Scottish Parliament, 29 January 2015

275 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I see that everyone is watching the tennis today.

Wave Energy Scotland (Objectives and Budget)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in setting the objectives and budget for wave energy Scotland. (S4O-03961)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The objectives of wave energy Scotland can be found in the wave energy Scotland factsheet, a copy of which has been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

The operational costs of wave energy Scotland will be clarified as the model is developed, and significant funds will be made available from within the Scottish energy budget. Highlands and Islands Enterprise is currently preparing a business plan for wave energy Scotland, which will set out the strategy and governance arrangements and the range of skills and staff numbers needed for optimal effectiveness. We will announce the budget as soon as HIE has assessed the activities that require to be resourced. We expect the process to be concluded soon.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, shortly after Pelamis’s decision to go into administration, Aquamarine Power announced its decision to scale back its operations. Those were two hammer blows for the wave energy sector.

Aquamarine Power has been successful in achieving a number of important milestones in the development of its Oyster device. Support from the marine renewables commercialisation fund, overseen by the Carbon Trust, has been important to some of that success. However, there is currently no clarity whether agreed funding from the Carbon Trust is going to be released for works that have already been completed. That situation presents serious challenges for the company.

I ask Mr Swinney to advise us when a decision is likely to be made. Will he or the energy minister undertake to engage directly with the Carbon Trust to ensure that staff at Aquamarine Power are advised of the decision at the earliest opportunity?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I endorse the point that Mr McArthur makes about the significant achievements that have been made in the sector. It is a challenging sector and none of us could suggest otherwise, but there have been significant achievements made, which is why we have brought forward the wave energy Scotland proposal, as a means to ensure that those achievements are developed further. We are determined to ensure that what has been achieved can be protected and enhanced in the Scottish interest.

I will ask the energy minister to engage directly on his specific point about the Carbon Trust. If there is anything that we can do to assist the situation, we will ensure that it is done. I reiterate the point that I made in my first answer, which is that the Government is committed to ensuring that we make advances on those questions, and I will ensure that Parliament is kept up to date on the progress of wave energy Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

How many of the highly skilled people who were working at Pelamis—in my constituency—before its sad demise have been offered employment by wave energy Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I cannot give Mr Chisholm a definitive answer on that point because we are currently taking forward the preparations for wave energy Scotland. Those issues will be clarified once the business planning process is concluded by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. As I indicated in my response to Mr McArthur, we will of course keep Parliament up to date on those questions.

I assure Mr Chisholm, whom I know has pursued the issue vigorously on behalf of his constituents, that the wellbeing of and opportunities for those individuals are uppermost in the Government’s thinking at this time.

Organ Donations

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

2. To ask the Scottish Government what progress the national health service is making toward meeting the demand for organ donations. (S4O-03962)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

In 2013, the Scottish Government published “A Donation and Transplantation Plan for Scotland 2013-2020”. The plan sets out the ways in which the Government and the NHS plan to improve donation and transplantation in Scotland.

The plan builds on the very good progress made over the preceding five years. Since we started a programme of improvement, we have seen a 96 per cent increase in deceased organ donation and a 63 per cent increase in transplants, and the waiting list for a transplant has fallen by 25 per cent. Currently, 41 per cent of the Scottish population is on the NHS organ donor register, which is the highest percentage of any of the United Kingdom countries.

We have invested in the organ donation infrastructure in our hospitals by appointing additional specialist nurses and clinical leads for organ donation in every intensive care unit across the country. Organ donation committees have been established in all mainland NHS boards, with links established to the island boards. They are responsible for overseeing donation activity in their hospitals. We have also strengthened the Scottish organ retrieval team, which maximises the number of transplants by ensuring the timely and high-quality retrieval of organs from hospitals around the country.

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

The minister will be aware of public sensitivity over organ donations. What plans are there to continue to heighten awareness and participation by the public in that vital service?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Our document “A Donation and Transplantation Plan For Scotland 2013-2020” sets out our plans for the next few years. We will continue to run high-profile multimedia campaigns that are designed to raise awareness of organ donation; urge people to discuss their organ donation wishes with their families; and encourage them to join the register.

We will continue our targeted work with black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, building on what we have learned from the peer educator project that has been undertaken in Glasgow. In schools, we will continue to promote the use of our organ donation teaching resource pack, which was developed in line with curriculum for excellence. It has been highly evaluated by pupils and teachers and is available in an easy-to-use e-book format.

Our plan also sets out our intention to undertake a full consultation on potential approaches to increasing organ donation in Scotland.

North Ayrshire Economy

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to grow the North Ayrshire economy. (S4O-03963)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is committed to growing the North Ayrshire economy and creating employment opportunities by working closely with a range of delivery partners, including our enterprise agencies and North Ayrshire Council.

We have invested in health, education and connectivity infrastructure across North Ayrshire. We are supporting specific initiatives such as the enterprise area in Irvine, which has created more than 250 jobs. Our regeneration capital grant fund is supporting projects in Millport, Saltcoats and Ardrossan with the aim of creating 178 jobs and 14 training places. That kind of support is contributing to the recent significant improvement in North Ayrshire’s youth and overall employment rate.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Ayrshire has had particular difficulties following the loss of more than half its manufacturing jobs, amounting to 14,500 jobs lost in the decade to 2007 when the Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair was in office.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that North Ayrshire is becoming increasingly attractive for investments in the chemical manufacturing sector, with GlaxoSmithKline alone investing £95 million in the past three years, and that important infrastructure developments such as the Dalry bypass—the proposal for which has just undergone a public local inquiry—are vital to help to grow the North Ayrshire economy further?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree very much with Mr Gibson. As a matter of fact, I had one of my regular meetings with GSK just yesterday to discuss the sustained investment that the company has made in Irvine, which has created high-value employment in the North Ayrshire economy.

I am keen to find ways in which we can follow that very positive experience with GSK by encouraging other major employers to recruit and locate in North Ayrshire. It is welcome news that the public local inquiry into the Dalry bypass has concluded, and the reporter will now consider all the evidence. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the inquiry, and ministers will take decisions in the context of that outcome.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Alex Rowley has requested to speak. I take it that your question is on the North Ayrshire economy, Mr Rowley?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

Yes, it is on the economy—thank you, Presiding Officer.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On the North Ayrshire economy?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

I welcome the investment in the North Ayrshire economy. [Laughter.] Does the Deputy First Minister acknowledge that this week’s announcement from Tesco will have a devastating effect on many economies, not least that of Kirkcaldy?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If I may say so, I thought that Mr Rowley’s question was a triumph of parliamentary procedure—although it is not for me to judge on such matters.

In all seriousness, I say to Mr Rowley that the announcement about Kirkcaldy is the most significant, and the most serious, of Tesco’s announcements for Scotland. I had a discussion by telephone this morning with the leader of Fife Council, Councillor David Ross, on the implications of that decision. I have pledged to work jointly with Councillor Ross to advance the concerns that have been expressed about the local economy, and I have had representations from David Torrance to encourage me to do so. The Government will do all that it can to work in partnership with Fife Council to address what I recognise is a serious blow to the Kirkcaldy economy.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

You may say Mr Rowley’s question was a triumph, cabinet secretary. I could not possibly comment.

Carbon Taxes (Restoration-related Coal Production)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made with the proposal to exempt restoration-related coal production from carbon taxes. (S4O-03964)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Members will be aware of the outstanding legacy of surface mine restoration following the liquidation of the coal sector’s two largest companies—ATH Resources and Scottish Resources Group—in 2013 and, in turn, the major problem facing the councils concerned in dealing with the restoration legacy. With the correct controls in place, the innovative proposal to which Mr Ingram refers could provide a funding solution for the restoration of legacy opencast coal sites in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr Ewing had a discussion yesterday with the UK energy minister, Matthew Hancock, to discuss the proposal and pressed for prompt consideration of the issue by the UK Treasury. The proposal is worthy of serious and detailed consideration, and Mr Ewing obtained agreement from Mr Hancock to work closely to explore it.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, which is good news. However, he will be aware that failed opencast companies have left a bitter legacy in affected communities, including mistrust regarding permissions for coal extraction. What reassurance can the cabinet secretary provide that the proposal from Hargreaves Services, if approved by the Treasury, will deliver the full restoration that we seek and not more of the same problems?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I acknowledge the significant and serious issues that Mr Ingram raises and has raised persistently on behalf of his constituents who have been adversely affected by the opencast issue. The key comment that I made in my original answer included the words

“With the correct controls in place”.

I reassure Mr Ingram and his constituents that, by ensuring that the proper and effective controls are put in place to avoid a situation whereby we just have a repeat of the unacceptable legacy that we have had, we will be able to use the proposal from Hargreaves to rectify what is clearly a serious issue for Mr Ingram’s constituents.

We will continue to engage in discussion with the UK Government on the proposal, because it requires its support and endorsement. However, we will do that in a fashion that will ensure that we do not have a repeat of past performance.

Autistic Spectrum Disorder (Employment Support)

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to assist people with autistic spectrum disorder to gain employment. (S4O-03965)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I acknowledge the member’s continuing interest in issues related to autism and reassure him that employment opportunities for people with autism are a key priority in “The Scottish Strategy for Autism”, which was published in 2011. In addition to the existing support for young people with additional support needs, which includes activity agreements and targeted recruitment incentives, the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce recognised the need for more action and made specific recommendations to support young disabled people. We continue to work with local authorities to promote the development and adoption of the supported employment model across Scotland.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

In 2013, I joined the National Autistic Society Scotland as it launched its report “Count us in: it pays to listen.” The NAS pointed out in the report that although many people with autism are qualified and willing to work, they find that employers do not always offer support to allow employment to be sustained. The NAS called for the Scottish Government to engage with employer organisations to raise awareness of autism, the benefits of employing people with autism and the adjustments that should be made; and to encourage the inclusion of autism within diversity training courses. Will the Scottish Government continue to highlight those matters with businesses, employer organisations and training bodies to ensure that the many individuals on the autistic spectrum who want to gain and sustain employment are able to do so?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government fully recognises the importance of employer engagement, and we will continue to work with disability organisations and employers to raise awareness of autism and improve opportunities for employment for people with autism. It is our aspiration that, with the right support, people with autism are able to find suitable employment.

We are engaging with a number of stakeholders to support local initiatives to improve the employment opportunities that are available. Skills Development Scotland is working with Barnardo’s, Remploy and training providers to increase the take-up of modern apprenticeships and employability fund opportunities. In addition, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is working with Enable and the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability to improve outcomes for disabled learners. We have allocated £3 million in response to the recommendations from the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce for a skills package, which includes specific activity to address underrepresentation across our employability programmes. We will continue to work in partnership to enable more people with autism to gain employment.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 6, in the name of Anne McTaggart, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran (Meetings)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Ayrshire and Arran and what matters were discussed. (S4O-03967)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives from all health boards, including NHS Ayrshire and Arran, to discuss matters of importance to local people.

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

I am aware that the cabinet secretary was recently at University hospital Crosshouse, where she met her health and social care teams. Will she advise on how progress towards the integration of health and social care is benefiting my constituents in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Chief officers are in place in each partnership and are working across the national health service board area to develop their strategic commissioning plans. Work is under way with professionals, clinicians and others in localities to support the strategic commissioning process. The integration schemes that will establish the integration joint boards and the integrated arrangements are expected to be submitted to ministers for approval in the next few weeks.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will be well aware of growing numbers of patients in NHS Ayrshire and Arran who are not being treated within the 12-week waiting time. Urology patients are having to travel to Glasgow for treatment and more than 1,000 dermatology patients have not been treated within the 12-week period. Regrettably, the services of Medinet are having to be used on a growing scale due to a failure in recruitment in NHS Ayrshire and Arran. How is the recruitment problem, which is common to many health boards, being dealt with at a local and national level?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I recognise some of the recruitment challenges. Having said that, that is against a backdrop of record numbers of staff and NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s budget increasing. Of course, the fact that it has the resource and the workforce does not mean that it does not have the challenges that other boards have, particularly in some key specialties. It is working closely with officials within the NHS here to look at how it overcomes some of those recruitment difficulties in key specialties. Some of that is about working across board areas, particularly where it is difficult to recruit, but I am certainly happy to write to John Scott with more detail around the specific issue that he raises.

Roads in Rural Areas (Gritting)

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to ensure that roads in rural areas are gritted. (S4O-03968)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Transport Scotland and its operating companies are responsible for winter treatment on trunk roads in rural areas, while local authorities are responsible for winter treatment on all other rural roads. From 1 October to 15 May, a 24-hour dedicated winter maintenance service operates on all of Scotland’s trunk roads. Our operating companies’ winter service plans are available on the Transport Scotland website.

Daily winter action plans continue to be made publicly available on the Traffic Scotland website by our operating companies throughout the winter. The information goes live at 3 pm each day, following receipt of the forecast. The action plan information tells people where the gritters will be, at what time and how much salt they will be spreading.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

The minister will be aware that there has recently been a significant increase in road traffic incidents in my constituency of Aberdeenshire West, and there have been a couple of fatalities. That is sometimes due to the condition of the roads. Can the minister reassure me and my constituents that everything is being done to ensure that roads are maintained to a suitable standard for people who commute into towns for work to drive on?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I appreciate the point that Mr Robertson makes. I have witnessed at first hand the strong partnership working that we have. As well as sharing information and working together on, for example, salt supplies, we have strengthened the multi-agency arrangements, and local authorities are, of course, part of that.

In addition to our preparation campaigns, we deploy teams where they are required. I will pay particular attention to incident reports and raise matters as appropriate with our agencies and local authorities to ensure that any disruption to roads is minimised and that safety is paramount.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We have a very busy gallery today. Members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the new Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr Mitchel McLaughlin MLA. [Applause.]

Members will also wish to join me in welcoming the Speaker of the Parliament of Fiji, the Hon Dr Jiko Luveni, who is in the gallery. [Applause.]

Engagements

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02555)

That is, other than the important matter of the tennis.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland and—fingers crossed—celebrating an Andy Murray victory in the tennis.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

On 25 February last year, the schools minister, Alasdair Allan, said that a small minority of pupils would be sitting the old highers this year. This week, we learned that almost half of Scotland’s pupils will be sitting the old higher. What has gone wrong?

The First Minister

Nothing has gone wrong. What has happened is that teachers have been given the flexibility in the timetable for the delivery of curriculum for excellence that I think Kezia Dugdale once asked for. Curriculum for excellence is founded on professional judgment, and it is right that decisions take account of local circumstances. Schools are able to use that flexibility to phase in the new qualifications in the way that best serves the interests of pupils, and when it was given it was warmly welcomed by teacher unions and indeed by Opposition politicians. This is the only year in which dual running of the exams will be permitted but, given the importance of ensuring proper implementation, I had thought that Kezia Dugdale and her colleagues would have welcomed that.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I would have, except that Mike Russell told the chamber:

“I do not believe that any teacher in Scotland who has the right support, the right help and the right leadership ... cannot rise to the challenge and deliver the conclusion of a programme that has been eight years in the making.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2012; c 7003.]

There is concern from parents, teachers and pupils across Scotland, and we know from the past that, when there is a problem in our education system, it is the kids from the poorest backgrounds who suffer the most.

It is worrying that the schools minister clearly did not know what was going on with the highers system. I hope that the First Minister will know what is going on with the appeals system. Last year, the Scottish National Party Government started to charge for exam appeals. Freedom of information responses to the Scottish Labour Party show that, for state pupils, the money for an appeal must come from either the school budget or the council budget, and we all know that money is tight. However, the parents of private school pupils can pay for the appeals themselves. Can the First Minister tell us whether the number of exam appeals from state school pupils has gone up or down in the last year?

The First Minister

Consistency clearly is not Labour’s strong suit this week. On the issue of dual running of exams—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

Labour has raised an important question for pupils and parents across the country, so let me answer it, but I think that it is worth pointing out that not that long ago—12 September 2014, to be precise—Kezia Dugdale said that the timescale for implementation of the new exams was too fast. She said that the timetable was “ridiculous”. She then cited the introduction of standard grades and said that that had been over 10 years, presumably implying that she thought that that was a more appropriate timescale for the implementation of these new exams. Now that we are seeing teachers and schools using the flexibility that they have rightly been given, Kezia Dugdale turns round and says that the implementation timetable is too slow. That almost puts the hypocrisy on fracking into the shade.

If Kezia Dugdale wants to quote teachers, let me quote Larry Flanagan, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland. He said:

“This is a sensible approach that will enable teachers to use their best judgement in deciding which option is in the best interests of their pupils.”

If that is what teachers have to say, I do not know why Kezia Dugdale takes a different view.

We have put in place an appeals system that is right and proportionate to give young people the best opportunity to fulfil their potential at school. As I have said previously on this issue and on a range of other subjects, if Kezia Dugdale wants to suggest improvements, I will be willing to listen. However, not for the first time, I will be waiting a long, long time for Labour to come up with anything constructive.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

The First Minister wants to quote Larry Flanagan. I can play that game. He said:

“Appeals should be based upon the professional judgment of teachers rather than on the wishes of the parent and what is now happening is fundamentally wrong”.

The First Minister does not have a clue what the answer to my question is, so let me tell her. The reality is that, since the SNP started to charge for appeals, the number of appeals from state school pupils has fallen by 55,000. Even if we factor in the fall in the number of exams, that is a drop of more than 75 per cent in just one year. Good exam results can make the difference between a pupil going to university and a pupil not going to university. For disadvantaged kids in particular, that can be a deal breaker.

Let me ask the First Minister another question. Since the SNP started charging for appeals, has the number of appeals from private schoolkids fallen at a faster or slower rate than the rate by which it has fallen for state school pupils in Scotland?

The First Minister

I am surprised that Kezia Dugdale does not want to focus on what I thought would be the real success story—

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

This is question time. You don’t write the questions.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Mr Findlay!

The First Minister

I am talking about the success not of Government but of pupils across the country. In 2014, there was a record number of higher passes in Scotland—almost 4,000 more than in 2013.

We are, rightly and properly, introducing curriculum for excellence, a new system of exams and—yes—changes to the way in which appeals are applied for and processed. We will ensure that we respond to the experience of all that, so that we continue to do what we have been doing in each and every year in which we have been in government, which is taking the action that needs to be taken to ensure that our young people get the best possible education and the best possible chance to pass the exams that give them the best possible chance in life. There was a day when Labour would have supported that but, as on so many other issues, Labour has moved beyond and away from its very basic principles.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Once again, the First Minister does not have a clue. The truth is that the proportion of appeals from privately educated pupils is now double the rate for state schoolkids.

The system now favours private school pupils more than ever. Parents of private school pupils can buy their kids a second chance. Parents of private school pupils can put their hands in their pockets to help their kids, but parents of state school pupils cannot do so. It is no wonder that just 220 kids from the poorest backgrounds in Scotland get the grades that they need to make it to our top universities.

The SNP’s record on educational inequality is clear for all to see. Teacher numbers are down by more than 4,000, appeals from state school pupils have plummeted by 55,000, and kids from the poorest backgrounds are being left behind. People in Scotland simply want to know this: is this the fairer Scotland that the First Minister promised?

The First Minister

In fact, in spite of what Kezia Dugdale just said, 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas are more likely to be accepted to university under the SNP. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service stats show that the percentage of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas accepted to university is up from 6.4 per cent under Labour to 8.9 per cent in 2013—an increase of 2.5 percentage points—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

Let me say very clearly to the Parliament and to the entire country that I do not think that that is good enough. I want more young people from our most disadvantaged backgrounds to get the same kind of opportunities to go to university as I got as a young person.

That is why in my programme for government I set the goal of increasing the number of people from our most deprived areas who get to go to university. That is why we are working to ensure, first, the best possible school education for our young people—I repeat that we are seeing a record number of higher passes. It is also why my party, unlike the Labour Party, has worked so hard and will continue to work so hard to protect free higher education for our young people. If Labour had its way and introduced tuition fees, it would be a lot harder for our poorest young people to get the chance that I had to go to university.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. I invite the First Minister to join me in congratulating Andy Murray, who has just won his Australian open semi-final in the past few minutes.

To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02552)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I hope that Ruth Davidson was not looking at Twitter in the chamber, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is the guilty man.

The First Minister

I think that Jackson Carlaw might be in some trouble.

I take the opportunity to congratulate Andy Murray on his semi-final win. I am sure that we can have an outbreak of consensus in the chamber and, on behalf of us all, I wish him all the best for the final on Sunday.

I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday, at the oil and gas summit in Aberdeen, when I will take the opportunity to call again on the United Kingdom Government to take immediate action to cut the supplementary charge for the oil and gas sector, instead of waiting seven long weeks until the UK budget is announced.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

When the Scottish National Party Government defended its massive cuts to college courses, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said:

“There were, bluntly, too many hobby courses and far too few courses were focused on employment.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13426.]

One group of courses is geared specifically towards employment. It comprises STEM courses, which take in science, technology, engineering and maths. Has the number of students on further education STEM courses gone up or down on the SNP’s watch?

The First Minister

Figures show that the vision that we have set for the college sector, which is focused on skills for work and economic growth, is paying dividends. Ruth Davidson rightly says that the changes that we have been making to the college sector are designed to ensure that people who go to college come out of college with qualifications that help them to get into work.

I am happy to discuss with Ruth Davidson any aspects of our approach to colleges that she thinks that we should look to improve—I say that in a genuine spirit of consensus. However, I am proud that we are taking the action—often tough action—that is making college education more productive for our young people.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I asked the First Minister about student numbers. She knows the number that I asked for; she just does not want to say it. Her Government published it this week.

When the SNP came to power, there were more than 86,000 college places in STEM subjects. The most recent figure is just 56,000, which is a cut of 30,000 places in science, technology, engineering and maths. The Government is failing on science and maths. Those are college courses that lead to jobs, and they have been slashed by a third. In schools, less than half of pupils studying science and maths will sit the new exams this year, as we have just heard. In the international tables, on every measurement, Scotland has gone backwards in science and maths since the Government came to power.

Our young people need the skills to compete. Getting a decent job depends on it. Why is the Government failing them?

The First Minister

I am happy to look in detail at the figures that Ruth Davidson has quoted and to respond. [Laughter.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

Labour clearly finds the issue of education amusing; I find it very serious.

In the year that the most recent available figures cover, approximately 14,000 more students successfully completed courses that lead to recognised qualifications than was the case in 2008-09. That is an increase of 33 per cent. The average number of hours of learning per student is also increasing. In 2006-07, that figure was less than 250 hours, and it is now up to almost 400 hours. Further, as we committed to doing in our manifesto, we have maintained the number of places in Scotland’s colleges.

The number of students who are achieving higher national certificates or diplomas, which are recognised and valued by employers, is up by 36 per cent. The number of students who are getting degrees is up by 121 per cent. That is to be celebrated.

I readily agree that we need to get more girls and women into STEM subjects. I do not take the view that we have done everything that we need to do, but we are doing the hard work to make sure that our colleges are equipped to prepare young people for the workplace, and we will continue to focus on doing that.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Yesterday’s announcement by Tesco that it is closing its Kirkcaldy store is devastating news for the employees and will have a huge impact on the surrounding area. What assistance can the Scottish Government give the 189 employees who face losing their jobs?

The First Minister

My thoughts are with all those who are affected by the announcement that Tesco made yesterday. The Deputy First Minister has spoken to Fife Council about the Kirkcaldy store and given a commitment that the Scottish Government will work with the council to do everything that we can to support affected employees. Partnership action for continuing employment representatives have already contacted Tesco to offer support for employees who might be facing redundancy. Information on PACE has been provided to the company.

We understand that the company will seek to minimise redundancies through the use of redeployment and alternative roles within Tesco. PACE representatives will work with Tesco to provide a tailored package of support to minimise the time that those who are affected by redundancy are out of work.

“Safeguarding Scotland’s vulnerable children from child abuse”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

3. To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations in Jackie Brock’s report on closing the gaps in the child protection process. (S4F-02550)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Government welcomes the Brock report and we have accepted all its recommendations. We are implementing the 12 recommendations, including holding a national strategic leadership summit, which will take place next month.

The report was one strand of a wider programme that seeks to ensure that Scotland’s approach to safeguarding children and young people continues to be as robust as possible. A parliamentary briefing note on the progress of the Scottish Government’s response to the Brock report will be available from the Scottish Parliament information centre today. We will continue to act decisively to implement the report’s recommendations.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The First Minister referred to the summit, but the truth is that Mike Russell promised Parliament that he would hold that summit by the end of last year and it did not happen. Those who have suffered the harrowing experience of child sexual exploitation are owed nothing less than robust and urgent action. Jackie Brock knows that, which is why she has felt moved to express her frustration at the lack of progress by the Scottish Government on taking forward the recommendations in her report. Is it not the case that the Government has taken its eye off the ball on this vital issue? Will the First Minister now commit to taking the decisive action that the survivors of child exploitation expect and which we were promised back in November last year?

The First Minister

That is not true and is not a fair characterisation. The Government and, I am sure, every single member in the chamber are absolutely resolute in their determination to do everything that we need to do to protect children and our most vulnerable children. We have accepted all 12 of the Brock report’s recommendations. The summit that has been referred to will take place next month.

The Brock report was just one strand of a wider programme of work that included the full child sexual exploitation action plan that was published on the same day as the Brock report. That was the result of work that was established in April 2013 and was developed over 19 months by a team of experts including children’s charities, child protection experts, the police and social workers. It drew on a full committee inquiry into the issue.

We will take forward all the recommendations and I hope that we will do so with considerable cross-party support to make sure that we are taking the action that we need to take to protect our vulnerable young people.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The Brock report explicitly pointed out the vulnerability of on-the-radar children to sexual exploitation and cited the Rotherham case. This week, police launched a probe into 14 cases of child sexual exploitation here in Edinburgh. The urgency of the situation could not be greater. It is now a week since Jackie Brock told us that there had been little or no activity since her report. What has the First Minister done in the past week to redouble efforts?

The First Minister

As I said in my initial answer, an update setting out the actions that we are taking as a result of the Brock report is available to all members in SPICe. Those actions are part of a wider suite of actions that we are taking.

Iain Gray referred to police investigations. As I am sure he understands, I cannot comment on on-going police investigations, but the action plan that I referred to complements the wider action that we are taking, including the establishment of a new specialist police unit. Police Scotland has formed a new national child abuse investigation unit, which was announced in October last year and which will enable the police to play their full part in making sure that we protect children and young people.

As members are well aware, we have strengthened child protection legislation and policy. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has received royal assent, strengthens the protection of children’s rights and creates a statutory single point of contact for raising concerns—the named person. Obviously, we have had a court judgment on that in the past few days. The act requires all agencies to work together in the child’s best interests.

We will continue to do everything that we possibly can to protect children, including the most vulnerable children, such as those who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. I say genuinely that we will listen to ideas and suggestions from wherever they come because, on this issue perhaps more than on any other, we should come together as one Parliament that is determined to do what needs to be done.

Energy Jobs Task Force (Update)

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

4. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the work of the energy jobs task force. (S4F-02570)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I welcome the constructive discussions and actions that came out of the first meeting of the energy jobs task force, which was held yesterday in Aberdeen. The meeting involved a group from across the public and private sectors coming together quickly to reinforce the determination of industry to ensure that Scotland retains the skills and talent that support the sector at home and overseas. The task force considered a range of ideas, and immediate action will be taken to translate them into tangible outcomes. That will include a large-scale PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—market event to match those who face redundancy with opportunities elsewhere. It has also been agreed that the task force will convene monthly, with the next meeting scheduled for 26 February.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The First Minister says that the task force will look at “opportunities elsewhere”. One example might be North East Scotland College, which has recently struggled to recruit lecturers for its oil and gas skills courses. There might be beneficial opportunities amidst the recent spate of redundancies.

Does the First Minister share the disappointment that is being expressed in the north-east that the United Kingdom Government, which holds the fiscal powers, looks set to wait until the budget in March to make any interventions? Will she continue to press for early interventions to support the industry and the workforce?

The First Minister

I certainly share Mark McDonald’s views on what the UK Government should be doing right now. It should not be waiting until the budget; it should act with tax changes now. As I said in response to Ruth Davidson, I will make that argument again on Monday at the oil and gas summit.

Mark McDonald also makes reasonable points about North East Scotland College. It is important to emphasise that the aim of the task force is to safeguard the skills and experience that have been built up over decades in the oil and gas industry. That will necessitate close working with colleges and universities, which is why the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is represented on the task force.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister will know that the Scottish Conservatives support further reductions in North Sea oil and gas taxation, and we have already made that case to the chancellor. However, Sir Ian Wood has stated that any reduction in taxes will make no difference to the situation over the next six to nine months. Therefore, what additional action will the Scottish Government take now to assist the sector?

The First Minister

I have just outlined some of the work that we are doing through the jobs task force. I have made it clear that it is the key intervention that supplements the work that we do routinely to support the sector on skills, innovation and exporting. The jobs task force is designed to do three things: first, to work to maintain jobs and skills as far as possible; secondly, to provide targeted support to those who face redundancy; and, thirdly, to support better collaboration across the industry. The task force met for the first time yesterday and heard a number of ideas that will now be turned into a tangible action plan. I hope that Murdo Fraser and others will get behind that.

I last spoke to Ian Wood the week before last. He made the point—which underpins our call for UK Government action—that companies are making decisions now and, therefore, need clarity now on the tax regime in which they will operate for the medium to long term. That is why it is so important that we not wait seven weeks until the budget but see that action now. I hope that the Scottish Conservatives will speak a bit more loudly in calling for their colleagues at Westminster to take that sensible action.

Science Education (Funding)

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that science lessons in schools are being underfunded by £8 million per year. (S4F-02558)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We continue to see a strong picture on science in our schools, with increased higher entries across the three main science subjects since 2006 and pass rates remaining high.

We do not agree that school science is underfunded. The report of the learned societies group on Scottish science education considered approximately 2 per cent of primary schools and 13 per cent of secondary schools and indicates itself that the findings should be treated with some caution. Indeed, that is borne out by looking at international comparisons, in which Scotland is above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average as measured by the programme for international student assessment rankings.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

As the First Minister questioned the small sample size, will she listen to the evidence that the learned societies group gave to the Education and Culture Committee this week, in which it asked the Government to take its work forward and carry out a full independent audit of schools in Scotland to ensure that our pupils have the right equipment to learn the practical science skills for which colleges, universities and employers are looking?

The First Minister

I am very happy to work with the learned societies group to ensure that we build on the work that we are already doing to improve science learning and teaching. I was struck by one thing in particular that Dr Bill Beveridge, who gave evidence to the committee on behalf of the group this week, said, which was that the basic knowledge of the science subjects is being taught well and lots of pupils are seeing positive benefits from studying the sciences.

We will continue to work with all those with an interest to ensure that we improve our performance even further. Indeed, straight after First Minister’s questions, I will present certificates to this year’s winners of the Higgs prize. The prize—which, of course, bears the name of Professor Peter Higgs, the Nobel prize-winner—is designed and was introduced by the Government to motivate and inspire young physicists in our schools. That is one example of the work that the Scottish Government is doing and I hope that the chamber will welcome it.

Mental Health Research (Funding)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with national health service boards regarding the reported reduction in funding for mental health research. (S4F-02554)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government directs funding for mental health research through grants awarded by three sources: direct funding through grants awarded by the Scottish Government; direct funding of the Scottish mental health research network; and grants awarded to Scottish researchers by the UK Government Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research funding committees. When we take those three strands together, we see rises in mental health research funding under this Government from around £1 million in 2006-07 to nearly £4 million in 2014-15.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Actually, it has been revealed that there has been an 85 per cent drop in funding for mental health research in the past eight years of the Scottish National Party Government. Today, in The Scotsman, the Scottish children’s services coalition repeats its warning of two years ago that the number of educational psychologists is dangerously low. On 9 July last year, it warned the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, that there remained a large number of unfilled vacancies for trainee psychiatrists.

Does the First Minister agree with the health professionals who say that the Scottish Government’s complacency on mental health issues is unacceptable?

The First Minister

The Scottish Government is not complacent in any way, shape or form when it comes to mental health. In November last year, we announced additional investment of £15 million over the next three years to improve mental health services. We are taking a range of actions to ensure that we reduce waiting times for access to psychological therapies and, in particular, to mental health treatment services for children and adolescents.

I am happy to make those figures available to Liz Smith and, indeed, anybody else who is interested in seeing them. The report to which she referred looked, if I understand it correctly, at two out of the three strands of funding to which I referred in my initial answer: funding from the chief scientist office’s committees and funding for the mental health research network. It did not include the funding that comes through the National Institute for Health Research funding committees. Scottish researchers can, of course, apply for that funding, because the chief scientist office pays around £9 million annually into that pot of funding. When we take the three strands together, we find that, as I said, funding for mental health research has increased from just over £1 million in 2006-07 to just under £4 million in 2014-15. That is the reality, and I am happy to make those figures available.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the Government for providing me with the answer that was the basis of Liz Smith’s question. However, the funding to which the First Minister refers is UK funding, largely. Does she not agree that the level of Scottish funding demonstrates a total lack of leadership on mental health research?

The First Minister

It is clear that Labour has not changed its spots that much. It is still trying to make out that Scotland is too wee and too poor to do these things. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

I do not know whether Richard Simpson is aware of this, but the National Institute for Health Research funding that I referred to is contributed to by the chief scientist office in Scotland to the tune of £9 million every year. In other words, we contribute our share of funding to the pot so that Scottish researchers can bid into it and get funding back. We do not get anything for nothing, even though Richard Simpson wants to give the impression that we do.

One of the other strands of funding that I mentioned was the chief scientist office’s committees funding. As Richard Simpson will be aware, that is a pot of money that researchers bid into. It fluctuates year on year. I have here figures that go back to 2005-06. In some years, that funding was more than £2 million and in one year it was more than £3 million. It sometimes goes down and then goes back up again. It is a fund that is open for bids. I hope that we all agree that we should encourage those who do vital research on mental health to bid for that funding, because it is there and we want it to be used.

Educational Psychologists

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-11796, in the name of David Stewart, on educational psychologist numbers at dangerously low levels in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises the report by the National Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists and the Scottish Division of Educational Psychologists, which considers that the number of trained educational psychologists in Scotland is “dangerously low” and that psychological services in Scotland are reporting a significant increase in demand; understands that up to a quarter of educational psychologists may retire in the next four years and that there are too few trainees being recruited to fill this skills gap; believes that the ratio of educational psychologists was worse in 2012 than in 2001 and that, currently, around 394 educational psychologists are working in Scotland while the profession estimates the need for around 1,025; understands that the removal of the bursary paid to each trainee by the Scottish Government means that new trainees need to have access to around £25,000 to self-fund course fees, travel and living expenses, which has led to a 70% drop in applicants and a negative impact on the quality of candidates; considers that this has also created difficulties for students wishing to access courses who are resident in the Highlands and Islands and remote and rural parts of Scotland, and believes that a fall in the standards of assessment of children will undermine advances in early years intervention and, in particular, the educational advice open to children with learning difficulties and those with autistic spectrum disorder.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank all the members across the Parliament who took the time to sign my motion and all those who have taken the time to attend the debate. I extend my thanks to the many organisations that provided briefings ahead of the debate on this important issue.

I raised concern about the number of educational psychologists in Scotland with the former Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning Mike Russell on a number of occasions. My interest was sparked by a constituent—a young student—from Moray, whose concerns about the future of educational psychology struck a chord with me, leading to today’s debate.

The Scottish children’s services coalition has described educational psychologist training in Scotland as a “ticking time bomb” that faces the sector. The issue was first raised with me in the autumn of 2013, when a young, bright and enthusiastic constituent came to discuss the numerous issues and challenges that face people who are seeking to work as educational psychologists and the pressure on those who are currently working in the sector.

Educational psychology in Scotland faces two challenges. First, there is a shortage of trained educational psychologists practising in Scotland. The Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists and the Scottish division of educational psychology have described the number as “dangerously low”. Their report in 2013 concluded that educational psychology faced an “impending crisis”. As things stand, up to a quarter of Scotland’s current educational psychologists could retire within the next four years, and far too few postgraduate trainees are coming into the field to replenish the number who may be retiring.

That leads to the second and interconnected challenge, which concerns the training of new educational psychologists and is the point that my constituent raised directly with me. As members will know, in 2012 the Scottish Government took the decision to scrap the bursary that was paid to trainee educational psychologists. That means that each individual student is responsible for meeting the entire £18,000 university tuition fee from their own pockets. In addition, there is the burden of covering living expenses—food, travel and accommodation—over the two-year postgraduate course.

The result is even more debt for those who have accumulated debt during their undergraduate studies. Students who are accepted on to the course and are willing to take on the financial burden are, of course, eligible for a career development loan of around £3,400 across the two-year period. However, that leaves a massive shortfall of more than £14,000. That huge financial burden is crippling those who are currently on courses and has led to a 70 per cent reduction in applications from new candidates since the crucial funding was removed.

The Currie report of 2001 reviewed the provision of educational psychology services. The minister’s foreword to that report warned of the

“urgent need to recruit and train more educational psychologists”.

The number of children who have been identified as having additional support needs has grown, more than doubling from 2010 to 2014.

We need to reintroduce bursaries for students and give local authorities the minimum number of psychologists needed to operate the system; otherwise we will have a meltdown in educational psychology. I call on the Government to think again and reintroduce minimum numbers and bursaries.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I thank David Stewart for bringing this debate to the chamber.

I wanted to participate in the debate for practical reasons. This is not just about educational psychologists. Mr Stewart made some accurate points, in as much as there are a number of people who have family members with learning difficulties or autism. I have on-going constituency cases in which the education authority in Renfrewshire is letting my constituents down. For example, it is not supporting autistic young people—it is giving them almost empty timetables, because the support is not there. Local authorities should be looking at one another and at themselves to ask how they should be delivering for and supporting those families.

I also have personal reasons for wanting to speak in the debate. My son has learning difficulties. He is now 23, but my family had to go through some of the situations that many families are still going through. The issues in Renfrewshire Council have existed for a long time, and the difficulties that families face now are very similar to the difficulties that we faced. Local authorities have to ask whether they are supporting families and young people enough.

Educational psychologists, who are there to support learners, are extremely important. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 enables parents and young people to request that their education authority arrange an assessment for the child or young person. It is then up to the education authority to decide the appropriate person to make that assessment. As a parent and a parliamentary representative of the people of Paisley, I do not care—and the people of Paisley do not care—who makes the decision or who carries out the assessment; we just need to ensure that the family and the child get the opportunity to move forward.

When we talk about this issue, we must also talk about partnership working. The Scottish Government must—and does—work with local authorities to ensure that we deliver. In a lot of constituency cases, I find that families do not seem to be getting support when their children have special needs. That is an on-going issue. We must support affected families.

I am aware of what happens in other local authorities. Let me give an example. In other areas, British Sign Language teachers are able to help in primary schools to ensure that deaf children have the opportunity to engage fully with their classes. Some local authorities, such as the Ayrshire councils, have pooled their resources to ensure that they put those professionals into the areas where they are needed.

When the Education and Culture Committee considered this year’s budget, we looked at delivery of primary and secondary school education. A problem that kept appearing was that joint working and joint services among local authorities were just not happening—local authorities are not working together.

I would have thought that, in the case of educational psychology, the best way forward would be for local authorities to work with one another to find out whether there are areas where there is a higher incidence of children or young people with learning difficulties or additional support needs, so that support can be put into those areas. That is another example of how local authorities could work better and smarter with one another.

Although I welcome the debate, the issue is not quite as simple as the motion suggests. It is complex—a lot is involved. We should work with local authorities to help them, but they must take responsibility for the services that they offer.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I congratulate Dave Stewart on bringing forward this important debate and on highlighting the disparity between the supply of vital psychological support and demand for it. The motion encapsulates that when it says that there are only 394 educational psychologists, although we need more than 1,000 of them. That disparity exists in spite of the fact that educational psychology is a statutory function and, clearly, is crucial to the national priority of supporting early and effective intervention. It is also essential to the implementation of important and admirable Government strategies such as getting it right for every child, and important legislation such as the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.

Many children and young people will struggle with learning if they do not have support, a proper assessment or a clear plan for their education path, with detrimental consequences for their mental and emotional wellbeing. We should also remember that educational psychologists are critical to planning for young people in care and that they provide specialist advice in a variety of education contexts, from case work advice to whole school analysis and strategic development.

I have been around long enough to remember that similar issues were raised in the Parliament’s early years. Indeed, I remember that, before the Parliament was established, Brian Wilson, who was the education minister between 1997 and 1999, increased the number of educational psychologists. I also remember that, in the Parliament’s early years, Cathy Jamieson conducted a review of the issue, with a 2002 report making 30 important recommendations, many of which are still relevant.

I also note that in 2013 the national Scottish steering group for educational psychology recommended a review, with a view to developing a national framework, and I hope that the minister and the Scottish Government will consider that recommendation, which I think is just as relevant today as it was two years ago.

As David Stewart emphasised as a central point in his opening speech, one fundamental problem is the loss of the bursary that is paid to trainee educational psychologists. If we are serious about ensuring that no child slips through the system without diagnosis and support, we have to revisit the decision to remove that bursary. The motion refers to the £25,000 cost of self-funding course fees and travel and living expenses, which is thought to be directly connected to the 70 per cent drop in applications for educational psychology courses. David Stewart reminded us that that is particularly serious, given that, as we have been advised, a quarter of educational psychologists might retire in the next four years.

Emma Brown, the chair of the Scottish division of the educational psychology training committee, highlighted significant concerns about the issue as long ago as 2010, very shortly after that significant change in the bursary provision was made. She said then that the change would affect

“equality of access for candidates to courses, quality of future Educational Psychology graduates, and ... Educational Psychology Services’ ability to fulfil their duties locally and nationally”.

She also appealed to the cabinet secretary of the day

“to consult with professional bodies”

on this important matter. It seems that that did not happen; certainly no change took place, and I hope that the cabinet secretary—and, indeed, the minister who is to reply to the debate—will consult professional bodies, consider my earlier suggestion of undertaking a review and developing a national framework and, most important of all, revisit the decision to remove the bursary.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank David Stewart for securing this debate on the shortage of educational psychologists. It is important to point out that there are shortages of psychologists in most disciplines, although in this debate we are looking only at the shortage in one particular area.

Given the 100 per cent increase in the number of children who are recorded as having additional support needs and the fairly static number of educational psychologists, the problem is urgent. In fact, it was urgent in 2002, and it is even more urgent now. Of course, I appreciate that not every child with ASN will need to see a psychologist, but we should be doing all that we can to help those who do.

The educational psychology profession estimates that more than 1,000 educational psychologists are needed. At the moment, we have only 400, and the 25 per cent of them who are due to retire in five years will bring that number down to 300, with 700 vacancies. Some years ago, members of the health committee at the time were told that there were windows of opportunity at certain points in a child’s development and that any window that was missed at that age would be missed for ever—it would just be too late. That is the critical point.

It is not as if the issue is new or has just come to the Scottish Government’s attention. When I asked several questions on the matter last August, I met with this response from Mike Russell:

“We are working in partnership with the National Scottish Steering Group for Educational Psychologists to ensure a sustainable supply of educational psychologists to meet potential future needs.”—[Written Answers, 22 September 2014; S4W-22513]

That was more than five months ago. I hope that the partnership working that has taken place since then has resulted in some positive news that we will hear about in the minister’s summing-up.

As Malcolm Chisholm suggested, we are very good in this Parliament at passing legislation on named persons and additional support needs or legislation that puts a statutory requirement on local authorities in Scotland to provide educational psychology services. However, when it comes to ensuring that the appropriately qualified and trained people are in place, we find that the funding has been cut, with the result that there is a 70 per cent decrease in applications for training.

As Malcolm Chisholm—I was going to say “Rifkind”—also pointed out, educational psychologists are not just an added extra and the courses that they take are not just little hobby courses. Educational psychologists are essential in addressing inequalities, which is something that the Government says that it is in favour of doing, and in promoting early and effective intervention to support the wellbeing of children and young people across Scotland. They also play a valuable role in establishing continuity of support for children and young people in the often very difficult transition from child to adult services and other key services.

Despite that, the last Scottish Government review of the provision of educational psychology services was in 2002—13 years ago. That hardly sends out the signal that this is a valued and essential workforce that is critical to the health and wellbeing of children across Scotland. Across the chamber, we all agree that attainment in schools is a major challenge, and a major function of educational psychologists is to address inequality and gaps in the attainment and achievement outcomes of those in society who are vulnerable and at risk.

The Scottish Government constantly tells us that higher education is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. Well, that is not the case for educational psychologists.

George Adam’s contribution was excellent. I ask the minister to explain what recourse parents have when councils fail to provide an educational psychologist, which is deemed to be a statutory requirement.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I come to the chamber quite disappointed, because I raised the issue with Mike Russell on at least a couple of occasions, and with Alasdair Allan. The Government has allowed the situation to come about, especially over the past few years, and it has taken no action to do anything about it since members across the chamber raised their concerns.

It is often useful to look at the truth and the stories behind some of the statistics that we are presented with. In the briefing paper that we received today from the national Scottish steering group for educational psychologists, table 4 shows the numbers of applicants, withdrawals and students taking up courses at each of the universities that offer the qualification in educational psychology. When the bursaries changed for the 2012 intake, 13 students withdrew from the course at the University of Dundee.

One of the students who withdrew came to my surgery in Dundee and told me her story. She was a very well-qualified Oxford graduate who was working in schools in Angus. She was a young teacher who had a great rapport with the young people she was teaching in quite a deprived area—so much so that she wanted to train to become an educational psychologist. However, when the Government changed the funding arrangements, she was precluded from doing so. Being a very conscientious young woman, she gave me all the information available to her and told me that it made more sense for her to go back down south to train as an educational psychologist, as she could afford to train there. She would have to relocate with her husband to work in a school down south. When that young woman left my surgery that day, I thought that it was a great shame that the children of Arbroath and the north-east of Scotland would not have her services in the very important area of educational psychology.

During First Minister’s question time today, Liz Smith was right to draw a link between mental health and educational psychology, because we know that access to educational psychology can be a preventative measure and can lead to early intervention in relation to poor mental health.

I think of the waiting lists to see educational psychologists in my home city of Dundee. At my surgery, I have spoken to parents who are anxious and worried that something is not quite right with their children’s behaviour, happiness or general wellbeing and who have been told that they will have to wait for weeks and weeks before their children are able to see an educational psychologist.

Mary Scanlon was right to point out that the Government has a statutory duty—a legal duty—to provide educational psychology services. The Government has been in place for eight years, but it has let the workforce age to the point at which we are about to lose most of our qualified educational psychologists, which is extremely worrying.

I will end on a point about the preventative agenda that I made in the chamber a few weeks ago. Every minister in Nicola Sturgeon’s Cabinet needs to take the Christie commission report off the shelf and dust it down. The recommendations that Campbell Christie spent a long time working on are about the preventative agenda in our public services, and educational psychology is a very good example in that regard. I urge the minister to rethink the options in relation to bursaries and the number of educational psychologists he is planning to train.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

As others have done, I congratulate David Stewart on bringing this important debate to Parliament. David Stewart’s motion highlights an imbalance in respect of educational psychologists in Scotland. Demand is rising and supply is falling; combine that with an ageing workforce and it all points to a worsening situation. The British Psychological Society’s Scottish division of educational psychology report states that a quarter of educational psychologists may retire in just four years. That is alarming.

According to the workforce planning meeting for educational psychologists in November 2011, nearly a third of educational psychologists in Scotland are aged 55 and over and are likely to retire over the next five years. George Adam hinted that that is not a new problem but an on-going one. However, the Scottish children’s services coalition highlighted the increased demand that we now face. The number of children who have additional support needs increased from 69,587 in 2010 to more than double that—140,542, to be precise—by 2014. That is, of course, partly due to increased awareness, but it is increased demand, nonetheless.

Early intervention by educational psychologists is critical; it is also statutory. It is part of the GIRFEC strategy and is crucial if we are to deliver the ambitions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The British Psychological Society highlights the issue and has stated that it is a

“worrying picture given the rising levels of need among Scotland’s children and young people”.

The society goes on to say that

“This pressure on existing services jeopardises the national policy objectives to promote early and effective intervention to support the wellbeing of children and young people across Scotland”.

Educational psychologists are vital in helping children and young people who struggle with education. In the past, those young people have felt isolated; they have felt let down by the education system and therefore by society. That often led to underachievement, frustration and low morale. Educational psychologists’ work in providing support through therapeutic behaviour-management programmes, and in personalising the needs of our young people is crucial. It is therefore vital that no matter where in Scotland the young person is, he or she has access to educational psychologists at the earliest possible point—as timeously as possible. Educational psychologists provide the support that our teachers and parents need to provide the necessary strategies for those young people to achieve, to learn and to participate in our education system, in society and in their future workplaces.

I mentioned that supply and demand for educational psychologists are out of kilter. That is partly because we are not training enough educational psychologists—not just to meet the rising demand but to replace current psychologists who are ageing and retiring.

The educational psychology workforce planning meeting minutes for 8 March 2013 state that the University of Strathclyde’s representative considered that for their area, 20 students each year are needed to graduate from the programme to keep things in equilibrium, but in 2013-14, just 17 students were on that course. The Scottish division of educational psychology report also states that we need to train more people. We have to look at why that is; it has been mentioned already. The Scottish children’s services coalition makes it clear in its briefing:

“The removal in 2012 of the bursary paid to each trainee by the Scottish Government, coupled with a very limited loan facility, means that new trainees need to have access to around £25,000 each year for two years to self-fund course fees, travel and living expenses. This has led to a 70% drop in applicants”.

That is a poor record for the Government. If we are serious about our statutory duty to provide educational psychology services for our children and young people, the Government must address the imbalance between supply and demand in relation to educational psychologists in Scotland. I repeat that it is our statutory duty.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I congratulate David Stewart on bringing the debate to the chamber and I welcome the opportunity to contribute.

It cannot be denied that educational psychologists play a vital role in schools and education establishments throughout Scotland in assisting many children and young people, many of whom endure deep social and emotional problems. There can also be no denying that the number of children who are identified as having additional support needs has increased dramatically in the past five years—it has more than doubled to 140,542 in 2014. It would be expected that such an increase would have led to a similar increase in the number of qualified professionals who are available to support and assist those young people, their families and school staff. Sadly, however, as we have heard in the debate, the figures show that that is not the case. Given that more than 140,000 children are identified as having additional support needs, it is counterintuitive and unacceptable that Scotland has only 394 full-time educational psychologist posts. The record high was 443 in 2009, which was not enough even then, but the number has since dropped by 11 per cent, and in 2015 we have only 15 more educational psychologists than we had in 2001.

The problem is so serious that the Scottish children’s services coalition noted earlier this year that the increase in demand, coupled with cuts to local authority budgets and the withdrawal of funding for trainee educational psychologists has left the profession close to tipping point. That comes one year after the report that David Stewart’s motion highlights and which states that the number of trained educational psychologists is “dangerously low.”

By taking the decision in 2012 to remove the bursary that is paid to each trainee, the Scottish Government has forced applicants to secure £25,000 per year of their own funding for a two-year course. That is a massive obstacle to people who have a burning desire to enter the profession in order to support young people, and it restricts the ability of people from poorer communities to undertake training. The 70 per cent drop in the number of applications that has been mentioned is proof of that.

Emma Brown, the chair of the Scottish division of educational psychology’s training committee—which Malcolm Chisholm quoted earlier—said:

“we have significant concerns over the impact of this proposal ... and the potential impact upon educational psychology services’ ability to fulfil their duties locally and nationally.”

Those “significant concerns” seem to have been borne out.

As has been mentioned, it is of concern that up to 25 per cent of existing educational psychologists are set to retire within the next four years. Although I accept many of George Adam’s points about local authorities coming together to pool such specialist services, there is a low level of educational psychologists and such a high level of demand that even authorities that pool their resources struggle to provide the service.

It is of utmost importance that the Scottish Government take action now to look at that 70 per cent drop in the number of people entering the profession. Scotland remains well short of the number of educational psychologists that is required, so the Government needs to take action to ensure that children with additional support needs, their families and school staff receive the support that is not only statutory, but which they deserve and need. That is why Government should look at the issue again.

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

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the role of educational psychologists. As has been made clear during the debate, they make a significant and critical contribution to supporting children and young people who have additional support needs. I value their contribution highly.

I believe that the motion is based on a report that was prepared by the profession in September 2013 at the request of the national Scottish steering group for educational psychologists, which is chaired by a senior official of the Scottish Government. The purpose of the report was to provide information about the current workforce of educational psychologists in order to inform workforce planning for the profession across Scotland.

To take up a question from Mary Scanlon about recent progress on that front, my officials have, through the national steering group, been working in close partnership with the educational psychology profession—including with a representative from the SDEP, which is the Scottish arm of the British Psychological Society—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Education Scotland and the universities that train educational psychologists. The purpose of that is, of course, to ensure that within the real constraints that exist we anticipate and minimise risk to educational psychology service provision—for example, by ensuring that there is a sustainable supply of educational psychologists to meet potential future needs and to make interventions, as necessary.

The Scottish Government is funding a seconded position in Education Scotland for an individual to work in 2015 with the national steering group on workforce planning for educational psychology services. I have seen the project plan for that role, which includes work to capture detail on the staffing situation for educational psychologists, and sampling to establish the range of work that they undertake.

I acknowledge that there has been a significant increase since 2010 in the number of pupils who are recorded in national statistics as having additional support needs. I do not dispute that there are pressures in that respect, but I remind all members who made the point that the number of children with additional support needs has doubled that that of course reflects a very dramatic change in how the numbers are counted. Prior to that change, the extra pupils were already part of the school population and were having their additional support needs met.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister may well be coming to this point, but the two crucial aspects are reinstatement of the bursary, which was taken away in 2012, and the setting of a minimum number of educational psychologists, by local authority. The analogy is the situation of clinical psychologists: trainees still receive a bursary, their numbers have been effectively doubled and there is a set minimum number across Scotland. Our taking a leaf out of their book would get us well down the route to solving the problem.

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

I met some clinical psychologists at an event this morning. I understand the point that David Stewart is seeking to make, but it is important to stress that although there has been a reduction in the number of people applying for the educational psychology course—I freely admit that—there has not been a reduction in the number of people going through the course and coming out as educational psychologists.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is not my point.

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

I understand David Stewart’s point, but I must make some progress—not least in responding to the other point that he made.

It remains—rightly—for local authorities to decide on the number of educational psychologists that they employ, and on prioritisation and delivery of educational psychologist’s services. Mary Scanlon asked a good question about what recourse parents have if local authorities fail in their duty to provide services. They have recourse to mediation and independent adjudication, and to the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland on those important issues.

Teaching and support staff have been trained in identifying, assessing and meeting needs, and we have developed national standards and guidance, such as the autism toolbox and dyslexia toolkit, to support them. That ensures that educational psychologists’ work is directed at the most vulnerable at a time when psychological intervention can have the greatest impact.

A partnership model based on need means that, at each stage of intervention, children are provided with the most appropriate package of support to meet their needs.

To answer David Stewart’s second point, I note that the profession has expressed concern about the impact of the withdrawal of grant funding on the training of educational psychologists. The decision to reduce funding of students on educational psychology courses was made as part of the 2011 spending review to bring it in to line with standard postgraduate support. It must be stressed that the course is a postgraduate course.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I have heard the reasoning about its being a postgraduate course before, from Michael Russell, and I understand it. However, does Dr Allan accept that there is a strong vocational element to educational psychology? If we are to have the same funding structure for dentists, doctors and nurses, a similar funding structure should be in place for educational psychology. It really does not stack up to compare the course to an MSc in art history or an MSc in science when it is a vocational qualification for teaching in our schools.

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

The grant funding was introduced in response to a staffing shortage in the sector in 1998 that, by 2011, was not evident in the same way. The Scottish budget is facing real and significant long-term cuts in the coming years and difficult decisions have had to be made about prioritisation of spending. However, in recognition of the importance of ensuring that appropriate numbers of educational psychologists were trained, it was decided that the student fee loan support of £3,400 would be available for both years of the course.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way briefly?

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

I must make some progress.

The MSc in educational psychology is the only postgraduate course on the prescribed course list where that is the case. Also, from the academic year 2015-16, it will be one of a small number of courses on a prescribed list for which eligible students can apply for living-cost loans of up to £4,500 a year. The national steering group will be interested—as will I—to see the findings of new work that is being done in the area.

As I said, I accept that the removal of funding has had an impact on the number of students who apply to study educational psychology, but the numbers of applications before the removal of funding had reached comparatively high levels—212 in 2011.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister has not touched on this, but I am sure that he agrees that the crucial point about the 70 per cent reduction in applications is that the social mix is wrong; very few working class kids are applying. That is the problem, and it is the effect of the removal of bursaries.

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

I entirely accept the argument that we must do everything we can to ensure that we have the appropriate social mix in our universities. That is why, for example, this Government believes in free education for undergraduate courses and it is why we have been unambiguously behind that.

I realise that time is running out, but I want to say something about the motion.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I must make progress now.

I am saddened by the suggestion in the motion that the quality of candidates has dropped. Indeed, it is more than a suggestion. To be offered a place on the MSc in educational psychology, applicants must demonstrate that they meet a prescribed standard. Once they are accepted for training, trainee educational psychologists must complete a demanding and rigorous two-stage process in order to qualify fully. Those standards have not been compromised, and the lodger of the motion and its supporters have in the debate offered no evidence for that claim.

I also refute the suggestion that there has been a fall in the standards of assessment of additional support needs. I am unclear on what evidence that claim in the motion is based.

Let me put the matter back in context by way of conclusion. I thank members for taking part in the debate. At points it may have seemed not to be in the character of a members’ business debate, but it has been an important debate on a subject that we all accept is crucial to the future of Scotland and Scotland’s children, so I thank members for taking part in it.

We have made strides forward, and through the work that we are doing we are demonstrating our commitment to supporting the educational psychology profession to provide support to all our children and young people, and especially those with additional support needs.

13:14 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Chilcot Inquiry

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12182, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Chilcot inquiry.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I begin with a reminder of the gravity of the subject that we are debating. The United States-led and United Kingdom-backed invasion of Iraq in 2003 began with a strategy that at the time was dubbed “shock and awe”. That was perhaps a far more apt description than it was ever intended to be, for the facts of the Iraq war are indeed shocking, and they are awful. The cost in human terms has been stark. It has been brutal and heart-breaking. It is estimated that the invasion and subsequent conflict have cost the lives of around 150,000 Iraqi civilians, and the impact on Iraq’s infrastructure and economy has been devastating.

At the height of the invasion, the numbers in the UK forces involved peaked at 46,000. In addition to the many who suffered life-changing injuries, 179 UK military personnel died, 136 of them from hostile action. Each one of those deaths is of course an individual tragedy. Last year, the Royal United Services Institute estimated that the cost of UK military operations in Iraq was around £9.6 billion. However, the true cost of any war is incalculable, most especially to those who have been directly affected. The numbers alone do not even begin to describe the full horror and the true human suffering of the war and its aftermath.

Wars often result in a loss of life and in suffering on a scale that we all struggle to imagine, but at the heart of the controversy about Iraq is the fact that the UK was taken to war there on a false pretext. Despite what people were told, no weapons of mass destruction were discovered, and despite the best efforts of those who took us to war to claim that it was legitimate, the legal basis of the invasion was at best very shaky and at worst a gross violation of international law.

I think, and I hope that we all agree, that those who served in Iraq and all those who lost loved ones in the conflict are rightfully owed and should be given answers to the questions that they have. So, too, should the public be given those answers, because of course the public, in their millions, voiced opposition to the war.

The Chilcot inquiry was established almost six years ago. At that time, we were told that it would provide those answers. In launching the inquiry back in 2009, the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said:

“The inquiry is essential because it will ensure that, by learning lessons, we strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 June 2009; Vol 494, c 23.]

However, here we are, nearly six years on and there have still been no answers. I understand, as I am sure that we all do, that it is vital to have a thorough examination of all the evidence, but the inquiry has been plagued by delays from the outset, not least and most recently from the so-called Maxwellisation process, whereby those who are subject to potential criticism are given the opportunity of pre-publication scrutiny of a report and its findings.

It is important to stress that the Chilcot inquiry’s public evidence sessions were completed almost four years ago, on 2 February 2011. It is also worth reflecting on and reminding ourselves of what Sir John Chilcot said at that point. He said that it would take “some months” to deliver his report. Some time after that, it was clarified that it would take until at least summer 2012 but that the public could expect publication by then.

In 2012, the UK Government prevented the release of details of Cabinet minutes and discussions between Tony Blair and George Bush from the period before the war. That same year, Sir John told the UK Government that he would not even begin the Maxwellisation process until the middle of 2013. In October last year, the UK Government revealed that that process had still to begin.

Most recently, we learned last week that, in Sir John Chilcot’s words, Maxwellisation has not been completed and there is “no realistic prospect” of delivering the report before the general election in May. That is scandalous. That is completely unacceptable.

The view that the Scottish Government takes could not be clearer. For the record, I will make it absolutely clear today. The on-going delay in publishing the inquiry report is completely unjustifiable and it should be revisited as a matter of urgency.

For as long as the report remains hidden from public view, the suspicion will remain and will grow that it is being kept secret because of behind-the-scenes wranglings about its contents—a suspicion that is and can only be fuelled by the extended delay until after the looming Westminster election. The fact that the report might make deeply uncomfortable reading for some of those involved in the Iraq war cannot be allowed to prolong the delay to publication any further.

It would be quite simply unacceptable for the voters of this country to be asked to vote in a general election—to be asked to vote for, or perhaps not to vote for, candidates who were MPs at the time of the decision to go into war in Iraq, some of whom voted for the war—when the public do not have the answers to their questions.

We were told back in 2003 by the proponents of war that the invasion of Iraq was needed to make us safer, such was the threat from weapons of mass destruction, which supposedly could be launched at 45 minutes’ notice. Nobody today could seriously or honestly claim that the Iraq war has made that country, the wider middle east region or the world as a whole a safer place. The war’s legacy has instead been to usher in a decade and more of bitter and bloody sectarian conflict, including the rise of Islamic State militants as a destabilising force in Iraq and neighbouring countries.

In just seven weeks’ time, we will mark the 12th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. Twelve years ago, this Parliament was still a very young institution, but even then it rose to the challenge of debating the Iraq situation—we did so just seven days before the invasion commenced. I was proud, along with many others who are in the chamber today, to be among those who recorded our opposition to the war when the issue was put to the vote that day.

The invasion of Iraq was, I believe, a foreign policy blunder of quite epic proportions, the consequences of which we are living with today and will live with for many years to come. Here is the nub of the matter: we must get to know whether there was more than mere miscalculation involved in that foreign policy blunder. Quite simply, only the full and immediate publication of the Chilcot findings can help to shed light on that.

Those responsible for leading the UK to war will have to answer for their actions, but only the full publication of the report will allow them to do that. With every year that passes, the justifications that were given for the war look ever more flimsy, but with every day, week and month that passes, the delay in publishing the Chilcot report becomes ever more glaring and the need for full disclosure becomes unanswerable. I therefore hope that the chamber will come together today and, with one voice, demand loudly and clearly that the report and the findings of the Chilcot inquiry are published, and published before the general election in May.

It is important for the Parliament to note the enormous and, sometimes, ultimate sacrifices that members of our armed forces give. Whatever the rights and wrongs of individual conflicts, our service personnel and their families deserve and have our full and unwavering support. In this instance, that support must include providing those who returned from Iraq and the families of those who did not return from Iraq with the answers that they deserve. We must do so without any further delay.

For those reasons, I am proud to move,

That the Parliament calls for Sir John Chilcot’s official inquiry into the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent war to publish its findings and all evidence ahead of the UK general election; acknowledges that the Iraq war resulted in the deaths of 179 UK service personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians; notes that the cost to taxpayers of the war is estimated at £9.6 billion, and believes that, six years after the inquiry was established and three years after hearings concluded, it is in the interests of transparency, accountability and democracy that the report is published as soon as possible and that any further delay in publication is completely unjustifiable.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I do not believe for a minute that the publication date of the Chilcot inquiry’s report is among the top 10 concerns of the Scottish people, but I strongly believe that it is hugely important that we are all given the earliest possible opportunity to find out what happened, and why, during the build-up to and conduct of the Iraq war, so that we can learn the relevant and necessary lessons.

It is clear that the inquiry is incredibly thorough and detailed—the First Minister alluded to that. In his letter to the Prime Minister of 20 January, Sir John Chilcot said:

“Our report will be based on a thorough and comprehensive account of the relevant events from 2001-2009. We are determined to fulfil the responsibility placed on us to identify lessons to be learned from the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, over this long period.”

I very much welcome the thorough and comprehensive nature of Sir John’s inquiry—that is absolutely as it should be. I share the disappointment that the report will not be published sooner than will be the case, but it is imperative that the process is completed properly. I say that for two reasons—so that the British public are fully informed and so that the report is published without fear of its being challenged on the ground that the due processes were not properly undertaken.

I will expand on that. Two of those due and necessary processes seem to be causing much of the delay that is so frustrating us all. The first involves the declassification of documents that would not normally see the light of day for many a long year but which are, understandably, deemed to be important to the inquiry. In particular, discussions over correspondence between Tony Blair and US President George Bush seem to have taken up an inordinate amount of time. However, I note with some pleasure that Sir John Chilcot, in his most recent letter to the Prime Minister, indicated that agreement had now been reached on those matters.

The second process, which the First Minister referred to, has become known as Maxwellisation. That process gives any individual whose involvement has been criticised or questioned in a draft report sight of that draft and a right to respond before publication. I fully understand that that process has not been responsible for most of the delay, although the process is on-going, and I am clear that the published report could be challenged by anyone who had not been afforded that right. That might be highly unsatisfactory—indeed, it is—to those of us who are impatient for publication, but it is part of the due process that has to be undertaken, and it cannot and should not be controlled or timed by any Government.

We cannot escape the fact that the report could have been published some considerable time ago. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday in the House of Commons, he first voted for an inquiry in 2006, but that was rejected by the then Labour Government. Labour MPs voted against it in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We know the history of obstruction and delay. What I am most concerned about is that the delay affects families who have faced the death of their loved ones in Iraq, including Allan Douglas, a young man who lived in the community that I live in. Does the member think that the delay is acceptable to the Douglas family? I certainly do not.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Nor do I, but I do not think that it helps Allan Douglas’s family, or anybody else who has been involved in the process, to publish the report before the due processes have been fully completed and while it can be challenged. That does nobody any favours.

As I was saying, Labour MPs voted against an inquiry in 2006, 2007 and 2008, which delayed the process for at least three years. Labour members voted against the inquiry and against it being held in public. As David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary, was big enough to admit in an interview in 2009, Labour got it wrong.

My final point, which addresses the intervention by Kevin Stewart, is that the inquiry is independent. Like it or not, it is not for the Scottish Government, or the UK Government, to try somehow to strong-arm the publication date of an independent inquiry’s report. If that were to happen, the value of the inquiry being independent would be hugely diminished, and I believe that a dangerous precedent would be set for future so-called independent inquiries.

In his letter to the Prime Minister of 20 January, Sir John makes it clear that there is “no realistic prospect” of delivering his report before the general election in May. I do not particularly like that, but I have to accept it if I want the inquiry and its report to be truly independent, which I do. I find the Government motion somewhat confusing, in that it calls first for publication of the report before the general election and concludes by asking that the report be published “as soon as possible”.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am upset that the member seems to think that this is simply about politicians. Kevin Stewart raised the case of the Douglas family, who live in the same community where Kevin Stewart lives, which is in my constituency. They are calling for the report to be published because they need answers about why their son died, as do other families. This is not just about politics; it is about people.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Not for one minute have I suggested that this is not about people, and I reject the inference. People will be best served by a proper inquiry that has undertaken all the due processes that give it total legitimacy, and that is what we need. That the report will be published as soon as possible is what Sir John has said will happen, and that is what we in the Conservatives will support.

In a reply to a written parliamentary question from Rhoda Grant on 25 November last year about the delay in publication of the report of the Scottish public inquiry into hepatitis C/HIV, Maureen Watt, as the newly appointed minister, said:

“As the member will be aware, the Penrose Inquiry is independent of Scottish Ministers and it is for the Chairman, Lord Penrose, to decide on the progress and timetabling of the Inquiry.”—[Written Answers, 3 December 2014; S4W-23426.]

If that is good enough for inquiries that the Scottish Government instituted, surely it is the right process for Chilcot.

In all honesty, I do not really understand why the Government has chosen to debate the matter at all, other than for narrow political reasons. However, as the amendment in my name reflects, the independence of the process has to take precedence over any other factor. That is why we cannot support the Government’s motion at decision time.

I move amendment S4M-12182.1, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:

“accepts that the timing of the release of the findings of the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq is entirely for the inquiry itself to decide; expresses its disappointment that the inquiry has now stated that its findings will not be published before the 2015 general election, and, despite Sir John Chilcot’s statement confirming this, calls on him to publish the inquiry’s findings as soon as possible.”

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

The Chilcot inquiry report should be published as soon as possible. Today’s motion could have been agreed while saving debating time in the chamber for matters that require our urgent attention, such as the crisis in our national health service, the failure of schools to tackle educational disadvantage, and the threat to jobs in the North Sea.

On this side of the chamber, there is no quarrel with the position that Chilcot should be published as quickly as is possible. Chilcot must be allowed to publish when ready; there should be no question of any pressure to delay. The full truth of the decision to go to war and the failings during and after the conflict must be fully aired so that they may be learned from and never repeated. Members may recall that, before my own time in Parliament, this chamber did not vote to oppose the war when the question was put before it.

What we will not support if we hear it today is talk of using the Chilcot inquiry as a political tactic. It is too important for that. The report is a matter of national importance, not of nationalist posturing. In the years since the Iraq war, many things have become clear: that the intelligence behind the decision to go to war was wrong—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Ms Dugdale give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

It has become clear that the Iraqi people were let down by a failure of post-war planning and that the price in lives lost was far too high.

We have a duty to learn lessons because we owe that to our service personnel—not just those who gave their lives defending us, but those who continue to defend us every day. I hope that, as well as debating the past, the Parliament and the Scottish Government can find more time to debate and deal with the many problems that veterans who live in Scotland face.

We all hope for fresh insights and understanding when Chilcot reports, but I hope—perhaps naively—that, as with previous inquiries, those who call loudest for the report’s publication are not also the first to claim that it is a whitewash. The report is an opportunity for deeper understanding, not for rerunning political arguments of a decade ago. In an increasingly complex middle east, we surely need that.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

It is clear that there is a thirst for democracy across the middle east, but as that has created hope it has uncovered competing interests and at times dangerous conflict.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Ms Dugdale give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

A sustainable peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people seems as far off as ever in the region. Petro-economies are struggling to meet the demands and fulfil the dreams of angry young populations. Confusing coalitions are shifting and regional power struggles are playing out at the expense of the poorest. A region that already had too many displaced people now finds itself home to 3.8 million new refugees from Syria. Across the region and far beyond Iraq, in countries that had nothing to do with the conflict, extremists who abuse Islam are killing innocent people. They are doing so in Syria and northern Nigeria and from Pakistan to Paris.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

Little wonder world affairs commentators have a new acronym for the region: BAD, which stands for broken, angry and dysfunctional.

What matters is not what side of an argument a person was on a decade ago; what matters is learning from the past and working for a more peaceful and secure future.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Ms Dugdale give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

Whatever side of the argument we were on 10 years ago, we should all unite around a vision for the middle east with human rights, the rule of law, democracy and peace at its heart. In that spirit, we will vote with the Government.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We now move to the open debate. Speeches should be four minutes long, but we have some time in hand if interventions are taken.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Today, the First Minister reminded us of the words that Prime Minister Gordon Brown used when he launched the Chilcot inquiry. He promised that it would help us to learn lessons that would strengthen our democracy. The delay in the publication of the report must surely undermine that original promise. The lesson that is offered by the scandalous delay is a harsh one. Is the “health of our democracy”, to use Mr Brown’s words, really served by the impression of tiptoeing around powerful vested interests?

In the run-up to the invasion, I was working as the deputy editor of The Herald newspaper. At that time, The Herald called for a United Nations resolution to be obtained before any invasion could even be contemplated. The paper also strove for a balance, given its long reputation as a journal of record, and it reported the Government’s case in good faith on its news pages. I remember the day on which the so-called “dodgy dossier” was published by the UK Government and the efforts that were made to present the story with the appropriate prominence, gravity and analysis.

At that time, even those who opposed the war did not know how far they were being misled. Parts of the media, of course, would have been gung-ho for war whatever the evidence, but other, responsible titles were unwittingly pulled into the deception. That was, of course, before considering the information that we never got to see at the time. We hope that Chilcot will reveal that information.

Shortly after the inquiry opened, it heard one of the most devastating pieces of oral evidence, from Sir Christopher Meyer, who was the UK’s ambassador to the US prior to the war. He stated that, after a private meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in April 2002, Mr Blair’s rhetoric began to reflect the idea of regime change. He also claimed that military preparations for war overrode the diplomatic process. That seemed to be confirmed by Tony Blair when he appeared before the inquiry the following year. The tone of his evidence suggested that regime change was, indeed, what motivated him.

It is worrying that crucial evidence was withheld from the inquiry, as has already been mentioned. In particular, it is worrying that the correspondence between Blair and Bush in the run-up to the war was withheld. That very special relationship was key to how events unravelled. Blair gave Bush credibility at home and abroad. It beggars belief that a Labour Government would lend the camouflage of credibility to the neo-conservative extremists around Bush.

We know that the inquiry was extensive, with the last witness giving evidence in 2011, but the extensive wait is completely unacceptable. In addition, many members of the public will be surprised to learn that we are apparently being made to wait to allow those criticised in the report to scrutinise it, make comments and demand changes—a practice referred to as the Maxwellisation process. The process is named after the late Robert Maxwell, who took a civil legal action against the Department of Trade and Industry when it found in an inquiry that he was not a fit and proper person to lead a public company. As subsequent events proved, the DTI was right. How ironic that Maxwell is coming to the aide of Mr Blair, who many believe was not a fit and proper person to lead a country

The wider point—the one which we must address in the interest of the health of our democracy—is: how did Blair get away with it? What was it about the Westminster Government system that allowed those calamitous decisions to be taken in secret?

In the spirit of the cross-party consensus, I will mention one piece of Chilcot evidence: many members of the UK Labour Cabinet were excluded from decision making. I therefore welcome the fact that the Scottish Labour Party is supporting the Scottish Government motion.

Chilcot must answer all those questions. For truth’s sake, voters must see the report before passing judgment on the Westminster system and politicians this May.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This is yet another occasion on which my party and the First Minister’s party have been united on the issue of Iraq. I am sure that she was as disappointed as I was when the Scottish Parliament voted for the invasion of Iraq. I was proud that we stood together against the majority, because we knew our position was the right one. We stood together then just like we are standing together today.

It is a shame that the delays that have characterised the Iraq inquiry were also not a characteristic of the decision to go to war in 2003. Greater deliberation may have avoided the tragedy that unfolded, with thousands of lives lost, many more maimed and a country still recovering from the effects.

In 2007, I visited Umm Qasr, Basra and Baghdad and saw that the invasion’s ramifications were still being felt four years after it began. For example, Iran has a great interest in Iraq, but the invasion unsettled the balance between the two countries. There was no great relationship between them; nevertheless, it was secure before the invasion. It is ramifications such as that that the Blair Government did not foresee or plan for.

In 2010, I subsequently visited Erbil and was able to hear directly from the Kurds about the ramifications for the northern part of Iraq. Again, the situation is unsettled; again, the impact was not planned for. Today, we hear regular reports about Islamic State and some of the atrocities that it is inflicting on minority populations and the rest of Iraq and Syria.

During my visits I saw for myself the folly of the invasion and how the failure to plan for the aftermath would have long-lasting effects. In the Commons, over three years, I voted on four separate occasions for an inquiry into Iraq. On each of those occasions the then Labour Government rejected those pleas. We came up with a various ways in which the inquiry could be conducted; all were rejected. The Labour Government finally conceded at the fag end of its time in government when it could not resist the calls any more.

I led on those calls for an inquiry in a Westminster Hall debate. That was again rejected. I recall the arcane debate about whether the inquiry into the Dardanelles in the first world war was a precedent for an inquiry to be held while the country was still at war. It was claimed that an inquiry would be a distraction for the military when the enemy was still to be defeated. That was four years after George Bush—we all remember that he was not even in Iraq but on an aircraft carrier off the coast of the United States of America—declared “mission accomplished”. The argument that the inquiry could not be held because the conflict was on-going was a farce.

From the beginning, the inquiry was considered an establishment stitch-up and, despite Sir John Chilcot’s determination, it is difficult to disagree. The meetings that at first were held behind closed doors, the restriction of access to records, the vetoing of transcripts and more have all compounded the delay that we are feeling the effects of today.

The inquiry’s composition was supposed to expedite matters, but the result has been an inquiry with insufficient authority. Has one single person held matters up? Probably not, but the establishment, the system and the culture have contrived to ensure that six years later we still have no answers to show. It is therefore absolutely right that the Parliament speaks up to add weight to the growing chorus that is saying, simply and clearly, “Publish—and publish without delay.”

It might be that the lesson that we must learn is that we need to invest more in our diplomatic networks or that we need to learn more about the complex and uncomfortable choices that Government has to make on international matters. I would never advocate an isolationist foreign policy, but perhaps the lesson is to know the occasions on which it is best to sit things out. I hope—I really hope—that those who made the decision are held accountable for their actions, but whatever the conclusion we must learn the lessons before the war is a distant memory.

In 2007, I attended the funeral of Private Scott Kennedy of the Black Watch, who was from Oakley and who died as a result of a roadside bomb in Iraq. For Private Kennedy and the people whom Kevin Stewart referred to—the thousands of others who have lost their lives in Iraq and beyond—we must learn, and learn soon.

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

The most important keyword in this whole debate is transparency. Why is that? Because there is none. The Westminster establishment has abandoned even a semblance of transparency about this inquiry.

What else could we expect? We have plenty of experience of this in Scotland: the lies so ingeniously spun by the no campaign; the lethal nuclear warheads that pass through our biggest population centre in the depth of night; the cover-up in the 1970s, with private memos revealing the huge amounts of oil in the North Sea that were not shared with Scotland; the rendition flights; the treatment of asylum seekers; and the refusal to allow our ministers to speak in Europe even when the UK minister is absent. I could go on and on.

When this Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, that transparency was a crucial promise to the sovereign people of this country, and it remains the keystone of all that we do in this place. At least this Government will not deceive, will not dissemble and will not lie. We are all the elected representatives of all of our constituents, and we absolutely owe them integrity and honesty in everything that we do. If there are members in the chamber who have not lived up to that demand, I ask them to examine their own consciences and to deliver only the truth.

The Chilcot inquiry, which was set up in 2009, was expected to publish in 2012; it has cost us over £9 million; and to date its output is zero. Some facts have come out, not because of but in spite of the inquiry. We know that 27 lawyers warned Tony Blair that the war was illegal and that he knew that at least two months before the invasion, and UN representatives have made it absolutely clear that there was never a prospect of a majority of members voting in favour of a second resolution. We also know that abusive attacks on President Chirac for his caution were deliberately played up; indeed, President Chirac himself described it as “Soviet-style misinformation”. The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the ultimate judge and a Labour loyalist, miraculously changed his mind from illegal to legal, presumably under pressure from George Bush and after spending a day in talks in Washington.

All of this will have been grist in John Chilcot’s grinding mill, but he himself did not expect the mill to grind on for so long. Why are we tolerating this absurd delay? Yes, the inquiry team has done a great deal of work, and it is abundantly clear that the ready access to and co-operation in the corridors of Whitehall that Gordon Brown promised have not been forthcoming. Still, it is nearly 12 years since the invasion took place. There is a limit to the public’s patience and the patience of the families who lost loved ones in this illegal and immoral war. I am talking about the people I have stood with in George Square in silent remembrance with—people like the family of Rose Gentle, her aunt and her daughters, and the people who Kevin Stewart and Willie Rennie mentioned.

It would too be convenient for Tony Blair and several other key figures to keep it all quiet. Mr Blair never wanted the inquiry anyway. It would be convenient to leave a lingering impression that it is all John Chilcot’s fault for taking so long. Convenience serves David Cameron’s case well, too, as he moves towards the general election.

John Chilcot’s report has long passed the stage of acceptable delays regarding the thoroughness of the final product. Even Lord Hurd said that it is “becoming a scandal”. Our own First Minister has described the notion of going into a general election without the report being published in full as “intolerable”.

Like many people, including the families, I want to know why this report is being so conspicuously withheld, apparently by nameless Whitehall mandarins. Chilcot was foolish enough to sign what amounts to a non-disclosure agreement, so he cannot publish without Government approval—so much for his independence. I would like to ask him, “What would happen if you did go ahead, Sir John? What would they do?” I suggest that he should go ahead. Can someone be condemned for telling the truth and being transparent about what we all have the right to know?

It just will not do. We demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not for us but for the families affected, and not after the general election but now. Is that too much to ask? Yes, almost certainly it is when it comes to getting transparency from Westminster, but we will fight for it relentlessly, and I believe that our purpose is sound.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the first Government business debate that Nicola Sturgeon has brought forward as First Minister. As Kezia Dugdale said, we could have spent this afternoon debating other issues such as the health service, but Nicola Sturgeon has chosen to prioritise a debate on the yet-to-be-published Chilcot inquiry report, and she is of course entitled to do that.

The Chilcot inquiry was set up because it is vital that we learn the lessons of Iraq, and I agree with the other members who have said this afternoon that the inquiry should report as soon as practically possible. In 2003, I was a student at the University of Glasgow and, like many others, I did not support military action in Iraq; indeed, I marched against it. I had deep reservations about military action but, in spite of them and what has happened since, I believe that the decisions on Iraq were made in good faith and with good intention. As we know, neither the House of Commons nor the Scottish Parliament voted against military action. Although I think that they were wrong, I criticise nobody who was faced with making the toughest of decisions.

It is important to place on record our gratitude to the men and women of our armed forces who fought and died in Iraq because, irrespective of individual opinions on whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, those people do not have the luxury of debating the legal or moral case of military action. For the families of the service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, the Chilcot inquiry will have added significance.

Had we known in 2003 what we know now, the invasion of Iraq would very likely not have happened. Members are right when they say that we must learn lessons from those mistakes, which is why Gordon Brown and the Labour Government initiated the Chilcot inquiry in 2009, after combat troops withdrew from Iraq, and why we think that the report should be published as soon as practically possible.

However, I am sure that we all hope that some lessons have already been learned, and I believe that that is the case. A number of senior figures have expressed regret at the decision to take action. Alex Fergusson mentioned David Miliband, but those figures are not just in the UK. In the United States, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that, in voting for the invasion of Iraq, she

“got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

We know that Chilcot is an important piece of work and there is a real public interest in its findings, but what must not be forgotten in these discussions is the continuing need to support the people of Iraq. The UN refugee agency, UNHCR—the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—says that there are about 3.1 million internally displaced people in Iraq, including 1 million who were displaced between 2003 and 2013 and 2.1 million who were displaced last year. Just this week, we have seen reports of thousands of Iraqis living in extreme poverty and running out of money altogether after fleeing fighting and settling in the south of the country, so there is a clear need for support from the international community and it is absolutely right that the UK Government continues to provide humanitarian aid—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Sorry, I do not have time.

The people of Iraq cannot afford to have their current needs lost in the discussion of those past mistakes. We know that the conflict continues to affect a number of countries, Sunni and Shia, in the middle east, including Iraq. Those are, of course, not just challenges for the international community; Iraq’s future is best served by an inclusive and united Government.

The Chilcot inquiry is undoubtedly an extremely important piece of work and I think that members across the chamber are in agreement that the report should be published as soon as possible. In the meantime, we must not forget the need to support the people of Iraq in their struggle with the challenges of 2015.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

The debate goes to the heart of one of the greatest issues to have faced the United Kingdom in modern times, for there can be no graver decision than that of whether to go to war—whether to place our young men and women in harm’s way.

The purpose of the Iraq inquiry was to shine a light on all the circumstances leading up to the Iraq invasion; to understand what lay behind the decisions that were taken; to assign responsibility for the mistakes that were made; to hold those who made them to account; and to learn the lessons for the future.

The First Minister quoted the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who said:

“The inquiry is essential because it will ensure that, by learning lessons, we strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 June 2009; Vol 494, c 23.]

Who today in the chamber or in the country can doubt that the UK’s democracy, diplomacy and military have been damaged by the decisions that were taken? Who now doubts that the trust between the UK Government and the people has been broken and that that trust has yet to be restored? Who can deny that the UK’s standing in the world has been diminished by the actions of its Government?

Weapons of mass destruction were the basis on which the case for war was predicated. Tony Blair told the House of Commons that Saddam’s

“weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing ... it is up and running now.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 September 2002; Vol 21, c 3.]

That claim was not true. The UN weapons inspector Hans Blix referred to “weapons of mass disappearance”. He said:

“it was like surgery intended to remove something malignant finding that the malignancy was not there.”

The dossier, which was based on the findings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, contained a number of allegations, none of which have—to this day—been proven or substantiated. Among those allegations were claims that Iraq had an on-going nuclear programme; that WMD programmes were concealed and well funded; and that chemical and biological weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes. Those claims were echoed in the tabloids, which sensationalised the information and framed Iraq as a direct threat to the people of the United Kingdom. For example, The Sun had a headline proclaiming “Brits 45mins from Doom”. Yet, in his evidence to Chilcot, Major General Michael Laurie said:

“We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence”,

which was

“sparse and inconclusive.”

The motion in the name of the First Minister quite rightly refers to the human casualties of the war, but it is now clear that a major casualty of the conflict was the truth itself.

Many believe—as Joan McAlpine mentioned earlier—that Blair was intent on war in order to bring about regime change, which is illegal under international law but which he and the neoconservative Administration in the White House wished—indeed, were determined—to bring about. Clare Short, who left the Blair Government over Iraq, said that Blair’s actions were an “honourable deception”, but millions of people throughout the world now believe that those actions were a deliberate deception, and a dishonourable one at that.

Only the publication of the Chilcot report will allow us to know the truth about what took place. The inquiry should publish its findings at the earliest opportunity; the families of the fallen and the people of this country expect and deserve no less.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I support the Government’s motion, and specifically its call for the report to be published as early as possible. However, I agree with the sentiment that some other members have expressed in the debate. Looking at some of the issues facing us in Scotland, such as the growing crisis in Scotland’s accident and emergency departments, the youth unemployment that blights so many of our communities, and the college cuts that deny many people access to the courses that they want to take, it seems to me that the Government’s time would be better spent in debating those issues than in undertaking an exercise to support the Scottish National Party’s general election campaign

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the member give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, thank you.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way on that point?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, thank you.

All wars are controversial and there is no doubt that the war in Iraq was very controversial. As other members have stated, the war was supported not only by the Scottish Parliament but by the UK Parliament. However, some who voted in favour of the war have since acknowledged that they regret their decision and feel that it was the wrong one.

The reason why there was such controversy over Iraq was because of the debate about the basis of the decision to go to war and whether that decision was correct. In addition, lives have been lost and there has been a substantial cost to the country.

In that context, the Labour Government was correct to set up the Chilcot inquiry—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way on that point?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, thank you.

It is important that the inquiry is independent and that it runs through its due process. However, I agree with those who have expressed extreme frustration at the length of time that it is taking for the report to be published.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, thank you.

We need the report to be published as soon as possible. Those who lost loved ones in the conflict, the military personnel who fought in the conflict and who suffered injury, and the public, given that the war is an issue of great public interest throughout the UK, all need answers not only on the decision to go to war but on how the conflict was waged.

It is imperative that we get answers—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, thank you. It is important that the report is published as soon as possible.

I understand and support the sentiment in the Government’s motion. However, today in Parliament we have heard about how cuts in mental health services have led to a reduction in the number of educational psychologists—

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, thank you. We also heard at First Minister’s question time about appeals to examination results and about the lack of access to Scotland’s universities for people in deprived communities. We do ourselves no service as a Parliament if we ignore those issues.

In the run-up to the general election, it is crucial that the Government, if it is to act responsibility, and we as a Parliament, if we are to act responsibility, debate issues over which we have locus and for which we have responsibility, and on which we can make a difference now. It is important that we get those issues right and get on with the job in hand.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There are many occasions on which I come to the chamber and do not necessarily want to debate the issue that is in the Business Bulletin. However, we are here to debate Chilcot today, and it seems that other members are trying to avoid the subject. It does not matter whether they want to debate the subject or not; it is what is in the Business Bulletin, and we should therefore be debating it. We owe it to the families who have lost loved ones to debate the point that is being made today.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I thank you for your point, Mr Stewart. I am afraid that it is not a point of order, but you have made your point.

Mr Kelly, have you finished?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I had concluded my remarks, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you.

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

I do not want to dispute with the Presiding Officer, but I have no doubt that the reason why Labour members do not want to talk about the Chilcot inquiry is because it impacts on past Labour Governments. That is the real reason, and that is a disgrace, when the whole of Scotland and the whole of the UK and beyond are entitled to know the truth of what happened then.

Like Neil Bibby and many others, I marched against the war—not in our name. Even the dogs on the street knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that the war was about regime change and that the Blair and Bush cohort were together discussing how they could do it.

I do not know why we are waiting for the Chilcot inquiry report, because it will be a whitewash. There is no way that we are going to get people exposed to the critique of why they went into that illegal war, which took us into a bigger international mess than ever before. Quite rightly, the debate has been opened up to discuss the plight of the Iraqi people now and all that has happened, and we are not safer because of what happened in those days.

On the delay in publishing the report and the timing of publication, it is all right to say that we want it published as soon as possible, but I note that the Labour Party is not saying that that should be before the UK general election. Jim Murphy does not want it published before then. Why not? Because, on Mr Blair’s website, claim number 5 is that he stopped the illegal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has cured everything. He has 50 claims on his website, and that is one of them.

The delay is because there are too many people with too much to lose, including not only Blair but Gordon Brown, who told the inquiry that the war was right and that the troops were properly armed and financed. In that case, why was I reading about the fact that they were getting food parcels, that they had the wrong shoes on their feet and that the vehicles that they were in did not protect them? Was I dreaming all that?

The Labour Party also has Jim Murphy, who apologises for everything but not for voting for the Iraq war. There is also Sir Jeremy Heywood, who is now Cabinet Secretary to David Cameron and who has been at the centre of Government for decades; he is keeping schtum. There is also George Bush and his extended family, with their interests in Halliburton and all the money that they made during the Iraq war and after it, and which they continue to make—they are all in it together.

Not only was the Iraq war illegal and about regime change, the conduct of the war was disgraceful. I will quote from people who know far better than me about that. Admiral Lord Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff at the time of the Iraq invasion said:

“I suspect if I asked half the Cabinet were we at war, they wouldn’t have known what I was talking about. So there was a lack of political cohesion at the top.”

Lady Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, said that the invasion of Iraq “undoubtedly increased the threat” of terrorist attacks in Britain. How right she was! Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said:

“I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal ... The rules of international law on the use of force by States are at the heart of international law. Collective security, as opposed to unilateral military action, is a central purpose of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Lord Goldsmith said:

“I was not being sufficiently involved in the meetings and discussions about the resolution and the policy behind it that were taking place at Ministerial level.”

I bless the internet, because it means that such information cannot be hidden from the public.

On the invasion of Iraq itself and the “shock and awe” to which the First Minister has referred, another commentator has stated:

“Everything would depend on what came next. But the American fantasy that the Iraqi state would continue to function and would pick up the pieces a day after Baghdad fell proved entirely unfunded. ‘You had no Iraqi institutions to co-opt,’ recalled General McKiernan. ‘No Iraqi army, no Iraqi police ... No local or national government organisations. Ministries didn’t exist.’ General William Wallace, commander of the US 5th Army Corps, put it more succinctly. ‘There was nobody to receive the surrender from. We couldn’t find them. They weren’t there.’”

The whole thing is a disgrace. The Labour Party members in the chamber might not have been here for the vote in 2003, but please do not defend the actions of anybody of any party who took us into that illegal war—you are worthy of better.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I have had the privilege of serving in Parliament since its re-establishment in 1999, and I have been present at each and every debate on Iraq that we have had. I recall the first, which was not in this chamber, in this setting, but up at the assembly hall where Parliament first sat. I remember the outstanding speeches that took place in the lee of hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions—not just Neil Bibby—marching against a war and protesting that it would not be in their name.

In that first debate, too, there were some outstanding speeches. I recall the speech by George Reid, who used his experience in the Red Cross to warn of the devastation and hardship that would be wreaked around the globe—and it followed.

It is therefore shameful that the Labour members who used their votes to drive through a majority in favour of war are not here today to apologise or to atone for the actions that they took. They may think that by putting forward representatives who were not there, their fingerprints are not on the Iraq war and that new skin can be used. That war remains not just the war of Tony Blair, but the war of Jim Murphy and the war of the Labour Party—a war that has wreaked havoc on Scotland and the rest of the world, that has taken the lives of young servicemen and women and which has caused difficulties throughout humankind.

There are two particular points that we have to deal with.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Would Kenny MacAskill at least acknowledge that Labour supports the Government’s motion and will vote for it tonight?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Maybe, but Labour has still not atoned for the culpability or the actions of the Labour Government, which have made this world a far less safe place.

All wars wreak devastation and all wars leave obfuscation. As we heard from the First Minister, the Iraq war certainly caused devastation, not just in Iraq and the wider middle east, but elsewhere, as we have seen, tragically, on the streets of Paris, London, Madrid and elsewhere. Devastation has been wreaked because of the actions that whipped up a hornets’ nest and created an unsafe world.

There has certainly been obfuscation, because all wars can cloud things and leave people with difficulty in being able to differentiate between truth and fantasy and between reality and fiction. However, it is important that we avoid obfuscation—that we avoid mythology appearing and instead ensure that justice is delivered. We need to ensure that we nail the lie that this was a war to deal with weapons of mass destruction, because it was known before, during and after it—let it be rung out loud and clear from Chilcot—that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that that was a false pretext. Those points have been raised by many members.

Let us hear what went on between Tony Blair and George Bush, because there has been devastation throughout the world, but not in Whitehall. Seeking understanding after wars can be very difficult, but Chilcot has taken longer—and the inquiry has still not reported—than the conduct of the Nuremberg trials after world war two. People who were fleeing justice had to be pursued, but that was managed. After world war one, with the collapse of empires—Romanov, Austro-Habsburg and the Hohenzollern—we managed to conclude a treaty, albeit that it was a flimsy one, in the hall of mirrors at Versailles in a shorter time than that in which Chilcot has managed to report, but we have to remember that no devastation has been wreaked in the palace of Westminster. There have been no burning embers or bunkers down in Whitehall.

The information is there: it should be readily accessible with the technology that we have in the 21st-century world in which we fought a 21st-century war. We should be able to make the information clear to Chilcot and to those who have served with him. People such as those who sought to flee from justice after world war two are not represented in Chilcot—we know where those people are. We can follow their trail of invoices and bills for the fees that they charge for their lectures, as they masquerade as emissaries of peace or whatever else.

The time has come. If we could deal with things at Versailles and at Nuremberg, the time has come for publication of the Chilcot report. We are entitled to no less, as has been said by speakers from all political parties, and not just mine. Young men died and their parents grieve—as Sandra White mentioned, Rose Gentle is the clearest example—and we owe it to their memories to find out what happened.

To some extent, we know what happened, but we need to find out why, and we need to make sure that this is the first of many inquiries that will follow, not just into what happened in Iraq but into what happened in Libya, what happened with rendition and what happened in the cosy relationship between new Labour and George Bush that has made this world a less safe place, not just for Scotland but for all of humanity.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

We have consistently stated that the Chilcot report should be published as soon as possible. We agree with the Government on that point, and we will support the Government motion at decision time. I say that again, after all Labour speakers have said that, because it seems to be a point that has been missed by every Scottish National Party speaker: we will support the Government at 5 o’clock.

I think that it is strange that we are debating the subject when we all agree that Chilcot should be published as soon as possible. We are missing an opportunity to talk about our national health service, educational inequality or the problems that face the oil industry.

If the Government wants to have a debate about the Iraq conflict—which, it seems, is what it wants to do—let us do that. Let us not use the false premise of Chilcot—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Mark Griffin give way?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am sorry. I am just making my opening remarks.

If the Government wants to debate the Iraq war, that is fine. Let us have that debate, but it still represents a missed opportunity to state our support for the families of the soldiers who lost their lives, the families of the Iraqi civilians who lost their lives, and the troops who returned to Scotland and are coping with issues related to combat stress.

Finally, it is a missed opportunity for us to talk about Iraq as a country—how it has moved on from the conflict, what we can do to contribute to its regeneration and how we can support its citizens to make them feel more confident and secure in their country and with their country’s place in the world.

There have been improvements in Iraq, although the pace of change has been far from what was promised. Problems of sectarianism have blighted Iraq, and although the situation is not as bad as it was at the height of the violence in 2006, still far too many people die every week in religion-motivated attacks, and we see news of more deaths all the time.

I have said in the chamber before that I grew up with more awareness of the situation in Iraq than most people my age, because my mum had a childhood friend who was Iraqi. They both grew up in Dennistoun and her friend had in her teenage years to move back to Iraq with her family. My mum would often tell stories about her friend when I was growing up. Any time there were news reports on television about the latest massacre that Saddam had inflicted on his own people, she would talk about how she hoped that her friend Mae was still alive, as she was a member of a family of academics, who were considered to be a threat to the regime.

Mae did survive and was able to move back to the UK after the conflict. She got back in touch with my mum, and she and her husband have spent recent Christmases with my family in Scotland. She has spoken to me at length about the conditions in which Iraqi people were living under Saddam and how things are for her family, who still live there. She has spoken about the sectarian violence that plagues the country, the number of people who live in poverty, the problems with power supplies and the lack of access to clean water.

Those are the issues that should dominate any debate about Iraq. We should be asking how we, as a country, can support Iraq to address those problems in order to boost Iraqis’ confidence and pride in their country, which has been clearly evident when I have spoken to people from there.

Air links to Iraq are still not well developed. We have only recently seen connections established between London and Baghdad, despite the fact that London has probably one of the biggest populations of Iraqis outside Iraq.

Electricity is not supplied around the clock, 24 hours a day, in an energy rich nation—

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The member has been talking about air links to Iraq. I cannot for the life of me see how that links, even in the most tenuous way, to the motion and amendment that are published in the Business Bulletin. It was open to the Labour Party to lodge such an amendment if members wanted to bring in such matters. I seek your guidance on how far we may digress from what is in the Business Bulletin.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am content that Mr Griffin’s speech is within the confines of the debate.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am sorry that SNP members do not want me to talk about the Iraqi people and the situation that they face—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

SNP members would much rather campaign on general election points and try to kick opponents than hear about the plight of the Iraqi people and what we can realistically do to support them.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Mark Griffin has told us much about his family connection and the Iraqi person whom his mother knew. With that background, does he personally think that the Labour Party was right to support the invasion of Iraq all those years ago?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must draw to a close, Mr Griffin.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I do not think that the debating point was whether we agreed to go to war. We have heard from Labour members including Neil Bibby, who talked about his experience of marching against the war. I did not support the war, but I am not going to apologise for a vote that took place when I was still at school—

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

That is what SNP members want you to do, though—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Mr Griffin, you must close very, very soon. You must close.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I would rather talk about the personal experiences of the people of Iraq. Security in Iraq is improving, citizens have access to mobile phones—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. You must close. Thank you.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I will be brief. On 10 April 2002, in the House of Commons, Tony Blair said:

“Saddam Hussein’s regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 10 April 2002; Vol 383, c 23.]

In September 2002 he said, of the intelligence service:

“It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... which could be activated within 45 minutes”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 September 2002; Vol 390, c 3.]

On 4 June 2003, he said:

“There are literally thousands of sites ... As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 4 June 2003; Vol 406, c 161.]

Well, we know that Hans Blix’s team found nothing. Blair lied, and David Kelly died—an intelligence officer died in the most questionable of circumstances. The Iraq war was an illegal, despicable, destructive war, the background to which we should be told about—and told about now.

The war had much more to do with oil and the buttressing of large corporate companies such as Halliburton, whose former chief executive officer became vice-president of the United States at the time of the war.

In his recent memoir, Kofi Annan reflected on what might have happened if, when there was no second UN resolution, Blair had said to Bush, “This is where we part company. You’re on your own.” Chilcot must tell us what was said twixt Blair and Bush—preferably unredacted, although I have little hope that that will happen.

The delay in publication of the Chilcot report is an insult to the 179 UK and 4,500 US service personnel who died, and to the 650,000—that is The Lancet’s estimate—Iraqis, including many children, who lost their lives. The delay has been caused—allegedly—because the witnesses want to see what has been said about them. What about the families of the Iraqi children? What about the families of the UK and US service personnel? What about their right to know what happened?

The war cost the UK economy £9.6 billion. The funds were authorised by Gordon Brown. For what?

Last week, Kevin McKenna wrote splendidly in The National that Westminster produces a fabric of the state in which London, Oxbridge, Labour, Conservative and secretaries to the Cabinet conspire to maintain what they believe is their established right to alternating UK Governments. In so doing, in the case of the delayed Chilcot inquiry, that fabric is a black curtain, six years in the making, that has now been drawn across this particular infamy.

Some 80 per cent of the people who were questioned in the BPIX poll believe that Blair was lying, and 40 per cent think that he should be jailed. Blair appeared before the Chilcot inquiry on 29 January 2010 stating responsibility but not regret for removing Saddam Hussein. Of course, that was not the purpose of UN resolution 1441. That resolution was breached, and Blair misled Parliament and the people of the UK, with dire consequences.

There is a story behind every death. None is more telling than the story of Rose Gentle, who lost her 19-year-old son, Gordon, in that debacle. She was present at the session when Blair gave his evidence to Chilcot. She said, “I am not a politician trying to score cheap points but a mother seeking justice for her son.” She deserves to know the answer. We all deserve and demand an answer now, so let us unite across this Parliament and demand without fear or favour, and in the name of open Government, the publication now of the Chilcot inquiry.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before we leave the open debate, I remind all members who have taken part in the debate to return to the chamber for the closing speeches.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This debate is essentially about the Chilcot inquiry but, in reality, it is probably more about truth. In the course of the debate, we have had a number of interesting contributions; some have been focused and passionate, but I have to say that others have been rambling and incoherent. However, we need to focus back on truth. The truth is that Scottish soldiers have given their lives for the United Kingdom in many wars, and we should respect the memory of those who have done so.

Even during my lifetime, I have seen on a number of occasions Parliament discuss the prospect of war. That has been characterised by the fact that Oppositions have trusted the information that they have been given by Governments. That trust, it seems, was undermined in the build-up to the second Gulf war. Yet, there is plenty of evidence that that trust existed strongly at the time. We heard from Joan McAlpine about how The Herald reported the Government’s position in good faith. It did not know the extent to which it was being misled at the time, and neither did any of the rest of us.

If the report were published tomorrow, however, and failed to support the First Minister’s particular view, how much further forward would she be?

During this debate, many people have prejudged the outcome of the inquiry. Even Willie Rennie, a man whose reasonable attitudes are famous, said that he believes that the inquiry was an establishment stitch-up. Even in ancient Greece, they knew that truth was the first casualty of war.

We are now six years on from the time when we expected Chilcot to begin to give us the answers. Public evidence taking was completed four years ago, and we still wait for the report. However, we must remember who that report is for. Many have spoken with passion today about the families of those who lost their lives. We must also remember those who still have their lives, but whose lives have been destroyed by things that happened in that battle. However, the report is not only for them. There are those who might be at risk in future wars of becoming casualties of a process that is not informed by the inquiry’s outcome.

Those who seek the truth and desire to learn from it want the report, when it is published, to tell us the truth, to be accepted by all sides, and to ensure that it is a conclusion that we can all accept. If the outcome of the process that we have engaged in today is a rise in public opinion that the report should be published at any cost before the general election, we risk not getting the benefit of that truth.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I ask the member to answer a particular question:

“Will delaying the start of the inquiry and prolonging the publication until after the next election not lead everyone to conclude that this inquiry has been fixed to make sure that the Government avoid having to face up to any inconvenient conclusions?”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 June 2009; Vol 494, c 25.]

David Cameron said that in June 2009.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is a good question, but it is not relevant to the argument that I am trying to make.

Truth will be the most important outcome of the inquiry. If the process is not completed, or if it is interfered with in any way so that anyone can claim that the independence of the inquiry and its report has been compromised, we will have lost everything—the time, the money and the lives that have been invested in it. That is why I believe that the report should be published before the general election. However, if it has not completed due process and that cannot happen, I will regret that but accept it. I want to see publication happen in a way that we can trust, believe and understand and I do not want to put any barriers in the way of us getting the full advantage of the inquiry report when it is published.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

The Chilcot inquiry, which was established by Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister, is a crucial inquiry that must be given time to be conducted thoroughly. However, the time between the final evidence session in 2011 and now rightly causes many concerns across the country and it is only right that publication of the final report must take place at the earliest opportunity. As we head into a general election, we must beware of the inquiry becoming a party-political issue despite calls from all parties to have the report published.

In 2010, Sir John Chilcot, who has the final say over the timing of the inquiry at all stages, rightly ordered a recess to avoid influencing the general election but we are in danger of allowing that to happen now.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

No, thank you.

We must not forget the lives that were lost during the conflict; I know that the families will never forget. Those families want and deserve answers and to know that other families will not suffer the torment of losing a loved one.

The Government motion states that

“it is in the interests of transparency, accountability and democracy that the report is published as soon as possible”.

The Scottish Government is correct and that is why Scottish Labour supports the Government motion.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will Mary Fee give way on that point?

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

No, thank you.

On top of our justified bewilderment over the release of the report, we have to remember that the families of our armed forces want answers. Different media sources report that this person is to blame or that person is responsible for the delay in publication. No matter who is to blame or what people say, the final call on publication will be made by Sir John Chilcot.

As the First Minister has said, the delays are totally unacceptable. I spoke earlier about the danger of the inquiry becoming a feature of the forthcoming general election. We must remember that the most important people are the families of those who were killed and injured, and they deserve better.

That warning must be heeded by all parties, whether or not they supported what happened in Iraq. Today was an opportunity for us all to unite behind our concerns about the delay in the publication of the inquiry report and to debate our genuine concerns and acknowledge the hurt and damage that have been caused. Unfortunately, the tone that has been taken by some on the Government benches has detracted from that. They have chosen instead to make political mischief.

In contrast, when opening for Labour, Kezia Dugdale rightly warned that we will not support the use of Chilcot as a political tactic, because the issue demands greater respect than that. Kezia Dugdale also spoke about the things that have become clear since the Iraq war: that the intelligence was wrong, that the Iraqi people were greatly let down by a failure of post-war planning and that the price in lives was unacceptable.

Mark Griffin and James Kelly said that the debate is a missed opportunity for the Parliament to debate matters over which we have influence.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will Mary Fee take an intervention on that point?

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

No, thank you.

Mark Griffin recounted how a long-standing family friend, an Iraqi woman, moved back to Iraq before the war and how his mother feared for her friend living under the regime there, because her family were educated and therefore a threat. We also heard of the humanitarian impact, sectarian violence, poverty and problems with infrastructure. The promise of improved infrastructure was not delivered to the Iraqi people.

Neil Bibby spoke of poverty and lack of access to food, much of which related to the displacement of the Iraqi population. The UNHCR reports that about 3.1 million people are displaced, with 2.1 million of them fleeing in the last year alone. That devastating crisis needs to be addressed. We cannot have a rerun of what was witnessed in the run-up to the 2003 war. Not a week goes by when we do not hear about the continuing terrorism that is occurring in the middle east. The situation in Syria and Iraq and the assault by Isil present the region with further problems. The international community must unite to support the country to be an inclusive and united nation with a Government that represents all of its people.

The Chilcot inquiry should allow us as a nation to learn from our mistakes. I recognise that the majority of public opinion was against the intervention in Iraq. A recent YouGov poll showed that 68 per cent of people would like to see the inquiry report as soon as possible.

I repeat that we will support the Government motion at decision time, as we believe that it is right that the inquiry’s findings are published as soon as possible. However, I also repeat my warning that the issue must not be used in general election campaigning. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

That would be disrespectful to the dead, the injured, their families and the Iraqi people.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The previous remarks lead us back to the point about why the debate is important. The First Minister said that this is a grave subject, and indeed it is, but I will set out some reasons why the debate is important. First, there is nothing wrong with holding elected representatives to account, as that is part of the democratic process. Democratic responsibility is extremely important, and disdain for it is wrong. We are going to have the third general election since the Iraq war happened. In a democracy, the ability of citizens to have faith in and scrutinise the processes and decisions of the Government is extremely important.

Another reason why the debate is important is that the Chilcot inquiry has become a central element in the public’s ability to know the truth of what happened at the time. It is important that we have a fearless investigation and it should not be hamstrung by a desire to protect very powerful people. There is an old saying in the legal profession that goes, “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” I would say that we should let justice be seen to be done though the heavens, or even the reputations of some individuals, fall.

Labour, which has been talking about the NHS, educational psychologists and various other things—anything but the subject that is in front of us—seems to have forgotten that it is most important to remember the 179 souls from this country who died serving their country during that conflict, as well as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died. They should remain in our minds.

Of course it is perfectly legitimate that we should discuss such an issue. The service personnel and their families are entitled to ask why they were asked to do what they were asked to do. We know that they were not told at the time. In a dossier that could best be described as a weapon of mass deception, the case was made that there were weapons of mass destruction only 45 minutes away from the UK.

The old saw, “Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do and die,” cannot be the limit of the service personnel’s human rights. They have explicitly forsworn their democratic right to object to, or refuse to do, what they are asked to do and they do as their elected Government asks them to. Even if they think that their political masters are stupid, venal or naive, they have to do what they are asked to. However, more than anybody else, they surely have a right to know the arguments, processes and reasons—and even the deals that were done before they were sent to put their lives in danger.

As I have thought about the matter over the years, I have tried to imagine how service personnel felt having been told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, having seen friends die in the pursuit of that conflict and having seen comrades disabled by their injuries. Would it have been more horrifying to them to find the weapons of mass destruction or to find that there were none, having seen the carnage that had preceded?

We have now found out that the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction was a false prospectus. The idea—which was always preposterous—that they were 45 minutes away from being a threat to the UK is increasingly preposterous. Everybody realised that at the time.

Our service personnel are individuals. They are often characterised, as people such as Ian Lang did disgracefully in the referendum debate last year, as being of the same mind, but they are not. They are individuals and have different views on things. However, I think that they would be of one mind in wanting to know why they were given one reason for being asked to put themselves in harm’s way—that is, weapons of mass destruction—and then, after many of them died, given another reason. Regime change was the excuse—the fig leaf—that was used after the war to try to justify some of the actions. I hope that the Chilcot inquiry will remove that fig leaf when it eventually reports.

Who wants those answers and why do we discuss the issues? We have heard the answers from some of the other speeches. Rose Gentle wants the answers. Is that wrong? Should she wait to have another debate on the health service or educational psychologists? Does she not have a right to have her views represented in the Parliament as well? The family of Allan Douglas also wants to have answers, as Kevin Stewart said. There is also the deafening silence of 179 deceased souls. They want to have answers as well and why should they not? Why should they wait for longer than the entire second world war to have them?

We heard from Kenny MacAskill about the alacrity with which the Nuremberg trials were carried out because of the gravity of what had happened and because the need to try to get to the truth of the events very soon after they happened was huge. However, I heard somebody on the Labour benches say in a self-congratulatory tone that Labour called for the inquiry. Aye, but that was six years after the war had taken place and, as Willie Rennie said, after the Labour Party had had a chance to vote for an inquiry three or four times and refused to do so. It took that long. How much information was lost in that time and how many personal testimonies could no longer be found because of the delay?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Does the cabinet secretary, who is a reasonable person, accept that there is a need for total integrity behind the report when it is published and that the people about whom he is talking would be better served by such integrity, just as the victims of hepatitis C will require total integrity? That can be achieved only if the due processes are seen to have been carried out and the inquiry does not have a false publication date placed on it by politicians.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

First, I deprecate the analogy that Alex Fergusson drew between the hepatitis C investigation and the Chilcot inquiry. The two do not stand comparison.

Of course the inquiry must be conducted in the correct way—everybody understands that. The point is: why has it taken six years for it to happen and why did Chilcot say at the start of 2011 that it would be done in a few months? The important point is that it has been delayed unreasonably. In the House of Commons today, Alex Fergusson’s colleague David Davis pointed the finger expressly at Whitehall. I might be wrong, but I think that Jack Straw said the same thing. They are saying that something is going on to delay the process, other than the Maxwellisation that we have heard about.

It is a scandal. I would have liked Alex Fergusson to have attached a higher priority to the needs of the families of those who died or those who were injured than he did to issues of process. Their needs are far more important, and the UK Government should have shown some urgency in its handling of the matter. It is unfortunate that that is not happening.

I believe that it is very important for the Parliament and the Scottish Government to note the huge sacrifice—it is sometimes the ultimate sacrifice—that members of our armed forces make in preserving our safety and security. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the actions of individuals, there is no doubt that, as the First Minister said, our service personnel and their families deserve our complete support. We betray rather than serve the interests of those people if we try to sweep the issue under the carpet or endlessly avoid debating it, as others have suggested that we should do. As part of the support that we provide, we should provide those service personnel who returned and the families of those who did not with the answers that they deserve, and we must do so without further delay.

For those reasons, I am proud to support the motion in the First Minister’s name.

Community Charge Debt (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12176, in the name of John Swinney, on the Community Charge Debt (Scotland) Bill.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On 2 October last year, the former First Minister announced the Government’s intention to introduce legislation to ensure that councils could take no further action to recover ancient community charge, or poll tax, debts. Today, we are considering that legislation.

With the co-operation of the parliamentary authorities, we have been able to bring forward the Community Charge Debt (Scotland) Bill on an expedited timetable so that it can be in force for the start of the next financial year. As a result, we have not had the time to put our proposals out to full public consultation, but we have consulted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities, which are the only bodies that could be adversely affected by our proposals.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Were local authorities consulted on the principle of the bill?

I take the cabinet secretary’s point on that, but surely to goodness this is a breach of the principle that he has just espoused.

It probably will not come as a great surprise to learn that we will not be supporting the bill at decision time today. We do not take that decision for any great affection or love for the community charge, as Mr Swinney rather lazily suggested. We do not do it because we have yet to catch up. We do it for reasons of principle and pragmatism.

The principle has been outlined by John Swinney himself—he has said it so many times in the chamber—that people should properly pay taxes for which they are liable. What he has not said before in the chamber is that that only applies to taxes with which he agrees or taxes that, in his view, are live.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Would the member accept that there are other principles at play here, such as mercy?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Let us throw in another, then: the idea that two people both vehemently disagreed with the community charge but one of them paid it and made sacrifices to do so and the other may have been able to pay it but did not for reason of choice—yet the first has to pay and the second, thanks to the Scottish Government, does not.

There are a number of principles in play, but it is the Scottish Government that says that people should pay the taxes for which they are liable—yet that principle has been broken. It will ring hollow when Mr Swinney or other party spokespeople for finance mention it in the chamber in future.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Now that, for the last financial year for which data is available, we are collecting £327,000, whereas there is £425 million outstanding, would Mr Brown care to share with Parliament his proposals for collecting the remainder?