get on to the land to do repairs, the Scottish Government has extended the deadline for repairs to be carried out and claimed for from 31 May to 31 July.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful for the update. Recently, the Prime Minister announced a £75 million flood-fighting fund and an index for United Kingdom-wide food security issues. The UK Government’s pledge last week of a further £50 million of support south of the border to help farmers hit by flooding and exceptional wet weather as part of its farming recovery fund was widely welcomed. What precisely will the Scottish Government do to support farmers in Scotland, such as looking to replicate those huge UK Government sums?

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

I take the member’s point, but we have had no notification of any of that funding coming here to Scotland. The Scottish Government has put a capital grants fund of £1.8 million into play to help farmers in the current crisis. Given the wet weather that we have had, we are still waiting for applications to come in, to allow farmers to complete the work that the funding is there for.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister knows that I am frustrated that there is no river catchment management plan, no clear advice for farmers about how they should manage water on their land and in the rivers, and no grants available for natural water management. Will the new flood resilience strategy include plans, advice and grants?

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

I absolutely take on board Willie Rennie’s points. I recently hosted a round-table meeting on river flood management. The conversation was about catchment areas and how we are going to mitigate flooding. We accept that we are dealing with issues that are to do with a changing climate, and we need to put in place resilience to allow us to deal with flooding.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the issuing of licences for scallop dredging activities that may cause harm to priority marine habitats, in light of reports of harm being caused to such habitats, including the herring spawning grounds off North Erradale and Gairloch. (S6O-03487)

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

Protecting our marine environment is vital for the viability of our marine industries and to halt the loss of biodiversity. The area near Gairloch where herring spawning recently occurred is mostly within the proposed Port Erradale priority marine features management area, where bottom-contacting mobile fishing gear would be prohibited. In line with advice from NatureScot, we are prioritising protection for those priority marine features, as part of a wider package of fisheries management measures for inshore marine protected areas.

In Scotland, fishing activity is regulated in line with Government obligations, including the national marine plan.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Prominent conservation charities such as the National Trust and the Marine Conservation Society have recently accused the Scottish Government of repeatedly missing deadlines to address the impacts of overfishing and climate breakdown on our seas. In the light of the judicial review, which found that the Scottish Government must take decisions in line with its national marine plan, will the Government recommit to the management of fisheries on an ecosystems basis and prioritise achieving that through a just and swift transition?

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

I will make a couple of points. The Scottish Government accepts the court’s ruling on the judicial review and we are working to put in place a practical and proportionate process to ensure that we can continue to licence in line with that judgment. As we have also set out, there has been a long-term and on-going piece of work on our priority marine features, marine protected areas and the fisheries management measures in relation to that.

Putting in place the remaining measures that are required to protect those features and our marine protected areas remains a high priority for the Scottish Government. We want to achieve that as soon as possible. Developing the evidence base and effective fisheries management measures for more than 160 sites in the inshore area is a complex and challenging process, but it is a high-priority piece of work.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Jamie Halcro Johnston has a supplementary.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Apologies for being a little late into the chamber, Presiding Officer.

The cabinet secretary wrote to me about the squid derogation and said that there was neither evidence to support it nor evidence to oppose it, and that, consequently, a pilot would be undertaken. Will the pilot be undertaken and concluded in time for next year, so that the squid derogation, if feasible, will be allowed?

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

I know that officials have been meeting the fisheries interests in Orkney in relation to the derogation, and we are keen that any proposals should progress as quickly as possible. I cannot set out a definitive timescale or what that will look like at the moment, but I am more than happy to follow up with the member on that.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

With reference to herring spawning areas such as those off Gairloch, is there not an opportunity to work with the fishing community to put in place practical measures that would enable the quick closure of fish spawning areas for the duration of the event, so that no damage is done to juvenile stocks?

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

Rhoda Grant makes a really important point about other measures that we can undertake. We get advice from NatureScot on that work. As I have already outlined in response to the question from Ariane Burgess, we have an on-going complex and challenging piece of work on priority marine features, marine protected areas and the fisheries management measures, which is looking at that. Taking that strategic approach to herring spawning and spawning grounds is helpful in relation to the evidence gathering and the subsequent decisions about protection. That work is continuing alongside, and helping to inform, the wider work that is going on in that area.

I am more than happy to consider or discuss further any proposals with the member, while recognising that priority marine features and marine protected areas are the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy—although there is a strong read-across to my portfolio, too.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government what place human ecology, specifically a focus on the relationship between the natural environment and the social environment, has in its rural affairs policy development. (S6O-03488)

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

The Scottish Government recognises that the health of our economy and society are closely linked to the quality of our natural environment. We are integrating a natural capital approach to ensure that our decisions take that into account. Our national strategy for economic transformation embodies those principles through its ambition to rebuild Scotland’s natural capital as part of our vision for a wellbeing economy. That is a public and a private responsibility, and we are taking action to ensure that investment in natural capital is of high integrity.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Since 1990, the Scottish National Party has supported the Brundtland commission principles with regard to the environment, the economy and quality of life for our rural communities. Does the cabinet secretary accept that care is needed to ensure that organisations—and, specifically, hedge funds—do not access Government funds merely to use them to increase resource value and trade in carbon credits, rather than to serve the environmental and economic needs of our local communities?

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

Michelle Thomson raises a hugely important point. Investment in restoring and protecting Scotland’s natural environment will be essential if we are to address the nature and climate emergencies at the pace and scale that are required.

However, that is both a public and a private responsibility. We are committed to ensuring that all investment in natural capital is done in a responsible way, and that it contributes to community benefits and the robust environmental outcomes that we need to see from that investment.

Building on the interim principles for responsible investment in natural capital that we published in 2022, our forthcoming natural capital market framework will set out the requirements for all market participants to contribute to our vision for the values-led, high-integrity, responsible investment in natural capital that we all want to see.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

With regard to rural affairs policy development, will the cabinet secretary provide an update on how the proposals to create a new national park are progressing? Will she provide commitments that, should any new national park be created, including in Galloway, its focus will be on food security, food production and agricultural activity; that she will include the communities that will be most impacted by the proposals for the park; and that national parks will not be a barrier to rural communities?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask that the cabinet secretary focuses on the human ecology impacts in that area.

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

I will try to, Presiding Officer.

A number of key points were raised in that question. First, I reiterate that the Government takes food security and our food production seriously. That is why we set out in our vision for agriculture the importance of food production, as well as of tackling the climate and nature emergencies. Food security is critically important, which is why we established a food security unit in the Scottish Government.

Emma Harper mentioned national parks, and I fully appreciate the concerns that she has raised on that issue. It is important to set out a few points about the process for parks. The deadline for nominations from communities and organisations for their areas to be considered was 29 February. The applications that we received are being appraised against the criteria that were published in the appraisal framework.

That includes the local support criterion. Nominations were required to set out who had been involved with the development of the nomination and to demonstrate the level of support for the proposal. Applicants were also asked to set out how they had engaged with local communities in the process, and to highlight details of any opposition or concerns that they had encountered.

Following the completion of that process, we will decide which of the nominations should be taken forward to the next stage. There is then quite a detailed process—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will have to ask you to perhaps write to Emma Harper on the question, which was slightly off the main question in any event.

Question 6 is from James Dornan, who joins us online.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Government what analysis has been undertaken of the impact of Brexit on agriculture, in light of the National Audit Office’s report on developing post-Brexit border arrangements. (S6O-03489)

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

Brexit has had an extremely damaging impact on agriculture. It means that we no longer have multiyear certainty over funding, so farmers and crofters are facing difficult long-term planning. It has resulted in trade deals, such as those with Australia and New Zealand, that have disadvantaged our industry. It has disrupted supply chains, created new trade barriers and driven up food prices, exacerbating the cost of living crisis, particularly for rural communities. It has meant that we have had to expend resource on new biosecurity protections for Scotland via the border target operating model. No wonder Scotland voted to remain in the European Union.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

It is clear from that response that Scotland’s communities and businesses are being asked to pay a heavy price for being a part of broken Brexit Britain. Brexit is an ideologically driven disaster that we did not vote for but had forced on us anyway. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is clear that only the Scottish National Party can be trusted to steer Scotland through this nightmare, which the Tories forced on us and which Labour is content with?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Minister, please answer in the context of the original question.

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

Yes, I agree. Those decisions have pushed up household costs, hit the economy hard and cut the money that is available to spend on public services, not least the national health service, and on support for businesses. I will go further and say that the simple truth is that the only way to protect Scotland from such Westminster folly is for decisions about Scotland to be made in Scotland, and the only way to deliver that is with the SNP and independence.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Vets play a vital role in relation to border controls, which is important on the back of Brexit. Will the minister update the Parliament on the plans to introduce a Scottish veterinary service? I have heard a rumour that that vital policy announcement from the SNP is about to be scrapped.

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

I would have to come back to Tim Eagle on that. I do not know the answer to that question. [ Interruption .]

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to tackle wildlife crime. (S6O-03490)

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

I am sorry, but I did not hear the question.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Chapman, would you please repeat the question?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to tackle wildlife crime.

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

Tackling wildlife crime remains a priority for the Scottish Government. The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 builds on other legislation that we have introduced in recent years and contains a number of key changes to help to tackle wildlife crime. The investigative powers of the Scottish SPCA will act as a strong and robust deterrent to wildlife crime. I am also pleased to note that the annual wildlife crime report that was published in April has shown a 7 per cent decrease in the number of recorded offences from the previous reporting year.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

A few weeks ago, a young satellite-tagged hen harrier disappeared in suspicious circumstances in the Angus glens. Indeed, the north-east had the highest number of wildlife offences in 2020-21 and the second highest in 2021-22, which is the last year for which data is available. Many organisations, including internationally respected ones such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, are concerned that wildlife crime is not being taken seriously enough. Does the minister believe that investigatory and enforcement bodies have what they need, both in terms of resources and policy direction, to address wildlife crimes, including poisoning, shooting and illegal trapping of birds of prey?

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

Clearly, the Scottish Government takes wildlife crime very seriously. That is why we increased the powers of the SSPCA. We will always do everything that we can to protect against wildlife crime.

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

During the autumn, a golden eagle mysteriously vanished in the Borders and is now believed to have been shot. Named Merrick, she was part of the prestigious south of Scotland golden eagle project. I have visited the project and know about the time and dedication that are required to bring chicks to maturity and gradually introduce them to the wild. A satellite tag, blood and feathers were found where Merrick was last tracked—near Heriot, in my constituency—indicating that she was shot, bled badly and was killed, with her body and her tag removed. Police Scotland has worked with land managers, raptor workers and the public as part of the investigation, but can the minister advise whether any progress has been made in identifying the culprits?

I add that most gamekeepers and land managers are good folk and that it is the bad guys and women whom we want to get. If no progress has been made, what other steps can be taken, for example, through whistleblowing?

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

At the moment, I cannot give any further information about whether somebody has been identified as doing that. However, Christine Grahame’s comment about the gamekeeping community being part of the solution is vital, and I said that during the passage of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. Gamekeepers have the most to lose through being discredited because of such crimes, but they are also the people who are best placed to help the Scottish Government, the Scottish police service and everyone else to cut out such crimes. That will actually turn around the narrative to the benefit of those in that community, and I encourage them to be part of it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can squeeze in question 8 if I get succinct questions and answers.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what impact the ending of the Bute house agreement will have on its rural policy. (S6O-03491)

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

The ending of the Bute house agreement will have no impact on our determination to continue to deliver for rural Scotland. The Government is committed to building a vibrant, sustainable and inclusive rural economy, and we will set out practical steps to deliver on the First Minister’s priorities in the forthcoming programme for government.

We have already taken forward a range of action to support rural Scotland, where we have the powers to do so, such as through the rural and islands housing action plan, the addressing depopulation action plan and the agricultural reform programme.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

Under the Bute house agreement, the Scottish Government committed to introducing highly protected marine areas, which would have, in effect, instituted a fishing ban on waters around Scotland. Although those plans were scrapped due to widespread opposition, in January, the Scottish Government’s climate change national adaptation plan proposed introducing

“fisheries closures ... in offshore waters between 400-800m depth by 2027”.

Now that the Bute house agreement has ended, will the cabinet secretary abandon those plans to close offshore fisheries?

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

On the point that Annie Wells raised on HPMAs, I hope that she welcomes the fact that, after listening to the results of our consultation, we decided that we would no longer take forward that policy. We heard the message loud and clear about the engagement that our coastal and island communities want on these important issues. We will continue to take that approach. We have a number of forums, including our fisheries management and conservation group and our regional inshore fisheries groups, through which we will continue to engage as we develop policy.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. I apologise to the few members whom I was unable to call in the light of time constraints.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the health secretary has had with local health and social care partnerships regarding minor injuries units. (S6O-03492)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

My officials and I regularly meet national health service boards to discuss the performance and resilience of urgent and unscheduled care services. As Mr Burnett will know, decisions on how to deliver healthcare services are, ultimately, for local health boards and integration authorities to make.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the three minor injuries units in Huntly, Fraserburgh and Peterhead are closing overnight to save money. There are now concerns that the Grampian medical emergency department service will be reduced or cut from Huntly completely. All of that would be contrary to what the community was told at the start of the closures.

NHS Grampian is underfunded by more than £77 million, and constituents are extremely worried that this is a sign of more cuts to come. Will the cabinet secretary at least pause the closures to allow there to be meaningful consultation? Will he commit to providing the funding that is needed to keep those services open?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Obviously, I expect local decisions to be based on patient need, demand and the sustainability of safe services. The MIUs at Jubilee hospital in Huntly, Peterhead community hospital and Fraserburgh community hospital are remaining open from 7 am to 7 pm, seven days a week.

If Mr Burnett wishes there to be further investment in the health service, he could talk to his colleagues in the United Kingdom Government, who passed on a cut to health services in NHS England and a cut to our block grant. In spite of that, we have decided to invest in our health boards through a 3 per cent real-terms increase in funding. However, pressures remain, which is why difficult decisions are having to be made across the board. We will look at what we can do to continue to support the provision of sustainable, safe and good services to communities across Scotland.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Waiting times in accident and emergency departments in Glasgow have been the worst on record this year. Twenty-nine A and E consultants at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital have written to the watchdog to raise serious patient safety concerns, and the Glasgow integration joint board is already proposing cuts, which would create backing up in A and E departments. Given all those pressures, will the cabinet secretary consider the option of extending the opening hours of the minor injuries units at Stobhill hospital and the New Victoria hospital in Glasgow to relieve the pressure on national health service A and E departments?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As I said, such decisions are for local boards and integration authorities, but Mr Sweeney’s suggestion is one that can be considered.

We are seeing stabilisation in relation to the four-hour accident and emergency waiting time. I want to see continued improvement on that, which is why we are supporting interventions across the board to divert people from accident and emergency departments—if they do not need to be there—through the flow navigation centres that we are supporting and the additional capacity that we are providing, which I saw at Edinburgh royal infirmary yesterday, with regard to the more minor support that is required to come through our accident and emergency departments. We are also trying to provide the support that we wish to see at the back end of hospitals to address delayed discharges, so that the flow of patients through hospitals is better in order to support a faster process at the front door—our accident and emergency departments.

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

I thank the cabinet secretary for his update on discussions with local health and social care partnerships. Will he provide an update on the impact of the Scottish Government’s national urgent and unscheduled care collaborative in supporting the treatment of minor injuries?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Through our collaborative programme, we are supporting boards to implement changes that will target the key challenges in their systems, recognising that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, which is why local decision making is so important. That includes ensuring that patients receive the right care at the right time in the right place, by improving access to flow navigation centres, which have been established in every mainland health board area to provide expert clinical advice, referrals to alternative services and, when necessary, scheduled appointments at accident and emergency for care that is not deemed to be an emergency, such as minor injuries.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Ayrshire and Arran. (S6O-03493)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

No one who is medically fit to leave should be in hospital, for both their own health and wellbeing and the efficient and effective running of the system. Recent discussions that I have had with my health board covered the issue that the fairly high number of delayed discharges is due to legal reasons, and that point was echoed on a Health, Social Care and Sport Committee visit to Skye. Will the Scottish Government take forward any work to raise awareness of power of attorney requirements or to simplify that process, to ensure that no one is in hospital for longer than they need to be?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Ruth Maguire for drawing attention to a really important area, which we touched on in the committee last week. Ruth Maguire is right that, consistently, about 20 per cent of delayed discharges relate to adults with incapacity. In our response to the Scottish Mental Health Law Review report, which was published in June last year, we committed to establishing a mental health and capacity law reform programme. We are due to publish the first delivery plan under that programme shortly.

Our main priority for early law reform centres on updating the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, and work has already begun to consider options for addressing long-standing gaps in law that relates to adults with incapacity to ensure stronger rights, protections and safeguards. That will include work on promoting and simplifying powers of attorney. However, we all have agency in that regard, so the work that Ruth Maguire is doing to raise awareness could be echoed by members across the chamber.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

In my recent discussions with NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which is obviously under extreme pressure, it said that there is now a critical need for an information technology system that communicates across primary and secondary care and pharmacy, as well as across NHS boards. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the urgency of that problem and that addressing it is a crucial first step in tackling the crisis in the NHS? If so, what is the Scottish Government doing to deliver an IT system that is fit for purpose?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Having greater access to information across health and other statutory services and having the ability to share data are incredibly important to ensuring that we can respond most effectively across all statutory services and have the collaboration that we wish to see with community and voluntary services that support our work across health and social care. We will therefore continue to support work on updating our IT systems. Of course, that work would be much easier if we had the capital to make it happen. That has been hindered by a projected cut in capital from the UK Government of £1.3 billion over the next three years.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to restart the GP sustainability loan scheme, including by what date it expects to restart the scheme. (S6O-03494)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We greatly value the contribution that general practice makes to the nation’s health and want to ensure that general practitioner practices have the support that they need. That is why we intend to resume tranche 1 of the sustainability loan scheme in 2024-25, once we have completed the disbursement of funds for loans that are already completed and have confirmed the budget. That will likely not be until midway through the financial year.

Our preference remains to continue the loan scheme into tranche 2 and beyond. However, that will depend on whether the United Kingdom Government resumes the allocation of financial transactions capital—under the loans scheme that comes from the UK Government—for Scottish Government disbursement.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer, but Scotland’s GP services are in an alarming state. People are finding it harder and harder to get appointments, and the Scottish Government is failing to deliver on its commitments to deliver more GPs.

We have lost almost 100 practices in less than a decade. Now, with the indefinite pause on the loan scheme, a further 30 GP practices describe the situation as “precarious”. Can the cabinet secretary give those practices and their patients any assurance that those crucial services will not be closed?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The facts are that we in Scotland have more GPs per head of population than anywhere else in the UK and a record level—1,200—of GP doctors in training. [Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members!

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The fact that 90 per cent of all health interactions happen in primary care is why I said that we greatly value the contribution that general practice makes across all elements of primary care to support the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. We know that the complexity with which people are arriving at our GP surgeries is putting great pressure on them. That is why we support the sustainability loan scheme and want to see the redisbursement of funds later this year, and it is why we wish to go beyond tranche 2. A lot of that will depend on decisions that are made elsewhere, but we will keep investing in training and support for our primary care services, because we need them more than ever. I want their services to expand, not retract.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the update on the GP sustainability loan scheme. Will the cabinet secretary outline any correspondence with the UK Government regarding reinstating funding for the scheme, following significant reductions, particularly prior to the dissolution of their Parliament?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Since 2022-23, the Scottish Government has seen a 62 per cent reduction in what is described as the financial transactions allocation, which relates to loans that allow us to invest in particular areas of provision. Ahead of the autumn statement in November and the spring statement in March, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government called for the UK Government to provide clarity about the future of our financial transactions allocation and to increase investment in capital projects. However, the UK Government has provided no clarity and no additional capital for FT funding for Scotland. Coupled with our real-terms reduction in capital funding, we will have to continue making tough decisions to reprioritise our infrastructure pipeline to ensure that we spend within the limited funding that we have available.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Lothian local medical committee said in a statement that half of GP practices in Lothian have received bills for their facilities totalling £1.6 million per year, which is likely to lead to reduced staffing. While GPs are being excessively charged, a practice in East Calder has staff wearing wellies because of a leaky roof. Repair is nowhere in sight. Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government is working to restore GPs’ confidence and give them facilities that are worthy of their important work?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Foysol Choudhury for highlighting the issue at East Calder, which I visited with local representatives Hannah Bardell MP and Angela Constance MSP earlier this month. I saw the very situation that he outlined. I would be more than happy to share with him the work that I have asked my officials and Lothian NHS Board to embark on. I recognise the challenges that are there, as there are in other medical centres across Scotland, for which we wish to see further capital investment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to reduce NHS waiting times. (S6O-03495)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As Jackie Baillie knows, an initial investment of £30 million has been targeted at a series of national and local plans to reduce pandemic backlogs by maximising the use of local and national resources across Scotland.

We have committed the majority of that first £30 million of the £300 million over three years to support the reduction of long waits for appointments—by 100,000—diagnostics and treatment in specialties including cancer, dermatology, ENT—ear, nose and throat—general surgery, gynaecology, ophthalmology, orthopaedics and urology.

The majority of the additional activity will take place between now and autumn this year. We will continue to work with the national centre for sustainable delivery—CFSD—and local health boards to build on national and regional working, embed good practice and reduce variation to ensure equity of access to care across Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Yesterday’s figures show that the Scottish National Party’s plan is simply not working, as more than 840,000 people are now on waiting lists. That is almost one in six Scots. More shocking still is the fact that more than 87,000 people have been waiting more than a year, which is 15,000 more than there were at this time a year ago.

In July 2022, Humza Yousaf announced a series of new targets to eradicate the longest waits. Not a single one of them has been met. Indeed, NHS England has only 232 cases waiting more than two years whereas, by contrast, the equivalent figure in Scotland is 7,140.

That situation simply cannot continue. Will the cabinet secretary come clean with the people of Scotland and concede that his Government’s NHS recovery plan is not working and that it urgently needs to go back to the drawing board?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

No, I will not, because the figures that Jackie Baillie quoted are not directly comparable. She needs to be careful in how she uses the figures so that she does not fall foul of the Office for National Statistics.

I set out the investments that we are making to bring down waits. On the longest waits, we have seen significant progress, which will be enhanced by the investments that we are making in national treatment centres, by the first £30 million that I spoke of and by the new theatre scheduling technology that I announced yesterday.

However, waiting lists are not unique to Scotland, as much as Jackie Baillie would like to pretend that they are. The extension of her logic would be to say that the record waiting lists in Wales are purely the fault of the Welsh Government. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members!

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am much more generous to my Welsh Government colleagues in respect of the reasons why we see record waiting lists in Wales.

I prefer the logic of Jackie Baillie’s colleague Wes Streeting on the reason for the health service pressures across the United Kingdom. He said last week, and repeated in the media round this morning, that

“all roads ... lead ... to Westminster”,

and that the decisions that are being taken in the UK have a detrimental impact on the health services in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. That is why we need a UK Government that will not just follow Tory spending austerity but will invest in the health service, as the Scottish Government is doing with record levels of investment and a rise in investment.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call James Dornan, who joins us remotely.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Cabinet secretary, given your comments, you clearly share Mr Streeting’s concerns regarding the sustainability of funding. Will you give us an update on the latest engagement with the UK Government in that regard?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

First, members are required to speak through the chair. Secondly, we should have had Mr Dornan on camera but we did not.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am sorry that we did not see Mr Dornan’s sonsie face.

In 2024-25, our additional health investment—[ Interruption .] There is Mr Dornan. In 2024-25, our additional health investment exceeds the consequentials that have been received. However, the nature of current funding arrangements means that UK Government decisions on additional investment in health are critical to our ability to support growth in NHS funding.

My predecessor wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December, urging him to provide investment to support reform and financial sustainability. The chancellor’s spring statement provided health consequentials of just £237 million—less than the £470 million in-year health funding that we received for 2023-24 and less than is needed, given the challenges that we face. Therefore, I wrote to the Prime Minister last week, highlighting again the importance of investment in health and certainty about that investment to support NHS services and staff, which continue to be under extreme pressure across the whole UK.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This cannot be deflected: people who have been referred to NHS Tayside’s neurology service face waits of up to 98 weeks on treatment for nerve damage, multiple sclerosis and a host of other serious conditions. The situation pre-dates the pandemic, when the board paid private clinics in order that it could just tread water. Now, NHS Tayside is being asked to shave an extra £16.5 million from its budget. Will the cabinet secretary outline how those unacceptable waiting times in NHS Tayside will improve?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is unacceptable that anyone is having to wait too long for services, so I apologise to them for that.

We are making investments in our health service, with a 3 per cent real-terms increase to our health boards, which was not passed on to the NHS in England. Lack of budget hampers our ability to make the further investments that we need to make beyond those that we have made. We recognise that, even with a real-terms increase to our health boards, they are still under substantial pressure because of the complexity of the conditions with which patients are arriving.

We will continue to make investments and we will continue to support NHS Tayside and others in the work that needs to be done to reduce those waits, but it would be much easier and would be help a lot more if we had a supportive UK Government that was willing to invest in the health service and allowed us to do the same in Scotland.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to reduce any health inequalities, specifically in relation to the uptake of cervical cancer screening appointments. (S6O-03496)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government remains committed to improving the uptake of cervical screening and to tackling inequalities within the national screening programmes.

As Carol Mochan might be aware, we funded Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust to carry out a two-year programme to understand the barriers that are preventing cervical screening uptake. We will embed that learning across the programme. We are deeply saddened by the news of the closure of Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust and we acknowledge the incredible work that it has carried out over the past 25 years to improve access to and uptake of cervical screening, as well as its visibility. We continue to work with colleagues across the screening programme to understand the impact that the trust’s closure will have and what steps, if any, will be needed to address them.

We also commit £1 million annually to tackling inequalities within the cancer screening programmes, and in July last year we published the “Scottish Equity in Screening Strategy 2023-2026” with National Screening Oversight Scotland, thereby providing direction and focus on tackling screening inequalities.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

As we know from the most recent annual statistics, there was inequality of more than 10 percentage points difference between uptake in the most deprived and least deprived areas. That stark and divisive inequality serves as a reminder that under this Government, sadly, our postcode can still determine our health outcomes. Can the minister update the Parliament on when we might expect wider roll-out of self-sampling—in particular, in communities where uptake of existing screening services is lower?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree that that is an important area to look at. We have been working with the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which is an independent expert advisory group that advises all four United Kingdom nations on screening. We recognise the potential of that. In the meantime, we have had a study in Dumfries and Galloway, and we are in the process of reviewing it alongside the YouScreen study that was done in England. The results of that review are expected later this year.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what role national health service boards have in the monitoring and minimising of dispensing errors by community pharmacies. (S6O-03497)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Health boards have local systems in place to encourage the immediate reporting of dispensing errors or incidents. Those reports enable health boards to understand the causes of incidents, share learning to improve patient safety and minimise the risk of recurrence. In addition, NHS Education for Scotland provides guidance on how to develop and undertake a significant event analysis process and embed it as an improvement tool, with the aim of improving care and learning from patient safety incidents and near misses, such as dispensing errors.

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

A constituent of mine was subject to four dispensing errors, including being wrongly supplied antipsychotic drugs, and important heart medication being missing. Although we ultimately got reassurances from the pharmacy in question, it was worrying to discover that the errors were not reported to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and that reporting is wholly voluntary. The system is reliant on inspections from the General Pharmaceutical Council. Will the minister review the concerns that I have raised and consider a more robust and mandatory system for the reporting of dispensing errors in community pharmacies to NHS boards in Scotland?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Mr Doris for raising an important issue that really should not have arisen. All health boards should ensure that robust systems are in place for reporting dispensing errors. I am aware that the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde investigated the instances of dispensing errors as highlighted by Mr Doris and is taking steps to ensure that they are not repeated. As Mr Doris pointed out, the General Pharmaceutical Council is a regulatory body and has powers to conduct inspections of pharmacies to assess whether they are meeting the required standards.

The chief pharmaceutical officer’s strategy, “Achieving Excellence in Pharmaceutical Care: A Strategy for Scotland”, committed to providing resources to support the safer use of medicines. We are working to ensure that quality improvement is integral to the community pharmacy contractual arrangements. I regularly meet Community Pharmacy Scotland, and I will put the issue on the agenda for our next meeting.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 7 comes from Collette Stevenson, who joins us remotely.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Lanarkshire, and what was discussed. (S6O-03498)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire, to discuss matters of importance to local people, including my constituents.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I have been contacted by a constituent who is struggling to get access to an insulin pump. Will the cabinet secretary set out the actions that the Government has taken in recent years to advance diabetes care? Will he outline what recent discussions the Government and health boards have engaged in to ensure that diabetic technology is as accessible as possible, particularly in the current challenging financial circumstances?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Collette Stevenson for raising an important area of preventative work in healthcare.

The Scottish Government is aware that diabetes technologies can significantly improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes. Between 2016 and 2022, we invested £29.6 million of additional funding to support the increased provision of diabetes technologies, and we commissioned the accelerated national innovation adoption pathway to establish a national team, with the aim of rolling out technology faster and more efficiently across Scotland.

I am also delighted to confirm that, yesterday, we announced £8.8 million of funding for 2024-25 to expand access to diabetes technologies to all children and young people with type 1 diabetes and to increase the provision for adults, which I hope will be helpful to Collette Stevenson’s constituents. That investment will allow us to continue developing innovative and preventative care models for diabetes in Scotland that have a focus on digital pathways and peer support.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We can squeeze in question 8, provided that we have succinct questions and answers.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what estimate it has made of the total annual cost of alcohol harm in Scotland, including to the national health service and healthcare, in light of the Institute of Alcohol Studies reporting that the annual cost of alcohol harm in England is £27.4 billion, which includes a £4.9 billion cost to the NHS in England. (S6O-03499)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The Scottish Government is determined to reduce alcohol-related harm, including by increasing the minimum unit price and through the record investment in treatment services that it provided in 2023-24. In 2023, the Social Market Foundation, based on research that was carried out by the York Health Economics Consortium in 2010 and the University of Aberdeen in 2012, estimated that the alcohol-related societal and economic costs in Scotland in 2021-22 could have amounted to between approximately £5 billion to £10 billion annually. That research also estimates that the health and social care-related societal costs arising from alcohol use in Scotland could be between £500 million and £700 million annually.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Experts and campaigners rightly want more preventative action, including minimum unit pricing uprating annually, restrictions on harmful alcohol marketing, and more and faster treatment and support for people living with alcohol use problems. Will the Government bring forward a debate or a statement to Parliament to address those points, to reduce the ever-increasing cost of alcohol harm on our public finances and the people of Scotland?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

We are working with a number of organisations across the board to look at how we tackle alcohol harm in Scotland. I am happy to share that information with Monica Lennon. We are also considering stakeholders’ calls for minimum unit pricing to be uprated on a yearly basis. I will come back to Parliament at a later date with an update on that work, which is currently under way.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio question time. There will be a brief pause to allow members to change positions, should they so wish.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There are four questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that amendment S6M-13365.1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion S6M-13365, in the name of Douglas Ross, which calls for the resignation of Michael Matheson, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There was an error with my phone. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Burnett. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There was something wrong with my phone. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Kidd. We will ensure that your vote is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-133651.1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is: For 116, Against 0 Abstentions 7.

Amendment agreed to

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that amendment S6M-13365.2, in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend motion S6M-13365, in the name of Douglas Ross, which calls for the resignation of Michael Matheson, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-13365.2, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is: For 68, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that motion S6M-13365, in the name of Douglas Ross, which calls for the resignation of Michael Matheson, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no, but my app would not refresh.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Duncan-Glancy. We will make sure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-13365, in the name of Douglas Ross, as amended, is: For 68, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament believes that Michael Matheson has been investigated by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB), and that decisions on sanctions are a matter for Parliament on the recommendations of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee; rejects the calls for sanctions that go far beyond those recommended by the committee; believes that the Parliament requires a sanctions process that can retain confidence across all political parties; recognises that concerns have arisen in relation to the lack of a consistent tariff of sanctions, the potential pre-judging of a case by an MSP who did not recuse themselves from the process, and the leaking of draft recommendations by the committee; agrees, therefore, that reform of the current arrangements for considering sanctions against MSPs is urgently needed, and further believes that the people of Scotland should have the same right to recall MSPs as they do to recall MPs from the UK Parliament, if they are found to have behaved inappropriately by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I propose to ask a single question on six Parliamentary Bureau motions. The final question is, that motions S6M-13394 to S6M-13398, on approval of Scottish statutory instruments, and S6M-13399, on committee membership, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, be agreed to.

Motions agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Disability Assistance for Older People (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Tribunals (Listed Tribunals) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Equality Act 2010 (Specification of Public Authorities) (Scotland) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Damages (Review of Rate of Return) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that Jeremy Balfour be appointed to replace Oliver Mundell as a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes decision time.

Members business will be published tomorrow, 30 May, as soon as the text is available.

Michael Matheson (Complaint)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-013368, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6. I remind members that the question on the motion will be put immediately after the debate, and I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

I call Martin Whitfield to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the committee.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

As convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have the responsibility of lodging and speaking to motions that seek the Parliament’s agreement to the committee’s recommendation of a sanction in instances where a breach of the conduct rules has occurred. I do so today, following the committee’s consideration of a report referred to it by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The report was referred to the committee after the SPCB concluded that there had been breaches of the code of conduct by Michael Matheson MSP, in relation to the use of mobile data via a SIM card and a device issued to him by the Parliament.

The SPCB had considered three excluded complaints—an excluded complaint is one that does not fall within the remit of the Ethical Standards Commissioner—and determined that breaches had occurred in respect of sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the code of conduct.

The committee considered the report at five meetings during March and May. It was tasked with considering the question whether to recommend any sanctions to the Parliament; it was not tasked with reviewing the SPCB’s investigation or decisions, as it does in other cases.

As members will be aware, the SPCB reached its decisions on 14 March 2024 and referred its report to the committee on 19 March 2024. The committee has sought to conclude its consideration as swiftly as possible, while ensuring that Michael Matheson was given the opportunity to make representations to us and that those representations and the SPCB report were fully considered.

In the Parliament’s 25 years, this is the first instance of an SPCB referral to a standards committee of the Parliament. The committee has set out in its report that it intends to reflect generally on the process for excluded complaints and has invited reflections from the SPCB. Those reflections do not evidence any concern that the process that was followed up to this point was not adequate or correct.

The committee sought to avoid any form of running commentary on the matter under consideration. I note the disappointment of the whole committee that, at the final stages of our consideration, speculation appeared in the media before we had reached decisions and concluded our considerations.

Since March, the committee has carefully considered all the information that was available to it in the SPCB’s report, in both written evidence and personal representations by Mr Matheson. That has enabled the committee to take into account a fuller picture, including the role of an outdated SIM card and the charges that were incurred; the circumstances of the usage; the allocation of £3,000 from Mr Matheson’s office cost provision; the knowledge that Mr Matheson had at the point of allocation; and the actions that Mr Matheson took between his stating that he had become aware that non-parliamentary usage had occurred and his personal statement to the chamber.

During our consideration, we noted areas where we believe that more action should have been taken on the part of the Parliament in relation to the replacement of an outdated SIM card. The committee also acknowledges the impact on Mr Matheson and his family of the significant media and other intrusions that took place. Following its consideration, the committee was unanimous in its view that sanctions should be recommended and that there should be a period of exclusion and a financial element to the recommended sanctions. It is, however, important to acknowledge, as set out in the committee’s report, that two members of the committee, Alasdair Allan and Jackie Dunbar, noted that they agreed with the financial element but considered that it was in the higher range of available sanctions.

The one area on which there was not unanimous agreement was the duration of the period of exclusion. After discussion, the committee was not in a position to give a unanimous recommendation on a suspension period from Parliament. A majority of members of the committee agreed that a duration of 27 days was appropriate. As set out in the committee’s report, some members of the committee—Oliver Mundell, supported by Annie Wells—had originally supported a longer period of exclusion. Others—Alasdair Allan and Jackie Dunbar—supported a shorter period, as, in their view, the period was

“extremely severe when compared to previous cases.”

The issues under consideration by the committee are ultimately about the use of public finance, those funds being used only for legitimate purposes, the degree of trust that there must be both in and outside the Parliament, and the ethical standards with which members must conduct themselves in all matters, as articulated in the Nolan principles and the code of conduct. Any failure to meet those standards has an adverse impact on the reputation of the expenses scheme, members and the Parliament as a whole.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6), Complaint against Michael Matheson MSP (SP Paper 597), and agrees to impose the sanctions recommended in the report that the Parliament excludes Michael Matheson MSP from proceedings of the Parliament for a period of 27 sitting days and withdraws his salary for a period of 54 calendar days to take effect from the day after this motion is agreed.

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

I start by saying that Michael Matheson was found by a cross-party group MSPs, including members of the Scottish National Party, to have breached the standards expected of him. The First Minister has not criticised the findings of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. Secondly, breaches such as this should be proportionately sanctioned. Michael Matheson has paid back the roaming costs, and there has been no cost to the public purse. His actions have had consequences. He lost his Cabinet position, despite being one of the longest-serving ministers of this Parliament. He has faced considerable reputational damage and significant intrusion in his personal life.

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

I find this very difficult. Because the Scottish Government amendment specifically references a referral to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, I, as an elected member of that body, identify a real or perceived conflict of interest, and will therefore recuse myself and will abstain on the amendment. If the motion is amended, I will abstain on that, too.

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

I thank the member for those comments, which are on the record. Presiding Office, I hope that you will look favourably on a slight extension to my comments.

Having established in my opening remarks that a breach occurred and that actions have consequences, I come to my third point, which relates to how the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has determined the sanctions. That is where we have grave concerns, which are captured in the amendment. Parliament must engage with those concerns—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

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

I have only four minutes. I would really value getting to the end of my speech, if that is okay.

Parliament must engage with those concerns, because to dismiss them now will have serious consequences for members who, in future, may themselves be the subject of the committee’s investigation.

There is a fundamental principle of natural justice at stake here. I say pointedly that I will base my remarks on the principle and not the personalities. Although I believe that Annie Wells should have resigned from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, as Stephen Kerr did, I do not want to see any abuse or harassment of MSPs—of Annie Wells or of Michael Matheson. The principle of fair, impartial and proportionate justice is captured in comments that Conservative member Stephen Kerr made.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way on that point?

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

If I could get to the end of these comments, I will.

Stephen Kerr, who was a member of the committee, said, and I quote at length:

“I concluded that I couldn’t meet the committee requirement to be unbiased towards Michael Matheson and his conduct in public office.”

He also said that it would have been wrong for him to sit on the committee,

“having made so many public pronouncements”,

and that

“for due process to be observed, I feel I must resign from the committee.”

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention, as she has mentioned me by name?

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

If the member wants to intervene, I ask him, was he right then, and is he right now?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way, but her amendment is nothing but an attack on the integrity of a member of the Parliament. Does she, of all people, having been through what she has been through during the past year—

Members:

She?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Kate Forbes. Given what Kate Forbes has been through during the past year, does she not recognise that this is an attack on an honourable member and that it is motivated by vindictive purposes?

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

I have been very clear that my remarks relate to the principle—not the personality—and I invite Stephen Kerr to reflect on that point precisely in his remarks.

In the light of Stephen Kerr's comments, my point is that other members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee who also made public comments should have recused themselves. Another member declared in public that Mr Matheson’s position was “untenable”, that he should be “sacked” or quit his role as a minister and that his admission should not be believed. By any measure, that clearly prejudges the complaint and the sanction.

As such, we invite the SPCB to initiate an independent review of the Parliament’s complaints process in order to restore integrity and confidence in its procedures, so that all MSPs can have confidence in the Parliament’s processes and procedures.

I move amendment S6M-13368.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises that Stephen Kerr MSP resigned from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in March 2024 as he had made public pronouncements on this case ahead of the complaint being heard by the committee; agrees with Stephen Kerr MSP that to have remained as a committee member ‘would have been wrong’ as he ‘couldn’t meet the test to be unbiased’; notes that Annie Wells MSP also made public pronouncements on this case in advance of the complaint being heard by the committee and has remained a committee member throughout; agrees that this runs the risk of the committee report being open to bias and prejudice and the complaint being prejudged, thereby bringing the Parliament into disrepute; further agrees with the disappointment expressed by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee that material relating to the committee’s deliberations appeared in the media prior to its decisions being reached and announced, and calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to initiate an independent review of the Parliament’s complaints process to restore integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures.”

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We are debating a report from the Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Its representation is made up of the three largest parties in the chamber and they have agreed a suspension that will seem lenient to the public, but it represents the most severe action ever taken against a member of the Parliament. Michael Matheson will be suspended for 27 days and his pay will be docked for 54 days. However, we must be honest—any other Scot would have been handed their P45 straight away. If someone was found to have falsely claimed £11,000 from their employer—in this case, the taxpayer—and it was then found that they had lied about it as part of a cover-up, they would have been sacked.

Let me be clear that this is not the harmless mistake that some have attempted to present it as. It was a deliberate and shameless attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Parliament and the public. It is an open-and-shut case that has already been considered in great detail by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the standards committee. The independent process exists for a reason, and it should be respected and upheld by members across the chamber. However, what we have seen from Scottish National Party members—specifically John Swinney, the First Minister—is an attempt to derail and undermine due process. That has been done for the sole purpose of protecting one of their own. I put on the record that the actions of John Swinney, the First Minister, towards my colleague Annie Wells would make Donald Trump blush. It is disgusting and disgraceful behaviour that demeans the office of First Minister. He has targeted members of an independent committee in the Parliament, and he is attempting to undermine due process with his bully boy tactics.

I have been looking at who has been in agreement with John Swinney during the process—and I do mean during the process, not now, as we have heard from the Deputy First Minister that she agrees with John Swinney. However, I can find nothing on the record to suggest that, at any point when the standards committee was considering the matter, Jackie Dunbar, Alasdair Allan or Ivan McKee—all SNP members—raised any concerns about Annie Wells being included. I then looked at Michael Matheson’s personal statement. He was asked to provide a personal statement to the committee. It runs to 10 pages and is 5,500 words long, but at no point is there any reference to his concern that Annie Wells was sitting on a committee to judge his fate.

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

Will the member give way?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will not. I am going to make this point. The only person—[ Interruption .] If I get time, I will take the intervention.

The only MSP who raised complaints during the process was John Swinney.

I was hoping to intervene on the Deputy First Minister, but I will let her intervene on me, because I am puzzled by the approach that we now have from the SNP. Are we really going to have the bizarre and perhaps unique approach in the Scottish Parliament where the SNP successfully amends a motion to the wording of its choice and then does not vote for the SNP-amended motion? Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that that is her plan this afternoon? [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please continue, Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am unsure. Are we in uncharted territory where the SNP— [ Interruption .]

I do not know whether I will get extra time for interventions, but maybe Alasdair Allan can tell us whether he has been whipped to vote for the SNP amendment. If that amendment is successful, will he vote the motion down?

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

Douglas Ross might have forgotten but, when I attempted to intervene on him some minutes ago, he was making the claim that I had never raised the issue of a member of the committee having tweeted about matters in advance. I was not going to say this, but I did privately raise the issue with the convener of the committee. That was supposed to be in private—not that everything from the committee was in private.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please conclude, Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Therefore, I was correct that there were no public statements from any MSP apart from John Swinney, and there was no answer—[ Interruption .]

Members should listen, so that we get this correct. SNP MSPs are going to vote to amend the motion to the wording of their choice, but they are not going to support the SNP-amended motion. It is bizarre in the extreme.

From the beginning, this has been a sorry saga for the SNP Government, but John Swinney had the opportunity to clean the slate. Instead, he chose to support his friend and colleague in direct opposition to the Scottish public. Unlike the SNP, the Scottish Conservatives will back the ban today because Michael Matheson has failed the public and this Parliament. His actions are indefensible but, amazingly, John Swinney and the SNP continue to oppose any punishment of their friend and colleague.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please conclude, Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

People across Scotland are watching in disbelief and they are watching the SNP.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its report on the complaint about Michael Matheson. It is difficult to sit in judgment of our colleagues but, given the severity of the situation, the committee arrived at a judgment that Mr Matheson should be excluded for 27 sitting days, with the further sanction of losing his salary for 54 calendar days. I believe that the committee’s recommendations reflect the seriousness of the member’s actions. What is not disputed is that sanction should be applied, and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee was unanimous on that point.

Michael Matheson used a parliamentary iPad inappropriately by allowing his family to use the device as a hot spot to watch football games while on holiday in Morocco. Those of us with experience of teenage children understand and have sympathy with the challenges. Had Michael Matheson confessed when he was first challenged, it might have led to one day’s uncomfortable headlines and an acknowledgment from all of us that there but for the grace of God we go. The problem was that there was no admission of error and no apology or contrition. Instead, there appears to have been denial, deflection and dishonesty.

Emails from Parliament staff to remind members about changing broadband providers were ignored for years. Emails to remind members to tell Parliament if they were going abroad, so that their broadband package could be adjusted, were also ignored. Most problematic of all is that questions from Parliament staff about the scale of the iPad bill were largely ignored and ultimately denied. Even the most diligent MSP cannot run up an £11,000 roaming charges bill, especially at Christmas, when constituents have other priorities. However, that pattern of denial continued, misleading Parliament, misleading the press and, ultimately, misleading the people of Scotland.

It is the cover-up, rather than the original sin, that is always the problem, and it is the contempt in his actions for the Parliament, the press and the public that I am most disappointed by. It is a profound error of judgment from someone whom I have always had a great deal of respect for, despite our being in different political parties. He is one of the class of 1999—we entered Parliament together—and he should have known better. Although I would clash with him regularly about health policy, I recognised his commitment to the national health service. However, that has all been swept away by his actions.

I am disappointed by the SNP’s amendment, but not surprised. It clearly cannot politically amend the scale of the sanction as it knows that it cannot win the vote. Instead, the amendment is an attack on the committee and, by extension, on the Parliament. This is about John Swinney protecting his friend. This is John Swinney undermining the integrity of the Parliament—something that he already has form on. This is about John Swinney putting party before country.

Ultimately, it should be for the people of Falkirk West to decide whether they want Michael Matheson to continue to represent them, but their voice is denied because the Parliament has no provision for a recall petition. I will discuss that in the debate that follows. It is surely an omission that we should rectify.

The public is right to expect the very highest standards from their MSPs, but Michael Matheson’s actions have brought our politics into disrepute, and John Swinney’s attitude in wanting to protect an SNP MSP adds fuel to the fire. It is truly a case of party before country every time with the SNP, so I hope that members will vote in support of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to restore integrity to our politics.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I hope to be brief in my comments. The Scottish Greens will support the sanction recommended by the committee, and Mr Matheson should be held accountable for his actions. Beyond that, I will lay out our concerns about the committee process in this case and in more general terms.

I believe that members who commented publicly on the guilt of the member being investigated should have recused themselves from the process. I believe that that should equally apply to anyone in the future who expresses their thoughts on the innocence or guilt of a colleague. There should also have been public condemnation before today of the leak of the potential sanctions on the day before the committee met.

More generally, the process needs reform. We do not, for example, take precedent into account. I know that the convener of the SPPA Committee and I disagree on that, and I am aware that there are differing opinions, but the situation is that, previously, an MSP who had been sanctioned for sexual harassment received a lesser sanction than the one that is in front of us today. I certainly hope that members in the chamber agree that harm to people should carry the greatest sanctions. Taking previous sanctions into account would allow us to ensure that sanctions are consistent.

We also allocate seats on the committee in the same way as for scrutiny committees. If we want it to be truly cross party and considered fair, the allocation of seats on the committee and its make-up need to be looked at to ensure fairness and to prevent politicisation of sanctions. The process at Westminster, although far from perfect, is better than the one that we have here and there are some aspects that we might be able to adopt.

I hope that, in the coming weeks, Parliament will be able to take a serious look at the process and have a serious conversation about how we fix and depoliticise the process.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We will vote in favour of the recommendation by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. However much we might dislike the outcomes, we will find ourselves in very difficult territory if we take a pick-and-mix approach to the recommendations of the Parliament’s established processes.

With regard to the concerns of the First Minister, although Annie Wells could have followed the course of action that was taken by Stephen Kerr, she was not required to do so by parliamentary standing orders.

On Kate Forbes’s amendment, I am troubled by the Government seeking to issue instructions with regard to the complaints process and its independence, especially in a case on which there was so much agreement.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee both agreed that Mr Matheson breached sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the code of conduct for MSPs. That conclusion was reached by all members of the committee, including those from the SNP.

All members of the committee, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson made an improper claim. All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to undertake a sufficient level of inquiry before submitting the claim. All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to abide by the policies adopted by the corporate body. All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to ensure that his parliamentary iPad hotspot facility was not used for non-parliamentary purposes to a significant extent.

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

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not just now.

All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to inform the corporate body, during the period 9 to 16 November 2023, that his previous statement was unsound. That was very grave. All members of the committee agreed on the financial penalty, and all members of the committee agreed that there should be a suspension.

The only disagreement was on the number of days for which Mr Matheson should be suspended. Oliver Mundell initially proposed a 54-day suspension to match the financial penalty. He made a second, compromise proposal to halve that to 27 days. SNP members did not make an alternative proposal and the 27 days was subsequently agreed by the committee.

The committee was in agreement nine times; only once there was disagreement. It is therefore wrong to undermine the whole process, especially when there was so much unanimity throughout that process.

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

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not just now.

However, importantly, there is a warning to those on the committee who voted for the tougher sanction. A new bar—a new standard—has been set. I take Gillian Mackay’s points about precedence. From my perspective, it will now be expected that the level of penalty that was agreed by the committee in this case will be applied in future cases of a similar nature and severity. It cannot be one rule for SNP MSPs who err and another rule for Conservatives, Greens, Labour or even—dare I say?—Liberal Democrat MSPs who breach the rules. Of course, not every complaint is exactly the same, but members of the committee will have to act fairly and consistently when applying future penalties.

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

As I outlined earlier, our fundamental disagreement is not on the principle that a breach occurred or that actions have consequences. Willie Rennie set out comprehensively where the areas of agreement are. Those principles have been established, and we agree. Instead, our amendment is about a third principle: the principle of fair, impartial and proportionate justice when it comes to sanctions.

All MSPs, now and in the future, need to rely on, trust and have confidence in the Parliament’s processes and procedures.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

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

I will not give way, thank you.

They need to know that we have in place a system in which Parliament and procedure matter more than politics. That should apply equally to members of every party, because every party has had members who have been subject to the process over the years, and all parties have demonstrated their ability to be impartial when it comes to the application of justice on fellow members.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way on that point?

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

The member has shared his views already, and I would like to complete my contribution.

Perhaps one of the highest-profile examples of that was at Westminster. The Labour MP Chris Bryant recused himself from presiding over the investigation into Boris Johnson. Referencing public comments that he had previously made about the then Prime Minister, he recused himself from the committee that was potentially going to be tasked with conducting the investigation.

He explained at the time that

“it is ... important that the House be seen”—

I repeat, “be seen”—

“to proceed fairly without any imputation of unfairness and that the whole House have confidence in the Committee of Privileges’ proceedings.”

That was despite also saying that he believed that he would have done everything in his power to ensure that the

“inquiry was fair, consensual and evidence based”.

That is because the perception of unfairness is just as damaging to justice as the fact of unfairness.

I believe that there is an opportunity for parties to work across the chamber to inspire confidence in our procedures. Surely, as we mark a quarter of a century of the Scottish Parliament, now is the time to do so.

In that vein, I note Jackie Baillie’s comments, and the Labour amendment in the next debate, about the recall of MSPs. If agreement can be reached, there is no reason why a form of recall cannot be introduced to this Parliament with cross-party support. That must be preceded by an independent process that is built on the well-established tenets of evidence-based, impartial and proportionate justice.

The recall process at Westminster is based on an entirely independent complaints procedure that has in-built rights of appeal. I believe that it is time for this Parliament, through the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, to initiate an independent review of the complaints process. Perhaps, on that, we can agree. The objective must be to ensure that members of the Scottish Parliament abide by the highest standards of integrity in public service, that they give confidence to the public that actions have consequences and that there is a process to determine that—a process that is free of bias, prejudice and politics.

I think that, out of this situation, we can work collectively to avoid bringing any of our procedures into disrepute and to ensure that they are fit for the future.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Martin Whitfield to wind up the debate on behalf of the committee.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I have, as expected, different views from those being expressed today. However, I would like to clarify some of the points that have been raised.

I will turn first to Willie Rennie’s contribution. I urge members in the chamber and people outside the Scottish Parliament to read the report in full. It is not the role of the committee to review the investigation that took place or the decisions that were reached. We were tasked with answering a question about whether there should be a sanction and about the extent of any sanction.

With regard to comments that have been made about the committee’s terms of reference, a lot of what we undertook we undertook privately. The Deputy First Minister has talked about the need for fair, impartial and proportionate justice. Let me rephrase that, I hope with her consent, into the world of natural justice.

One thing that the committee undertook before we started any evidence gathering was to discuss and agree the procedure that we, as a whole committee, would follow. Alasdair Allan did not serve on the committee at that stage, because of changes that had occurred within the Scottish Government, but the committee was unanimous in its view on how the matter was going to be taken forward. If there were concerns among committee members, that would have been the opportunity for them to express those views.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

It has been mentioned in the chamber that I raised no concerns about the remarks that were made about another committee member. Will the committee’s convener correct the record on that today? Will he also inform the chamber when the letters from John Swinney were shared with the committee? Those points are very important.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful to Jackie Dunbar for that intervention and for her role on the committee. She raises a number of points. With the greatest respect to the First Minister, the correspondence from Mr Swinney arrived after we had agreed the process that we would take forward and the make-up of the committee. The provisions for how a committee is made up are in our standing orders, which I know have now been published for people to see. With regard to the process by which we reached the decision that is expressed in the report—again I turn, with respect, to Willie Rennie—there was long and respectful discussion about periods of time that would or would not be put forward. Again, I would ask members and those outside the Parliament to read our report, which will give an explanation of where we got to.

There has been a question about a leak. Any leaks sit within the purview of the independent Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. If anyone has any information regarding that, that is the appropriate route to take.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I will decline, simply because of the passage of time.

It is important to reflect that we are dealing with matters of genuine and significant concern regarding the way in which members conduct themselves in their parliamentary duties and the ethical standards framework that we must uphold under the principles known as the Nolan principles. It is an honour to be elected to this place, but one of the consequences of that honour is the absolute obligation that we have to set higher standards for ourselves than we expect of those who have not been elected, and we must also uphold those standards. The committee is an important manifestation of that expectation.

That is how respect is developed and how it is maintained so that, when and if we have to ask our communities some of the hardest questions or ask them to take some of the hardest actions, we can do so without being selfish and with integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We are dealing with an extremely important situation. Questions have been posed to the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee but not answered by him. He has just talked about honour and respect. It is absolutely essential that members have the answers to the questions that Dr Allan and Ms Dunbar posed around what they said to the convener privately. The convener has not answered those questions, which are extremely pertinent to the matter that we are discussing today. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

So that we make the right decision, I would like to hear the convener, with honour and respect, answer those questions.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am sure that Mr Stewart is well aware that that is not a point of order and that members’ responses to questions or contributions in this chamber are entirely up to them.

That concludes the debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6.

There are two questions to be put. The first question is, that amendment S6M-13368.1, in the name of Kate Forbes, which seeks to amend motion S6M-13368, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to the vote on amendment S6M-13368.1, in the name of Kate Forbes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 68, Against 56, Abstentions 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that motion S6M-13368, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device will not connect to the digital voting system to confirm that I voted yes. I would like to see whether my vote has been registered.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I can confirm that your vote has been recorded, Mr Whitfield.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 64, Against 0, Abstentions 63.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6), Complaint against Michael Matheson MSP (SP Paper 597); agrees to impose the sanctions recommended in the report that the Parliament excludes Michael Matheson MSP from proceedings of the Parliament for a period of 27 sitting days and withdraws his salary for a period of 54 calendar days to take effect from the day after this motion is agreed; recognises that Stephen Kerr MSP resigned from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in March 2024 as he had made public pronouncements on this case ahead of the complaint being heard by the committee; agrees with Stephen Kerr MSP that to have remained as a committee member ‘would have been wrong’ as he ‘couldn’t meet the test to be unbiased’; notes that Annie Wells MSP also made public pronouncements on this case in advance of the complaint being heard by the committee and has remained a committee member throughout; agrees that this runs the risk of the committee report being open to bias and prejudice and the complaint being prejudged, thereby bringing the Parliament into disrepute; further agrees with the disappointment expressed by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee that material relating to the committee’s deliberations appeared in the media prior to its decisions being reached and announced, and calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to initiate an independent review of the Parliament's complaints process to restore integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I will allow those on the front benches a moment to change positions before the next item of business.

Michael Matheson

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is the debate on motion S6M-13365, in the name of Douglas Ross, which calls for the resignation of Michael Matheson. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We have just witnessed the Scottish National Party, under John Swinney, failing to vote for an amended motion that it drafted. Just to be clear to the public, the wording of the motion that has just passed, which every nationalist just failed to support, was the wording that the SNP Government asked the Parliament to agree to. We know that independence will be line 1 of the SNP manifesto. It seems that incompetence will be line 2.

SNP MSPs have just said to the public across Scotland that they believe that their friend and colleague should receive no sanction at all—nothing. They did not lodge an amendment to say that the sanction should be a suspension of fewer days or that his salary should be docked for a reduced number of days. They said nothing at all.

Up and down the country, people will look at that and wonder why the SNP politicians here today are supporting their friend rather than doing the right thing. I am struggling to understand the strategy behind that. I can only assume that SNP spin doctors are hoping that tomorrow’s headline is “It’s a guddle, not a fiddle”, but of course it is both: it is a guddle, because they have ended up not voting for the wording of the motion that they drafted themselves, and it is a fiddle, because Michael Matheson tried to claim £11,000 of taxpayers’ money and thought that he could get away with it. When he did not, he lied to cover up his tracks, and when he was found guilty by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and sanctioned by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of this Parliament, SNP MSPs refused to support that.

Now that the Scottish Parliament has agreed the guilt of John Swinney’s disgraced colleague and friend, the question of what happens next is the substance of this debate.

I notice that the First Minister has walked out. He does not want to take part in a debate about his colleague, who should resign for what he has done. That is quite telling.

The standards committee has issued the longest suspension—27 sitting days—ever given to an MSP. The committee can operate only within the rules of this Parliament, which, time and time again, we have found are out of date. Although the right to recall was introduced at Westminster more than a decade ago, no such opportunity exists here.

I know that some SNP MSPs would like to speak to the standards committee about procedures in Westminster and use their experience to frame the debate. One such MSP is Michael Matheson. In his personal statement to the committee, speaking about the independent nature of the House of Commons in looking at things and citing a House of Commons process such as the right to recall, he said:

“Should the committee give consideration to this at a later date I would be happy to assist in anyway, given my experience over the last five months.”

I hope that Michael Matheson is also happy to assist the committee with a right to recall. My colleague Graham Simpson is introducing a non-Government bill to introduce a right to recall here in the Scottish Parliament. He has consulted on it, and it is close to being ready to be introduced in this Parliament.

We need that right, because the sanction that has now been agreed by every MSP, apart from those on the SNP benches, would have led to a recall at Westminster. It is almost three times the length of suspension that requires a recall at Westminster. If an MP is suspended from the House of Commons for more than 10 days, their local constituents have the right to say whether they are fit to continue in their job.

As I said earlier, I strongly believe that Michael Matheson does not just need to be suspended for 27 days—he needs to be sacked. He must leave this Parliament.

Even if SNP MSPs do not agree with that, what is their objection to saying to the people of Falkirk West, “Judge Michael Matheson. Judge his conduct in this scandal in a by-election”? Michael Matheson can be the SNP candidate. If, as we have seen today, every SNP MSP supports Michael Matheson to receive no sanction at all, they should call a by-election and go out and campaign with him. They should knock on doors with Michael Matheson in Falkirk West and ask the people of his constituency whether they believe that he is trustworthy and has integrity. If any of the nationalist MSPs has integrity, surely they would agree with that.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Douglas Ross compared things with Westminster. Does he accept that the Westminster process is somewhat more independent and not run by other MPs?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am very glad that John Mason raised that point, because I read in Michael Matheson’s lengthy personal statement about his concerns with the process of the corporate body. I find it puzzling that Michael Matheson has been so dismissive of the process of the corporate body investigating Michael Matheson. Who was it that referred Michael Matheson to the corporate body for investigation? It was Michael Matheson.

If there is an issue with the system, it started with Michael Matheson referring himself to a body that he now thinks did not look at his claim in as appropriate a way as it could. However, we of course know that the corporate body looked at it in considerable detail. It looked at the facts of the case, and it is an open and shut case.

Michael Matheson could see that there were issues in his roaming bill. He actually said in his statement that he feels he was assisting Parliament in claiming £3,000 out of his office costs to pay for that bill. His story to this Parliament, the public and the press then repeatedly changed. We all remember nationalists lining up to say, “There’s nothing to see here. Draw a line under this and move on”. He had the support of the former First Minister and stayed in the Government for months.

The nationalists did not want to take interventions earlier, so I ask SNP members whether they really believe that the situation has been at no cost to the taxpayer. Let us not forget that Michael Matheson left the Government with a payment from the taxpayer of almost £13,000. The original bill that he tried to claim from the taxpayer was £11,000 but, because he resigned the day before the corporate body published its report, he got £13,000 from the taxpayer for resigning in disgrace.

However, resigning from the Cabinet and the Scottish Government is not enough: Michael Matheson should do the right thing and resign from the Parliament. I cannot understand how MSPs on the SNP benches—and, indeed, on the Green benches, given the Green amendment—are willing to continue to support someone who has brought our Parliament into such disrepute.

We know that the formal agreement between the SNP and the Greens has broken down, but we now seem to have the Bute house agreement 2.0. Strangely, the Government is not amending my motion. I am not sure that I can remember a case in which the Government did not want to amend a motion from the main Opposition party on our debating time. It has left that to the Greens.

If Mr Hepburn wants to intervene, I am more than happy to give way. I know that he is a new Minister for Parliamentary Business—perhaps he forgot to lodge an amendment—but does the SNP agree with my motion? Is that why the SNP does not want to amend it or is the party working with the Greens behind the scenes to contrive to vote it down?

People—not just in the Parliament but across Scotland—can see that Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater might have been kicked out of ministerial office but that the Greens and the SNP are still working closely together. In this case, it is not for the environment, for the climate or to do good for Scotland, as they often claimed that they would do, but to protect Michael Matheson. It is to protect someone who lied to the Parliament, said to the press and the public that there was nothing to see and continued regardless.