Scottish Parliament, 11 September 2019

245 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The first item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-18355, in the name of Alexander Stewart, on the 100th anniversary of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund (RAFBF) on reaching its 100th anniversary in 2019; understands that the organisation was formed by Lord Trenchard one year after the formation of the Royal Air Force with King George VI as Patron; acknowledges that it was previously known as the Royal Air Force Welfare Fund due to one of its objectives being the raising of a memorial to airmen who died in the First World War; notes that it is the Royal Air Force’s leading welfare charity, providing financial, emotional and practical support to serving and former members of the RAF, regardless of their rank, in addition to their partners and dependants; acknowledges that, under its current Patron, the Queen, the RAFBF was awarded a Royal Charter in 1999, which was updated in 2008 by the addition of a new charitable object permitting the organisation’s work towards supporting the wellbeing and morale of serving RAF personnel; understands that, in its first year, welfare expenditure was £919, with the first welfare assistance being a shilling for a night’s lodging to give the recipient a chance to seek work; considers that today the charity provides a far broader range of support to more than 55,000 members of the “RAF Family”, with a reported expenditure in 2017 of £18.8 million; acknowledges that the RAFBF also engages with many civilian companies, councils and local authorities across the Mid Scotland and Fife region, Scotland and the UK as a whole, and commends the charity and its staff and volunteers for their tireless work for the welfare and wellbeing of others.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am delighted to have, and am grateful for, the privilege of opening this poignant members’ business debate. I pay tribute to those from the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund who have chosen to attend the debate and support us from the public gallery.

Almost exactly a year after King George V authorised the creation of the Royal Air Force, Lord Trenchard, with King George VI as patron, formed the organisation previously known as the Royal Air Force Memorial Fund. One of the RAF Memorial Fund’s objectives was the raising of a memorial to airmen who died in the first world war. This magnificent monument, which was completed in 1923, can be seen today on Victoria Embankment in London.

In the new welfare fund’s first year, expenditure was £919, which was a considerable sum of money at the time. The fund’s first welfare assistance was a shilling a night for lodgings to give the recipients a chance to seek work. Other examples of early assistance included money to provide a beneficiary with the tools of their trade, and the repairs to a pair of working boots.

Nowadays, the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund is the RAF’s leading welfare charity. It provides financial, emotional and practical support to serving and former members of the RAF, regardless of their rank, as well as to their partners and dependants. Her Majesty the Queen is the current patron of the fund, which was awarded a royal charter in 1999. That was updated in 2008 with the addition of a new charitable objective permitting the organisation’s work supporting the wellbeing and morale of serving RAF personnel. In Scotland, for example, the fund spent more than £1 million directly supporting 290 people.

The fund provides support ranging from housing to care home top-up fees, as well as mobility adaptations in the home, so that individuals can live more independently. It has also supported thousands of veterans, with grants provided to other organisations such as the Scottish Veterans Residences, the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, the RAF Widows Association and Reading Force.

For serving personnel in Scotland, last year the RAF Benevolent Fund spent £148,000 supporting families at RAF Lossiemouth through individual grants and station grants. It has supported the station’s family day, the refurbishment of the Circle community centre, a new play park, and the station’s cinema club. Personnel at Lossiemouth have also benefited from a whole range of the fund’s services, which are available across all stations in the United Kingdom.

The high level of assistance given to our Scottish veterans and serving RAF personnel is a small snapshot of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund’s worldwide capability and capacity. Last year, the RAF Benevolent Fund spent more than £20.9 million supporting an astonishing 53,000 members of the RAF family right across the world. The fund also engages with many civilian companies and organisations, including the Church of Scotland, as well as councils and local authorities across my region of Mid Scotland and Fife, all over Scotland and throughout the UK.

Even with this high level of multifaceted work, a great many people could still benefit from the fund if they knew that it was available, and it is important to identify those people.

It is for that reason that the RAF Benevolent Fund has launched a major new campaign in its centenary year. It is urging the country to help it to repay the debt that we owe to the RAF veterans, and their families, who have served and who now require help and assistance. They put on the uniform for our country when we needed them, so it is only right and proper that they know that, in their hour of need, they will be supported and looked after by the fund.

The campaign, which was launched at the end of June this year, is entitled “Join the Search. Change a Life.” It calls on us all to reach out to the men and women who served as regulars or reservists, or who did their national service in the RAF. We all know that many people from that generation feel too proud to ask for support, but it is vital that we identify those people and give them the support that they might require. It may be that people simply do not know that the RAF Benevolent Fund is there to support them, so it is imperative that we identify people before it is too late.

Since the start of the campaign, more than 5,700 people have been in touch, of whom 4,300 have asked about specific welfare needs. It is vital that people get welfare support. They might need housing adaptations to help them in their bathroom or kitchen, or to get in and out of the house, and it is important that they get the opportunity to live independently and to develop.

The top three identified needs are financial assistance, or help to understand the support to which they are entitled for their welfare and their opportunity to develop; help to live independently, which is important; and help in the prevention of social isolation and loneliness. Many people are affected by those issues, and we have identified the problems many times in debates in the chamber across many Scottish Government portfolios. Requests for help have come from as far away as Canada and South Africa. Research has shown that at least one in three of us knows someone who has served in the RAF and who might want to seek support.

Much of the truly phenomenal work that the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund is involved in goes unseen. However, I take this opportunity to whole-heartedly congratulate and commend not only the RAF Benevolent Fund as an organisation, but its staff and volunteers. They are the ones who go the extra mile to provide support and who make a difference on the ground in communities and constituencies. That work will ensure that the welfare and wellbeing of the entire RAF family is looked after for the future.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and I congratulate the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund on reaching its 100th anniversary. I also congratulate Alexander Stewart on securing the debate.

Given the previous work that I have done with veterans, I am very aware of, and greatly appreciate, the work that is done by the RAF Benevolent Fund. It has been instrumental in providing excellent emotional, financial and practical support for serving members and veterans, and for their families. The debate gives us the opportunity to reflect on the past 100 years, on the role that the RAF has played in situations of war and conflict and, more recently, on the RAF’s deployment to deal with natural disasters and emergencies.

We should reflect on the bravery, strength and determination that every member of the RAF has shown, and continues to show, in deeply difficult and demanding circumstances. I recall, back in 1982, waiting in San Carlos Bay in the Falklands for the next air raid warning red and for the latest foray from some very brave Argentinian pilots, and I remember the relief that was shown when the RAF came to our defence in very difficult circumstances.

As today’s motion notes, one of the first actions of the RAF Benevolent Fund was to do the thing that is so important: provide support to people in difficult circumstances. Support is given not only when people have left the armed forces, but when people are considering whether they want a career in the armed forces. It is right that the fund does that, and that we as a society continue to recognise the personal sacrifices that servicemen and servicewomen continue to make every day.

Perhaps one of the most daring examples of the RAF’s courage during the cold war and the Soviet blockade of Berlin was when its planes were part of heroic efforts to provide western-controlled Berlin with supplies. The RAF transferred more than 400,000 tonnes of cargo into the city, flew more than 30 million miles and spent more than 200,000 hours in the sky.

I am very proud that the Scottish Government’s commitment to the armed forces and veterans’ community is a matter of public record. The appointment of a Scottish veterans commissioner was the first of its kind anywhere in the UK, and Scotland’s mental health and related provision for veterans is acknowledged as some of the best in the UK by the charity, Forces in Mind Trust. In addition, the Scottish veterans fund has provided over £1.4 million in grants to more than 150 projects, helping veterans transition to civilian life.

We know that some service members’ sense of duty extends well past their time in the forces. As Alexander Stewart rightly said, they often feel that they are undeserving of the benefits and entitlements to which they are due, which means that the benefit uptake is often not at the level that we would want to see. Therefore, the role of the RAF Benevolent Fund in providing quality advice to serving members and veterans about welfare benefits has been crucial in ensuring that they get the support that they are entitled to and deserve.

The benevolent fund’s support for and funding of the armed services advice project is of particular note. The project is very strong in Stirling, where it has worked tirelessly with a number of other organisations to improve veterans’ access to entitlements.

I, too, enjoyed celebrating the RAF’s remarkable success in a debate in this chamber in 2014. I am particularly encouraged to note the benevolent fund’s centenary campaign, called “Join the Search. Change a Life.” It aims to reach up to 100,000 veterans and families that it estimates currently miss out on support. Such inspiring campaigns can truly make life-changing differences to individuals, and are illustrative of how the fund has positively impacted the lives of so many, for so long.

Alexander Stewart mentioned that one in three of us knows somebody who has served in the RAF. I encourage everyone to make sure that any RAF veterans that they know are aware of the campaign. They will be aware of the RAF Benevolent Fund, because it is such an integral part of the RAF and its significant contribution to the lives of many veterans.

Veterans should also be aware that, as a society, we have a duty to provide for and empower those who have given so much, and the RAF Benevolent Fund’s enduring commitment to meeting that over the past 100 years marks it out as a very important organisation for veterans. It is right that we celebrate that.

I extend my personal congratulations to the RAF Benevolent Fund on 100 years of commendable work. I wish it all the best for the next 100 years and I hope that it will continue to help veterans across Scotland and the UK.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

I, too, thank my colleague Alexander Stewart for lodging his motion. It is a great privilege to celebrate the upcoming 100th anniversary of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund in the chamber today, especially as I am a veteran.

The RAF, as the oldest independent air force, has long been a staple of Britain’s security and strength. Its servicemen and women, as with other armed forces personnel, show extraordinary bravery and commitment to our country on our behalf. I am sure that all of us today are immensely grateful for their efforts.

It is no surprise that with their duties come pressures and burdens. With frequent moves, long working hours and separation through deployment, the RAF family as a whole—veterans, along with their loved ones—often needs help and support. Indeed, the RAF Benevolent Fund has estimated that as many as 100,000 RAF veterans, alongside their families, are in urgent need of possibly life-changing support. That support—whether emotional, practical or financial—is what the benevolent fund has provided and will continue to provide.

At its heart, the fund’s central vision is that no member of the RAF family will ever face adversity alone. Earlier this week, I was delighted to visit RAF Lossiemouth, where I met Typhoon squadron crews, who are our front-line team working 24/7. They were very impressive, and the families who support them do an incredible job.

The RAF Benevolent Fund offers a truly impressive breadth of welfare, which spans generations and covers the old and the young. That includes contributions towards housing and adaptions, youth facilities, care services and respite breaks.

The benevolent fund takes great care to offer, among its many services, a special strand of support to RAF couples. Those couples can face additional challenges to their relationship, which are often tested through long distance. Through the benevolent fund’s partnership with the charity Relate, its online course, called building stronger families, offers welcome guidance. It is designed to help couples navigate through common issues before they become detrimental to their relationship. So far, more than 5,600 servicemen and women, along with their families, have used that relationship support service.

In addition, this month sees the beginning of wellbeing and employment workshops for partners of RAF personnel. The workshops, which are organised by mentors who can share insight into RAF life, encourage partners to recognise their skills and strengths and the mental barriers that they feel hold them back.

Children are at the centre of RAF families. It is important to point out that they often face a unique set of difficulties. Life on an RAF base, such as the one that I saw yesterday, can understandably feel isolated, especially for those of a young age. It is certainly not easy for children to be separated from a parent for the long term while continually starting new friendships. To lessen those challenges, the RAF Benevolent Fund has channelled funds into airplay, which is a youth support programme that is geared for RAF children and is run in connection with the charity Action for Children. The programme encompasses childcare centres, play parks and activities that are based on or around RAF stations, complete with trained youth workers. That work allows for childcare that favours affordability, opening the way for stability and support.

The RAF Benevolent Fund is perhaps seen at its most compassionate in the case of injury to or death of a loved one. In the whirlwind of a situation that people may not have planned for, the RAF Benevolent Fund comes alongside and offers much-needed support, whether it be financial help with funeral costs or purchasing an accessible house, or assisting with further education. The RAF Benevolent Fund has shown its sincerity and commitment to the RAF family. At such times of difficulty, the charity gives valuable time for loved ones to rebuild their lives.

The work of the RAF Benevolent Fund is incredibly far reaching. The charity prizes safeguarding family relationships, encourages employability and aims to prevent feelings of isolation. It strengthens mental and physical wellbeing and boosts morale. I find it hard to imagine that, without the RAF Benevolent Fund, RAF families would be as cared for as they are. I am sure that I am not alone in the chamber in hoping for another 100 years of this inspiring charity.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Alexander Stewart on securing this important debate and on his comprehensive and thoughtful speech.

Like most members who are in the chamber, my interest in the debate is personal. My father did his national service with the RAF at Kinloss as a fresh-faced 18-year-old more than 70 years ago. During my last year of school in the Highlands, I thought seriously about joining the RAF, but instead I chose the less hazardous conflict zone that comes with a career in politics. However, during my time in Westminster, which started in 1997, I relished the opportunity to serve with the RAF for two terms as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I welcomed the setting up of the scheme in the Scottish Parliament earlier in this session, and I hope that members from across the chamber will volunteer to take part in it.

During my involvement with the Westminster scheme, I had direct experience of RAF Kinloss and Lossiemouth and a memorable week in Basra in Iraq, which I will say more about later. During that time, I flew in a Tornado fast jet, a Nimrod maritime aircraft and a Sea King search and rescue helicopter. On my last day with the RAF, the Sea King that I was involved with had to attend an emergency in Glen Coe. I vividly remember flying a few hundred feet above Loch Ness on the way there and observing at first hand the bravery, expertise and professionalism of the pilots and the winch crew as they saved the life of a young Swiss mountaineer who had fallen and suffered severe facial injuries. My experience was a brief snapshot, but it gave me tremendous admiration for the armed forces and for veterans.

As others, not least Keith Brown, have said, we should remember that people do not stay in the armed forces forever and that our responsibility to people who have served our country does not stop when they leave the service. The covenant that we make with those in the service community does not stop when they rejoin civilian life. That is why we should celebrate and recognise the centenary of the RAF Benevolent Fund.

As we have heard, the fund’s vision is that

“No member of the RAF Family will ever face adversity alone.”

The fund has analysed the challenges and stress facing servicemen and women, which include frequent station moves, the separation from family, the distance from close relatives, irregular shifts and of course the stress of active service. I saw that at first hand when I spent a week living in the RAF compound at Basra airport in Iraq, when I experienced day-to-day living conditions in a post-war zone. Living in a tent in the heat of a middle east desert where there were still concerns about mortar attacks put the stresses of civilian life into context for me.

The fund has identified the most common problems that are faced by serving staff: the marriage and relationship difficulties, partners’ problems finding suitable work, not knowing about service benefits, and anxiety and depression. The imaginative reaction to its survey results includes financing pilot station engagement workers; increasing the employability and wellbeing of RAF employees’ partners; funding respite holiday breaks for families; and addressing mental wellbeing through accessing mindfulness apps.

Winston Churchill, who has a strong claim for originating the RAF, made an impassioned appeal on behalf of the RAF Benevolent Fund in September 1951, just a month before he became Prime Minister for the second time. I think that this is the first time that I have quoted Churchill. He said:

“This fund exists solely to help members of the Royal Air Force; men and women in time of need, and their families or dependents when they are in trouble. The Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund is part of the conscience of the British nation. A nation without a conscience is a nation without a soul. A nation without a soul is a nation that cannot live.”

We owe a debt of gratitude and honour to the RAF and the role that it plays in the defence of the nation. The RAF Benevolent Fund is a powerful aid to the RAF family when they are in need. Let us never forget its vision: that no member of that family will ever face adversity alone.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I congratulate Alexander Stewart on bringing forward the motion for debate and his eloquent speech, and I thank members for their contributions.

Debates in this chamber on our armed forces and veterans community have traditionally highlighted a cross-party consensus around wanting the best for those who have served or are currently serving, and I am pleased that that has been the case once again, this afternoon.

There is no doubt that veterans and their families are a great asset to our communities, making a valuable contribution to life here in Scotland. Equally, there is no doubt as to the importance of the work that is done here by our veterans charities in supporting the armed forces and veterans community. I have visited and met many of them since becoming

Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans

14 months ago, and I am continually impressed with how, every day, they do everything that they can to make a difference to those who require their support.

Today’s debate highlights a particularly good example of an organisation that does just that. As we have heard, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, which was founded in 1919, one year after the formation of the RAF. The assistance that it provides to the RAF community is commendable, through the likes of welfare breaks, grants and advice on support that is available for those who have care needs—I know that its efforts are more than appreciated by serving and former RAF personnel, and their families. I welcome the focus of Maurice Corry’s speech on the fund’s work for the families of serving personnel. As colleagues know, the narrative that I have sought to create encompasses the wider families, not just serving personnel or veterans.

I had the pleasure of meeting the fund’s area director, Gavin Davey, at the start of August, when we discussed the charity’s work for veterans, which it is keen to promote among members here in Parliament. As we have heard, RAFBF has launched a three-year centenary project to increase the number of people whom it supports from 53,000 in 2018 to more than 100,000 per annum by 2021. Although the television adverts are quite striking—they are voiced, I think, by James Bolam—I believe that all of us, especially MSPs who have a veterans’ locus, have a role to play in awareness raising and helping the fund to achieve its ambitious target. That would achieve a widely shared goal of getting greater help to those who need it, but who may not realise the opportunity that exists through the fund.

Last month’s

meeting proved insightful in a number of ways, but Gavin revealed a particular fact that really stood out to me: some 20 per cent of all the veterans in Scotland are ex-RAF. That highlights Scotland’s close connection with the service, which goes back to the first world war. Alexander Stewart asserted that one in three of us knows someone who served in the RAF. Like David Stewart, I am one such person—my grandfather on my father’s side served in the RAF during the second world war, and my dad did his national service in the RAF. I had not thought of the connection until Alexander Stewart made that point.

The RAF’s history is apparent across all of Scotland, from the Borders to the furthest tip of Shetland at Saxa Vord. There is evidence of that in my constituency, which was home to RAF Tealing, where the local village hall sports a quite remarkable mural. An interesting fact that connects Scotland and the RAF is that the first German air raid on Britain during world war two, which was repelled by the RAF, took place not far from here, on the Firth of Forth, on 16 October 1939. As we have heard, the RAF’s presence is still just as evident today. As has been noted, its station in Lossiemouth has attracted very welcome financial support from the RAF Benevolent Fund.

Given our historical links with the service and the number of veterans in Scotland who proudly say that they are ex-RAF, it is welcome that we have had the opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate an organisation whose valuable work has ensured that RAF personnel and their families have been supported in a way that they deserve.

As I have said previously, I, as the veterans minister, and the Scottish Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that life for those who leave the services is as successful as it can be. The Government’s view is completely in line with the values of the RAF Benevolent Fund. Since the Scottish veterans fund was founded in 2008, we have contributed to more than 150 projects that help the veterans community, and I am pleased to say that we have committed to supporting the fund for a further three years, up to 2023. In addition, I recently met local authority veterans champions to discuss how the Scottish Government can bolster the support that they get in their communities to carry out their role and provide the support that is needed for veterans in those areas.

It would be entirely remiss of me not to acknowledge that, in this role, I am building on the very sound foundations that were established by my predecessor, Keith Brown, whose knowledge of and passion for the subject shone through in his speech.

It is our collective duty to ensure that we provide the best support that we can to those people who are in need. We must work in partnership with those who share the common goal of improving the lives of our armed forces community, and we are extremely fortunate that the armed forces and veterans charities that we have in Scotland are among the most highly effective and well-regarded organisations in the sector. Therefore, I am sure that everyone will join me in thanking the RAF Benevolent Fund for its tireless efforts in supporting our armed forces community and wishing it well for the next 100 years and beyond.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate. I suspend the meeting until 2 o’clock.

13:42 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Cameron House Fire (Investigation)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when the Crown Office will release its findings from the investigation into the fatal fire at Cameron House in December 2017. (S5O-03499)

The Lord Advocate (Rt Hon James Wolffe QC)

It is a live investigation, which is continuing under the direction of a senior advocate depute. Like other incidents of its sort, it involves technical issues that require input from relevant experts. A decision as to whether there should be a prosecution can be made only once final reports have been submitted to the Crown by Police Scotland and other regulatory and investigating agencies. On receipt, those reports will be considered fully and carefully by prosecutors. That stage has not yet been reached. The Crown continues to keep the families of the deceased updated.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am sure that the Lord Advocate will appreciate that it has been almost two years since the fire at Cameron House, which claimed the lives of Simon Midgley and Richard Dyson. The families have been patient, and of course we want to give the Crown sufficient time to investigate, but can the Lord Advocate give us any indication of when the Crown is likely to arrive at a conclusion?

The Lord Advocate

I appreciate the impact that the passage of time in relation to both criminal investigations and death investigations has on those who are involved, particularly bereaved families. Jackie Baillie will appreciate that it is essential that the criminal investigative process be allowed to take its course. A decision will be made just as soon as it is possible to do so.

Football Grounds (Drug Use)

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support police in tackling drug use at football grounds. (S5O-03500)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Scottish Government has invested £800 million since 2008 to tackle the problem of alcohol and drug use. As Margaret Mitchell will be aware, our programme for government t

hat was announced last week commits another £20 million over the next two years to support local services, provide targeted support and raise awareness of the dangers of drug use.

Police Scotland will continue to work with football clubs to investigate any drug misuse at matches, and it is committed to ensuring that people who are involved in drug dealing and distribution are very effectively targeted for arrest and prosecution.

We want Scotland’s football grounds to be welcoming places for everybody, including families and children. The Scottish Government is working with the football authorities, clubs and other partners to address some of the negative issues that we have seen in recent months, including reported drug misuse. We fully support clubs in their efforts to deal with any behaviour that is illegal and that contravenes the grounds’ regulations. The use of sniffer dogs by Hibs is just one example of the positive action that clubs can take to deter illegal activity and unacceptable conduct.

Although the allocation and prioritisation of resources is obviously a matter for the chief constable, the Scottish Government’s funding for policing in 2019-20 has increased by £42.3 million.

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

I do not want to interfere too much with the cabinet secretary’s position, but if we could have slightly shorter answers, we will make greater progress with the questions. I am very hard on members in that regard.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware from recent reports that there is a growing problem of cocaine use, which has been highlighted at grounds such as Hamilton, Easter Road, Pittodrie, Celtic Park and Ibrox. Given that we know that drug use is an aggravating factor and is likely to increase hooliganism and antisocial behaviour at football games, will the cabinet secretary release more details about the talks that he has had with clubs and the effort that is being made to identify drug use and deter fans from using drugs, because—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, please, that is sufficient.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The evidence of cocaine use is clearly there.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Your question has been asked, thank you.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary also provide details of extra, intense sniffer dog use?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Mitchell, I want to get other members in.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will be as brief as possible, and I am happy to have a conversation with Margaret Mitchell. I have met a number of the clubs whose grounds she talked about—Aberdeen, Celtic and Hibs.

The issue has been raised with me only by Celtic and Hibs, and I know about some of the proactive measures that the two clubs are taking. I continue to have conversations with the clubs and I am more than happy to speak or write to Margaret Mitchell, if she feels that that is appropriate, about how those conversations are going.

I point to a quotation from John McKenzie, the head of what was known as the focus unit in Police Scotland. He said:

“We do not have any analytical evidence that demonstrates the link between football disorder and the misuse of drugs, but Police Scotland works closely with supporters’ groups and clubs to tackle any issues”.

As I said, I am more than happy to furnish Margaret Mitchell with further details.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Iain Gray. I beg your pardon—I had indicated that Kenneth Gibson could ask a supplementary question. It has to be brief, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that alcohol remains the drug of greatest concern at football matches? What is the cabinet secretary’s view on whether alcohol should be available under certain restrictions at Euro 2020 matches?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am not convinced by the argument that alcohol should be available at football grounds, as things stand. I have had detailed discussions with a number of stakeholders on the unacceptable conduct that we have seen at football matches, and I am not convinced that introducing alcohol into the mix—beyond what is currently available in grounds—is a good idea, even under restricted circumstances.

People Leaving Prison (Throughcare Service)

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure the restoration of the throughcare service for people leaving prison. (S5O-03501)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Iain Gray for that important question. The decision by the Scottish Prison Service to temporarily suspend its throughcare support service is an operational matter and, rightly, a decision for SPS to make. As SPS has made clear, the decision has not been taken lightly. It has been taken very reluctantly and only because experienced throughcare officers are required for duties in prison due to the high prison population that we currently have, unfortunately.

It should be said that SPS has indicated that the service has been suspended, not stopped.

In the meantime, the prison service will continue with other work to help individuals prepare for their release, such as the work of personal officers, prison link centres and individual case management activity.

The Government funds other throughcare support. We provide substantial funding to the third sector, investing £3.4 million in the shine and new routes programmes, which have built excellent track records. My officials and I are in discussions with the leaders of those third sector organisations and SPS. We will consider how the third sector might be able to come in to temporarily support SPS with the work that has been left due to it making this decision, for understandable and very difficult reasons. I hope to be able to update Iain Gray and other members in the relatively near future on how that work is progressing.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is not really good enough to say that it is an operational decision for SPS. The creation of throughcare services was a policy decision that was driven by ministers in the past. I appreciate that our prisons are currently operating at around 5 per cent overcapacity, which is the reason that SPS has given for bringing throughcare officers back into the prisons. However, given the importance of throughcare in reducing reoffending rates, does the cabinet secretary agree that SPS is cutting off its nose to spite its face, and that he should get SPS to change its mind?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I appreciate the question and I do not disagree with Iain Gray’s premise that throughcare support workers do an excellent job and that, through their work, they reduce reoffending. I do not disagree with that sentiment. Where I disagree with Iain Gray is on the point that if I was to overturn an operational decision by SPS, he and other Opposition members would be the first to drag me to the chamber to tell me that I was interfering.

I must be careful to give the chief executive of SPS the right operational space. That is not an excuse. I highlighted in my answer that my officials are working with SPS and third sector leaders to develop a proposal whereby the third sector might be able to fill the gap that has been left and provide throughcare support, for example by expanding the new routes and shine programmes. In the not-too-distant future, I will update—with a positive development, I hope—Iain Gray and other members who have questions on this issue.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As the cabinet secretary acknowledged, throughcare has been suspended as a result of the rising prison population. Instead of expanding this progressive service, which is key to rehabilitation, the cabinet secretary has presided over its suspension. What are the current projections for the prison population over the next 12 months? Assuming an increase in that population, what realistic prospect is there of throughcare being reinstated in the near future?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As I said, the suspension is temporary. I hope that the presumption against short sentences, which Liam McArthur and his party supported, will deliver a reduction in the number of prisoners. It might be small but, nonetheless, it will be a reduction.

I hope that we will also see a reduction through some other measures that we will bring forward. For example, as the member knows, there will be a revision to the guidance around the home detention curfew. There has been an understanding with the Justice Committee, of which Liam McArthur is a member, that the pendulum around HDC has swung too far in the other direction.

Those are a couple of measures that will help to reduce the prison population. However, frankly speaking, if we want to make a substantial dent in our prison population, this Parliament will have to support the progressive agenda that we are bringing forward.

I am confident that the suspension of throughcare support will be temporary but, as I said in my answer to Iain Gray, even with a temporary suspension, we are keen to work with the third sector and other partners to see how that gap might be filled.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We all agree that it is vital that, before leaving prison, offenders are helped to get themselves free of illegal substances. However, the most recent figures show that 26 per cent of those leaving prison test positive for illegal drugs, which is up from 17 per cent in 2009. Is the Scottish Government doing any analysis to find out why attempts to keep drugs out of prisons appear to be failing?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am happy for Liam Kerr to be put in touch with SPS and those who are dealing with that on the ground. He will be aware of the fact that, in the past three to four years, there has been a huge spike in psychoactive substances—namely, spice—entering prisons. The difficulty around psychoactive substances is that they are difficult to detect. Therefore, various solutions are being tested in the prison estate, such as rapid scan machines. That equipment is being piloted, and I am waiting for an evaluation of it to come back from SPS. If there are, for example, capital funding requirements around that, the Government will have to look at that issue closely. If Liam Kerr wants to follow that up with the prison service, I am happy to facilitate those discussions.

Police Scotland (Contact Assessment Model)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the contact assessment model pilot. (S5O-03502)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

CAM is the new operating model for police call handling that is being introduced by Police Scotland. Utilising a robust approach to the assessment of risk and vulnerability, it will enable Police Scotland to respond more effectively to vulnerability and demand.

Phase 1 implementation of CAM progressed on 12 June 2019 in Lanarkshire and Dumfries and Galloway. Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority indicate that phase 1 implementation is proceeding positively and is delivering the benefits of improved risk assessment and service delivery.

The SPA and Police Scotland intend to proceed with phase 2 implementation from late autumn this year, when the new model will be rolled out in greater Glasgow. The CAM oversight group, which is chaired by the SPA, oversees the model’s implementation.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

During recess, I was grateful to have the opportunity to learn more about the CAM pilot, along with my colleague Rona Mackay, at the contact command and control centre in Govan. Given that the CAM pilot had a 99 per cent compliance rate, can the cabinet secretary provide more detail regarding when he expects the model to be rolled out nationally?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Jenny Gilruth will forgive me, but there are operational decisions around when the model should be rolled out nationally. I am delighted that she came to my constituency and Govan and saw the contact assessment model up close. However, although the timing is a matter for Police Scotland, I can confirm that Police Scotland intends to roll CAM out nationally. The timescale is subject to all phases of implementation being successfully completed, in accordance with the relevant assurance processes, as well as monitoring and evaluation of each phase to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

Jenny Gilruth can contact Police Scotland directly, and it will be able to give her more detail about the phasing. However, I can confirm that there will be a national roll-out of CAM.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

Given that adequate police resources are important for the successful implementation of the contact assessment model, is the cabinet secretary concerned about the comments of Deputy Chief Constable Will Kerr, who said that the current budget has a potential shortfall in police numbers of 700? If that is the case, the consequence is severe for resourcing CAM and for adequate police cover in local communities.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome James Kelly to his first justice portfolio question time.

I always take seriously what the police say to me, particularly an officer of DCC Will Kerr’s seniority.

We now have more than 1,000 additional officers in comparison with when the Government came to power in 2007, which is in sharp contrast to the picture in England and Wales. We continue to invest in our police and increase police numbers. The agreement with Police Scotland is that numbers can be reduced only if enhanced operational capability is demonstrated. The agreement is overseen by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, and if it cannot be achieved, there is a conversation to be had with the Government.

As James Kelly suggested, the SPA will, rightly, request additional funds, as it would from any Government. Otherwise, the deficit reduction plan will need to be revised. We will continue to engage positively with Police Scotland. I will not prejudge the spending review later this year, but the important point is that we have more police officers now than when we inherited power more than 12 years ago.

Programme for Government (Equally Safe Strategy)

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s priorities in the equally safe strategy will be supported by its programme for government. (S5O-03503)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

This year’s programme for government clearly sets out the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to prevent and eradicate gender-based violence. Each action for the year ahead is aligned with one of the four priorities set out in the equally safe strategy, which include actions to ensure that

“Men desist from all forms of violence against women and girls”.

The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 came into effect this year and we will continue to support the implementation of that landmark legislation by engaging with those who work in housing, social work, health and schools to ensure that professionals have the resources available to them to support a shared understanding of domestic abuse.

Later this year, we will introduce the forensic medical services (victims of sexual offences) bill to promote early and consistent access to healthcare for victims of sexual assault, and we will support a pilot to make a video record of rape complainers’ statements to police to be used as evidence in a trial, to reduce the need for them to recount their ordeal again in court.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the equally safe strategy’s priority 4, which is that

“Men desist from all forms of violence against women and girls, and perpetrators of such violence receive robust and effective response”.

Will he outline how the Scottish Government intends to tackle human trafficking?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Ruth Maguire for that exceptionally important question. I should have paid credit to her for the work that she has done to promote the equally safe strategy in Parliament.

Any form of human trafficking and exploitation, including sexual exploitation, is completely unacceptable in 21st century Scotland. I have been hugely impressed by the commitment of officials and the stakeholders involved in the work to eradicate human trafficking. There are still huge problems around human trafficking, not just in the United Kingdom but here in Scotland. That is evidenced by the referrals that come into the national referral mechanism.

We know that people are trafficked for a range of reasons, including labour exploitation of male victims, which has increased in recent years. However, as Ruth Maguire said, we have to recognise that the impact of trafficking for sexual exploitation can be particularly devastating. We have a strategy, we are progressing some elements of the legislation and we will continue to support specialist groups such as the trafficking awareness-raising alliance and Migrant Help. If the member wishes a fuller answer on all the actions that we are progressing, I will be happy to write to her.

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Gold Commanders)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government in what circumstances Scottish Fire and Rescue Service gold commanders are deployed. (S5O-03504)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Operational decisions, including the deployment of gold commanders, are a matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Gold commanders are deployed in a broad range of circumstances, such as all level 5 incidents, spate conditions in a region or regions and large-scale, serious and major incidents.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would like to call you first, Mr Macdonald, although I know that you are dead keen and want to save time. I call Lewis Macdonald.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister accept that current procedures mean that, in the event of such a serious incident at St Fergus, on royal Deeside or in Aberdeen, the gold commander in charge would be deployed no further north than Dundee? If she acknowledges that fact, does she agree that it is time for the centralisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be brought to an end?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister—briefly please.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

It is imperative that we have the right level of leadership for such major and large-scale incidents in place at the right time. The SFRS is constantly reviewing and planning the resource that is required for the delivery of front-line services, which includes succession planning for senior leadership.

Gold command officers have been mobilised approximately 14 times over the past two years. I assure Lewis Macdonald that there has never been a single occasion on which the SFRS has not responded with the required resources, but I will follow up with him in more detail on the specific point that he raised.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that there we must conclude our first set of portfolio questions. I apologise to Maureen Watt that, despite my best efforts, we failed to reach her.

We will move on to the second set of questions in a moment, once members on the front benches have changed places.

Government Business and Constitutional Relations

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that questions 1 and 3 will be grouped together. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary on either of those questions should press their request-to-speak button in the usual way. I will take such supplementaries after I have taken questions and supplementaries from the members whose questions have been grouped.

As usual, all members should try to make their questions short. I beg ministers to do the same with answers. I know that that is difficult, and I understand why, but members should try, please, to let everyone get their questions in. Ministers should be helpful, too.

Citizens Assembly (Recommendations)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that it considers and takes action on recommendations made by the citizens assembly of Scotland when it concludes its deliberations in April 2020. (S5O-03507)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

All recommendations made by the citizens assembly of Scotland will be debated in Parliament. Where Parliament agrees with such recommendations, the Scottish Government will set out a plan for implementing the Parliament’s decisions, which will be published by the Government within three months of the assembly’s recommendations having been received.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Does the cabinet secretary s

hare my observation, that a stark contrast now exists in the United Kingdom between the Scottish Government, which is actively listening to and acting upon the views of its citizens, and the UK Government, which is, in shutting down the UK Parliament, denying the people a voice and preventing those who elected it from exercising their right to hold that Government to account?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That contrast will be provided in this afternoon’s debate in which, I hope, we will discuss the citizens assembly in a constructive and consensual way.

Meanwhile, the judges in the inner house of the Court of Session have now indicated that the prorogation of the Westminster Parliament is illegal, and that in the circumstances what should happen, in order to parallel our positive step, is that it be recalled immediately and the prorogation cancelled.

Citizens Assembly (Impartiality)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to ensure the impartiality of its planned citizens assembly. (S5O-03509)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will address that matter this afternoon, in the debate that will follow. In the meantime, I point out that the assembly is led by two independent conveners, one of whom is a third sector leader and the other of whom was a Scottish Labour Member of the European Parliament for 35 years.

The members of the assembly will be selected in a scientific process that broadly represents the Scottish adult population—by which is meant those who are aged 16-plus—and which takes into account a range of factors including geography, age, gender, ethnic group, educational qualifications, limiting long-term health conditions, disability, attitudes to Scottish independence and the UK’s membership of the EU, and Scottish Parliament voting preferences. The contract for the recruitment of members on those bases was awarded following a competitive procurement process.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When the cabinet secretary introduced the idea of the citizens assembly he said that it would be “transparent”, “inclusive” and “independent”, but his colleague Joanna Cherry MP has said that it would be

“‘the perfect way’ to move Scotland ... towards independence”.

Those two things do not sit together. Which is correct?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In the Scottish Government, I am responsible for the establishment of the citizens assembly. I have indicated to Liz Smith what the Government’s position is on the matter. I know that Ms Smith is addressing me as a member of the Scottish Government, so I hope that she will accept my assurance, as a person who is involved in it, that I am determined to ensure that the assembly is an independent body and that I have taken many steps to do so, more of which I shall outline this afternoon.

It will be a totally and fully independent body that will set its own terms, choose how it operates and report in a fully independent way. Liz Smith and I have known each other for many years, so I hope that she will accept my assurances on the matter.

Scottish Government (Freedom of Information Practice and Performance)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on fully implementing the recommendations in the Scottish Information Commissioner’s intervention report on its FOI practice and performance. (S5O-03508)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The commissioner published on 29 July his annual progress report on the Scottish Government’s implementation of the action plan. In it, he outlines the significant progress that has been made across each recommendation, and confirms that he anticipates that the Scottish Government will complete implementation by the end of the current calendar year.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

For confirmation, is the minister comfortable that the Government will complete the action plan by the end of this year?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

A great deal of time and effort has gone in not only to improving performance but to embedding change, so the answer is—in short—yes, I am.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I like clear and short answers.

Scottish Elections (Reform) Bill (Timescale)

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its anticipated timescale is for the progress of the Scottish Elections (Reform) Bill. (S5O-03510)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The Scottish Elections (Reform) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 2 September 2019. Its timetable thereafter is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

This Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is currently dealing with the Referendums (Scotland) Bill and will, likely, have to deal with the franchise and electoral reform bills as well. Has the Scottish Government seriously considered how all three of those bills will be passed at least six months before the next scheduled Scottish Parliament election, thereby taking into account the Gould principle?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

With the greatest respect to Alexander Burnett, I say that I think that he presumes something in that question. It is for the Parliamentary Bureau to allocate a bill to whatever committee is relevant.

However, I assure him that among the considerations that I, as Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, always have in introducing legislation are the workload of committees and the need to ensure that they have sufficient time to interrogate bills that are introduced. Sitting next to the member is Edward Mountain. He would, I am sure, concur that when a committee—his, for example—has requested additional time to allow it to carry out its work, I have been receptive to that.

House of Commons (Constitutional Developments)

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the impact on Scotland of constitutional developments in the House of Commons. (S5O-03511)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No one should underestimate the significance of events at Westminster. With prorogation, the Prime Minister used prorogative power to remove from members of Parliament a decision on how many days the Commons would sit on before 31 October. The prorogation of more than 30 days is significantly longer than any other prorogation in modern times, and the court’s decision in Scotland today reflects on that. The Prime Minister took the step pre-emptively, before the Commons had returned from recess, thereby presenting MPs with a fait accompli.

All those factors—the use of executive powers to deny MPs a voice, the discarding of recent commonly accepted practice and the denial of any opportunity to challenge or scrutinise Government action—should give us all grave cause for concern. It is no surprise that those actions of the Prime Minister have galvanised opposition parties in the Commons to come together to prevent a no-deal Brexit—an action with which the Scottish Government completely agrees.

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

In a week of astonishing constitutional events, none can top the Court of Session’s ruling this morning that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully in proroguing the United Kingdom Parliament. The court said that proroguing

“was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament”.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that Downing Street sources would now be advised to spend more time preparing for recall of Parliament and less time making outrageous remarks about Scotland’s judges and judicial system?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Yes. I have to say—I do so speculatively, but I think that he is agreeing with me—that Adam Tomkins, for example, has indicated his disagreement with what was said.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is outrageous.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Mr Tomkins uses the word “outrageous”. I—for once—completely agree with him. Sources at number 10 Downing Street suggested that

“The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason”.

That is an outrageous thing to say.

Gavin Barwell—I think, now Lord Barwell—who was Theresa May’s chief of staff, said that

“This is a ... unwise road for a party that believes in ... the Union and ... the rule of law to go down”.

Robert Buckland, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, eventually tweeted:

“Our judges are renowned around the world for their excellence and impartiality and I have total confidence in their independence in every case.”

Alasdair Allan is right. The right reaction is to recall Parliament. If I may use a song title from the estimable band Peat & Diesel from his constituency, this may be the way the Tories do it, but it is not the way we do it in Scotland, let alone in the Western Isles.

Intergovernmental Relations

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

6. To ask the Scottish Government when it last spoke to the United Kingdom Government regarding intergovernmental relations. (S5O-03512)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

This morning I met Oliver Dowden, HM Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The most recent ministerial meeting to take place was the finance ministers’ quadrilateral on 29 August. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work discussed the governance and terms of reference for that forum with UK and Welsh Government ministers.

The most recent ministerial discussion at which the quadrilateral review of intergovernmental relations was on the agenda was the joint ministerial committee (European Union negotiations) on 28 June. There is a meeting of the JMC(EN) tomorrow, and the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will co-chair that meeting.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that intergovernmental relations with the UK Government are broken, and that the attempts to formalise a respect agenda are continually rebuked by a disrespected UK Government? Clearly the best way to have a respect agenda would be for Scotland to become an independent nation and to formalise relations as equals.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I cannot disagree with a single word of that. Even in its present confused state, it is important for the UK Government to recognise that procedures and relationships are not simply in its gift. I had occasion to say to the Paymaster General this morning that, although the UK Government might wish to change the way in which the intergovernmental review is discussed by, for example, doing it trilaterally rather than through the JMC(EN), that is a matter for all participants, not just for one of them. He took the point, but it is an important point and it has been emphasised by Mark Drakeford. The JMC process does not belong to the UK Government, and the more it behaves as though it does, the harder it will be to make any progress.

UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what advice it has received on the effect that the legal date of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union will have on its continuity bill. (S5O-03513)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As members are aware, the Scottish ministerial code states that ministers must not ordinarily divulge either the source or the content of legal advice. Legal advice is confidential and it is a long-established convention that legal advice that is provided to the Scottish Government is not published, and that the Government does not disclose the source of advice.

The Scottish Government is determined to respect to the maximum extent possible the choices that Parliament made when passing the continuity bill. The new bill will therefore bring back provisions to ensure that Scots law continues to keep pace with EU law, as we believe that the extent to which devolved law aligns itself with the law of the EU should be a decision for this Parliament to take, not the UK Government. The bill is also intended to maintain the role of environmental principles and effective and proportionate environmental governance after EU exit.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish National Party’s previous bill was largely incompetent. The independent judiciary, which all in the chamber support, decided that the SNP had refused to accept that.

When the new bill is introduced, will it meet the criteria set out by the courts?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I advise the member to read the judgment, as I do not understand where his interpretation comes from. The Supreme Court judgment was very clear that, with one very small exception, the continuity bill was competent for Parliament to pass. Of course, the UK Tory Government, which the member supports, chose to change the law after the Scottish Parliament had voted for the bill in order to stymie this Parliament’s intention.

That might have given us a hint of what was to come with prorogation, because Tories of all shapes do not seem to be willing to consider democracy above all. I do not think that the member would want to support that, so perhaps he should read the judgment again and then he might like to correct the record of what he has actually said this afternoon.

European Nationals Resident in Scotland (Status)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the status of European Union nationals who are resident in Scotland. (S5O-03514)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Ending free movement will significantly reduce the rights that EU citizens in Scotland currently enjoy. The Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development met former immigration minister Caroline Nokes multiple times this year to discuss the rights of EU citizens in Scotland and to express concerns about the UK Government’s EU settlement scheme. He has also raised concerns in writing with new Home Office ministers, and requested a meeting, and he will continue to press the UK Government to safeguard the rights of EU citizens in Scotland.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I presume that the Scottish Government has noted the number of EU nationals who are being refused settled status. The UK Government has tried to justify its actions by suggesting that granting pre-settled status is not, in fact, a refusal, but that has created great uncertainty and gives people no security. At the next meeting with the UK Government, will the minister raise the issue and denounce this nonsense in the strongest terms? It is causing huge stress to many EU nationals, both in my East Kilbride constituency and across the country. These people have lived here for decades and, up until now, have considered Scotland their home.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I associate myself with much of what Linda Fabiani has said. She is right to air the issue. As a constituency MSP, I recognise the matters that she has described.

The stress and emotional toll that have been inflicted on our friends and neighbours who have chosen Scotland as their home does not end when they are fortunate enough to be granted settled status. There have been examples of our friends and neighbours applying for settled status, getting an acknowledgement and then being left in limbo for months.

Some of my constituents have been granted settled status, but the news has been conveyed to them by email—that is it. They are now worried that, if they leave Scotland to go on holiday before 31 October, they might encounter difficulty in gaining re-entry to the country. My constituents are genuinely concerned. They are talking about printing off the email and carrying it with them, and they are asking where they should carry it.

The matter is very serious. We should all be alive to the stress that is being created for our friends and neighbours.

I will ensure that Mr Macpherson is aware of Linda Fabiani’s point about raising the issue in the strongest possible terms.

Royal Hospital for Children and Young People

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

The next item of business is a statement by Jeane Freeman on the Royal hospital for children and young people. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity

to update Parliament on the Royal hospital for children and young people and the department of clinical neurosciences.

Before I do, I put on record my sincere thanks to all the staff for their forbearance in difficult circumstances. I am genuinely sorry that, despite the considerable work that they put into planning the move to the new hospital, that move cannot yet be realised. I am acutely aware that, for many, the halt created significant personal challenges to important domestic arrangements. This morning, I met the chair and the employee director of NHS Lothian, and I have again written to all staff who are involved, to update them on the current situation, which I am setting out to the chamber.

Let me also record my thanks to the patients and their families for their forbearance and patience. The safest possible care for the children is my overriding priority, and I am sorry for any impact that the current situation has had on them.

Today, I will write to the Auditor General for Scotland, whom I have kept fully informed to date. I assure Parliament that we will, of course, fully co-operate with any further scrutiny that Audit Scotland or the committees of this Parliament might choose to undertake.

Following my decision to halt the opening of the new facilities in July, I commissioned two reports: one from KPMG and the other from NHS National Services Scotland. KPMG was asked to consider issues of governance and to establish the facts that led to the decision to delay the move. NSS was asked to examine the whole site and to advise me on relevant compliance issues. I am publishing both reports today.

The NSS report provides a detailed assessment of key buildings and identifies issues that require to be resolved to ensure safety prior to occupation. Although the report is technical, I will highlight several areas. In addition to the issue that was previously identified in critical care, remedial action is required on the quality of ventilation work in a number of areas, with specific issues identified in haematology and oncology. Independent testing identified no widespread contamination of the water systems, but NSS has recommended remedial and precautionary actions as well as system-wide disinfection prior to occupation. It has also recommended monitoring of the drainage system and has concluded that elements of plumbing require monitoring and routine disinfection, although that is considered to be low risk.

NHS Lothian has accepted all the recommendations, and its action plan has been published today. Phase 2 of NSS’s review is to assess fire, medical gases and electrical safety. Although that work is still in progress, there is no indication that findings in those areas will create a further delay beyond that which I will set out. It is clear that significant work is to be undertaken to ensure that the site is fully compliant. The work that has been done over the past weeks to identify and plan the remediation of all the outstanding issues allows me now to give a clearer indication of a realistic timeline for moving into the new hospital.

The additional work that NSS recommends can be undertaken in parallel to the work to resolve the ventilation issue in critical care. The key consideration in determining when the move to the new facilities can take place is the time that is needed to rectify the critical care ventilation system. That work includes designing, procuring and installing the solution for that system and then rigorously testing and validating it. That work will, I regret to say, take time. In the interests of patient safety, I will not authorise a move to the new site until that work has been completed, tested and found to be fully compliant.

The work will be carried out as quickly as possible, but, to ensure that it is done properly and to give maximum certainty to staff and patients, I have concluded that children’s services will remain on their current site until next autumn. The department of clinical neurosciences is unaffected by the issue in critical care. However, the additional work that is required to rectify the other issues at the children’s hospital may impact on the DCN clinical pathway. I am, though, mindful of the challenges that are faced in the current DCN location, and I have asked that the work on the children’s hospital be phased to allow the DCN to migrate earlier. My current expectation is that the DCN will be able to move next spring.

The KPMG report on governance sets out a clear picture of human error and confusion over interpretation of standards and guidance, as well as missed opportunities to spot and rectify that error, despite clear references to the requirement to adhere to relevant technical guidance. Members can read the report in full. In short, the main problem stems from a key document—the environmental matrix. The document, which was first produced by NHS Lothian in late 2012, was inconsistent with the guidance but was referred to throughout the project.

I want to make it clear that I hold the principle of accountability in and of our health boards to be vital. This publicly funded project of strategic importance has not been delivered by NHS Lothian in compliance with the standards and guidance. That is unacceptable. There are clear issues about accountability in the board to be considered now, which must be done carefully and with due process. I will advise Parliament of the outcome of that work in due course.

NHS Lothian is at level 3 of our performance escalation framework. However, given the issues with the new hospital and the number and level of issues that need to be rectified, the Scottish Government health and social care management board has escalated NHS Lothian to stage 4 for the project.

That means that, in relation to the project, we have assessed that there are significant risks to delivery, quality, financial performance and safety, as well as that senior-level external support is required. A senior programme director will be appointed, who will report directly to the Scottish Government.

All of this—the delay, the additional work that is needed at the new hospital and the additional work that is needed to ensure that the existing sites can continue to operate well—comes at an additional cost. Given that NHS Lothian had taken possession of the site, the unitary payment of £1.35 million per month must be made even though the facilities are not yet open. However, those payments were already budgeted for and so, strictly speaking, that is not an additional cost. The additional costs arise from the work that is needed to replace the critical care ventilation system, the other remedial work that NSS has identified and work in respect of the continued operation and improvement of the current sites. The costs will continue to be refined and I will keep Parliament updated, but I can advise members that the current estimate of additional costs for the works is £16 million.

As I said, this is a publicly funded project of strategic importance that has not been delivered in compliance with the standards and guidance that are in place for the safety of patients and staff. The delay that we now face will be borne by NHS staff in Lothian and by patients and their families, and the additional cost will be borne by the health portfolio.

NHS boards in Scotland have delivered many major infrastructure projects on time, on budget and in compliance. However, we cannot have a repetition of the problems that we see today. That would not be right for the public purse and it would not be good enough for patients or staff. Therefore, in line with the programme for government, we will move swiftly to establish a new national body for reducing and effectively managing risks in the healthcare built environment. The new body will have oversight of the design, planning, construction and maintenance of major NHS infrastructure developments, not least in order to ensure effective infection prevention and control and compliance with standards and guidance.

The NSS and KPMG reports are detailed, and I appreciate that members will not have had time to read them fully before this statement. I have therefore arranged to meet Opposition party spokespeople tomorrow, to answer any questions that they have. I have also written to the convener of the Health and Sport Committee, and I am, of course, happy to provide his committee with additional information or to attend the committee to answer questions.

As I have set out, my overriding priority is patient safety, and I know that that priority is shared by members across the chamber. The children and families who depend on these hospital services should receive them in the safest way possible. No one would choose the current situation, but we will resolve it and deliver the safe migration of service to the new Royal hospital for children and young people and department of clinical neurosciences.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in the statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for the questions, after which we must move on to the next item of business. I repeat the usual mantra and ask members to try, once we have had the questions from front-bench members, to keep their questions short.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing an advance copy of her statement.

It takes a pretty cynical Government to try to bury bad news by sneaking out two major reports at the very time that Parliament is asked to hold ministers to account. Today’s statement raises more questions than it answers. The cabinet secretary expects us to believe that human error and confusion and the failure of an environmental matrix mean that no Scottish National Party ministers are responsible for the seven years of delay on the project. Reading between the lines of the statement, it looks as though the cabinet secretary intends to hang NHS management out to dry for the problem.

The cabinet secretary has been in her job for a year now, and her predecessor held the position for four years, while all the delays and problems were happening. What responsibility will SNP ministers take for the findings of the reports?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I find all of that deeply disappointing. Let me be clear: I am sneaking nothing out. On 4 July, when I halted the move to the new hospital site, I said that patient safety was my priority. It was my priority then and it remains so now. I also said at that point and subsequently that I would publish

the reports as soon as they were available, and I have done that. [

Interruption

.] Please do not to mutter at me from the sidelines, Mr Briggs.

I have offered a meeting with party spokespeople tomorrow precisely because I appreciate that the reports are technical and that members are seeing them only today and will need time to review them. We will meet tomorrow, when I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities for members to ask further questions.

I do not expect Mr Briggs to believe anything. The KPMG report is clear in what it says, as is the NSS report. I am acting on those reports, and Mr Briggs will know—because he will have made great effort to understand his brief—that responsibility for infrastructure build currently rests with boards, so boards are responsible for the build and compliance. I have said clearly—and the programme for government said this last week—that we now need to move to a situation in which we hold more closely expertise in and responsibility for compliance. We are addressing those issues.

If Mr Briggs would care to listen to what I have said, I think that he would agree that the approach that I took on 4 July and that I have taken ever since—I will, absolutely, take it from now on—is exactly right for patient safety, our NHS staff and the public purse.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

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

This project is a disaster. The statement throws up more questions than answers, so we now need a debate that should be timetabled in Government time. The KPMG report on governance highlights human error, confusion over the application of standards and guidance, and missed opportunities to rectify mistakes, but we still do not have a clear picture of where responsibility lies. Are we to believe that no one is responsible? I think not. Does the cabinet secretary fully agree with the reports? Does she believe that the investigations are adequate? We know from the reports that there was regular and extensive dialogue between NHS Lothian and the Scottish Government. Who from the Government sat on the project board and where are they now? The role of NHS Lothian has been referenced many times in the statement but, ultimately, the buck stops with the health secretary and this Government. On the principle of accountability, we need a full-blown public inquiry. Does the cabinet secretary agree? Yes or no?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

My straightforward answer is the one that I have given before: no, I do not agree. I do not see what difference a public inquiry would make to the work that we have already undertaken. The focus should be on remedying the situation and moving patients and staff safely to the new site. I do not see why we would distract them from all that into a public inquiry, when we have the reports and when I am here to be accountable for what boards are doing.

I said in my statement that there is more work to do with the board, because I firmly believe in the accountability of NHS boards, both in boards and to Government and the wider public. There is more work to do and I will update Parliament on that. Ms Lennon says that she has many questions. I look forward to hearing some of them tomorrow at the meeting—I am sure that she will be there—when we can begin to answer her questions once she has had the opportunity to read the report in full.

The focus must be on two things: how to ensure that that new site, a major facility of strategic importance, is safe and that patients and staff can move there safely. I am absolutely focused on that. In relation to how do we understand why this happened—not just what happened, but why—I have taken account of that in my statement and I have updated Parliament on what we will do in terms of infrastructure projects across the wider NHS, some of which have been delivered recently on time, on budget and in compliance.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members who want to ask a question to press their request-to-speak button.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Our children and young people clearly deserve more than the senior managers of NHS Lothian have been delivering. The cabinet secretary announced today the escalation to level 4. Does she agree that the board’s senior management should reflect on the current situation, work constructively with any programme manager who is put in place by the Government to deliver the new hospital and get their finger out and get performance back on track?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

It is important to be clear that the escalation to level 4 is for this project. The board is already at level 3 in relation to other matters around performance. Of course, Ms Constance is right to say that the board should be focused on its performance across a range of issues. With the additional support that we have given it, the board is focused on that and is already making progress in those areas.

The point about the escalation to level 4 is that it represents recognition of the importance of this area of work and of the need to provide an external project director, with whom I am confident that the board and senior management will work closely to deliver what we need done.

Ms Constance mentioned the need for reflection. I know from speaking to the chair of the board this morning and from other conversations that the members of the senior team in NHS Lothian are reflecting on how we have got to the present situation. We will continue to have those discussions with them and, as I said in my statement, I will update Parliament on the outcome of that.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

When I asked you on 27 June whether you felt that it would be safe to open the new sick kids hospital, you responded by saying that you had had all the reassurances that you had tasked NHS Lothian to give you.

My question is simple. What scrutiny did you put in place? What lessons had you learned from the failure of the Queen Elizabeth hospital? What reassurances did you receive that those lessons had been learned? What has happened seems to stem from the tender process.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members must not use the second person. The term “you” is the second person, Ms Ballantyne. I have let it go by, but I want people to remember to say “the member” or whatever instead of using “you”.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I gave the answer that I gave on 27 June precisely because I had had assurances from NHS Lothian that all the compliance issues had been met and that the lessons that at that point had come from the Queen Elizabeth university hospital had been learned. I was advised on 2 July that the ventilation system in critical care was not compliant with national standards and guidance, and I acted on 4 July in that regard. The answer that I gave Ms Ballantyne was based on the information that I had been given by NHS Lothian at that time.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Patient safety was and remains paramount. What steps does NHS Lothian plan to take for the existing sites to ensure that they are as effective and safe as possible for all patients?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We asked NHS Lothian to produce an additional plan on mitigation for the existing site at Sciennes and the department of clinical neurosciences site at the Western general, and to give us an estimate of the costs. That is contained within the overall estimate. It includes additional expenditure to do with an increase in the maintenance levels.

With regard to the DCN, active work is under way to look at a modular unit. There might be other alternatives that might be more suitable from a clinical point of view, one of which was raised with me this morning. The DCN site is the most critical area. I am very keen that, with the involvement of the clinicians concerned, we identify what can be done to manage the safety of that site until we can move to the new site at the Royal hospital.

As far as Sciennes is concerned, the other area that is being actively considered is the location of out-patients, with a view to increasing the footprint of accident and emergency on the existing Sciennes site.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Further to that point, the Sciennes site is in my constituency. In her statement, the cabinet secretary mentioned the cost of remedial action on the new site, but what is the total cost of keeping the old site open, which was not programmed? Equipment that was due to be replaced will have to be provided, maintenance will have to be carried out on a building that is well past its sell-by date and contracts that were cancelled have had to be renewed. What is the cost of keeping the old site open?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The total estimated cost of maintaining the existing sites, which includes an element of dual running, is between £6 million and £7 million. That includes some of the factors that I have mentioned, such as the interim modular solution, and equipment including neuroradiology equipment, as well as additional investment in the current Sciennes site and in the DCN. As the plan is developed, I am happy to provide the member with the details so that he can be assured that all the issues that he believes need to be taken into account are being taken into account.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Can the cabinet secretary expand on the role of the new national body that is being set up to ensure that all future NHS building projects are protected against problems with water, ventilation and drainage systems?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As I mentioned, we will move swiftly to establish that national body. Its objective is to better manage and reduce the risk in terms of the healthcare built environment. Its final function will, of course, be informed by the independent review of the Queen Elizabeth hospital that is being undertaken. The body will have oversight of the design, planning, construction and maintenance of major NHS Scotland infrastructure developments. It will hold expertise in those areas, including in microbiology, and, critically, it will have a clear understanding of the interrelationship between the built environment and effective prevention and control. It will also have a compliance function. Work is under way at this point to bring that body together. Again, I will ensure that Parliament is updated as we make progress in that regard.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary states that the additional cost of this shocking case will be borne by the health portfolio—so, ultimately, by the people of Scotland. Those who support private finance initiatives claim that the risk is always borne by the private sector, and this is yet another case that reveals that to be false. Does the cabinet secretary agree that her Government’s non-profit-distributing model, just like the private finance initiative before it, means that it is the public who pick up the cost when things go wrong?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

There is nothing in either of the reports that I commissioned to suggest that the funding model holds any responsibility for the situation that we are facing and the need to halt the migration to the new site in the interests of patient safety. What I am keen to do—this is why I said that the additional cost would be paid by the health portfolio overall—is to ensure that front-line patient-facing services are not asked to bear any of that additional cost. Within the overall health portfolio, we will manage that additional cost without an impact on patient services.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I restate my call for a full public inquiry into this matter.

The KPMG report tells us that this disastrous outcome was baked into the hospital build from day 1 because of a flawed reference to an environmental matrix in the tender document. What oversight did the Government have of that tender?

If the most optimistic expectation is that the staff and patients will have to wait another year for the new sick kids hospital to open, what is the worst-case scenario for how long the delay will be?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I will deal with the question about the timeline first. I have consciously ensured that the timeline that I have given Parliament today—autumn for the full children’s services and spring for the DCN—can be relied on. If it is possible for the necessary work to be undertaken more quickly, services will move sooner than that. However, that is the timeline that it is right and proper for me to confidently give this Parliament.

Mr Cole-Hamilton is right to say that the KPMG report identifies a flaw in the 2012 environmental matrix document, which meant that it gave the wrong specification for critical care ventilation. However, the report also points out that subsequent guidance and documents gave the right specification and that mistakes were made and opportunities were missed to spot those and correct matters.

Mr Cole-Hamilton asks about Government oversight. In terms of the current relationship between NHS boards and infrastructure projects, Government oversight is primarily around finance and timelines; it is not in the area of these specifications. That is one of the reasons why we will establish that new national body. In my view, that gap and deficiency needs to be rectified and Government needs to have greater oversight in terms of design and compliance and the interrelationship between the build and effective prevention and control.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the publication of the reports. Will the cabinet secretary join me in acknowledging the contribution of all the staff who, in very difficult circumstances, have continued to provide high-quality clinical services at both the children’s hospital and the department of clinical neuroscience?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am grateful to Ms Harper for that question—I absolutely will acknowledge that contribution. In July, along with the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland, I visited both the Sciennes site and the DCN in the Western general. I had the opportunity to speak to different groups of staff and explain my decision to halt the move, as well as to hear what they believed needed to be done, par

t of which has informed the work that will go into additional investment into those sites to see them through the coming period.

Despite the undoubted disappointment of the staff in the circumstances—they were ready to move to a site to which they had anticipated moving for some time and they had made their own arrangements to accommodate that—I was struck and impressed by how quickly they were moving to be able to continue to deliver high-quality care professionally. I wrote to them then and I have written to them again today. I also intend to visit those sites again this month to talk through with staff what I have laid out in Parliament and what the reports say, and to answer any questions. I have also offered to meet the partnership forum of NHS Lothian, which—as members know—is made up of the unions and representatives of staff from across the health board.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Three more members wish to ask questions. I want to get you all in, but you

must make your questions short.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary confirmed in her statement that the payment of £1.35 million per month will continue and that a further £16 million of additional costs will be incurred. Will she clarify the detail of those additional costs and whether any of them will be recovered for the public purse?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As I said, the additional costs cover the costs of maintaining existing sites—which I outlined for Mr Johnson—project team costs and the costs of the work that needs to be done to remedy the new site; that is, the costs of upgrading the ventilation system in critical care and fixing the ventilation and other matters, which the NSS report identifies, elsewhere on that site.

I am happy to provide Gordon Lindhurst with the detail of that if he would find that helpful.

On whether any of it is recoverable, the KPMG report did not express an opinion on the accountability of individuals or organisations. Given that the board holds the various contracts, it will wish to consider that with its legal advisers. We will continue to have discussions with it on that.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm how many procedures and operations have been cancelled as a result of the most recent delays? Will she also release the programme of meetings that she and her officials had with NHS Lothian, the project team and Integrated Health Solutions Lothian—the project and the delays have gone on for years—so that parents and NHS staff can see for themselves the failings in governance that have plagued this vital and much-needed set of hospital facilities?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was not really a short question; however, never mind.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Before I answer that question, it is important to note that the KPMG report confirmed that NHS Lothian’s governance processes were exactly as they should have been. I am happy to issue the list that Ms Boyack requested if she sends me a note—I did not write everything down—

saying what specifically she wants to look at.

From memory, I think that just under 4,000 patients had to be notified of a change in location for their appointment and procedures. NHS Lothian staff worked remarkably well to ensure that that happened, both by telephone and follow-ups in writing.

My understanding is that no appointments were cancelled, although some might have had to be rearranged. In addition, we put in place a helpline, which remains in place. This month, the number of calls has declined significantly—there were seven in the most recent week—but that helpline will remain in place until we are sure that it is no longer needed.

Initially, staff were located at the new site in order to ensure that anyone who turned up there would be assisted to get to Sciennes or the DCN quickly for their appointment in those places.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

At the close of her statement, the cabinet secretary was clear about something that it is worth repeating. Will she confirm that, although no one would choose the situation, the Government will resolve it and deliver the safe migration of services, and the children’s hospital will open?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I absolutely confirm that. Patient safety first and last is my priority.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank members. We got through all the questions.

Citizens Assembly of Scotland

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is

a debate on motion S5M-18778, in the name of Michael Russell, on the citizens assembly of Scotland.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am sure that every member of the Scottish Parliament will always listen attentively to what Scotland has to say. All of us as MSPs listen to and act on what we hear in our constituencies and regions, in our surgeries, and at local events. We meet and learn from individuals who bring us their worries, concerns, ideas and even their enthusiasms. All of us as legislators and members, and some of us as ministers, also hear and pay heed to national and international voices from the third sector, unions, business, those who lobby in one way or another for or against change and reform, representative groups, wider civil society, faith groups, our universities and many more organisations. We also hear the voice of Scotland every time a member contributes in a committee or a plenary session in the chamber, carrying his or her concerns, which are informed by listening and thinking. This is Scotland’s Parliament, where the representatives of the people of Scotland, elected by a fair system of proportional representation, speak on behalf of their parties and—more important—their electors.

The past few years of Brexit division show that listening is important, but they also show that we must do better. If we are to row back from the current impasse and find a way forward as a nation, we must listen to new voices and in new ways. We must turn down the volume on what divides us and turn up the volume on ways of moving forward together. To do so, we must not just listen; we must pay attention, focus and understand, and then act.

That is what the citizens assembly of Scotland is about. It is a radical act of listening. It is an intervention in a political culture that can seem more concerned with making its own point, no matter the cost, than with listening to others’ points of view.

Nobody could deny that I am a robust politician. I was schooled in a robust age of debate, and sometimes it shows. I am as guilty as anyone in the chamber of misusing language. However, the times that we are in call for other voices to be heard and for people to speak out in other ways. Formal politics is not the only way to find solutions; sometimes it may not even be the best way.

The assembly is about doing things in a different way, with a different tone, and developing a different democratic language. International experience shows that such approaches can bring new perspectives and new solutions. However, by definition, such initiatives are not about politicians. This debate marks the moment at which Scotland’s citizens assembly becomes an independent entity reaching out to make a new contribution to our country.

The citizens assembly of Scotland now has its remit, and Parliament is being invited to endorse it. It is our first national citizens assembly sponsored by Government but wholly separate from it, and its remit goes to the heart of the question that faces our country. The remit asks the assembly to consider three things:

“what kind of country we are seeking to build, how best we can overcome the challenges Scotland and the world face in the 21st century, including those arising from Brexit, and what further work should be carried out to give us the information we need to make informed choices”

about our future.

Those are broad questions, but deliberately so. The assembly will listen, deliberate and come to conclusions. It is entirely free to define what it thinks are the challenges that are faced by Scotland and the world. Within the framework that is set out in the remit and terms of reference, it will set its own agenda, put in place its own work plan and draw its own conclusions. Could that agenda take it to places that are uncomfortable for the Government? Of course. If I am prepared to accept and acknowledge that, I have to constructively ask those who still stand against the initiative: what are you worried about?

If I am open to the views of the assembly—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will in a moment. If I am open to the views of the assembly, surely they should be, too. Surely they are not afraid to listen.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary took my intervention and that he is not afraid to listen.

One of the problems is that there is a great lack of trust about the Government’s motivation for the initiative.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is the lack of trust that I am seeking to address today. I will say more about the independence of the citizens assembly now. [

Interruption

.] I am sure that all members, including Graham Simpson, who find this entertaining might trust me a little to find out how it is going to move forward.

We should all want to be challenged by the assembly, as it will say and do things that make each and every one of us think anew and reflect anew.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

On the subjects of trust and thinking anew, does the cabinet secretary agree with the remarks that are attributed to David Martin, one of the co-conveners of the assembly, that it was “

a mistake” to introduce into Scotland the idea of a citizens assembly as part of a package of measures seeking independence for the country?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have heard David Martin’s view on the matter. In retrospect, I can understand why people think that. I have to say, there was no intention—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No intention!

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am trying to make a point that can be believed or not believed. There was no intention to say that the citizens assembly would be driving forward any agenda other than the one that I have put forward. I understand and respect David Martin’s point of view, and if we had our time again, perhaps we would have done it in a different way. That is a fair reflection of where I stand on the matter.

The first important step in achieving a fully independent citizens assembly was the appointment of two entirely independent conveners, whose role is to steward, lead and represent the assembly. David Martin and his distinguished track record as a Labour MEP, speaking for Scotland in Europe, will be familiar to everyone here, and his integrity and expertise when it comes to many of the most pressing issues of the day is unimpeachable. Kate Wimpress has established and led arts organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland for nearly 30 years. She brings to her new role considerable experience of engaging and inspiring communities and insight into how best to listen to and amplify the voices of the less heard. It is over to them now.

This week, we have published a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the conveners. The memorandum will, I hope, make real the promises that we have made about the assembly’s independence. It provides for a secretariat that is accountable to, and takes its direction from, the conveners. It also provides for a budget and for the assembly’s ability to receive, directly and independently, the advice, support and services that it requires.

It is essential that the assembly is run to the highest standards of public administration, that it demonstrates the potential for deliberative democracy, and that it fulfils the ambition of everyone who is involved to develop something inclusive, accessible, and open minded.

I understand the need for reassurance, and I am happy to meet with any representative of any party who wants to discuss the issue further. I encourage them to meet the conveners and discuss such matters.

Recruitment of the members of the assembly has already begun. People are out there, knocking on doors, working to find a broadly representative cross-section of Scottish society to take part in something very special. For six weekends, between this October and April next year, they will debate, share views and decide on recommendations that could shape the future of their country. The first meeting will be held over the weekend of 26 and 27 October. That is only days before the current date of prospective European Union exit. Things will undoubtedly change before then, and change again before the assembly finally reports in May next year. Almost certainly, there will be a general election in the United Kingdom.

The Government will continue to press for a referendum that would allow the United Kingdom to stay in the EU. We will request the section 30 order that will put this Parliament’s ability to hold a referendum on the constitutional future of our country—which it has voted for—beyond challenge.

That uncertain background does not imperil the citizens assembly; rather, it makes it even more essential. With public attention focused on the latest indignity to emerge from Westminster, the assembly will have a calmer, longer-term perspective.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will Michael Russell take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I really must make progress—I am sorry. I think that I will not be given much extra time by the Presiding Officer.

During a period when the claims of competing camps are likely to increase in their vehemence, the evidence-based and balanced approach of the assembly will help to provide us with facts, considered opinions and a framework for thinking. Wherever we end up in spring next year and whatever we are debating, none of us will, I hope, wish to turn away an informed, representative and balanced contribution to our national debate.

I began by saying that I wanted to know and listen to what Scotland thinks. I will go further: we need to know what Scotland thinks, what kind of country the people of Scotland want to build, what people think are our greatest challenges and what information the people of Scotland want to have if they and we are to face up to the responsibility of overcoming those challenges.

The Brexit debate has demonstrated the discord that can arise when big constitutional questions are posed in a way that does not include a whole country, that distorts rather than informs and that allows nobody—whatever side of the debate they are on—to have confidence in the terms or implications of the outcome. It has shown what happens when there is only heat in a debate, with no light to shine into our different thoughts, fears and hopes. All parties in this chamber have spoken of the need to improve dialogue, to step back and to consider all points of view more carefully. This assembly provides us with the opportunity to relearn how to do that.

The assembly will report as it sees fit to this Parliament, the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland. Its remit and terms of reference require its report to be laid before Parliament. It expects this Parliament to consider and scrutinise the report, and it requires the Scottish Government to set out, within three months, what it intends to do in respect of the assembly’s recommendations. The assembly’s report will not replace this Parliament’s democratic function of deliberating and deciding. It is one part of Scotland’s story, but I hope that it will be a big and significant part.

This Parliament was the beginning of a new sang, to follow on from Seafield’s famous remark about 1707 being the

“end of an auld sang.”

However, a song can have many voices, and the more that those voices sing in harmony, the better they sound.

This will be Scotland’s first national citizens assembly, but not its last. The Green Party is proposing a future assembly on climate change, and this Government will be happy to endorse that and help to make it happen in this session of Parliament. Adding citizens assemblies to our civic and democratic structures is a natural step for this open and inclusive Parliament, and I am sure that the lessons of this first one will help that happen.

When Henry McLeish presented the report of the cross-party steering group in 1998, he set out the key principles to guide the design of this place. They included an ambition that the Parliament should

“embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland”.

We have done a lot to live up to that ideal, but we can do more.

Twenty years ago, this Parliament met for the first time. Twenty years on, let us resolve to continue to innovate in the service of those who put us here and to ensure that they are more and more at the heart of what we do.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the use of deliberative democracy in Scotland; welcomes the establishment of the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland and the appointment of its independent conveners, Kate Wimpress and David Martin; notes the principles, remit and terms of reference for the Assembly; further notes that the Assembly’s report will be laid before the Parliament; commits to the Scottish Government considering the recommendations in that report and to holding a debate to allow the Parliament to respond to those recommendations, and agrees that, within three months of receiving the report, the Scottish Government should publish a plan setting out how those recommendations that have been agreed by the Parliament will be implemented, and should lay that plan before the Parliament.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I seem to have upset Mike Russell. He is so upset that he frequently takes to social media to plead with me to talk to him. I know that it is difficult to believe that I could upset such a self-effacing, modest, self-deprecating gentleman and member of this chamber, but I say to Mike Russell that the Liberal Democrats will be happy to talk to him anytime on most issues.

Indeed, we have talked a lot about many issues over many months. We worked together on the EU withdrawal bill and the continuity bill—we did not just work together; we agreed with each other on those. We agreed that the Conservative Government was taking powers that should rightly have been placed here from the very beginning. We talked about the people’s vote and, eventually, we persuaded Mike Russell to back the people’s vote. We will work together when we agree.

We also support the citizens assembly as a method and means to reach agreement on the way ahead on challenging issues. For example, to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, people will need to be prepared to make radical changes in their day-to-day lives. However, such changes must have a democratic foundation. A citizens assembly on the climate would help to provide that. We must understand people’s different perspectives and the different ways in which that process will affect their lives so that the transition to a carbon-neutral economy can be accomplished as quickly, fairly and legitimately as possible, and that can be done through a citizens assembly. That is the kind of measure that the assembly would be ideally suited for.

That is why we deeply regret that the first opportunity to utilise the tool was when the First Minister announced it earlier this year as part of a statement on the next steps to achieve independence. That is what Mike Russell is upset about; he complains that we will not take part. We do not support independence, so how could we take part in that kind of initiative?

When we listen to David Martin, can Mike Russell blame us? As Adam Tomkins pointed out, David Martin said that it was “a mistake” to wrap the two things together. He was right; it was deeply flawed and, as a result, the process is flawed.

I am an avid reader of

The National

—that journal that is a record of all things Scottish. Moving on from its campaign earlier this summer of harassment of Scottish strawberry producers who dared to put the union flag on their strawberry punnets, it turned its attention to the citizens assembly. I thought that it was good to give space to the issue. It gave space to Joanna Cherry, who is famous—she was filmed outside the court today—and who speaks for the party on home affairs in the House of Commons. She wrote:

“I have been inundated with queries about how a Citizens Assembly might work and how it could help to achieve independence”.

She went on:

“I was delighted when the First Minister embraced my plan as part of the package of measures paving the way for indyref2. The Citizens’ Assembly process will lay the foundation for the referendum”.

Joanna Cherry went further at the Scottish National Party conference. With some degree of excitement, she told delegates that

“A citizens assembly ... is a concrete way to achieve our goal which is to create a consensus across Scotland and a bigger majority for Yes”.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does Mr Rennie know that, earlier this afternoon, at portfolio question time, Conservative members invited the cabinet secretary, Michael Russell, to distance himself from the remarks of Joanna Cherry, but he declined to take up that invitation?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I find that astonishing and difficult to believe.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is important that the words that I used, which will be recorded in the

Official Report

, are quoted. On no occasion did I refuse to distance myself. I made my position clear. As the minister responsible for the matter, I think that what I said should have been quoted properly and not improperly.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Both points have been made. The

Official Report

can be checked later today and any member who wishes to do so can take appropriate steps.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Joanna Cherry seems to have created a degree of excitement, not just in the courts today, but in this chamber. I am grateful to her for giving us such clarity and honesty that her exposé of the real purpose of the assembly makes it impossible for us to take part in it.

We now know that it is a ruse, a scheme and a mechanism to help the SNP members’ campaign for independence. [

Interruption

.]

Graeme Dey says that this is about our obsession with independence, but it was the SNP’s idea to have the citizens assembly, it was the SNP’s idea to wrap it up with independence and it was an SNP member of Parliament who put independence at the heart of it. Do not say that we are obsessed with independence; it is the SNP that is obsessed with independence.

I favour abolishing the House of Lords, changing the unfair first-past-the-post voting system and having a written constitution. If we had had that written constitution, that would have helped us today. I favour having powerful regional and national Assemblies and Parliaments—a federal structure. However, with this half-Machiavellian, half-clever approach, it is impossible to discuss all that in the citizens assembly. It is an SNP approach—a Joanna Cherry-inspired citizens assembly—and that is why we can have nothing to do with it, and no one who wants to keep the United Kingdom together should have anything to do with it. Once we have stopped Brexit, we need to change the UK, but at this moment of national crisis we do not need yet another discussion about independence. For goodness’ sake, let us move on. Let us stop Brexit, let us get this country on track and let us reform this country, but the citizens assembly has nothing to do with that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Rennie, will you move your amendment?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In all the excitement, I forgot to do that.

I move amendment

S5M-18778.1, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:

“regrets that the first opportunity taken by the Scottish Government is a citizens’ assembly announced as a part of a package of measures to achieve Scottish independence, which was welcomed by SNP MPs as part of the route to independence, and notes that Scottish ministers have not agreed to abide by the recommendations of the assembly if it rejects Scottish independence.”

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I turn my attention first to the Liberal Democrat amendment, which has just been so movingly moved by Mr Rennie. We on the Conservative benches strongly agree with every word of it—not quite with every word of Mr Rennie’s speech, but certainly with the sentiment behind it. It is a matter of deep regret that the idea of a citizens assembly for Scotland was introduced to the Parliament and to Scottish politics as part of a package of measures that were designed by the First Minister to achieve independence for Scotland. I think that everybody, even Mike Russell, can understand why that has made us all so deeply suspicious of it, just as we have our suspicions about the Referendums (Scotland) Bill, which is another part of the same package. For all those reasons, we will be voting for the Liberal Democrat amendment tonight.

I now turn my attention to the Government motion. The first thing that it says is

“That the Parliament supports the use of deliberative democracy in Scotland”.

I support deliberative democracy in Scotland and I will explain why briefly. I support it because I do not think that party politics gets everything right. I do not think that the Parliament has shown that it is able to get to the bottom of every social or economic problem that faces Scotland today. For all its merits and virtues, the Parliament does not have all the answers, even when we all come together to agree that an issue is of pressing national importance. Climate change might be a good example. If we had started with a citizens assembly on climate change and then moved to other matters, that would have been infinitely preferable to starting with the constitution and the SNP’s obsession with independence.

Another example, which I have given before, is that we all agree that Scotland faces a crisis when it comes to drugs deaths. There is cross-party agreement that the issue blights our nation and it shames us all that we have not been able to come together as a Parliament to agree a way forward. It is not just unfortunate but appalling that the issue has become constitutionalised and has become about where reserved powers lie with regard to safe consumption facilities. That is exactly the kind of issue that party politics is failing to address in Scotland and which a citizens assembly could and should be established to address.

If we had started with climate change or drugs deaths, perhaps there would have been much less suspicion about the idea of citizens assemblies and we could have had genuine all-party support for it.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I accept much of what Adam Tomkins has said about drug deaths. I was first involved in difficulties in that area in the early 1960s. Would it be helpful if all those from across the UK who might be able to influence policy and practice on drug deaths were able to sit in one room together, or does it need a citizens assembly to summon such people and bypass the political system? I am not quite clear about what Adam Tomkins is saying.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

The answer to the first part of that question is, yes, it would be helpful. It should happen, in my view, and I know what the consequences of that are.

The next part of the Government motion notes various matters that we are happy to note: the appointment of the conveners, the principles and remit of the citizens assembly and its terms of reference. We note, likewise, that

“the Assembly’s report will be laid before ... Parliament”.

We have no objection to any of those elements of the motion.

The final part of the motion says that the Government will consider the recommendations that emerge from the citizens assembly and that the Parliament will decide on them. Again, that is fine—it broadly gets right the balance between the role of the citizens assembly, the role of the Government in considering its recommendations and the role of the Parliament in deciding on them.

Scottish Conservatives will listen to what the SNP—not just its front-bench members but its back benchers—has to say about the motion before we decide how to vote on its motion this evening. If—as we suspect that it is and will be—the citizens assembly becomes a proxy for independence, full fiscal autonomy, devo max or any other constitutional scheme that is designed to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom, we will vote against the motion.

There is one very significant omission from the Government’s motion, which is the question of cost. What will it cost to establish, administer and run the citizens assembly? What will we pay members, conveners and the civil servants who will help to service it? In the press, it has been reported that the cost will be half a million pounds.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary can shed any light on that. I will be happy to give way to him if he can.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Transparency will be a key issue for the citizens assembly. It will be committed to publishing its costs in full. It will do so at the appropriate moment, which will be up to the assembly. I do not think that there will be any doubt about that; the information will be there for everyone to see.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that response, although he did not shed any light on the question of cost and simply said that it will be made transparent at some point in the future.

We have already heard what David Martin has said about the coupling of the citizens assembly in Scotland with the idea of independence, and it has been quoted by other members. However, it is not just David Martin who is of that view. Neil Mackay, the former editor of the

Sunday Herald

and a journalist who supports independence, has said:

“The idea was a simple, elegant addition to our democracy—but the SNP has now stomped all over it, politicised it, and, made it look falsely like a propaganda unit. The party’s behaviour is completely counter-productive”.

I quote that not in anger but in sadness. The citizens assembly had the potential to be a really good idea and a useful addition to our parliamentary democracy here in Scotland. However, the SNP has ruined it because it has coupled it with independence, which has made us all very suspicious of what its true motivations are.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In opening the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, I state our support for the principles of the citizens assembly for Scotland. I also welcome the appointments of both David Martin and Kate Wimpress and have faith that they will be both independent and hard-working co-conveners.

Too often these days, I find myself having to advocate for democracy and reiterating that, although it is flawed, it is still a good thing. More democracy is certainly no bad thing, and the principles of deliberative democracy and their use in Scotland should be welcomed. The use of citizens assemblies is a proven and respected method when it is done properly. They can help services to work together and allow us, as a country, to develop our culture of citizenship. One of their key benefits is that they can allow complex issues to be explored in depth by the people who are directly affected by them. All that is surely a good thing.

I understand the point and the concerns that Willie Rennie has raised in his amendment. I also recognise that the purpose of the assembly has been muddied by at least one SNP MP, who has asserted that its purpose is to move us towards independence. Therefore, I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary would clarify the point again in his closing remarks. I know that he feels that he has done so already, but I ask him to do so again. As I understand it, the Government is committed to introducing the assembly in good faith. If that is indeed the case, Scottish Labour will participate in good faith in return.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

This is about motivations. The First Minister has said that we are facing a climate emergency. Liberal Democrats made the point that the citizens assembly would have been the ideal vehicle for tackling such an emergency. However, independence is not an emergency, however we look at it.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will certainly come on to that point.

I have some experience in deliberative democracy. While I was leader of Fife Council, we held one of the first citizens juries in the country back in March 1997. Our citizens jury was established to examine what public agencies and local communities could do to create employment opportunities in Levenmouth. It was an incredibly positive experience, and at the end the jury made more than 50 recommendations, most of which, I am pleased to say, were implemented.

When we speak to people who have taken part in such juries or assemblies, one of the key messages that comes across is how positive the experience was. Here are some of the views that were given by participants in the recent Irish citizens assembly:

“It ... helped me ... to listen, understand and develop empathy”,

“It got balanced and truthful information out among the people of Ireland”,

and

“It took the debate out of the realm of fearful self-interested calculation”.

We could surely use all of that in our politics in Scotland at present.

I am told that one of the key messages to be learned that came out of the Irish assembly was about how to engage with the press and get it on board at an early stage. It can be too easy for the press to see citizens assemblies in a negative or sceptical light, so I believe that it is key to the success of the Scottish citizens assembly for the press to be fully engaged in the process at all stages. That also brings about much greater transparency.

I am pleased that it has been stated that the citizens assembly for Scotland

“will be independent, transparent and inclusive.”

Those objectives are good and I am sure that they will get widespread support throughout the country.

We are willing to go into this with an open mind, and I hope that the Government is willing to do the same. The questions that are proposed to frame the citizens assembly are:

“What kind of country are we seeking to build? How can we overcome the challenges Scotland faces, including Brexit? How can people be given the detail they need to make informed choices about Scotland’s future?”

Those are surely welcome questions, and Scottish Labour is willing to engage in the discussions.

Our country is undergoing a massive political upheaval, and we need to work together where we can to ensure that a level of stability is returned to the whole of the United Kingdom. The questions that frame the assembly are questions that I would like to be answered, and I believe that, through collaborative working and engaged discussions with the public, we can set out the kind of Scotland that we want to see flourish into the future.

We are not a party that stands for the status quo, so we will engage in the discussions on what kind of country we want to live in and what best meets the needs and aspirations of the Scottish people. I am clear that part of that will involve constitutional, social and economic reform across the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is far too centralised as a state—indeed, Scotland has become that way as well—and we would like to see reform of how our state operates at an economic, political and constitutional level. We hope that the discussions will take us in that direction.

I finish by saying to the Tories and the Liberals that we cannot stand still and we cannot go backwards. We should support this initiative and let Scotland move forward.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I welcome the motion that has been brought to the chamber for debate today. The Greens have long expressed support for deliberative democracy in a range of forms. We have seen at a local level—with participatory budgeting, for example—that it can be done well or done badly, and we need to learn from that experience as we explore the greater use of deliberative democracy. I do not think that that learning is going to be well served by the kind of debate that we have had so far this afternoon.

Deliberative democracy—Adam Tomkins is right about this—does not in any way need to be seen as being in conflict with parliamentary democracy or as undermining the role of elected Governments or Parliaments. It can and should be complementary and enriching in a way that was so chronically missing in the run-up to 2016.

Adam Tomkins and I are on the Finance and Constitution Committee, which has been hearing evidence on the Referendums (Scotland) Bill. Although I am sure that we will not agree on everything about that bill, one of the common themes that we can all recognise from the evidence that we have heard so far is the distinction between a referendum that is held in the full light of a well worked-up and detailed proposition—either published legislation or something detailed, such as the Scottish Government’s white paper—and what we saw in 2016, which was a referendum that was based on a narrow proposition and something as simplistic as the slogan “take back control”.

We should learn from the Irish experience of using citizens assemblies to inform and enrich the debate about constitutional change in their country. It is a far greater expression of genuinely deep democracy than what we saw in 2016. If the question on EU membership, for example, had been subjected to that kind of detailed deliberation in advance, we would have ended up with a much richer debate and far greater clarity about what should happen as a result.

Further constitutional change is coming. Whether Brexit is implemented—and I hope that it can still be stopped—or is killed off in its tracks and we simply reflect on what has happened to us in the past three years and the level of contempt that has been shown to Scotland’s democracy by the UK Government, further constitutional change is coming. Let us make sure that, when it comes, it is as informed as it can be by that deliberative process.

I understand that some people want to see this as an opportunity to have a proxy debate about independence. Adam Tomkins does not need to be suspicious that the SNP might privately, secretly or covertly support independence. We all know that the SNP supports independence, he knows that I support independence and I know that he does not. I have no fear of a citizens assembly that wants to consider whatever proposals Adam Tomkins makes, even they are to support every dot and comma in the UK Government’s proposals for what should happen after Brexit. I would have no hesitation in seeing a citizens assembly consider those options, and I would not feel threatened by that.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I do not feel threatened, but there is a difference. In Ireland, citizens assemblies had all-party buy-in because they started on issues that all parties agreed needed to be addressed by a citizens assembly. That is not the case in Scotland, and that is what I regret.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Indeed, and I regret that Mr Tomkins’s party is not buying in. He is perfectly capable of buying into the process and seeing that the citizens assembly considers any issues that he thinks it should consider.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will in just a moment.

Similarly, I say to the Liberal Democrats that I do not think that the citizens assembly should rule, for example, that federalism is to be rejected. I do not think that the Liberal Democrats should be unwilling to see a citizens assembly come forward and to offer it their proposals.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Does Patrick Harvie agree that we can all agree, and have agreed, that we face a climate emergency? I would have thought that, of all people, he would have wanted to see the climate emergency being the first subject to be addressed by the citizens assembly, but we have heard nothing about that from him.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sure that Mr Rumbles knows that that was the basis of our amendment—I will come on to that in a moment.

Unlike Mr Rumbles, I think that the current constitutional crisis also constitutes an emergency. From the contempt that has been shown for devolution to what was today deemed to be an illegal proroguing of Parliament, the constitutional crisis should be considered an emergency.

I regret that the only amendment that we will be able to vote on today is the Liberal Democrat one. The Green Party amendment learned from the experience in Ireland, where broad-brush ideas were identified, such as the role of taxation in the transition to a low-carbon economy. It was not about answering the detailed questions but about addressing the broad-brush idea.

The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill gives us the opportunity to use the same deliberative democracy approach in relation to climate change. I am glad that the cabinet secretary said that he supports that and I hope that he will say on the record that he will back an amendment to the bill to mandate that process. Although I am not able to move that amendment today, I propose it and ask that all parties in the chamber back an amendment to the bill, in order to ensure that we move forward in an open, participative and deliberative process in relation to the climate, just as we should—and must—in relation to the constitution.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I ask for speeches of six minutes, please. We are quite tight for time, so any interventions will need to be included within the six minutes.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Today’s motion asks Parliament to endorse the idea that deliberation should be at the heart of our decision making. Now, more than ever, we need our politics to be the product of fair and rationale debate. I am not for one minute suggesting that we strip passion from our politics—we always need to show that we care. However, in these troubled times, we need very much to bring back into vogue clear and calm heads and good old-fashioned common sense.

Citizens assemblies have a contribution to make in that regard, by helping to change aspects of our political culture and discourse.

I am a big fan of the author Zadie Smith, who counsels us that, for progress to survive, it needs to be looked after and “reimagined”. The events of the past few weeks show that we cannot take our democracy for granted. Although, as a life-long nationalist, I have never wanted to be ruled from Westminster—I have always felt somewhat disengaged from it—as a citizen, I have every right to be absolutely outraged by the so-called mother of Parliaments being prorogued for the longest-ever period in recent history, and at ministers of Her Majesty’s Government speculating on television about how they might find ways around legislation. I am sure that, across the political divide, I am not alone in thinking that.

The reality is that there is a big national crisis across the UK. At the end of the day, no one knows what will happen next, although we all like to speculate.

It is important that, in Scotland, we meet in our Parliament to discuss how we can strengthen our democracy. Although we should not view citizens assemblies in isolation—they are not a magic bullet; when you get to my age, you realise that nothing ever is—they could be one part of a broader system of civic participation that underpins a well-developed and functioning democracy. At home and abroad, we see other factors that might challenge or change our democracy as we know it: globalisation, the rise of populism, the increase of corporate power, technological changes, social media as a news outlet and campaign tool, the climate emergency, and poverty and inequality. That range of emergencies cannot necessarily be tackled in isolation from one another, but they can all lead to disengagement and distrust.

In order to protect our democracy, we need to constantly seek better ways to reach out and engage. That is important, because Parliaments are rarely truly representative of the people whom they seek to serve. The prominence of Etonians at Westminster means that it looks and sounds to me increasingly like a period drama from the 1950s. However, we in this Parliament are also not truly representative of the diversity of Scotland—folk from many of our various communities are simply missing. Of course, that needs to be addressed—preferably within the 21st century—but it underlines the point that we need other forums, outwith the parliamentary bubble, to inform our work and decision making.

The question that will be posed to the citizens assembly is entirely open. What kind of country are we seeking to build? How do we overcome the challenges that we face? We all need to be committed to really listening, thinking and then responding. In that regard, the Government has outlined its respect for this Parliament in its motion.

It is important not to miss the spirit—or the potential—of a citizens assembly, because we can neither prejudice the outcome nor rewrite our response to it. If we set up an independent assembly, we cannot control it. David Martin has certainly demonstrated his independence.

In a democracy, people are entitled to change their minds, but they are also entitled to stick to their guns. The reality is that the question of Scotland’s constitutional future has not evaporated. We can, of course, debate why that is and what we should or should not do about it. There will be a range of views, but whatever a person’s position on Scotland’s constitutional future is, and whatever happens, surely we can all agree that we need to find a path to travel on together on a range of issues.

I end with one of Zadie Smith’s clarion calls. She said:

“Stop worrying about your identity and concern yourself with the people you care about, ideas that matter to you, beliefs you can stand by, tickets you can run on.”

We should all heed those words.

We all have to be wary of making predictions. However, in the times that lie ahead, I think that we will all have to step outside our boxes and our comfort zones.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Forgive my scepticism, but this citizens assembly is nothing short of a Trojan horse. At first glance, it is a benign chance to let the public have a say, but it is mired in a hidden agenda.

What we again have is another chance—this time in the form of a citizens assembly—for the SNP to push its independence plan. We have heard today that it is already doomed to fail to represent the people of Scotland, so the SNP has fallen at the first hurdle in terms of transparency and fairness.

I see Mike Russell sitting there with his head in his hands because he is obviously in despair about what his SNP colleagues have said about the citizens assembly. [

Interruption

.] Thank you very kindly.

There are a number of reasons why the citizens assembly is tainted by the SNP’s agenda. Nicola Sturgeon announced the assembly alongside cross-party constitutional discussions and indyref 2 legislation back in April, as part of her agenda to push independence. Former MEP David Martin has lambasted that as a “mistake”, and has criticised the FM’s decision to include the citizens assembly in developing independence referendum legislation.

SNP MSPs and MPs really Iet the cat out the bag before the assembly got off the ground. We have heard Joanna Cherry MP calling the newly announced citizens assembly the “perfect way” to independence. That commentary from the SNP has destroyed what could have been simply a democratic and transparent process.

Mike Russell has said that

“Scotland has a fundamental choice to make about its future”

when it comes to citizens assemblies. We have made that choice—we voted no in 2014, and the SNP Government lost its majority in 2016.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Will the member give way?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will make a little bit of progress, first.

Moreover, Dr Oliver Escobar—a prominent academic who is involved in the assembly—has expressed his anger at Joanna Cherry. It seems that there is a trend here. In response to Cherry’s claims about the assembly, Dr Escobar, who is involved in organising the assembly, said that he was “kind of fuming” at the statement, believing that it makes the assembly’s work “ten times harder”. Maybe Ms Cherry wishes that she had stayed quiet.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

rose—

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

rose—

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On top of those bloopers, funding the assembly will cost the taxpayer half a million pounds. Many people will rightly be furious about that spending—especially given the direction of travel that has been put on the assembly following SNP politicians’ comments.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will Rachael Hamilton tell us what role Joanna Cherry has in the Scottish Government?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am not sure whether Bruce Crawford’s knows this, but Joanna Cherry is a member of the SNP. She has a role to play—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Boris Johnson is a member of the Tories.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Joanna Cherry’s

comments have made the public sceptical; she has also caused an issue with transparency and fairness.

We are not against the concept of citizens assemblies, but the questions that are up for debate are not set by the assembly, but by the SNP Government. As we have heard from Mike Russell, the First Minister set out three broad questions. Forgive me for my suspicion, but those questions have nothing to do with fixing the Government’s domestic record and everything to do with the constitution. For example, there is nothing about reducing the deficit in Scotland, about tackling declining national health service performance or about the fact that there are fewer teachers in our schools. I, and many of my colleagues, would like a citizens assembly to discuss how we can better reach a zero-carbon economy and tackle climate change. The list goes on.

I will draw together my points. It might be argued that the real citizens assembly is here in the Scottish Parliament. Across the chamber, there are many people of all political persuasions, from all walks of life, from different backgrounds and professions and with different life experiences. We are elected to represent our constituents and we stand up for them in the chamber every day. However, we should remain open minded about the concept of citizens assemblies.

People are highly suspicious of the SNP’s motives. The SNP wants a citizens assembly because it has been, and always will be, about independence. Simply put, it will be a talking shop for independence and very little else. How can that opinion be turned round? Will the assembly seek people’s views on how the SNP has dismantled local front-line policing, thereby leading to an increase in crime?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

No, thank you.

Will the assembly seek people’s views on how to reverse the SNP’s failure on school standards? Will it seek people’s views on how rural areas are becoming increasingly isolated in a technologically advancing world?

It is a matter of deep regret that a potentially good idea has been tainted. Citizens assemblies have been effective in other countries. However, it seems that the SNP’s incurable narrowness and its constitutional agenda have destroyed what could have been a new way forward to reflect public opinion.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

We have heard interesting contributions from Conservative members. Adam Tomkins said that we in Parliament do not have all the answers, and I agree with him. However, Rachael Hamilton said that Parliament is the citizens assembly. Those are fundamentally different points of view, so there are obviously differences among views in the Tory party. We in the SNP have robust debates and ways of dealing with different points of view.

I want to start with the character and experience of one of the conveners of the assembly. I know one of them, but not the other. When David Martin was first elected as an MEP in the 1980s, he came to the Bank of Scotland to meet senior executives. I remember sitting round the lunch table—we were hospitable to him—to hear his questions and his responses, and the issues that he was raising with the bank. That was more than 30 years ago. The first thing that David Martin brings to the table is objectivity. The second is experience and the third is honesty in his political opinions—which are not my political opinions, but come from a different tradition.

If we attack the citizens assembly, we attack David Martin and his substantial record of public service, his preparedness to serve the public good and his preparedness to tackle the democratic deficit, or emergency, that undoubtedly exists in these islands. Today’s court judgment is just one part of the continuing failure of the UK’s democratic systems to solve major problems.

I absolutely support the Green Party proposal, which has been supported by Conservative members, to involve citizens more on the issue of climate change. I progressed the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill in 2009, for which we had unanimous support: I hope that we will get such support again. In an era of post-truth politics, in which climate change is an issue and globalisation is a matter of debate, our citizens must be part of deciding the future.

Who is taking a risk by establishing the citizens assembly? In Parliament, we have a majority in favour of independence. Those who support that objective—which is part of a wider agenda and does not stand on its own—are taking the risk that the citizens assembly, which is independent of Government and is chaired by a lifelong opponent of the political philosophy that I espouse, could come up with a conclusion that will make us desperately uncomfortable.

I believe that we will have convincing evidence and arguments that will lead the assembly to a different place. However, those of us who support Scotland’s independence are taking the risk. The fact that the Tories and the Liberal Democrats will not take such risks is very revealing.

We have an opportunity to recalibrate how our democracy works. What is before the assembly lays out the way in which to address issues, but the assembly is the master of its own destiny. The Liberal Democrat amendment does not disagree with the assembly’s remit, so I invite Liberal Democrats to endorse the motion in their concluding remarks. The word “independence” appears nowhere in it.

The UK’s general relationship with the devolved nations is changing; in England, there are huge tensions across geography and people’s different experiences in different parts. Citizens assemblies can be important in allowing countries to consider how they take themselves forward.

In Ireland, the removal of the eighth amendment to the constitution was a suitable subject for a citizens assembly to contribute to the subsequent referendum debate—and it was very successful. The referendum followed closely the recommendations of the assembly but—more to the point—participants said that it made them consider the impact of a proposal in ways that they never would have done before. It is important to rely on the deep reflections of fellow citizens who come without the baggage that every party politician here inevitably has. That brings honesty and openness to the deliberative process, so I congratulate our friends in Ireland for showing us the way to re-ignite thoughtful dialogue.

It is worth considering Brexit. If, three years ago, we had taken forward the post-2016 referendum deliberations via a citizens assembly, we would not have got ourselves tied up in the cul-de-sac that was created by the Prime Minister in January 2017, which has contributed to the failure of the political system to come to a meaningful conclusion.

This is not really a debate about the proposals from the Government for an assembly; it is about the credibility of David Martin—a man with whom I have often disagreed but whom I continue to respect.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This afternoon’s debate gives members an opportunity to consider the citizens assembly in more detail. Although the remit was published in August and the memorandum of understanding was published earlier this week, opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal has been limited. This afternoon, we can explore the issues that are involved in establishing a citizens assembly.

When the First Minister announced plans for a citizens assembly, Scottish Labour gave a cautious welcome to the news. It is regrettable that the Scottish Government did not bring the proposal to Parliament at an earlier stage. In Ireland, cross-party consensus was achieved through parliamentary scrutiny and the ability to consider and amend the remit.

I have previously highlighted concerns regarding the nature of the announcement as part of wider plans to pursue a second independence referendum, which puts at risk faith in the process. Although the memorandum that was published this week emphasised the independence of the assembly, it remains to be seen whether the Government’s ambition for another referendum is the intended purpose of the assembly. I have heard the Government’s assurances on that point this afternoon, but the inclusion in the remit of a specific role regarding the “options for constitutional reform” does little to dispel those concerns, and there is a job of work for the assembly in considering how it will approach that discussion and what direction it will lead it in. We are at the stage of handing over the process to the assembly, and it must be for the assembly to set its agenda.

Deliberative democracy can be a valuable approach to questions that a society faces about its future. It can be used to engage citizens in what are seemingly intractable problems or questions that have the potential to cause division in communities.

Involving the public more directly in the democratic process is something that we, as parliamentarians, should all support.

We have seen examples of citizens assemblies in Poland, Canada, Ireland and Australia providing opportunities for participatory democracy and addressing a range of issues from the reduction of fossil fuel use to the reform of abortion law. As well as providing a forum, a structure and time for members of the public to hear evidence, to challenge what is put to them and to question experts, such assemblies can contribute to wider knowledge and understanding if engagement with the broader population is secured. I attended the sessions that involved representatives from Ireland, at which we heard about their experiences, and I thank the cabinet secretary for arranging them. We can learn a lot from those countries that have already been through the process.

In setting up our assembly, we must provide an opportunity for assembly members, as representatives of the wider population, to determine which areas they want to focus on. Although the remit that was published last month is broad, it is for members of the assembly to decide what they wish to focus on.

I will move on to consider the progress of the work. The recent publication of the remit is a welcome step towards the first meeting in late October, but I note that information on the citizens assembly website indicates that decisions are yet to be made in some areas. Among those are critical decisions on the best ways to involve the wider public in the process and on how the assembly will operate. For example, it will have to be decided whether there will be any live streaming of content beyond deliberative sessions. Decisions also need to be taken on whether access will be provided for observers and the media. Key to all those considerations is the need to balance the public interest and transparency with the legitimate need to protect the privacy of assembly members.

Recruitment of 100-plus members is under way, but it is far from a straightforward task. I understand that, in Ireland, the percentage of people who agreed to take part was quite small and that it was quite an onerous task. There were also issues with retention as the model in Ireland rolled out. Aside from the need to balance the membership in line with the broader population, the people who take part need to be convinced that providing their time and participating over a number of weeks is a worthwhile task for them and one that will enable them to make a contribution to society.

I have a number of other questions that the cabinet secretary might wish to address. What assurances are being provided to members of the public that their privacy will be safeguarded if they take part in the assembly? Has a decision been made about what information about participants will be made public? In Ireland, the names and broad geographical locations of members were published following the creation of the assembly. Will streamed footage include footage of the assembly members? Some assembly members will have social media accounts. Are steps being taken to ensure that they are not contacted or otherwise targeted via those accounts or other routes in an effort to influence their contributions? We also need to think about the potential for harassment or abuse if participants are identified and about the need to support them more generally throughout the period of meetings and beyond. What pastoral care measures will be put in place to support members through the process?

As other members have recognised, we live in a time in which heightened emotions are too often linked to political and social debate. We need to ensure that the assembly is respectful and that we, as a society, respect the role that its members are carrying out. We also need to consider how to ensure that participants are able to speak openly and freely in the assembly, which could include the expression of views that they might not feel comfortable airing in an open forum. For example, will there be an option for them to submit their views anonymously or through a proxy speaker?

The fact that participants will be recompensed for giving up their weekends is welcome and should, I hope, provide some incentive for those who might not otherwise consider getting involved. There is a desire to include people who are not in employment. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the arrangement whereby people will receive a gift payment for their participation means that those who are currently receiving benefits will not be affected?

As is evidenced by the outcomes of the citizens assemblies that have taken place around the world, there is much that we can gain from the process. I look forward to the work of the citizens assembly of Scotland. We must recognise that it is working to challenging timescales and that a lot is being asked of the people who agree to take part. The principles of transparency and access must be balanced with appropriate support and the protection of the privacy of members of the public who become involved in the assembly. The assembly has the potential to act as a stimulus for wider public engagement and discussion, and I hope that it can help to raise the level of debate in order to address the challenges that we, as a country, will face in the coming years.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I will concentrate my remarks on the impartial nature of the citizens assembly and, in particular, on how the structures that underpin it are designed to deliver that impartiality.

First and most important, the assembly is independent of Government and will set its own agenda within its remit. Leadership will set the tone, and I hope that we can all agree that the conveners are impartial and respected people. That is critical for impartiality, because the conveners will also sign off the final membership profile. I am fortunate in having had some contact with both of the conveners in the course of my parliamentary work. Kate Wimpress has addressed the cross-party group on culture, which I convene, in her role as the director of North Edinburgh Arts, which is a successful community-focused project that uses creative people’s skill sets to improve and deepen the engagement of local people in shaping the places in which they live. She brings that expertise to her role as the chair of SURF—Scotland’s Regeneration Forum—which also promotes innovation and engagement. That strikes me as an excellent background for a convener of a citizens assembly that is designed to do the same thing for political engagement.

I have also been fortunate enough to engage with co-convener David Martin, who has given evidence to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, which I convene. My earliest memory of David Martin, who is Scotland’s longest-serving MEP, comes from back in the 1990s, when

The Herald

gave a lot of space to his promotion of a Europe of the regions, which was then an idea that was very much in its infancy. I have to say that those of us who supported the idea of independence in Europe for Scotland at that time were not too enamoured of David Martin’s ideas, as we believed that only a seat at the top table was good enough for Scotland. I say that not to drag up the past but to emphasise that David Martin is and has always been his own man and is not someone who could ever be accused of being told what to do by the SNP. As has been said, David Martin was a Scottish Labour member of the European Parliament for 35 years, and he was formerly the European Parliament’s longest-serving vice-president. Of course, he is also the professor of public policy at the University of Glasgow.

We are lucky to have David Martin and Kate Wimpress in these roles, and I hope that no one in this Parliament would ever question their impartiality. In addition to those conveners, an impartial and arm’s-length secretariat will be appointed to the assembly. Importantly, it will be located outside Government offices and will be made up of civil servants who will adhere to the civil service code and take their direction from and be accountable to the impartial conveners.

The most important element of the assembly is its members. Again, the focus is on ensuring that they are completely independent. An independent contractor will identify participants and will provide the secretariat with a list of members. I note that the memorandum of understanding says that Scottish ministers will have no involvement with that element of the delivery of the contract. The memorandum of understanding also sets out clearly that the members are in the driving seat of the process. The remit of the assembly says that it will

“decide for itself which challenges it wants to consider, examine the current constitutional arrangements for dealing with those challenges and the options for constitutional reform, and set out what further work is required to provide the information that would allow the people of Scotland to make an informed choice about the future of the country.”

All of those impartial people—the members, the conveners and the secretariat—will be assisted in their work by expert groups. Mary Laffoy, the chairperson of the Irish citizens assembly, referenced the role of those expert groups in her Michael Littleton memorial lecture last year. Speaking of the expert groups, she said:

“I truly believe that their involvement in the process and in helping myself and the Secretariat navigate through some of the most complex and challenging issues facing Irish society is one of the most noteworthy features of this process, and that this collaboration with academia, professionals and administrators is something which is of benefit”

to the whole work of the assembly.

If the independence of the conveners, members, secretariat, contractor and expert groups still does not satisfy, there is an additional layer of scrutiny to ensure impartiality, which is the politicians panel. That means that the assembly members, if they choose, can summon all the parties of this Parliament—even those that oppose today’s motion.

I will end by quoting a politician: the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who wrote favourably about citizens assemblies in

The Guardian

earlier this year. He said that they offer

“a fresh opportunity to invite more people into the decision-making process—and in a more structured and constructive way.”

My message to those who oppose the motion is to heed the words of Gordon Brown, abandon their cynicism and place their faith in the impeccable impartiality of the assembly and its conveners.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Following on from Joan McAlpine’s measured contribution, I have to confess that I am a cynic, in general. I am certainly cynical of all Governments,

because they all play the same games. When there is an idea like setting up a citizens assembly, we have to think about what they are up to. In this case, we do not have to look very far. We know what they are up to because it is in the remit, which is all about Scotland’s constitutional future.

I genuinely came into the debate with an open mind—[

Interruption

.] No, I did, and in listening to it I have heard things that I did not realise. I now tend to the view that citizens assemblies can be a good thing. I was a councillor for 10 years, and I always felt strongly about involving people. I saw from the way that councils operated that that was not always their view—just as Governments often think that they know best, councils thought that they knew best.

It is a good thing to ask people what they think. What is a shame is the way that this has been done. As has been said, it would have been much better if different subjects had been chosen to start it off. There are serious issues that a

citizens assembly should be considering, one of which is climate change. There is also, as Adam Tomkins mentioned, the drugs crisis. Those are serious issues for a citizens assembly to consider.

One misconception is that the citizens assembly is a permanent body—it is not. It will sit for only six meetings, and it is to consider only the constitution. I presume that it will report and then be scrapped, and a new body will be set up if we want another citizens assembly to discuss another issue.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That will not necessarily be the case, although it is certainly true that different membership could be found. I indicated in my opening speech that the Government has already accepted a proposal in relation to climate change, and other proposals may come forward. For example, there are difficult social issues that may require that type of approach. What Graham Simpson says might not necessarily be the case, but, as I see that his enthusiasm for citizens assemblies is beginning to get going, I would welcome his ideas for one.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Mr Russell knows that I am a measured man and that he can come and speak to me any time that he likes.

I am concerned that there appears to be no budget for this particular citizens assembly. We have heard that it could cost up to £500,000. Mr Russell could not confirm that or tell us what the figure is, which is a matter of concern. At some point, that should come through the Parliament and be budgeted for.

The members of the assembly are being chosen at the moment, and we have heard about the co-conveners. I am afraid that I do not know either of them, so I have no views on either of them. However, I am sure that they will do their very best. In a breezy blog that was signed off “Kate and David”, they said:

“we have been busy getting to know each other”

and

“getting up to speed with the range of work required to deliver the Assembly ... There can be few roles more worthwhile than helping our citizens seek common ground.”

I could not disagree with that.

However, the remit of this particular assembly is set by the Government. Mr Russell touched on the three questions that the assembly will consider: Brexit is mentioned, but education, health and drugs are not mentioned. The remit says that the assembly will

“examine the current constitutional arrangements for dealing with ... challenges and the options for constitutional reform”

and that, within that remit, the assembly will decide its own agenda. However, the remit is set by the Government and the assembly can doing nothing outside that. At the moment, the assembly appears to be a bit of a stunt for independence. Although I am not against the idea of a citizens assembly, I regret the way that the citizens assembly of Scotland has been set up.

Willie Rennie asked previously what would happen if the assembly came out against independence. What would Mike Russell and the Government do? What would their response be to that? We have not had an answer to that question.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would be delighted to answer that question. That was covered in my opening speech. All the assembly’s recommendations will come to the Parliament, and the Parliament will vote on them. If the Parliament accepts those recommendations, the Government will bring forward its own recommendations—it is bound to do so. It would do that no matter what the recommendations were. That is entirely clear.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Has Graham Simpson changed his mind now?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

No, I have not, because I am not quite sure that I buy that. If the citizens assembly came out against independence, its opinion would be roundly rejected and we might not have another one.

My time is up, so I will leave it at that.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

This week, a Tory Government has shut down the UK Parliament at a critical time, and today its actions have been declared illegal. Even before it shut down Parliament, we were at the height of the greatest constitutional

crisis faced by the United Kingdom since Irish independence 100 years ago. The move was both reckless and sinister. The shutdown of democracy was sought by a Prime Minister who is the leader of a party that does not command a majority in the House of Commons and who was installed as Prime Minister without any democratic mandate.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, we are busy finding ways of improving our democracy, and we welcome the first meeting of the new citizens assembly of Scotland, which will be held next month. The key features of the assembly are independence from Government, transparency, inclusion, access, balance, cumulative learning and open-mindedness. All those principles are admirable, but I would like to dwell first on open-mindedness.

The assembly

“will be a forum for open-minded deliberation between participants, ensuring the public see it as a genuine process of enquiry, and to help ensure that it receives an open-minded response from the parliament and government.”

That statement is taken from the assembly’s own mission statement. It emphasises the assembly’s separate identity and its independence from Parliament and Government.

The concept of a citizens assembly is not a new one. Citizens assemblies have been set up in many other countries—in Ireland, which is close to home, and in Canada’s British Columbia, which is on the other side of the world, to name but two. That means that we are looking for best practice in other parts of the world and importing and adapting it to use in our own political system. We are outward looking.

Transparency is another key feature of the assembly. What will that mean in practice? Will it apply to all levels of the assembly? It has been applied to the selection of the assembly’s members. A hundred members from across Scotland have been randomly selected to be representative of the adult population in terms of age, gender, educational qualifications, ethnic group, geography and political attitudes. Transparency will apply to the assembly’s proceedings, and they will be live streamed so that we can all observe them for ourselves if we wish.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

No, thank you.

Transparency will be an important element in demonstrating the assembly’s independence from the Parliament and the Scottish Government. It is vital to the assembly’s credibility that its independence is clear for all to see.

I strongly believe that the critics and cynics will be excited at the prospect of finding reasons to dismiss the assembly’s workings and outcomes.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

No, thank you.

Something that is new, progressive, transparent and independent will not be popular in some quarters.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

No, thank you.

I was delighted that David Martin, who is a former

member of the European Parliament,

was appointed as one of the assembly’s conveners. I hope that his knowledge of political institutions in the UK, at the EU level and in other EU member states will turn out to be a huge asset to the workings of the assembly. The appointment of someone from outside politics—Kate Wimpress—as the other convener will, I hope, create a balance of approach, expertise and experience between the assembly’s two conveners.

The assembly’s independence is enshrined in its memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government, so its conveners and members will be confident of their freedom to follow their own path within the assembly’s remit.

Needless to say, our exercise in widening democracy has not been welcomed by everybody in the chamber. That brings me back to recent events in the UK Parliament. One reason why the UK is currently in such a mess is the choice of one particular party to pursue its own party interest over Brexit, when that interest is directly opposed to the national interest. Had that party chosen an inclusive approach to all Brexit issues and put the national interest first, our current political landscape would be totally different.

Inclusion is one of the key features of our new assembly. All the political parties that are represented in the Parliament will have supporters among the members of the assembly. With that in mind, I urge everyone in the chamber to be forward thinking and embrace the opportunities that are offered by our citizens assembly.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Presiding Officer,

“The idea was a simple, elegant addition to our democracy—but the SNP has now stomped all over it, politicised it, and, made it look falsely like a propaganda unit.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of Neil Mackay, who is an independence supporter, and they are the exact words that Adam Tomkins quite rightly quoted. Neil Mackay is an avid supporter of citizens assemblies; he sees the greater good that can come from them and he is embarrassed—in fact, ashamed—that the party that he has supported, which has advanced independence, could treat this precious instrument in such a manner. That is the fundamental problem that we have with the SNP Government’s approach.

It is unfortunate that the debate has been personalised. Both Mike Russell and Bruce Crawford have sought to undermine Joanna Cherry and her role in the debate. I feel the need to stand up for her. If they will not stand up for her, I think that it is up to us to do so, because she has brought honesty and integrity to the debate by revealing the true purpose of the citizens assembly, which is to advance independence. [

Interruption.

] They are shouting again, but I will stand up for Joanna Cherry. She has done the country a great service and I think that we owe her a debt of gratitude.

It is ridiculous to suggest that those who criticise the way in which the SNP has gone about the citizens assembly are somehow undermining David Martin. That is an atrocious way to approach the debate. In fact, it shows how weak the case that the SNP has developed is that its members have sought to claim that somehow I am personally attacking David Martin. That is not the case—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the member take an intervention?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

No, not just now.

Stewart Stevenson was particularly unpleasant in his approach to the debate when he claimed that I was attacking David Martin. In no way whatsoever were any of us seeking to do so. That is the unfortunate part of the debate: SNP members’ argument is so weak that they have sought to personalise the debate. We should have nothing to do with that approach.

Alex Rowley agreed that Joanna Cherry has “muddied” the water, as he put it. However, he seems to have ignored the evidence that she provided, which is that the SNP is seeking to use the citizens assembly just to advance the independence debate. I hope that he comes to see that that is the case.

We have heard on numerous occasions—it is a trick that the SNP tries every time—the SNP ask what is wrong with having a debate, another discussion or a national conversation across the country. We have the taxpayer paying for SNP ministers to book halls in every part of the country so that we can have another debate about independence. The SNP’s first attempt at engineering the debate happened right back when it gained power in 2007, and we have had endless debates ever since. We had the three-year-long independence debate, which the SNP lost; we had the white paper and the debate about the legislation for the referendum; and subsequently, we had Andrew Wilson’s report into the economic impact, the future of Scotland and independence. We were encouraged to participate in all those debates.

It is endless. The SNP could forgive us for being a wee bit bored and for wanting to move on and talk about something else. Perhaps we could talk about the Brexit crisis, for instance—maybe we could deal with that problem.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the member take an intervention?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

No.

It is regrettable that the principle—deeply held by many—that a citizens assembly can do great things has been undermined today, because a citizens assembly for Scotland could do great things. Let us look at some of the proposals that have come forward today alone.

There has been talk of having a citizens assembly on drug deaths. That would be a particularly valid debate to have. We could bring together people from all parts of society to have that discussion.

I proposed an assembly on climate change, so that we could try to get people to understand the need for personal behavioural change to meet our challenges with the climate.

Perhaps there could be an assembly on closing the attainment gap. That might be a useful discussion to have. We could involve parents, pupils and people right across society so that we could close the attainment gap. The SNP Government has failed to do that so far—perhaps it is time for somebody else to come up with some ideas. There are also massive challenges with social care—let us get people involved in that discussion.

Those things should all come way before yet another boring discussion about independence, which is all that the SNP seems to be interested in.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will Willie Rennie take an intervention now?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

No. I am in my final few seconds.

The citizens assembly was announced by the First Minister as part of a package of measures to achieve independence—that is without doubt. The package is the assembly, the cross-party talks and the unstoppable legislation on another referendum. Mike Russell managed to keep a straight face when he said that the assembly would be free from vested interests, even though it exists only as part of the independence package.

The cabinet secretary set up the assembly, recruited the conveners, allowed them to make speeches on the assembly, designed the remit and then said that it was up to the assembly to decide for itself what it wants to do. No, it is not up to the assembly. The First Minister has never said, “Full steam ahead for independence, subject to the conclusions of the citizens assembly.” Those words have never passed her lips, because the truth is that the SNP is using the assembly as another wheeze to try to get independence. However, we will not be fooled.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been interesting, but in many ways disappointing. It perhaps reflects where we are in Scotland on the issue, because anybody who has lived in Scotland during the past five years cannot deny that the constitution question has overarched all policy areas in Scotland. We need to find a way forward and to ask questions about the best way to do that.

Labour is taking the Government at face value and is engaging with the process. We will engage in discussions on the way forward. This citizens assembly is the first national assembly to be created in the United Kingdom, and the first to be properly resourced and organised in such a way that it can be effective. The eyes of people internationally will be on the assembly, so if it turns out that—as Graham Simpson put it—it is a bit of a stunt for independence, that will be exposed.

However, the principle that has been set out is right. As other members have said, if we get this right, we can use such a mechanism in the future to look at difficult issues in Scotland—not just drug deaths but drug policy, which is outdated and failing. There are other issues to consider, so we need to look at the way in which we move forward and be positive.

On the concerns of Willie Rennie and Adam Tomkins about independence, the greatest threat to the future of the United Kingdom does not lie in the Scottish citizens assembly but in the Conservative and Brexit party and Boris Johnson. That is a fact. Even Boris’s brother, Jo Johnson, resigned from his Government saying that he had to choose between family loyalty and what was best and right for the country. There is no way that a citizens assembly is a greater threat than that. If members are really interested in the future of the United Kingdom, they need to start to stand up to Boris Johnson and tell him that what he is doing is not on and is damaging the United Kingdom.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Alex Rowley seems to have bought the SNP Government’s motivation for that, but he does not accept that that motivation could be independence. If he has bought that, I have a bridge to sell him.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Stewart Stevenson made a good point. He talked about having taken the risk and the confidence that he had in his argument. If members want to argue about the future of Scotland, I am confident in the argument that the economic case for independence does not stack up in any shape or form. I am confident that we can take forward the arguments and win them, just as Stewart Stevenson is confident in his arguments.

However, do not confuse that with arguing for the status quo, because every nation and region in the United Kingdom is being let down by Westminster—by the Tory and Brexit party, which has become obsessed with Brexit.

I am confident in my arguments. If Mike Rumbles is confident in his, perhaps he will come to the assembly and work with the other parties to find the best way forward for Scotland. The way forward has to be to remain and reform in Europe and to remain and reform in the United Kingdom.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Does the member remember that, in 2011, the Liberal Democrats caused us to have a referendum on proportional voting in elections? Out of 440 voting areas, only 10 voted in favour but, in July this year, Vince Cable said that we should have a citizens assembly to discuss it. The issue was not closed by that referendum; why should any other issue be closed?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I also remember that, in 2010, Willie Rennie’s Liberal Democrats did a deal with the Tories. As a result of that, we got welfare reform that has created widespread poverty across Scotland and the United Kingdom. If we want to know why people voted for Brexit, we must look at the levels of poverty that were created by a Liberal-Tory Government in Westminster. The bedroom tax is a tax that had never been seen before.

Willie Rennie might be trying to appeal to a certain group of people in Scotland, but the Liberal Democrats and the Tories created that situation and the unacceptable levels of poverty.

A number of members have mentioned the co-conveners. I do not know Kate Wimpress, but she has an impressive CV. I know David Martin well. He has offered to meet all parties to have a discussion around those issues. In the spirit of at least trying to find the best way forward for Scotland, I urge members to meet the co-conveners, share their concerns with them and hear what they have to say.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

When the cabinet secretary announced the creation of the citizens assembly in June, my colleague Adam Tomkins said that there is a role for citizens assemblies, particularly when it comes to aspects of

“public policy that parliamentary democracy has failed or is struggling to address and resolve”.—[

Official Report

, 26 June 2019; c 31.]

The cabinet secretary said that

“democracy does not stand still and we have to keep innovating in order to keep moving.”—[

Official Report

, 26 June 2019; c 27.]

I could not agree more with those valid and substantial points.

I concur with many of the sentiments expressed by others from across the chamber. Members have spoken about examples of citizens assemblies elsewhere, most notably in Ireland, which have been drivers of significant social change.

The Scottish Conservatives are by no means against the premise and principle behind the creation of such institutions and the role that they might have in using a unique model of public discourse to drive reform.

We fully support local democracy and devolving power from this Parliament to more local democratic bodies.

I do not personally know the co-conveners, David Martin and Kate Wimpress, but they seem to enjoy respect across the political spectrum, and I am sure that they will work diligently alongside a committed group of representatives from across Scottish society.

It is not the principle that we object to but the process. It has been abundantly clear from the outset that the manner in which the Government has proceeded in establishing the Scottish citizens assembly has been short-sighted, to say the least. Despite warm words from the cabinet secretary, there is a justified suspicion that the assembly has fundamentally been designed to do one thing—further the independence agenda. Given that Joanna Cherry called it the “perfect way” to advance independence, it was always going to be a tough sell to the Scottish public as a fair and balanced forum to lead a conversation about Scotland’s future.

Earlier in the year, when he announced the creation of the assembly, the cabinet secretary preached about consensus among political parties when it came to citizens assemblies, but he also mentioned Brexit nine times and independence twice in that statement, as well as being critical of the UK Government. There was a hint of that again today.

The assembly was announced alongside the referendum legislation and the cross-party talks, and therein lies the problem. Even at its birth, it has proved to be a partisan endeavour. David Martin was right when he called it a mistake to throw the three things together; it created “suspicion”, to use his word. No one minds the rough and tumble of party politics in this place—of course they do not—but, in our view, it was really unwise to launch the citizens assembly project in such a context. One cannot preach consensus on the one hand, while pushing a deeply divisive policy on the other.

I will move on to discuss the remit of the assembly, which the Government has published. My disappointment centres not on what is included but on what is omitted. There is no mention of how we should improve Scotland’s schools, reform our NHS for the long term or invest in infrastructure. Other MSPs raised a number of issues that could have been addressed by the citizens assembly of Scotland. Willie Rennie raised the climate emergency, but what about economic regeneration? We know, for example, that the UK economy is expected to grow faster than the Scottish economy over the next four years. It would have been intriguing to hear views about that. What about the fact that the total number of teachers in our classrooms is falling?

Serious day-to-day issues are crying out for innovative solutions, which the citizens assembly could have addressed. How much more invigorating would it have been if the Scottish Government had tasked the assembly with focusing on bread-and-butter, everyday issues and not the constitution? Deliberative democracy is suited to those kinds of matters, rather than to polarising constitutional issues. Also, as Graham Simpson pointed out, the fact that the assembly will meet over no more than six weekends begs the question of what it can realistically offer Parliament in terms of a vision for the future.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I note that the first aspect of the remit is to establish what kind of country we are seeking to build, which is very broad. Can Donald Cameron suggest how that remit precludes discussion of any of the domestic or bread-and-butter issues to which he referred?